Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 17:58:43 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"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
om...
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.


What, in God's world, do you care about what Bin Ladin does in
Afghanistan? What you want to do is keep them out of the U.S.'s hair
which, I agree may be impossible.

The solution, of course, since you can't seem to catch him, is to fall
back on what you do well and simply to obliterate any area where you
have any evidence that they might be.

Of course, this is going to raise a great cry about "non-combatants"
and collateral damage which will effectively force the Government out
of the eradication project and play right into the hands of the
terrorists.

Regarding "non-combatants" does anyone know, or remember, what the
local Afghan ladies did to captured Russian (or British, in their
time) soldiers? Probably rather difficult to consider someone sawing
away at your testicles, with a dull knife, to be really a
non-combatant - and you probably don't care much anyway.

I suggest that the only effective method of dealing with terrorists is
to shoot 'em.

Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 16:58:43 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:

If the Crushed Lintball can't drive the bus, he doesn't want to be on it at
all. Personally, I do not believe for a minute that he is actually a
"conservative." I believe he simply found "being a conservative" to be one
hell of a cash cow, and started milking for all she was worth. What he
actually believes in is the Almighty Dollar.

I have listened to RL once, a friend had it on in his car. The only
thing I remember the gag ad for the 25 hp document shredder.
The one with ' subponea speed ' Able to do a six drawer cabinet in
less time than it takes the Feds to get past your secretary.

Casady

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

"Richard Casady" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 16:58:43 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:

If the Crushed Lintball can't drive the bus, he doesn't want to be on it
at
all. Personally, I do not believe for a minute that he is actually a
"conservative." I believe he simply found "being a conservative" to be one
hell of a cash cow, and started milking for all she was worth. What he
actually believes in is the Almighty Dollar.

I have listened to RL once, a friend had it on in his car. The only
thing I remember the gag ad for the 25 hp document shredder.
The one with ' subponea speed ' Able to do a six drawer cabinet in
less time than it takes the Feds to get past your secretary.

Casady

Ya, he does, at times, seem to have a very good sense of humor. None at all
about himself, though.

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 17:58:43 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:
snip to save space
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.


What, in God's world, do you care about what Bin Ladin does in
Afghanistan? What you want to do is keep them out of the U.S.'s hair
which, I agree may be impossible.

He planned the 9/11 attacks from there. The borders are porous, so it's easy
to import/export the jihadists. And, he needs to pay for what he did.


The solution, of course, since you can't seem to catch him, is to fall
back on what you do well and simply to obliterate any area where you
have any evidence that they might be.

??

Of course, this is going to raise a great cry about "non-combatants"
and collateral damage which will effectively force the Government out
of the eradication project and play right into the hands of the
terrorists.

I sure does. You're advocating killing hundreds of thousands of innocent
people.

Not sure what your advocating, since it makes no sense.

Regarding "non-combatants" does anyone know, or remember, what the
local Afghan ladies did to captured Russian (or British, in their
time) soldiers? Probably rather difficult to consider someone sawing
away at your testicles, with a dull knife, to be really a
non-combatant - and you probably don't care much anyway.

No idea what this has to do with the current situation...

I suggest that the only effective method of dealing with terrorists is
to shoot 'em.

First we have to find them. Bush failed to do this, even though bin laden
was in his sights. Perhaps Obama can do better.


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

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
.. .
First we have to find them. Bush failed to do this, even though bin laden
was in his sights. Perhaps Obama can do better.


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

Given the Bush family's ties to the bin Laden family, there was never any
chance that Osama would be "brought to Justice" by Dubya. This may change
now that the Bush family has lost the Big Chair, and it may not. Osama bin
Laden may well have died some time ago.

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 10:44:48 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 17:58:43 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:
snip to save space
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.


What, in God's world, do you care about what Bin Ladin does in
Afghanistan? What you want to do is keep them out of the U.S.'s hair
which, I agree may be impossible.

He planned the 9/11 attacks from there. The borders are porous, so it's easy
to import/export the jihadists. And, he needs to pay for what he did.

So? do you propose closing the borders of Afghanistan? Eliminating the
largest source of foreign funds - the narcotics business?


The solution, of course, since you can't seem to catch him, is to fall
back on what you do well and simply to obliterate any area where you
have any evidence that they might be.

Of course, this is going to raise a great cry about "non-combatants"
and collateral damage which will effectively force the Government out
of the eradication project and play right into the hands of the
terrorists.

I sure does. You're advocating killing hundreds of thousands of innocent
people.

My point is who are innocent? The people who are willing to die flying
airplanes into buildings? Or the family and friends that support them?
The people that donate money to the cause? the people that "overlook"
their fanatically actions? the religious teachers that preach support
for them?

If the guys that fly airplanes are baddies why not a little emphasis
on the Saudis? After all that is where they came from and the people
who provide much of the money to support their activities.

But, to return to the innocent people, do you really believe that the
terrorists aren't supported by the locals? That someone who supports
their aims isn't cooking the bread that they eat, selling them their
pickup trucks, their shirts and pants? Trucking the arms and supplies
through the mountains?

Are you really so naive that you believe that you can somehow separate
out the relatively few actual shooters from the people that finance
and support them?

If the women are happy, in fact eager to carve the wounded or
captured, into kabobs, and have no doubts about it, they are, how can
you argue that they are innocent?

The pitiful part is that you don't learn from history. You went into
Vietnam for as nebulous a reason as the "Weapons of Mass Destruction",
and you attempted to wage war against "combatants", you lost, but you
didn't learn. Next you embarked on an exercise in Africa and that
didn't turn out well. Then came Iraq I and you did a pretty creditable
job, except your objectives were not well thought out so you stopped
short of what should have been your objective. Then Iraq II and look
at the mess that has been made of that. Now comes Afghanistan and yet
again you are undertaking a task that is probably impossible to
complete. Or do you really think that the "movement" will die with Ben
Ladan? Or will he simply become another martyr to the cause?

I applaud your objectives but I really wonder at your ignorance in
undertaking a task that England, the greatest empire the world had
known, tried twice and failed. the Russians, with their much shorter
lines of supply, tried it and failed. Not you are going to try it -
halfway round the world with all the logistics problems that entails,
in an area where the religion and history teaches the people to resist
"invaders" and while your nation is embroiled in the largest economic
disaster in the history of the world.

The mind boggles.

Not sure what your advocating, since it makes no sense.

Regarding "non-combatants" does anyone know, or remember, what the
local Afghan ladies did to captured Russian (or British, in their
time) soldiers? Probably rather difficult to consider someone sawing
away at your testicles, with a dull knife, to be really a
non-combatant - and you probably don't care much anyway.

No idea what this has to do with the current situation...

I suggest that the only effective method of dealing with terrorists is
to shoot 'em.

First we have to find them. Bush failed to do this, even though bin laden
was in his sights. Perhaps Obama can do better.


How do you plan on "finding him"? you don't even know whether he is in
Afghanistan or not. He may even be living in the Bronx. If the US
government can't locate all the millions of "illegal immigrants" how
can they ever locate one guy in a cave, somewhere?

Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 10:44:48 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 17:58:43 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:
snip to save space
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.


What, in God's world, do you care about what Bin Ladin does in
Afghanistan? What you want to do is keep them out of the U.S.'s hair
which, I agree may be impossible.

He planned the 9/11 attacks from there. The borders are porous, so it's
easy
to import/export the jihadists. And, he needs to pay for what he did.

So? do you propose closing the borders of Afghanistan? Eliminating the
largest source of foreign funds - the narcotics business?

Not possible. We can't do that with our borders. I'm proposing that those
who planned the attack and who actively supported the attack are eliminated.
Instead of following the doctrine of ignoring the narco business in
Afganistan, we should be attempting to eliminate it by supporting the local
economy for other items.



The solution, of course, since you can't seem to catch him, is to fall
back on what you do well and simply to obliterate any area where you
have any evidence that they might be.

Of course, this is going to raise a great cry about "non-combatants"
and collateral damage which will effectively force the Government out
of the eradication project and play right into the hands of the
terrorists.

I sure does. You're advocating killing hundreds of thousands of innocent
people.

My point is who are innocent? The people who are willing to die flying
airplanes into buildings? Or the family and friends that support them?
The people that donate money to the cause? the people that "overlook"
their fanatically actions? the religious teachers that preach support
for them?

My point is that tolerating bin laden and supporting the radicals are two
different things. The kids and a large percentage of the adults are
innocent. We need a scalpel not a howitzer.

If the guys that fly airplanes are baddies why not a little emphasis
on the Saudis? After all that is where they came from and the people
who provide much of the money to support their activities.

Your point? I suppose you're going to advocate attacking Saudi Arabia? Why
not just work on our energy policy and cut down on the oil we import from
them.


But, to return to the innocent people, do you really believe that the
terrorists aren't supported by the locals? That someone who supports
their aims isn't cooking the bread that they eat, selling them their
pickup trucks, their shirts and pants? Trucking the arms and supplies
through the mountains?

See previous.

Are you really so naive that you believe that you can somehow separate
out the relatively few actual shooters from the people that finance
and support them?

See previous.

If the women are happy, in fact eager to carve the wounded or
captured, into kabobs, and have no doubts about it, they are, how can
you argue that they are innocent?

Come on. That's not much of an argument.

The pitiful part is that you don't learn from history. You went into
Vietnam for as nebulous a reason as the "Weapons of Mass Destruction",
and you attempted to wage war against "combatants", you lost, but you
didn't learn. Next you embarked on an exercise in Africa and that
didn't turn out well. Then came Iraq I and you did a pretty creditable
job, except your objectives were not well thought out so you stopped
short of what should have been your objective. Then Iraq II and look
at the mess that has been made of that. Now comes Afghanistan and yet
again you are undertaking a task that is probably impossible to
complete. Or do you really think that the "movement" will die with Ben
Ladan? Or will he simply become another martyr to the cause?

I don't?? Where do you get that? Don't blame me for the previous 8 years. I
didn't vote for Bu****.

I applaud your objectives but I really wonder at your ignorance in
undertaking a task that England, the greatest empire the world had
known, tried twice and failed. the Russians, with their much shorter
lines of supply, tried it and failed. Not you are going to try it -
halfway round the world with all the logistics problems that entails,
in an area where the religion and history teaches the people to resist
"invaders" and while your nation is embroiled in the largest economic
disaster in the history of the world.

No you don't. You don't seem genuine in your applause. The alternative is to
DO NOTHING.... exactly what Bu**** did (or didn't do).

The mind boggles.

Yes. Mine does when I contemplate the narrowness of what you've stated.

Not sure what your advocating, since it makes no sense.

Regarding "non-combatants" does anyone know, or remember, what the
local Afghan ladies did to captured Russian (or British, in their
time) soldiers? Probably rather difficult to consider someone sawing
away at your testicles, with a dull knife, to be really a
non-combatant - and you probably don't care much anyway.

No idea what this has to do with the current situation...

I suggest that the only effective method of dealing with terrorists is
to shoot 'em.

First we have to find them. Bush failed to do this, even though bin laden
was in his sights. Perhaps Obama can do better.


How do you plan on "finding him"? you don't even know whether he is in
Afghanistan or not. He may even be living in the Bronx. If the US
government can't locate all the millions of "illegal immigrants" how
can they ever locate one guy in a cave, somewhere?

We know exactly where he is, along with the Pakistanis and many western
reporters.

Feel free to have the last word. I'm done.

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

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 10:47:50 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

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


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".


First, Obama is just another dishonest misdirecting politician in the mold
of Clinton. His claim that he'll get US 'combat troops' out of Iraq by X
date only means he'll switch their title from combat troops to something
else - probably 'peace keepers'. So we'll remain in the morass
indefinitely but change the names we're in the morass under.

Afghanistan is scary and dangerous. I am plugged into an Afghan local
community which has close ties to the home nation and whose members travel
there regularly. The place is a mess - kept afloat by the heroin trade,
being fought over by the Russians, Pakistanis, al Qeada, and Taliban as
well as the US and the US backed government in Kabul. It makes Iraq look
like a well organized peaceful kingdom.

We cannot fix these places. We can only ruin our economy further while
leaving our dead and wounded soldiers on the field of battle. Obama is
just Bush sporting even less fiscal responsibility. He's disgusting.


Sounds like you're pretty bitter about your buddies losing the election. You
should probably get over it. Obama has been in for a month. Bush was on
vacation for the first eight months.

I've said a number of times that I haven't lived in the US for years
and have little interest in the US political system; except to wonder
at the things that are done.

It is a bit difficult to understand why they try to turf one guy out
of office for getting a blow job and don't even seem to notice when
another guy "legalizes" such things as torture and searches without a
warrant - things that you are preaching to the world are "human
rights".


Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

It is a bit difficult to understand why they try to turf one guy out
of office for getting a blow job and don't even seem to notice when
another guy "legalizes" such things as torture and searches without a
warrant - things that you are preaching to the world are "human
rights".


It's not hard to understand when you remember that the both of those things,
the impeachment and the trashing of the constitution, were being done by the
same party. As for no one noticing, the Republicans have built a huge
propaganda machine called conservative Talk Radio. It's running as
background noise 24 hours a day out there in the hinterlands filling the
pickup trucks, hardware stores, and autobody shops with a constant and
subliminal stream of lies and propaganda. You wouldn't recognize the
country if you came back. This poison, which is the only source of "news"
that a huge proportion of the country (aka "The Republican Base), pays any
attention to, is like the public loudspeakers in North Korea.

This demographic was sufficient for decades to keep tipping a nearly evenly
divided country to the right. When things got sufficiently trashed by the
looting, two things happened. The comfortable and complacent on the left
woke up and a significant proportion of the talk radio listeners realized
they were being lied to.

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

On Thu, 05 Mar 2009 16:08:59 +0700, Bruce In Bangkok wrote:


It is a bit difficult to understand why they try to turf one guy out of
office for getting a blow job and don't even seem to notice when another
guy "legalizes" such things as torture and searches without a warrant -
things that you are preaching to the world are "human rights".

But we did notice, and where it counts, the ballot box.