| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Politics befrore security...
Just saw a interview with Grahm (D) from Florida concerning his new
report called "America at risk". He of course started his interview with talking points saying "We have not been concerened with terrorism for the *last seven years*". Right then you know it's a fluff report designed to waste more of our money. For the last seven years we have been chasing terrorists around the world and have been attacked once. But not concerened with the previous administration which allowed us to be attacked several times and of course set the stage for 911 with it's terrorist friendly policy.. What an idiot. Are all dems more concerened with getting re-elected than the country, seems so to me... |
Politics befrore security...
On Dec 2, 10:26*am, wrote:
Just saw a interview with Grahm (D) from Florida concerning his new report called "America at risk". He of course started his interview with talking points saying "We have not been concerened with terrorism for the *last seven years*". *Right then you know it's a fluff report designed to waste more of our money. For the last seven years we have been chasing terrorists around the world and have been attacked once. But not concerened with the previous administration which allowed us to be attacked several times and of course set the stage for 911 with it's terrorist friendly policy.. What an idiot. Are all dems more concerened with getting re-elected than the country, seems so to me... Oh, and BTW, any response from WAFA should be dismissed. I doubt I really have to explain;) |
Politics befrore security...
On Dec 2, 10:36*am, wrote:
On Dec 2, 10:26*am, wrote: Just saw a interview with Grahm (D) from Florida concerning his new report called "America at risk". He of course started his interview with talking points saying "We have not been concerened with terrorism for the *last seven years*". *Right then you know it's a fluff report designed to waste more of our money. For the last seven years we have been chasing terrorists around the world and have been attacked once. But not concerened with the previous administration which allowed us to be attacked several times and of course set the stage for 911 with it's terrorist friendly policy.. What an idiot. Are all dems more concerened with getting re-elected than the country, seems so to me... Oh, and BTW, any response from WAFA should be dismissed. I doubt I really have to explain;) Because he's never told the truth? |
Politics befrore security...
hk wrote:
In fact, a U.S. Army War College report said that the war in Iraq has been a diversion that has drained key resources from the more imminent War on Terror. USA Today reported that "in 2002, troops from the 5th Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq." Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL) confirmed this, noting in February of 2002; a senior military commander told him "We are moving military and intelligence personnel and resources out of Afghanistan to get ready for a future war in Iraq." Afghanistan? Why should we worry about Afghanistan? :) Just had this vision of Krowsie. http://i37.tinypic.com/25imdde.jpg |
Politics befrore security...
On Dec 2, 10:39*am, wrote:
On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 07:26:22 -0800 (PST), wrote: Just saw a interview with Grahm (D) from Florida concerning his new report called "America at risk". He of course started his interview with talking points saying "We have not been concerened with terrorism for the *last seven years*". *Right then you know it's a fluff report designed to waste more of our money. For the last seven years we have been chasing terrorists around the world and have been attacked once. But not concerened with the previous administration which allowed us to be attacked several times and of course set the stage for 911 with it's terrorist friendly policy.. What an idiot. Are all dems more concerened with getting re-elected than the country, seems so to me... "The Administration has not produced one shred of evidence that Iraq had an operational relationship with Al Qaeda, or that Iraq had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks on America. In fact, a U.S. Army War College report said that the war in Iraq has been a diversion that has drained key resources from the more imminent War on Terror. USA Today reported that "in 2002, troops from the 5th Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq." Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL) confirmed this, noting in February of 2002; a senior military commander told him "We are moving military and intelligence personnel and resources out of Afghanistan to get ready for a future war in Iraq." You still chasin' bin butt****ed? Bush left him impotent and irrelevant.. We don't need to kill him, but then again, you are about as credible as Harry in these issues, dismissed.. Back under your desk bitch... |
Politics befrore security...
On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 20:18:39 -0500, wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 10:39:45 -0500, wrote: In fact, a U.S. Army War College report said that the war in Iraq has been a diversion that has drained key resources from the more imminent War on Terror. USA Today reported that "in 2002, troops from the 5th Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq." Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL) confirmed this, noting in February of 2002; a senior military commander told him "We are moving military and intelligence personnel and resources out of Afghanistan to get ready for a future war in Iraq." Our misadventures in Afghanistan are as much to blame for the Muslim world hating us as the cluster **** in Iraq. When we told the world there was an acceptable number of innocents we could kill in our search for one suspected terrorist it pretty much sealed our reputation as terrorists ourselves. BTW Graham hasn't been our senator for almost 4 years so this is pretty old news. Yup, we live in a ****ty country all right. The Muslim world hated us well before either Iraq or Afghanistan. Maybe you should just go to Canada? -- John H *Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!* |
Politics befrore security...
wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 10:39:45 -0500, wrote: In fact, a U.S. Army War College report said that the war in Iraq has been a diversion that has drained key resources from the more imminent War on Terror. USA Today reported that "in 2002, troops from the 5th Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq." Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL) confirmed this, noting in February of 2002; a senior military commander told him "We are moving military and intelligence personnel and resources out of Afghanistan to get ready for a future war in Iraq." Our misadventures in Afghanistan are as much to blame for the Muslim world hating us as the cluster **** in Iraq. When we told the world there was an acceptable number of innocents we could kill in our search for one suspected terrorist it pretty much sealed our reputation as terrorists ourselves. BTW Graham hasn't been our senator for almost 4 years so this is pretty old news. Graham is on a special committee that just issued a report. ----------------- www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed* Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road ----------------- |
Politics befrore security...
wrote:
On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 07:26:22 -0800 (PST), wrote: Just saw a interview with Grahm (D) from Florida concerning his new report called "America at risk". He of course started his interview with talking points saying "We have not been concerened with terrorism for the *last seven years*". Right then you know it's a fluff report designed to waste more of our money. For the last seven years we have been chasing terrorists around the world and have been attacked once. But not concerened with the previous administration which allowed us to be attacked several times and of course set the stage for 911 with it's terrorist friendly policy.. What an idiot. Are all dems more concerened with getting re-elected than the country, seems so to me... "The Administration has not produced one shred of evidence that Iraq had an operational relationship with Al Qaeda, or that Iraq had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks on America. In fact, a U.S. Army War College report said that the war in Iraq has been a diversion that has drained key resources from the more imminent War on Terror. USA Today reported that "in 2002, troops from the 5th Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq." Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL) confirmed this, noting in February of 2002; a senior military commander told him "We are moving military and intelligence personnel and resources out of Afghanistan to get ready for a future war in Iraq." What would you have done differently if you were in charge. And, you have to be more specific than say I would go after bin Laden. Bin Laden is a non-event now, he is an emasculated feeble man. |
Politics befrore security...
On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 23:48:34 -0500, BAR wrote:
Bin Laden is a non-event now, he is an emasculated feeble man. How do you know that? |
Politics befrore security...
|
Politics befrore security...
|
Politics befrore security...
|
Politics befrore security...
On Dec 3, 7:34*am, JohnH wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 22:05:06 -0500, wrote: On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 20:33:09 -0500, JohnH wrote: Our misadventures in Afghanistan are as much to blame for the Muslim world hating us as the cluster **** in Iraq. When we told the world there was an acceptable number of innocents we could kill in our search for one suspected terrorist it pretty much sealed our reputation as terrorists ourselves. BTW Graham hasn't been our senator for almost 4 years so this is pretty old news. Yup, we live in a ****ty country all right. The Muslim world hated us well before either Iraq or Afghanistan. Maybe you should just go to Canada? I love this country and I think we should defend it but what we are doing in the mid east has nothing to do with defending America. It is about defending Israel. 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? -- John H Graham does, so do most of the Democrats running for congress. I guess they forget that there were more attacks against America during the previous administration. It just makes me cringe when I hear these idiots say **** like "for the last 7 years". That was my point, they care more about perpetrating the lie, than the country, they should be voted out. |
Politics befrore security...
|
Politics befrore security...
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. |
Politics befrore security...
"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. |
Politics befrore security...
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. |
Politics befrore security...
"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? |
Politics befrore security...
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. |
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...
|
Politics befrore security...
|
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. |
Politics befrore security...
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. |
Politics befrore security...
|
Politics befrore security...
On Dec 5, 6:52*am, JohnH wrote:
but to imply this county purposely kills 'innocent goat herders' is offensive bull****. -- John H *Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!* Agreed! |
Politics befrore security...
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!* |
Politics befrore security...
On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 04:07:54 -0800 (PST), 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/ Amen. I understand Iraq has now committed to a three year pullout schedule. I wonder how Obama is going to play that. -- John H *Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!* |
Politics befrore security...
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!* |
Politics befrore security...
"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 |
Politics befrore security...
"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? |
Politics befrore security...
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. |
Politics befrore security...
On Dec 5, 7:15*am, 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 m... 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!* LOL! Getting right to business, eh? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:49 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com