Politics befrore security...
 

On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 17:40:54 -0500, Boater wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 11:48:20 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 07:34:16 -0500, JohnH
wrote:

Again - The Muslim world hated us well before either Iraq or Afghanistan.

But, I'm glad to hear you love this country. I guess you think 9/11 was
because we invaded Iraq? Or Afghanistan?
--
No but I think our "Tomahawk diplomacy" where we believed we could
rain down death from the sky with impunity had something to do with
it. You notice we stopped showing those bomb sight camera shots on TV
right after that.
Some people seem to forget we bombed Iraq constantly throughout the
90s. We say we weren't really killing anyone, Al Jazerra was saying we
killed about 20,000 civilians. Who do you think they believed?

Iraq *did* invade Kuwait, right? Or was that retribution for something else
*we* did wrong?
--
John H

*Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!*


It makes so much sense to kill civilians who had nothing to do with a
country's government's nastiness. Yep...winning the hearts and minds.

Most of the rational world will be pleased to see Bush back in Texas and
our country again being run by intelligent leaders who usually think
things through *before* invading the wrong country.

I wonder if anyone told Saddam or Osama that?
--
John H

*Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!*

Politics befrore security...
 

On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 18:51:54 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:

Calif Bill wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
JohnH wrote:
On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 11:48:20 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 07:34:16 -0500, JohnH
wrote:

Again - The Muslim world hated us well before either Iraq or
Afghanistan.
But, I'm glad to hear you love this country. I guess you think 9/11
was
because we invaded Iraq? Or Afghanistan?
--
No but I think our "Tomahawk diplomacy" where we believed we could
rain down death from the sky with impunity had something to do with
it. You notice we stopped showing those bomb sight camera shots on TV
right after that.
Some people seem to forget we bombed Iraq constantly throughout the
90s. We say we weren't really killing anyone, Al Jazerra was saying we
killed about 20,000 civilians. Who do you think they believed?
Iraq *did* invade Kuwait, right? Or was that retribution for something
else
*we* did wrong?
--
John H

*Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!*
It makes so much sense to kill civilians who had nothing to do with a
country's government's nastiness. Yep...winning the hearts and minds.

Most of the rational world will be pleased to see Bush back in Texas and
our country again being run by intelligent leaders who usually think
things through *before* invading the wrong country.
Maybe they should not have let the nasties rule the country. So the
civilians are also guilty. Just like Japan and Germany in WW2. Took
lots of civilians to support the troops.
Obviously, you know nothing about pre-war or wartime Japanese society, or
the chokehold the Nazis had on Germany.


Does not matter. Still takes civilians to support the troops. You do not
think Germans would of bombed US civilians if they could?



The Germans were working on a way to bomb NYC. The Japanese actually
bombed Oregon and also sent Firebomb balloons across the Pacific to
randomly set fires along the west coast. Neither were very successful.
The firebomb balloons resulted in very little damage and a handful of
deaths.

Were *any* civilians killed? Well, if it were only American civilians,
that's OK.
--
John H

*Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!*

Politics befrore security...
 

JohnH wrote:
On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 18:51:54 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:

Calif Bill wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
JohnH wrote:
On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 11:48:20 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 07:34:16 -0500, JohnH
wrote:

Again - The Muslim world hated us well before either Iraq or
Afghanistan.
But, I'm glad to hear you love this country. I guess you think 9/11
was
because we invaded Iraq? Or Afghanistan?
--
No but I think our "Tomahawk diplomacy" where we believed we could
rain down death from the sky with impunity had something to do with
it. You notice we stopped showing those bomb sight camera shots on TV
right after that.
Some people seem to forget we bombed Iraq constantly throughout the
90s. We say we weren't really killing anyone, Al Jazerra was saying we
killed about 20,000 civilians. Who do you think they believed?
Iraq *did* invade Kuwait, right? Or was that retribution for something
else
*we* did wrong?
--
John H

*Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!*
It makes so much sense to kill civilians who had nothing to do with a
country's government's nastiness. Yep...winning the hearts and minds.

Most of the rational world will be pleased to see Bush back in Texas and
our country again being run by intelligent leaders who usually think
things through *before* invading the wrong country.
Maybe they should not have let the nasties rule the country. So the
civilians are also guilty. Just like Japan and Germany in WW2. Took
lots of civilians to support the troops.
Obviously, you know nothing about pre-war or wartime Japanese society, or
the chokehold the Nazis had on Germany.

Does not matter. Still takes civilians to support the troops. You do not
think Germans would of bombed US civilians if they could?


The Germans were working on a way to bomb NYC. The Japanese actually
bombed Oregon and also sent Firebomb balloons across the Pacific to
randomly set fires along the west coast. Neither were very successful.
The firebomb balloons resulted in very little damage and a handful of
deaths.

Were *any* civilians killed? Well, if it were only American civilians,
that's OK.
--
John H

*Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!*

Their objective was to kill enough civilians that USA would seek a peace
agreement. They knew if the war went on long enough, they would lose.

Politics befrore security...
 

On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 11:24:27 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 17:31:36 -0500, JohnH
wrote:

No but I think our "Tomahawk diplomacy" where we believed we could
rain down death from the sky with impunity had something to do with
it. You notice we stopped showing those bomb sight camera shots on TV
right after that.
Some people seem to forget we bombed Iraq constantly throughout the
90s. We say we weren't really killing anyone, Al Jazerra was saying we
killed about 20,000 civilians. Who do you think they believed?

Iraq *did* invade Kuwait, right? Or was that retribution for something else
*we* did wrong?

Yes Iraq invaded Kuwait and we kicked their ass out. Powell and Bush 1
were right to avoid going to Baghdad then. Where they made the mistake
was to continue the air war for another decade. For those who blame
Bush 2 I have to remind you, the US government, in the name of Bill
Clinton threatened the invasion of Iraq in 1998 for ignoring UN
resolutions and set the stage for GW's invasion. Mr Clinton thought
they had WMDs too. Saddam gave us the finger. Bush 2 saw this as a
question of whether he should back up US threats with action or simply
back down.
Again, if we had not started the war with Saddam, Israel would have
and we would have been dragged in to support them, a worse scenario
from an international view.

And, of course, the UN played no part in any of this.
--
John H

*Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!*

Politics befrore security...
 

On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 19:14:54 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 13:24:15 -0500, JohnH
wrote:

Iraq *did* invade Kuwait, right? Or was that retribution for something else
*we* did wrong?

Yes Iraq invaded Kuwait and we kicked their ass out. Powell and Bush 1
were right to avoid going to Baghdad then. Where they made the mistake
was to continue the air war for another decade. For those who blame
Bush 2 I have to remind you, the US government, in the name of Bill
Clinton threatened the invasion of Iraq in 1998 for ignoring UN
resolutions and set the stage for GW's invasion. Mr Clinton thought
they had WMDs too. Saddam gave us the finger. Bush 2 saw this as a
question of whether he should back up US threats with action or simply
back down.
Again, if we had not started the war with Saddam, Israel would have
and we would have been dragged in to support them, a worse scenario
from an international view.

And, of course, the UN played no part in any of this.

The UN is like that big mouth girl who likes to start a fight for her
boy friend to finish.
Sometimes I think we should leave and let the bitch get her ass beat.

There you go. We finally agree. So, let's blame the UN and quit badmouthing
the USA every time we get a chance.
--
John H

*Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!*

Politics befrore security...
 

wrote in message
...

When I was young I liked to fight and thought the US should be the
same way. I am now a lot older and a lot wiser.
We need to be a lot more careful where we are willing to spill
American blood and also be careful before we spill other people's
blood. We are far from "untouchable" and you can't kill enough
innocent goat herders to change that. It only makes it worse.


Well said. I agree.

One problem though. The world is always full of new "young" people going
through the same process.
There's no chill pill.

Eisboch

Politics befrore security...
 

Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
...
When I was young I liked to fight and thought the US should be the
same way. I am now a lot older and a lot wiser.
We need to be a lot more careful where we are willing to spill
American blood and also be careful before we spill other people's
blood. We are far from "untouchable" and you can't kill enough
innocent goat herders to change that. It only makes it worse.


Well said. I agree.

One problem though. The world is always full of new "young" people going
through the same process.
There's no chill pill.

Eisboch



I've always thought we should send the old farts clamoring for war off
to the battlefront first, along with their sons and daughters. In our
most recent lunacy, think how much "cred" Cheney and Rumsfeld and the
neocons would have had if they were shipped over to Iraq in uniform,
handed a rifle and told to lead the way.

We've got a few here like that, too. Their privilege to speak their
minds. But let's see them back that up with action and sacrifice on
their part. I suspect *that* would chill most of the warmongers and if
they did go, thin out some of the bad blood in the gene pool.

Usually, but not always, sending our young people to fight because of
the mistakes of their elders, is wrong. It was the right thing to do in
the case of Bush I, because he knew what the hell he was doing, and did
it mostly right. It was wrong in the case of Bush II for so many reasons
there isn't enough bandwidth to list them all.

Politics befrore security...
 

On Dec 5, 5:33*am, Boater wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
.. .
When I was young I liked to fight and thought the US should be the
same way. I am now a lot older and a lot wiser.
We need to be a lot more careful where we are willing to spill
American blood and also be careful before we spill other people's
blood. We are far from "untouchable" and you can't kill enough
innocent goat herders to change that. It only makes it worse.

Well said. *I agree.

One problem though. * The world is always full of new "young" people going
through the same process.
There's no chill pill.

Eisboch

I've always thought we should send the old farts clamoring for war off
to the battlefront first, along with their sons and daughters. In our
most recent lunacy, think how much "cred" Cheney and Rumsfeld and the
neocons would have had if they were shipped over to Iraq in uniform,
handed a rifle and told to lead the way.

We've got a few here like that, too. Their privilege to speak their
minds. But let's see them back that up with action and sacrifice on
their part. I suspect *that* would chill most of the warmongers and if
they did go, thin out some of the bad blood in the gene pool.

Usually, but not always, sending our young people to fight because of
the mistakes of their elders, is wrong. It was the right thing to do in
the case of Bush I, because he knew what the hell he was doing, and did
it mostly right. It was wrong in the case of Bush II for so many reasons
there isn't enough bandwidth to list them all.

Oh well, Obama's gonna fixit. Look at what he did for Illinois?

http://www.forthegoodofillinois.org/IL-Debt-Counter/

Politics befrore security...
 

On Dec 5, 6:07*am, Tim wrote:
On Dec 5, 5:33*am, Boater wrote:



Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
.. .
When I was young I liked to fight and thought the US should be the
same way. I am now a lot older and a lot wiser.
We need to be a lot more careful where we are willing to spill
American blood and also be careful before we spill other people's
blood. We are far from "untouchable" and you can't kill enough
innocent goat herders to change that. It only makes it worse.

Well said. *I agree.

One problem though. * The world is always full of new "young" people going
through the same process.
There's no chill pill.

Eisboch

I've always thought we should send the old farts clamoring for war off
to the battlefront first, along with their sons and daughters. In our
most recent lunacy, think how much "cred" Cheney and Rumsfeld and the
neocons would have had if they were shipped over to Iraq in uniform,
handed a rifle and told to lead the way.

We've got a few here like that, too. Their privilege to speak their
minds. But let's see them back that up with action and sacrifice on
their part. I suspect *that* would chill most of the warmongers and if
they did go, thin out some of the bad blood in the gene pool.

Usually, but not always, sending our young people to fight because of
the mistakes of their elders, is wrong. It was the right thing to do in
the case of Bush I, because he knew what the hell he was doing, and did
it mostly right. It was wrong in the case of Bush II for so many reasons
there isn't enough bandwidth to list them all.

Oh well, Obama's gonna fixit. Look at what he did for Illinois?

http://www.forthegoodofillinois.org/IL-Debt-Counter/

Oh yeah, and that article is two years old, but look at the debt
counter..

He and Dick Durbin (the Turban), and out governor Rod (More like Rob)
blagojevich, and the rest of "the machine" have done a great job of
cleaning us out.

Which just goes to show, that you don't need republican leadership
to hose anyone over.

Politics befrore security...
 

Tim wrote:
On Dec 5, 5:33 am, Boater wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
...
When I was young I liked to fight and thought the US should be the
same way. I am now a lot older and a lot wiser.
We need to be a lot more careful where we are willing to spill
American blood and also be careful before we spill other people's
blood. We are far from "untouchable" and you can't kill enough
innocent goat herders to change that. It only makes it worse.
Well said. I agree.
One problem though. The world is always full of new "young" people going
through the same process.
There's no chill pill.
Eisboch
I've always thought we should send the old farts clamoring for war off
to the battlefront first, along with their sons and daughters. In our
most recent lunacy, think how much "cred" Cheney and Rumsfeld and the
neocons would have had if they were shipped over to Iraq in uniform,
handed a rifle and told to lead the way.

We've got a few here like that, too. Their privilege to speak their
minds. But let's see them back that up with action and sacrifice on
their part. I suspect *that* would chill most of the warmongers and if
they did go, thin out some of the bad blood in the gene pool.

Usually, but not always, sending our young people to fight because of
the mistakes of their elders, is wrong. It was the right thing to do in
the case of Bush I, because he knew what the hell he was doing, and did
it mostly right. It was wrong in the case of Bush II for so many reasons
there isn't enough bandwidth to list them all.

Oh well, Obama's gonna fixit. Look at what he did for Illinois?

http://www.forthegoodofillinois.org/IL-Debt-Counter/


I don't expect Obama to fix all the messes President Idiot left before
he headed back to oblivion and drunkedness in Texas, but I do believe he
will work assiduously to restore our position of respect and admiration
in the world. He'll shut down the Gitmo Gulag, he'll seriously start
ending the war against Iraq without all the Bush Admin bull****, he'll
have us participating in treaties the rest of the world supports, he'll
take diplomacy a lot more seriously, and he will talk to our enemies,
not just rattle sabers at them.

On the other hand, with Bush's mismanagement of the economy, maybe we'll
just be better off if the country declares Chapter 11.