Politics befrore security...
 

"JohnH" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 06:33:10 -0500, Boater wrote:

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.



Bush acted on the intel he got from our sources and those of other
interested countries. His mistake was in waiting six months to act.



I don't consider it a mistake. It was an obligation, in an attempt to
prevent an invasion and war. All Saddam had to do initially was to honor
the UN defined resolutions agreed to at the end of Gulf War l.
He had a final, 11th hour chance to avoid war by responding to an ultimatum
for him and his goofy sons to beat feet. Bottom line is (and this has been
substantiated by some of Saddam's surviving staff members) that Saddam
thought Bush was bluffing and didn't have the balls (or support) to invade.
Obviously, he was proven wrong.

It really gets my ass sometimes that some people ignore the six months or
more of trying to work within the UN, the warnings, the ultimatums, the UN
votes supporting the enforcement of previous resolutions, all resulting in
Saddam giving the world the finger.

Bush had two choices. Either do what he said he would do or say, "Oooops,
sorry, just kidding, lets talk".

Eisboch

Politics befrore security...
 

JohnH wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 07:43:23 -0500, Boater wrote:

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.

You make him sound like another kiss-ass liberal. I hope he's got some
balls.

Come January 20th, it's his fault. No blaming Bush. Remember your response
whenever Clinton got mentioned.

I'm hoping you'll take you and yours on the Inauguration Cruise.

http://tinyurl.com/6mppkl
--
John H

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


The Bush Recession/Depression will not be Obama's fault.
But any significant foreign policy blunders after he takes office will be.

Yeah, that's just what we want to do...get on a cruise ship in
Lauderdale with a boatload of drunks for a cruise to Bal'mer...in
mid-January.

Domestically, I think we are heading to the Left Coast in February and
then a week in southern Florida in May before it gets too hot for man or
beast. We have two "furrin" trips planned for 2009.

Politics befrore security...
 

Eisboch wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message
...
I've seen innocent civilians get killed. It's not pretty. It was never, to
my knowledge, done purposely. Yes, there are bad apples in the military,
but to imply this county purposely kills 'innocent goat herders' is
offensive bull****.


Sometimes people forget. In Vietnam, they were shooting back.

Decision time.

Eisboch




If we weren't stupid enough to get involved in the mess in Vietnam, no
one would have been shooting at us there.

Politics befrore security...
 

D.Duck wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
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.


How did *Bush* mismanage the economy?



Funny guy. Absentee landlord and belief in the unfettered "free market."

Politics befrore security...
 

"Boater" wrote in message
...
D.Duck wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
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.


How did *Bush* mismanage the economy?

Funny guy. Absentee landlord and belief in the unfettered "free market."

Good answer....

Politics befrore security...
 

"Boater" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message
...
I've seen innocent civilians get killed. It's not pretty. It was never,
to
my knowledge, done purposely. Yes, there are bad apples in the military,
but to imply this county purposely kills 'innocent goat herders' is
offensive bull****.


Sometimes people forget. In Vietnam, they were shooting back.

Decision time.

Eisboch


If we weren't stupid enough to get involved in the mess in Vietnam, no one
would have been shooting at us there.

You are quite the Monday morning visionary, aren't you?

Eisboch

Politics befrore security...
 

On Dec 4, 7:14*pm, 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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Amen...

Politics befrore security...
 

On Dec 5, 7:52*am, JohnH wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 23:18:15 -0500, wrote:
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 20:18:49 -0500, JohnH
wrote:

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.

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.

Nothing you said here was disagreeable. The US shouldn't 'like' to fight.
On the other hand, the 'peaceniks' shouldn't think that every other country
is satisfied with its lot in life. There is a reason China is pouring tons
of money into its military, and while Iran's threats may be all bluster,
they may also be real.

I've seen innocent civilians get killed. It's not pretty. It was never, to
my knowledge, done purposely. Yes, there are bad apples in the military,
but to imply this county purposely kills 'innocent goat herders' is
offensive bull****.
--
John H

*Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year"

That's what you get for reading Harrys hate speeches...

Politics befrore security...
 

"Boater" wrote in message
...
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.

No chance...a lot of the big talkers here would squeal & whine like babies
if their income tax was raised to reflect the true cost of the Iraq war.

Politics befrore security...
 

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.

Am I glad no one GAS what you think.