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

You've demonstrated your knowledge of the battlefront, both on land and
sea. So far, no one seems highly impressed.

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.

Most of the folks here who exercise the privilege to speak their minds have
already backed it up with action and sacrifice. Most of us would have
jumped at the chance to go do it again, Harry. But, for some silly reason
the Army doesn't like to hire folks over 35.

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.
--
John H

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

On Dec 5, 6:57*am, JohnH wrote:


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.

When most offer a piece of their mind, all that hand over is a chunk
of their lip.

"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

On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 08:30:45 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"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


Of course Bush had to let the UN do it's thing. It was a mistake in that it
gave Saddam too much time to hide/dispose of that which needed hiding.
Liberals tend to forget the six months warning and claim there was never a
'reason' in the first place.

Maybe that's why they get called names so often.

And, golfing was great!
--
John H.