JohnH wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:21:07 -0500, Boater wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...

Whatever the solution is, it should not involved killing uninvolved
civilians. We've done enough of that in Iraq and Afghanistan. What gives
us the right to kill innocent civilians? Cheney-ism?
I agree. We should never intentionally plan to kill uninvolved, innocent
civilians, and I don't believe for a minute that any administration has
since Truman authorized the atomic bomb drops.

But warfare is not perfect. To do nothing only empowers the enemy.
Sometimes the risk of collateral damage has to be taken.

Eisboch



Whether it plans to kill them or not, I think the Bush Administration
doesn't give a damn about uninvolved, innocent civilians. Besides, we're
not at the point of bombing Somali villages yet and we apparently don't
have the assets to interdict Somali pirate ships.

Hey, DS, what's Obama goin' to do?

Round up all the right-wing useless old farts like you and send them
into battle. National defense and public service, rolled up into one.

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 17:11:15 -0500, Boater wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:21:07 -0500, Boater wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...

Whatever the solution is, it should not involved killing uninvolved
civilians. We've done enough of that in Iraq and Afghanistan. What gives
us the right to kill innocent civilians? Cheney-ism?
I agree. We should never intentionally plan to kill uninvolved, innocent
civilians, and I don't believe for a minute that any administration has
since Truman authorized the atomic bomb drops.

But warfare is not perfect. To do nothing only empowers the enemy.
Sometimes the risk of collateral damage has to be taken.

Eisboch



Whether it plans to kill them or not, I think the Bush Administration
doesn't give a damn about uninvolved, innocent civilians. Besides, we're
not at the point of bombing Somali villages yet and we apparently don't
have the assets to interdict Somali pirate ships.

Hey, DS, what's Obama goin' to do?

Round up all the right-wing useless old farts like you and send them
into battle. National defense and public service, rolled up into one.

That would be useful, which means he won't do it.

Why not just say, "I don't know." As no one knows much about him, that
would be a good answer.

You would be in good company, right along with Tom Brokaw!

One wonders why he didn't ask, after viewing the vid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAjs0vb94bc
--
John H.

Boater wrote:
JohnH wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:21:07 -0500, Boater
wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...

Whatever the solution is, it should not involved killing uninvolved
civilians. We've done enough of that in Iraq and Afghanistan. What
gives us the right to kill innocent civilians? Cheney-ism?
I agree. We should never intentionally plan to kill uninvolved,
innocent civilians, and I don't believe for a minute that any
administration has since Truman authorized the atomic bomb drops.

But warfare is not perfect. To do nothing only empowers the enemy.
Sometimes the risk of collateral damage has to be taken.

Eisboch


Whether it plans to kill them or not, I think the Bush Administration
doesn't give a damn about uninvolved, innocent civilians. Besides,
we're not at the point of bombing Somali villages yet and we
apparently don't have the assets to interdict Somali pirate ships.

Hey, DS, what's Obama goin' to do?

Round up all the right-wing useless old farts like you and send them
into battle. National defense and public service, rolled up into one.

Typical stupid response from a...writer!

On Nov 19, 7:05*pm, DK wrote:
Boater wrote:
JohnH wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:21:07 -0500, Boater
wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...

Whatever the solution is, it should not involved killing uninvolved
civilians. We've done enough of that in Iraq and Afghanistan. What
gives us the right to kill innocent civilians? Cheney-ism?
I agree. *We should never intentionally plan to kill uninvolved,
innocent civilians, and I don't believe for a minute that any
administration has since Truman authorized the atomic bomb drops.

But warfare is not perfect. *To do nothing only empowers the enemy..
Sometimes the risk of collateral damage has to be taken.

Eisboch

Whether it plans to kill them or not, I think the Bush Administration
doesn't give a damn about uninvolved, innocent civilians. Besides,
we're not at the point of bombing Somali villages yet and we
apparently don't have the assets to interdict *Somali pirate ships.

Hey, DS, what's Obama goin' to do?

Round up all the right-wing useless old farts like you and send them
into battle. National defense and public service, rolled up into one.

Typical stupid response from a...writer!

Not typically a mere writer, but a union agitator as well.

On Nov 19, 11:48*pm, wrote:
On Nov 19, 7:05*pm, DK wrote:





Boater wrote:
JohnH wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:21:07 -0500, Boater
wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...

Whatever the solution is, it should not involved killing uninvolved
civilians. We've done enough of that in Iraq and Afghanistan. What
gives us the right to kill innocent civilians? Cheney-ism?
I agree. *We should never intentionally plan to kill uninvolved,
innocent civilians, and I don't believe for a minute that any
administration has since Truman authorized the atomic bomb drops.

But warfare is not perfect. *To do nothing only empowers the enemy.
Sometimes the risk of collateral damage has to be taken.

Eisboch

Whether it plans to kill them or not, I think the Bush Administration
doesn't give a damn about uninvolved, innocent civilians. Besides,
we're not at the point of bombing Somali villages yet and we
apparently don't have the assets to interdict *Somali pirate ships.

Hey, DS, what's Obama goin' to do?

Round up all the right-wing useless old farts like you and send them
into battle. National defense and public service, rolled up into one.

Typical stupid response from a...writer!

Not typically a mere writer, but a union agitator as well.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

nah, he's not employable, his wife works.