Freddy Smithers drooled:
snip
normally the technique to deal with anencephalics such as this one is to
*plonk*
but in this case, the correct response is to
*FLUSH*

"Tamaroak" wrote in message
...
And a very high percentage of these liberals, like me, are decorated
Vietnam era vets who really know what it was like to be in the service, a
concept lost to "leaders" like AWOL bush, "had-better-things-to-do"
Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the rest of these chickenhawks who think
nothing of sending our troops into battle to enrich themselves and their
friends.

Where were you from 1962 to 1972? Defending your country or shooting off
your mouth like you are today?

Capt. Jeff

With respect Sir: I was here during those years and I heard all the
rhetoric and saw what was being done. The horrible waste of men who died
while the generals were forced to fight a war micromanaged by President
Johnson. I remember when President Nixon was elected, he mined the harbors
in N. Vietnam to keep arms from our allies (France, Germany, Russia and
England) from being delivered to Vietnam. This killed no one and saved our
soldiers lives. WHY didn't Johnson do that???????

He didn't have the guts to stand up and defend our guys, they were cannon
fodder to him. He was more concerned with world opinion. A Kerry, Clinton
or liberal viewpoint. There are Democrats, many of them who are NOT of this
mind set but they would never get the nomination in the current Democrat
party.

It is not healthy for our country for one party to hold the reigns of power
for too long. We, all of us need to do something to change the leadership
of the Democrat party or this will become a one party country and we are
headed down the tubes. Belittling the Republicans won't do it, changing the
democrat party to reflect the values of the red states (who are mainly
democrat anyway) is the way to go.

In article ,
says...

"Tamaroak" wrote in message
...
And a very high percentage of these liberals, like me, are decorated
Vietnam era vets who really know what it was like to be in the service, a
concept lost to "leaders" like AWOL bush, "had-better-things-to-do"
Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the rest of these chickenhawks who think
nothing of sending our troops into battle to enrich themselves and their
friends.

Where were you from 1962 to 1972? Defending your country or shooting off
your mouth like you are today?

Capt. Jeff

With respect Sir: I was here during those years and I heard all the
rhetoric and saw what was being done. The horrible waste of men who died
while the generals were forced to fight a war micromanaged by President
Johnson. I remember when President Nixon was elected, he mined the harbors
in N. Vietnam to keep arms from our allies (France, Germany, Russia and
England) from being delivered to Vietnam. This killed no one and saved our
soldiers lives. WHY didn't Johnson do that???????

He didn't have the guts to stand up and defend our guys, they were cannon
fodder to him. He was more concerned with world opinion. A Kerry, Clinton
or liberal viewpoint. There are Democrats, many of them who are NOT of this
mind set but they would never get the nomination in the current Democrat
party.

It is not healthy for our country for one party to hold the reigns of power
for too long. We, all of us need to do something to change the leadership
of the Democrat party or this will become a one party country and we are
headed down the tubes. Belittling the Republicans won't do it, changing the
democrat party to reflect the values of the red states (who are mainly
democrat anyway) is the way to go.

Well said.

Like Vietnam, we're bogged down in a war without reason.

Unfortunately, the present administration doesn't share Nixon's resolve
to properly protect our troops. Inferior vests, unarmored humvees and a
calloused approach has cost many of our citizens their lives or their
sound bodies. It's an u necessary risk that could have been solved with
a bit more money. Our men and women are again cannon fodder.

jps

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"Tamaroak" wrote in message
...
And a very high percentage of these liberals, like me, are decorated
Vietnam era vets who really know what it was like to be in the service,
a
concept lost to "leaders" like AWOL bush, "had-better-things-to-do"
Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the rest of these chickenhawks who
think
nothing of sending our troops into battle to enrich themselves and
their
friends.

Where were you from 1962 to 1972? Defending your country or shooting
off
your mouth like you are today?

Capt. Jeff

With respect Sir: I was here during those years and I heard all the
rhetoric and saw what was being done. The horrible waste of men who died
while the generals were forced to fight a war micromanaged by President
Johnson. I remember when President Nixon was elected, he mined the
harbors
in N. Vietnam to keep arms from our allies (France, Germany, Russia and
England) from being delivered to Vietnam. This killed no one and saved
our
soldiers lives. WHY didn't Johnson do that???????

He didn't have the guts to stand up and defend our guys, they were cannon
fodder to him. He was more concerned with world opinion. A Kerry,
Clinton
or liberal viewpoint. There are Democrats, many of them who are NOT of
this
mind set but they would never get the nomination in the current Democrat
party.

It is not healthy for our country for one party to hold the reigns of
power
for too long. We, all of us need to do something to change the
leadership
of the Democrat party or this will become a one party country and we are
headed down the tubes. Belittling the Republicans won't do it, changing
the
democrat party to reflect the values of the red states (who are mainly
democrat anyway) is the way to go.

Well said.

Like Vietnam, we're bogged down in a war without reason.

We are in a war for the survival of the western culture. If you can't see
that then you are part of the problem. Islam is like communisim in its goal
which is that utopia will only be available when the whole world is Islamic
or communist.

Unfortunately, the present administration doesn't share Nixon's resolve
to properly protect our troops. Inferior vests, unarmored humvees and a
calloused approach has cost many of our citizens their lives or their
sound bodies. It's an u necessary risk that could have been solved with
a bit more money. Our men and women are again cannon fodder.

Congress, the House and the Senate, are the ones that control how much money
is appropriated. And, Bush hasn't vetoed a single spending bill. Call your
Representative or Senator and complain to them.

In article , says...

"jps" wrote in message

Like Vietnam, we're bogged down in a war without reason.

We are in a war for the survival of the western culture. If you can't see
that then you are part of the problem. Islam is like communisim in its goal
which is that utopia will only be available when the whole world is Islamic
or communist.

We did not actively try to destroy communism through wars of aggression.
We matched resource for resource and they spent themselves into
bankruptcy, just as we're doing now.

This is a war of oil. Kissinger pointed out in the 1970s that, given
the waning power of the Soviets, a lack of our presence in the mid east
would leave that big pool of oil to be controlled by China or India. The
Neocons have kept that in mind for the past several decades and couldn't
wait to push King George into taking over.a

Unfortunately, the present administration doesn't share Nixon's resolve
to properly protect our troops. Inferior vests, unarmored humvees and a
calloused approach has cost many of our citizens their lives or their
sound bodies. It's an u necessary risk that could have been solved with
a bit more money. Our men and women are again cannon fodder.

Congress, the House and the Senate, are the ones that control how much money
is appropriated. And, Bush hasn't vetoed a single spending bill. Call your
Representative or Senator and complain to them.

Ever hear of a little place called the Pentagon? They and Don Rumsfeld
determine the resources necessary for managing and maintaining our
fighting forces. The real military minds thought we underestimated our
needs but Rumsfeld things we can get by with a smaller fighting force
and fewer resources.

They make recommendations to congress, not the other way around.

jps

In article ,
says...
"Bert Robbins" wrote in
news

We are in a war for the survival of the western culture. If
you can't see that then you are part of the problem. Islam is
like communisim in its goal which is that utopia will only be
available when the whole world is Islamic or communist.


Superior grasp of the facts. Too bad liberals are incapable of
anything but grasping at straws...

Too bad "conservatives" can only erect straw men to serve as their
boogeyman.

Congress, the House and the Senate, are the ones that control
how much money is appropriated. And, Bush hasn't vetoed a
single spending bill. Call your Representative or Senator and
complain to them.

Liberals are experts at blaming everybody else for their
failings. Good to see somebody point out their failings.

Keep up the good work.


Another idiot who thinks good works includes killing innocent people.

Keep up the good work, idiot.

jps

In article ,
says...


You're an idiot. Reading two of your sentences is all I can muster
before I'm nauseated.

In article ,
says...
jps wrote in
:


Another idiot who thinks good works includes killing innocent
people.

Keep up the good work, idiot.

jps




Multifarious avenues of approach vie for attention as potential
retorts to Mr. jps's gloomy, contemptuous whinings and
complainings.

Is this a "conservative" mad-lib? Does Rush publish these little
diatribes so you can fill in the offending liberal's name and send as if
it were your own or are these truly your own vapid meanderings?

It'd be most entertaining to observe your reaction to one of your own
family losing their life for lack of a proper vest or armor. Further,
to lose their life while King George and his neocon minions' little
misadventure in the mideast.

Idiots like you will only be convinced of the folly of this
administration when it's revealed to you by the very participants while
reconsidering their foolishness 30 years from now.

Think Robert McNamara.

Enjoy your little bubble life. It's so easy to see life through ****
colored glasses, just like the little optimist King George.

jps

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

The point that seems to fly right over the liberal pointy head
is the following: Liberals use soldiers to further liberal
pacifist ends and dishonor soldiers and their families by
bitching and complaining about conditions the soldiers
themselves accept glady in service to their country.

Whooohoooo, there's a head-up-the-ass statement if I've ever heard one.

Lack of proper vests, lack of properly armored vehicles that don't
protect against roadside bombs???

Having to fight in an urban setting without proper training?

Having to fight for a year in a dubious war when your wife and kids are
at home wondering if you'll return?

Going into debt because you've been shipped overseas to fight in a war
without proper planning or intelligence?

You think these are accepted gladly? What an idiot.

Liberals
have forgotten that liberty comes at the cost of patriotic
lives.Rather than appreciate the brave and loyal men and women
who lay down their lives for the good of all, liberals dishonor
them by counting their deaths and using their sacfifices to
attempt to futher the dishonorable liberal mindset.

Did we need to invade Iraq to maintain our freedom?

ALL valid points. A lesson on our political system. After the collapse of
the Eastern block and the questionable end of the cold war there was talk of
future threats. Since no one could fight us one on one in a conventional
war, terrorism from unaccountable third parties like what we have now seemed
to be the new threat. Nixon realized this might be a possibility and GAVE
the Russians plans for FAIL SAFE nuclear detonation systems so that they
could make their bombs terrorist proof. At the same time our intelligence
network has had samples of nuclear material and spectrographs of detonations
so they could determine where the nuclear material came from if a blast took
place anywhere in the world. Something like we do with explosives now (
trace elements are added to explosives when they are made that fingerprint
them so they can be traced if used illegally).

So we knew that terrorism was the new threat but little money was spent on
intelligence because it wasn't politically a priority. In fact LESS was
spent! The point IS that in our system money is spent after the fact
because while we have smart people they can't get heard. If we are going to
have an after the fact system we need the military more than ever. AND
every once in a while the world needs to be reminded that in addition to
having a nuclear capability that no one can stand up to we also have a
conventional capability that can't be withstood.

Just as people need to be reminded that they are accountable, that there are
laws and limits that will be enforced so do dictators and corporations. (I
added that for the anti big business liberals, they are right about that.)
The UN has recently become a joke where countries that have the worst civil
rights violations are now in control of the committees in the UN that police
violations.

Open societies with a free press and a guarantee of civil liberties are the
answer. Changing Iraq from a dictatorship that caused two regional wars and
hundreds of thousands of deaths to an open society is necessary. SO the
only valid argument is why us?

Did we need to invade Iraq to maintain our freedom? In the short term no
but the answer is more complicated than that. We could have spent billions
a year to contain Iraq instead of the 100 billion or more that it will take
to end Addams threat permanently. Our presence and mission was a continuing
sore point in the region. It could not continue for long before we inflamed
more and more sentiment against us. So our choice was to: 1) continue with
the current suppression missions, 2) Leave and allow another war in the
region or 3) End Saddams reign of terror. Option 3 also means that we would
have to protect Iraq against Syria, Iran and Turkey as well as rebuild the
country so that it could govern and protect itself.

Oh, one other point. These unaccountable third parties that commit
terrorism are harbored and sponsored by countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq,
Iran, Syria and others. Cross Afghanistan and Iraq off the list, with
pressure from us I think we can cross Pakistan off the list (still needs to
be watched).

On Fri, 20 May 2005 19:00:02 -0700, jps wrote:


"Liberalism is a mental disorder"