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!*

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!*

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

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.

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/

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.

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.

On Dec 5, 6:43*am, 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.

harry, I never thought of him to fix anything at all, his Illinois
history has shown that.

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!*

"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?