Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

Sort of like Ron Paul. I like the guy, don't get me wrong. But, if we were
stupid enough to implement his ideas, there would be a lot of continuing
suffering.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com


And much like heroin junkies, we, as a country, will do anything to keep
from jonesing. We get our fix, we think we "got well," but all we did was
prolong and compound the addiction. The country has gone so terribly far off
track in many areas that there is no conceivable way to "fix the problem"
that will not be as painful as drilling a nice healthy tooth with no
anesthesia.

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 17:16:50 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:

The country has gone so terribly far off
track in many areas that there is no conceivable way to "fix the problem"
that will not be as painful as drilling a nice healthy tooth with no
anesthesia.

I'd rather go cruising on my new multi-hull.

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 17:16:50 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:

The country has gone so terribly far off
track in many areas that there is no conceivable way to "fix the problem"
that will not be as painful as drilling a nice healthy tooth with no
anesthesia.

I'd rather go cruising on my new multi-hull.


I'd settle for going cruising on a nice second-hand barrel.

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
et...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

Sort of like Ron Paul. I like the guy, don't get me wrong. But, if we
were stupid enough to implement his ideas, there would be a lot of
continuing suffering.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com


And much like heroin junkies, we, as a country, will do anything to keep
from jonesing. We get our fix, we think we "got well," but all we did was
prolong and compound the addiction. The country has gone so terribly far
off track in many areas that there is no conceivable way to "fix the
problem" that will not be as painful as drilling a nice healthy tooth with
no anesthesia.



Certainly true. I just don't believe RP's "solution" is much of a solution.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 10:46:21 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 1 Mar 2009 21:49:23 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 11:18:44 -0500, hpeer wrote:

Stephen Trapani wrote:
Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 11:51:36 -0500, Marty wrote:

Jon, I think he must be really great, President for only 40 days and
already decisions made by 10 years of Republican Congresses and 8
years of Republican Presidency are his fault! Now that's talent!

More interesting is how all of these guys got into financial trouble
in only 40 days. That's talent also.

That said, this really isn't the right place.


In order to fervently believe what we want to believe we have to
desperately ignore what we have to ignore in order to think that the
Congress has been controlled by Republicans for the last four years.
Whatever you do, *don't* actually check this easily checked fact
anywhere, like, say, he

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgov...division_2.htm

Instead, use blinding strategies like maybe ridicule this **** out of
this post so you can continue to blame who you've been blaming,
instead
of learning anything new. After all, we wouldn't all want to be
supporting a large increase in the same thing we've been doing for the
last four years, would we? That would be insane!

Steph

The problem is that Congress has been ruled by POLITICIANS, whatever
their ilk. People whose only goal is to get reelected. No fish monger
ever cried "Bad fish for sale!"

The problem is the people who perfumed over the stink figuring they were
going to get a piece of the profit.

People vote for who tells them what they want to hear. Forget the 2000
election. Who voted for W in 2004? The People! Idiots.

So don't blame Bush now, and don't blame Obama in 2012. They are merely
characters in a play - speaking their lines - written by "We The
People."

Rant off.

In fact, while I don't remember exactly what Obama said during the
primary and the campaign the overwhelming recollection I have is that
he intended to "bring the boys home" right now! Of course, once
elected "right now" isn't exactly "this instance" it is "sometime next
year", "the year after", "well, maybe in a while".

He was reported on the news, over here, as saying that he is going to
balance the budget by "cutting government expenditures and taxing rich
people" which seems a little misleading coming, as it did, just after
the reporting that it was "the biggest bail-out in history".

My impression is that Obama, to give him all the credit due was simply
the better "politician". and I suppose deserves to be President.

On the other hand, I have the sneaking suspicion that it may not make
much difference what party is in power as if the boat has a big hole
in it all you can do is bail.

Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


He said 16 mos. It's now going to be 19, plus longer for core troops. I
think he's following the advise he's being given by the generals and
following his campaign promise as best he can.

I don't think what he's attempting to do is misleading, although it may
not
be intuitive. The short term needs to be dealt with in the, um, short
term.
The longer term is next.


As I said, I really didn't pay much attention and it was only a
impression I was left with.

But good on him if he can get out of that mess. Of course, there is
another 70,000 tip-toeing off to Afghanistan but apparently we are
getting out of Iraq... well, except for some that will be left to
ensure peace, aid the locals, or whatever.

I do wonder about the Afghan thing though. It is my certain, sure,
recollection that a number of people have gone over there to teach 'em
"what is what". None successfully, but they went. the Brits even went
twice if my memory serves me.

There is that quote about "those who refuse to read history are doomed
to repeat it".


Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


Afganistan is a different war for a different and most would argue for
legitimate reason. If we had started and stopped there, we'd be in a lot
better place IMHO, but in any case, we have to try. I think the best model
is to build up their infrastructure (as the Romans did) and that'll help
stablize the country.

Except that the Roman's didn't build up the infrastructure for the
benefit of the "locals" who couldn't, until very late in the empire
period even aspire to become a Citizen of Rome. The idea was to build
up the infrastructure for the benefit of ROME.

The problem seems to be the apparent "American" belief that everything
is fixable. I admit to being a cynic but I do believe that a great
percentage of the worlds population are not the warm fuzzy people that
the liberals seem to imagine.

If it served no other purpose the "Viet Nam War" should have served to
teach the U.S. not to involve themselves in places that they don't
understand. The famous "domino theory" that was the excuse for the
involvement in Viet Nam was a false as the great "WMD" theory.
Now, I understand, the U.S. is going to donate millions? billions? to
the Palestinians to "help them recover from the war".

My impression of Afghanistan is that it is an essentially feudal
country with a religion that can easily be interpreted to reinforce
that form of government. The people are fiercely independent and are
well aware that they have triumphed over every foreigner who has
invaded them, and don't think for a moment that because the majority
perhaps can't read that they don't know that they beat the British
(twice) and the Russians. These stories will be told "around the camp
fire" for few more centuries, at least.

It appears that the idea is to "help" these people by imposing a
foreign concept, a "Democratic Government", an idea that is
undoubtedly as strange and abhorrent to the average Afghan as the idea
of a hereditary royalty would be to the average American. In addition
these outsiders are going to "help us" by slaughtering the Fierce
Crusaders who have, with few if any assets, been resisting those
ungodly Devils who would destroy our faith. And not only that, but
these same Devils are intent on destroying the country's major source
of foreign currency, the fountain from which all blessings flow.

Yet another morass that the country will march blindly into without
the slightest idea of how to get out of.

I suggest that a return to the Powell Doctrine would not be a mistake.

Articulated by Gen. Powell when he was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff during the Gulf War, the Powell Doctrine was designed to avoid,
as Powell once put it, "halfhearted warfare for half-baked reasons
that the American people could not understand or support." The Powell
Doctrine held that military force should only be used if there was a
clear risk to national security; that the force used should be
overwhelming; and that the operation must have strong public support
and a clear exit strategy.

Note particularly the last five words.

Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 10:46:21 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 1 Mar 2009 21:49:23 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 11:18:44 -0500, hpeer wrote:

Stephen Trapani wrote:
Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 11:51:36 -0500, Marty wrote:

Jon, I think he must be really great, President for only 40 days
and
already decisions made by 10 years of Republican Congresses and 8
years of Republican Presidency are his fault! Now that's talent!

More interesting is how all of these guys got into financial
trouble
in only 40 days. That's talent also.

That said, this really isn't the right place.


In order to fervently believe what we want to believe we have to
desperately ignore what we have to ignore in order to think that the
Congress has been controlled by Republicans for the last four years.
Whatever you do, *don't* actually check this easily checked fact
anywhere, like, say, he

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgov...division_2.htm

Instead, use blinding strategies like maybe ridicule this **** out
of
this post so you can continue to blame who you've been blaming,
instead
of learning anything new. After all, we wouldn't all want to be
supporting a large increase in the same thing we've been doing for
the
last four years, would we? That would be insane!

Steph

The problem is that Congress has been ruled by POLITICIANS, whatever
their ilk. People whose only goal is to get reelected. No fish
monger
ever cried "Bad fish for sale!"

The problem is the people who perfumed over the stink figuring they
were
going to get a piece of the profit.

People vote for who tells them what they want to hear. Forget the
2000
election. Who voted for W in 2004? The People! Idiots.

So don't blame Bush now, and don't blame Obama in 2012. They are
merely
characters in a play - speaking their lines - written by "We The
People."

Rant off.

In fact, while I don't remember exactly what Obama said during the
primary and the campaign the overwhelming recollection I have is that
he intended to "bring the boys home" right now! Of course, once
elected "right now" isn't exactly "this instance" it is "sometime next
year", "the year after", "well, maybe in a while".

He was reported on the news, over here, as saying that he is going to
balance the budget by "cutting government expenditures and taxing rich
people" which seems a little misleading coming, as it did, just after
the reporting that it was "the biggest bail-out in history".

My impression is that Obama, to give him all the credit due was simply
the better "politician". and I suppose deserves to be President.

On the other hand, I have the sneaking suspicion that it may not make
much difference what party is in power as if the boat has a big hole
in it all you can do is bail.

Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


He said 16 mos. It's now going to be 19, plus longer for core troops. I
think he's following the advise he's being given by the generals and
following his campaign promise as best he can.

I don't think what he's attempting to do is misleading, although it may
not
be intuitive. The short term needs to be dealt with in the, um, short
term.
The longer term is next.


As I said, I really didn't pay much attention and it was only a
impression I was left with.

But good on him if he can get out of that mess. Of course, there is
another 70,000 tip-toeing off to Afghanistan but apparently we are
getting out of Iraq... well, except for some that will be left to
ensure peace, aid the locals, or whatever.

I do wonder about the Afghan thing though. It is my certain, sure,
recollection that a number of people have gone over there to teach 'em
"what is what". None successfully, but they went. the Brits even went
twice if my memory serves me.

There is that quote about "those who refuse to read history are doomed
to repeat it".


Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


Afganistan is a different war for a different and most would argue for
legitimate reason. If we had started and stopped there, we'd be in a lot
better place IMHO, but in any case, we have to try. I think the best model
is to build up their infrastructure (as the Romans did) and that'll help
stablize the country.

Except that the Roman's didn't build up the infrastructure for the
benefit of the "locals" who couldn't, until very late in the empire
period even aspire to become a Citizen of Rome. The idea was to build
up the infrastructure for the benefit of ROME.

The problem seems to be the apparent "American" belief that everything
is fixable. I admit to being a cynic but I do believe that a great
percentage of the worlds population are not the warm fuzzy people that
the liberals seem to imagine.

If it served no other purpose the "Viet Nam War" should have served to
teach the U.S. not to involve themselves in places that they don't
understand. The famous "domino theory" that was the excuse for the
involvement in Viet Nam was a false as the great "WMD" theory.
Now, I understand, the U.S. is going to donate millions? billions? to
the Palestinians to "help them recover from the war".

My impression of Afghanistan is that it is an essentially feudal
country with a religion that can easily be interpreted to reinforce
that form of government. The people are fiercely independent and are
well aware that they have triumphed over every foreigner who has
invaded them, and don't think for a moment that because the majority
perhaps can't read that they don't know that they beat the British
(twice) and the Russians. These stories will be told "around the camp
fire" for few more centuries, at least.

It appears that the idea is to "help" these people by imposing a
foreign concept, a "Democratic Government", an idea that is
undoubtedly as strange and abhorrent to the average Afghan as the idea
of a hereditary royalty would be to the average American. In addition
these outsiders are going to "help us" by slaughtering the Fierce
Crusaders who have, with few if any assets, been resisting those
ungodly Devils who would destroy our faith. And not only that, but
these same Devils are intent on destroying the country's major source
of foreign currency, the fountain from which all blessings flow.

Yet another morass that the country will march blindly into without
the slightest idea of how to get out of.

I suggest that a return to the Powell Doctrine would not be a mistake.

Articulated by Gen. Powell when he was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff during the Gulf War, the Powell Doctrine was designed to avoid,
as Powell once put it, "halfhearted warfare for half-baked reasons
that the American people could not understand or support." The Powell
Doctrine held that military force should only be used if there was a
clear risk to national security; that the force used should be
overwhelming; and that the operation must have strong public support
and a clear exit strategy.

Note particularly the last five words.

Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


Umm... it would be for our benefit.

Not sure what you mean by fixable. We can't allow bin laden and his group to
run free either in Afganistan or Pakistan. Especially in the case of
Pakistan, they have nukes. There is certainly a proven risk to our security
for those two countries... unlike Iraq which was a war of choice.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

It wasn't the Romans, it was Alexander and his successors.



"Capt. JG" wrote:
Besides encouraging the marrying of foreigners, he mostly just fought a lot,

Missing the point twice.

1- by marrying local royalty, he cemented his own claim to local
rulership

2- "a lot of fighting" is not really accurate, Alexander did the least
amount of fighting commensurate with achieving his goal of subjugating
the tribes. And they stayed subjugated because he recruited a large
percentage of fighting-age males, reducing the tribes military
strength. It also played into a strategy of dividing the tribes rather
than uniting them against foreign invasion.

A heck of a lot of politicians and generals could learn a lot from
Alexander.


although he did build some road/shipyard/etc. I believe the Romans actually
built the infrastructure.


I'm not familiar with Roman-built infrastructure in what is now
Afghanistan.

In any event, I agree that we have a strategic interest in Afghanistan
and Pakistan... in fact thru much of the undeveloped Muslim world. And
we should join with our natural allies, Muslim parents who want to see
their kids grow up rather than be recruited as suicide bombers.

DSK

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

I'd rather go cruising on my new multi-hull.


"KLC Lewis" wrote:
I'd settle for going cruising on a nice second-hand barrel.

How about cruising -with- a nice barrel?

Preferably on a multihull ;)

DSK

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

wrote in message
...
I'd rather go cruising on my new multi-hull.


"KLC Lewis" wrote:
I'd settle for going cruising on a nice second-hand barrel.

How about cruising -with- a nice barrel?

Preferably on a multihull ;)

DSK


Well, that would depend upon the contents of the barrel. lol

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

wrote in message
...
It wasn't the Romans, it was Alexander and his successors.



"Capt. JG" wrote:
Besides encouraging the marrying of foreigners, he mostly just fought a
lot,

Missing the point twice.

1- by marrying local royalty, he cemented his own claim to local
rulership

2- "a lot of fighting" is not really accurate, Alexander did the least
amount of fighting commensurate with achieving his goal of subjugating
the tribes. And they stayed subjugated because he recruited a large
percentage of fighting-age males, reducing the tribes military
strength. It also played into a strategy of dividing the tribes rather
than uniting them against foreign invasion.

A heck of a lot of politicians and generals could learn a lot from
Alexander.


although he did build some road/shipyard/etc. I believe the Romans
actually
built the infrastructure.


I'm not familiar with Roman-built infrastructure in what is now
Afghanistan.

In any event, I agree that we have a strategic interest in Afghanistan
and Pakistan... in fact thru much of the undeveloped Muslim world. And
we should join with our natural allies, Muslim parents who want to see
their kids grow up rather than be recruited as suicide bombers.

DSK


Right, but he didn't build the roads. :-)

I don't believe they did that in Afganistan... something we should do.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com