What the hell are we doing here...
 

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:44:45 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:12:03 -0400, Mille GT Owner
wrote:



Obama's got the Reps sucking up gov cash for clunkers welfare,
supporting Medicare, and calling for an increase in SS payments.
Might as well turn them into appeasers of Muslim terrorism too.

--Vic

So staying in Afghanistan is for what purpose? Do we stay there simply
so we don't 'appease' Muslims by getting out?

Supposedly to put the nail in the coffin of Al Qaeda, and make sure
they don't come back. Nation building started by the Bush crew, and
now supported by Dem and Rep alike.
They've all fallen into the "protect the women" and
"one-person-one-vote" bandwagon too.
Personally, I would get out and let the savages find their own path to
Allah. If they give us trouble later, nuke 'em.
But I'm not a Dem or Rep.

--Vic

Thank you for pointing out the stupidity in wasting money and lives
over there.

'Supposedly'...a good choice of word.
--
John H

"If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until it's free!"
--Anonymous

What the hell are we doing here...
 

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:41:16 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Vic Smith wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 04:16:25 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

On Aug 24, 9:53 pm, BAR wrote:
wf3h wrote:
On Aug 24, 8:03 pm, Guzzistimo wrote:
If the rationale for invading Iraq was to get their oil, what's
Obama's rationale for Afghanistan -- Heroin?
hey idiot...
you guys are amazing.
uh...questions for you:
1. when did US troops enter afghanistan?
2. how long has obama been president
take your head out of your diaper...
Obama could have pulled the US troops out of Afghanistan by now. All it
takes is an order to Sec Def Gates.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
this is called 'surrender' or 'appeasement'...whichever you prefer.

Obama's got the Reps sucking up gov cash for clunkers welfare,
supporting Medicare, and calling for an increase in SS payments.
Might as well turn them into appeasers of Muslim terrorism too.

--Vic

Good gawd this place has gone ****ing LUNATIC. Now liberals are
"appeasers of Muslim terrorism".

Loogy, that was written by Vic. Maybe you should re-read it.
--
John H

"If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until it's free!"
--Anonymous

What the hell are we doing here...
 

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:49:01 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:13:54 -0400, Mille GT Owner
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:57:45 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 08:19:32 -0400, BAR wrote:



I practically got a free car yesterday. I now have a brand new Nissan
Versa and the $4,500 you all kicked in paid for nearly half of the
vehicle. I stroked a check for the rest. Just doing my part to help the
economy according to Congress and Obama's rules.

Congratulations!
Good to see you admit gov welfare is ok when it goes in your pocket.
Honesty is a virtue.

--Vic

Whooooosh.

Sucking on the gov teat when it's offered gets the same taxpayer milk
as when you demand it.
And it's good to be honest about it.
Of course if you want to take the side that you just did it help the
economy, that works too.
That's the Obama side.
Your choice.

--Vic

Maybe I saw a lot of sarcasm that really wasn't there.
--
John H

"If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until it's free!"
--Anonymous

What the hell are we doing here...
 

JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 07:06:24 -0400, Guzzistimo penned the following
well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

|On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 20:31:29 -0400, Gene
wrote:
|
|On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 20:03:19 -0400, Guzzistimo
wrote:
|
|If the rationale for invading Iraq was to get their oil, what's
|Obama's rationale for Afghanistan -- Heroin?
|
|http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/wo..._r=1&th&emc=th
|
|I think we are there because of this:
|
|http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english...ent_339861.htm
|
|Ah, the Bush Rationale.
|
|After Inauguration Day, the Bush Rationale is no longer applicable.

Bush got us in there. We're there. We could have just left
(cut-and-run, some people would say) when Obama took office, but how
smart would that be?

You don't really have a point, do you?
But he indicated to his followers that he would get out... close Gitmo,
have open meetings, reach over the isle... pffffttttt.. The fact is, he
said he was gonna' do it. Half of the country admitted they knew he
wouldn't, the rest just missed the boat...

I didn't know his time was up.

The first two (he would get out [Iraq and Afghanistan] and close Gitmo)
were promised in the first hundred days, the second two [have open
meetings, reach over the isle] were promised during his whole
administration... His time was up on the first two a few months back,
the second, when he started having secret meetings and censoring
information about his Czars and nominees... Fact is, it was bull****,
designed to get him elected. He never meant it, just said it... Hey,
could JPS be Oba.... uh, forget it...

Things change when you're handed what Bush handed him.

What the hell are we doing here...
 

JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
wf3h wrote:
On Aug 24, 8:03 pm, Guzzistimo wrote:
If the rationale for invading Iraq was to get their oil, what's
Obama's rationale for Afghanistan -- Heroin?

hey idiot...

you guys are amazing.

uh...questions for you:


1. when did US troops enter afghanistan?
2. how long has obama been president

take your head out of your diaper...
Obama could have pulled the US troops out of Afghanistan by now. All it
takes is an order to Sec Def Gates.
You mean, he really didn't mean it when he was running for POTUS?? Oh
my, hope I still get my free car and oil;)

Please show me where Obama said he'd give you a free car and oil.
Another right wing fallacy.
Obama didn't say it.. It was a sarcastic remark based loosely on the
rantings of some of the Obama supporters during the runup to the
election... Geeze...

Well, with some of the lies the conservatives have told lately, I just
assumed that was another one that got believed.
Yeah right.. only lies from the right.

We are obviously out or Iraq, Gitmo is closed, we are out of
Afghanistan, dems are reaching across the isle, there is no end of life
panels, the check is in the mail, and I promise I will pull out...
Pffffttttt...

Um, Scotty, he's still on the job, and hasn't completed everything yet.

Gitmo and Iraq were promised in the first hundred days... It was a
campaign promise never meant to be kept...

Things change. I know, I know, reverse harryanism!

What the hell are we doing here...
 

Mille GT Owner wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:27:20 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 07:06:24 -0400, Guzzistimo penned the following
well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

|On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 20:31:29 -0400, Gene
wrote:
|
|On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 20:03:19 -0400, Guzzistimo
wrote:
|
|If the rationale for invading Iraq was to get their oil, what's
|Obama's rationale for Afghanistan -- Heroin?
|
|http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/wo..._r=1&th&emc=th
|
|I think we are there because of this:
|
|http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english...ent_339861.htm
|
|Ah, the Bush Rationale.
|
|After Inauguration Day, the Bush Rationale is no longer applicable.

Bush got us in there. We're there. We could have just left
(cut-and-run, some people would say) when Obama took office, but how
smart would that be?

You don't really have a point, do you?

Why are we there? What is our objective?

Who got us there is unimportant now.
--
John H


To clean up Bush's blunder.

What the hell are we doing here...
 

Mille GT Owner wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 14:21:31 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Gene wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 07:06:24 -0400, Guzzistimo penned the following
well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

|On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 20:31:29 -0400, Gene
wrote:
|
|On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 20:03:19 -0400, Guzzistimo
wrote:
|
|If the rationale for invading Iraq was to get their oil, what's
|Obama's rationale for Afghanistan -- Heroin?
|
|http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/wo..._r=1&th&emc=th
|
|I think we are there because of this:
|
|http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english...ent_339861.htm
|
|Ah, the Bush Rationale.
|
|After Inauguration Day, the Bush Rationale is no longer applicable.

Bush got us in there. We're there. We could have just left
(cut-and-run, some people would say) when Obama took office, but how
smart would that be?

You don't really have a point, do you?

Yes, Gene, he does! Remember conservative = good, liberal = evil. That's
the republican mantra!!!

Loogy, that's not even cute any more.


It never was cute. It does show reverse harryanism, though.
Why are we in Afghanistan? If we're there simply because Bush got us
there, then our reason for being there is pretty stupid.

If there is another reason, what is it?
--
John H

Uh, no. Sometimes it takes time to clean ****. That's what Bush left us
in Afghanistan.

What the hell are we doing here...
 

On Aug 25, 4:05*pm, Mille GT Owner wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 04:17:30 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:





On Aug 25, 7:09*am, Guzzistimo wrote:
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 19:05:56 -0700, "nom=de=plume"

wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
m...
wf3h wrote:
On Aug 24, 8:03 pm, Guzzistimo wrote:
If the rationale for invading Iraq was to get their oil, what's
Obama's rationale for Afghanistan -- Heroin?

hey idiot...

you guys are amazing.

uh...questions for you:

1. when did US troops enter afghanistan?
2. how long has obama been president

take your head out of your diaper...

Obama could have pulled the US troops out of Afghanistan by now. All it
takes is an order to Sec Def Gates.

Please explain why he should want to do that, given that the Taliban will
come right back.

So we are in Afghanistan just to keep the Taliban from coming back
from Pakistan? Why?

What if they just decide to stay in Pakistan?
--

do you read the news? apparently not.

they're not staying in pakistan

the pakistanis are attacking them there

we are as well

i would call you as dumb as a bag of hammers, but hammers actually
have a use.

You really believe the Pakistanis are doing damage to the Taliban?
--

how many provinces did the taliban control before the attack?

how many do they control now?

you're free to use as many fingers as you need to count...

What the hell are we doing here...
 

On Aug 25, 4:50*pm, Mille GT Owner wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:05:50 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:





On Aug 25, 4:04*pm, Mille GT Owner wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 11:42:35 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

On Aug 25, 2:33*pm, BAR wrote:
wf3h wrote:

The Taliban never conducted state sponsored terrorism. The Taliban was
used by OBL and AQ as a base of operations because Afghanistan is the
anus of the Earth.-

you say potatoes...i say po-tah-toes...

blah blah blah

You agree with me that the Taliban did not attach the USA.-

who are the taliban? and, no, i don't agree.

do you know what the 'USA' is?

Did you not say this?

"disrupting the ability of the taliban to conduct state sponsored
terrorism. i realize that, to you folks in the 'neville chamberlain
fan club', that's a horrible thought. but to those of us who were in
NY after 9/11, it's kind of important"

Did you not know of whom you spoke? You don't know who the Taliban
are, yet you say the reason we're in Afghanistan is to disrupt their
activities.

In another breath you call folks stupid.

i suggest you try following the thread instead pretending you
understand it. your evaluation of your own reading skills is pathetic.

You bypassed that one, didn't you?

*Did you not say this?

*"disrupting the ability of the taliban to conduct state sponsored
*terrorism. i realize that, to you folks in the 'neville chamberlain
*fan club', that's a horrible thought. but to those of us who were in
*NY after 9/11, it's kind of important"

*Did you not know of whom you spoke? You don't know who the Taliban
*are, yet you say the reason we're in Afghanistan is to disrupt their
*activities.

*In another breath you call folks stupid.
--

if you climb on a ladder...or better yet, climb to the top of the
sear's tower, perhaps these points won't keep going over your head.

What the hell are we doing here...
 

On Aug 25, 4:49*pm, Mille GT Owner wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:06:43 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:





On Aug 25, 4:01*pm, Mille GT Owner wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 04:18:52 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

On Aug 25, 7:08*am, Guzzistimo wrote:
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:37:16 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

On Aug 24, 8:03*pm, Guzzistimo wrote:
If the rationale for invading Iraq was to get their oil, what's
Obama's rationale for Afghanistan -- Heroin?

hey idiot...

you guys are amazing.

uh...questions for you:

1. when did US troops enter afghanistan?
2. how long has obama been president

take your head out of your diaper...

What difference does either question make?

Obama has had plenty of time to pull out of Afghanistan, and Iraq for
that matter.

Why are we still in Afghanistan. What does Obama hope to get out of
our involvement there?
--

disrupting the ability of the taliban to conduct state sponsored
terrorism. i realize that, to you folks in the 'neville chamberlain
fan club', that's a horrible thought. but to those of us who were in
NY after 9/11, it's kind of important

What state sponsored terrorism did the Taliban conduct? They've not
attacked us.
--

ever hear of 9/11? you guys keep saying the taliban is like the girl
scouts. when i point out the date of 9/11

i never hear from you again. whatsamatter? dont remember that day?

The Taliban did not attack us on 9/11.

yes, they did. i realize, as president of the 'neville chamberlain'
society you're required to tow the party line, but i think your
umbrella has some holes in it

not unlike your head.


A while back, the liberals were blaming Saudia Arabia and Bush for
9/11. Now you're using it as a rationale for staying in Afghanistan.
Y'all need to make up your minds.
--

ROFLMAO!! i guess you think bush is still president!! don't they give
you an alzheimer's test in your rest home?