|
What was that?
On Sep 14, 12:51*am, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message ... "H the K" wrote in message om... Calif Bill wrote: "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "JustWait" wrote in message ... In article , says... On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 09:59:56 -0400, NotNow wrote: JustWait wrote: In article , says... 9/11 came and went without much fanfare. *I wonder why that is. Far less people were killed at Pearl Harbor, but the outrage was much more. I thought it was sad that so many have forgotten so soon, so many think it was a conspiracy from within, and that we don't have to worry about future terrorism. *We are all so safe now that terrorism has been removed from the vocabulary. Steve Forgetting is politically expedient for nearly half of the country... Obama is keeping us safe from the evil terrorists, just like the right claimed Bush was doing because there wasn't an attack after 9/11 You are correct. That's another thing I can add to the list of great Obama accomplishments. Yup, it's great that Bush spent 8 years softening them up:) snerk -- Wafa free since 2009 Yeah, murdering people. Lots of people. One of Bush's accomplishments in your mind anyway. -- Nom=de=Plume Just continuing in the footsteps of his predecessor. Bush killed at least 100,000 people. He also allowed 3000+ U.S. civilians to be killed. -- Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger: Idiots All And Clinton was killing people in Irag, Bosnia, and allowed Ben Ladin to walk, so he could plan and train the pilots on his watch. *They both suck. They suck as much as you suck and that is a whole bunch of suck. Allowed bin Laden to walk? How's that? He tried to get him several times. not only that, but every time clinton did something, the GOP complained it was 'political'. if he'd killed bin laden the GOP would have impeached him |
What was that?
|
What was that?
On Sep 14, 2:20*am, wrote:
On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 21:52:52 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message .. . On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 20:19:15 -0400, H the K wrote: Bush killed at least 100,000 people. He also allowed 3000+ U.S. civilians to be killed. Let's hope Obama doesn't break that record but the worst days of the "good war" are on Obama's watch. I still am not sure why we are there. http://icasualties.org/oef/ I don't have a good feeling about increasing troop strength at this point. |
What was that?
wrote in message ... On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 20:19:15 -0400, H the K wrote: Bush killed at least 100,000 people. He also allowed 3000+ U.S. civilians to be killed. Let's hope Obama doesn't break that record but the worst days of the "good war" are on Obama's watch. I still am not sure why we are there. http://icasualties.org/oef/ A bad day in LA or NYC could kill about 7,000,000. Steve |
What was that?
wrote in message ... On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 21:52:52 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 20:19:15 -0400, H the K wrote: Bush killed at least 100,000 people. He also allowed 3000+ U.S. civilians to be killed. Let's hope Obama doesn't break that record but the worst days of the "good war" are on Obama's watch. I still am not sure why we are there. http://icasualties.org/oef/ I don't have a good feeling about increasing troop strength at this point. As Obama said (paraphrasing), the generals are thinking about the war, the president needs to think about the world. The interesting thing to me was said on Anderson Cooper the other night from Afghanistan. It turns out we don't even think Bin Laden is there anymore and that the Taliban has absolutely no global aspirations. Their connection to Al Queda is tenuous at best. But you have to admit that a dozen crazies can do a lot of damage..................... |
What was that?
In article ,
says... On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 05:37:41 -0700 (PDT), wf3h wrote: Let's hope Obama doesn't break that record but the worst days of the "good war" are on Obama's watch. I still am not sure why we are there. http://icasualties.org/oef/ I don't have a good feeling about increasing troop strength at this point. As Obama said (paraphrasing), the generals are thinking about the war, the president needs to think about the world. The interesting thing to me was said on Anderson Cooper the other night from Afghanistan. It turns out we don't even think Bin Laden is there anymore and that the Taliban has absolutely no global aspirations. Their connection to Al Queda is tenuous at best.- today that's true. wasn't true on 9/11. If you believe that you are saying GWB was right and BHO is wrong. Are you sure you don't want to reconsider? Personally I don't believe the Taliban has ever had any grudge with the US beyond our invading their country and if we leave they won't care about us at all. They tolerated al queda but, I doubt they had anything to do with 9-11 Somebody has to get by this whole thing that "we are there because of 9/11". We are there to stop radical Islam from forcing Islamic rule, Taliban style on a huge chunk of real estate and possibly hundreds of millions of unwilling residents of those areas. -- Wafa free since 2009 |
What was that?
JustWait wrote:
In article , says... On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 05:37:41 -0700 (PDT), wf3h wrote: Let's hope Obama doesn't break that record but the worst days of the "good war" are on Obama's watch. I still am not sure why we are there. http://icasualties.org/oef/ I don't have a good feeling about increasing troop strength at this point. As Obama said (paraphrasing), the generals are thinking about the war, the president needs to think about the world. The interesting thing to me was said on Anderson Cooper the other night from Afghanistan. It turns out we don't even think Bin Laden is there anymore and that the Taliban has absolutely no global aspirations. Their connection to Al Queda is tenuous at best.- today that's true. wasn't true on 9/11. If you believe that you are saying GWB was right and BHO is wrong. Are you sure you don't want to reconsider? Personally I don't believe the Taliban has ever had any grudge with the US beyond our invading their country and if we leave they won't care about us at all. They tolerated al queda but, I doubt they had anything to do with 9-11 Somebody has to get by this whole thing that "we are there because of 9/11". We are there to stop radical Islam from forcing Islamic rule, Taliban style on a huge chunk of real estate and possibly hundreds of millions of unwilling residents of those areas. Wrong again, dirtbag. -- Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger: Idiots All |
What was that?
On Sep 14, 11:46*am, wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 05:37:41 -0700 (PDT), wf3h wrote: The interesting thing to me was said on Anderson Cooper the other night from Afghanistan. It turns out we don't even think Bin Laden is there anymore and that the Taliban has absolutely no global aspirations. Their connection to Al Queda is tenuous at best.- today that's true. wasn't true on 9/11. If you believe that you are saying GWB was right and BHO is wrong. Are you sure you don't want to reconsider? obama, like bush, knows OBL is in pakistan. the difference between BHO and GWB is that BHO realizes a taliban ruled afghanistan is a threat to the US...which GWB never realized Personally I don't believe the Taliban has ever had any grudge with the US beyond our invading their country they attacked us. what do you think happens when someone attacks a country and murders 3000 americans? are you really that dense? and if we leave they won't care about us at all. They tolerated al queda but, I doubt they had anything to do with 9-11 no moreso than the guy who drives the get away car has a role in a bank robbery |
What was that?
On Sep 14, 11:58*am, JustWait wrote:
Somebody has to get by this whole thing that "we are there because of 9/11". We are there to stop radical Islam from forcing Islamic rule, Taliban style on a huge chunk of real estate and possibly hundreds of millions of unwilling residents of those areas. i don't care if they are crazed islamist fanatics. what i DO care about is that crazed islamist fanatics want to kill us. as far as i'm concerned, islam, like xtianity, is a degenerate, anti-human belief. people can believe that crap if they want, as long as they keep it to themselves. |
What was that?
On Sep 14, 12:18*pm, wrote:
The problem is we are breeding more terrorists with our killing of their civilians than we are killing. The Afghanis are equating us with the Soviets now, negating all we did in the 80s to help them beat the Soviets anyone believe this? bueller? bueller? |
What was that?
On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 20:18:24 -0700, "Calif Bill"
wrote: "H the K" wrote in message om... Calif Bill wrote: "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "JustWait" wrote in message ... In article , says... On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 09:59:56 -0400, NotNow wrote: JustWait wrote: In article , says... 9/11 came and went without much fanfare. I wonder why that is. Far less people were killed at Pearl Harbor, but the outrage was much more. I thought it was sad that so many have forgotten so soon, so many think it was a conspiracy from within, and that we don't have to worry about future terrorism. We are all so safe now that terrorism has been removed from the vocabulary. Steve Forgetting is politically expedient for nearly half of the country... Obama is keeping us safe from the evil terrorists, just like the right claimed Bush was doing because there wasn't an attack after 9/11 You are correct. That's another thing I can add to the list of great Obama accomplishments. Yup, it's great that Bush spent 8 years softening them up:) snerk -- Wafa free since 2009 Yeah, murdering people. Lots of people. One of Bush's accomplishments in your mind anyway. -- Nom=de=Plume Just continuing in the footsteps of his predecessor. Bush killed at least 100,000 people. He also allowed 3000+ U.S. civilians to be killed. -- Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger: Idiots All And Clinton was killing people in Irag, Bosnia, and allowed Ben Ladin to walk, so he could plan and train the pilots on his watch. They both suck. They suck as much as you suck and that is a whole bunch of suck. ROTFL! -- John H |
What was that?
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 13:15:49 -0400, NotNow wrote:
JohnH wrote: On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 20:18:24 -0700, "Calif Bill" wrote: "H the K" wrote in message m... Calif Bill wrote: "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "JustWait" wrote in message ... In article , says... On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 09:59:56 -0400, NotNow wrote: JustWait wrote: In article , says... 9/11 came and went without much fanfare. I wonder why that is. Far less people were killed at Pearl Harbor, but the outrage was much more. I thought it was sad that so many have forgotten so soon, so many think it was a conspiracy from within, and that we don't have to worry about future terrorism. We are all so safe now that terrorism has been removed from the vocabulary. Steve Forgetting is politically expedient for nearly half of the country... Obama is keeping us safe from the evil terrorists, just like the right claimed Bush was doing because there wasn't an attack after 9/11 You are correct. That's another thing I can add to the list of great Obama accomplishments. Yup, it's great that Bush spent 8 years softening them up:) snerk -- Wafa free since 2009 Yeah, murdering people. Lots of people. One of Bush's accomplishments in your mind anyway. -- Nom=de=Plume Just continuing in the footsteps of his predecessor. Bush killed at least 100,000 people. He also allowed 3000+ U.S. civilians to be killed. -- Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger: Idiots All And Clinton was killing people in Irag, Bosnia, and allowed Ben Ladin to walk, so he could plan and train the pilots on his watch. They both suck. They suck as much as you suck and that is a whole bunch of suck. ROTFL! -- John H Of course non of that matters now that Clinton isn't in office, correct John? Absolutey! But this was quite funny: "They both suck. They suck as much as you suck and that is a whole bunch of suck. " Maybe you missed it in your desire to correct me for some flagrantly offensive act. -- John H |
What was that?
JohnH wrote:
On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 20:43:48 -0400, JustWait wrote: In article , says... On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 16:35:06 -0400, NotNow wrote: JohnH wrote: On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 11:35:26 -0400, NotNow wrote: JustWait wrote: In article , says... JustWait wrote: In article , says... 9/11 came and went without much fanfare. I wonder why that is. Far less people were killed at Pearl Harbor, but the outrage was much more. I thought it was sad that so many have forgotten so soon, so many think it was a conspiracy from within, and that we don't have to worry about future terrorism. We are all so safe now that terrorism has been removed from the vocabulary. Steve Forgetting is politically expedient for nearly half of the country... Obama is keeping us safe from the evil terrorists, just like the right claimed Bush was doing because there wasn't an attack after 9/11 I think the Bush Admin. already took care of the heavy lifting... Using your analogy, my Doctor has kept me safe from bubonic plague.. Your party was the one claiming that Bush was keeping us safe. And the reasoning was because there hadn't been an attack since 9/11. SO, it's a simple analogy that Obama is keeping us safe also. But, I honestly suspected that you'd figure out a way to spin it so that Bush is the hero, and Obama hasn't done anything. Typical and expected. Loogy, I think you're correct on this one. 'Bama has done a super job at preventing terrorist attacks. Of course, there's no such thing as a terrorist attack, but he's been successful in preventing 'man made disasters' also. And, I've not caught bubonic plague either! -- John H You're missing the point! When Bush was president, you and other righties made frequent comments about how safe he was keeping us because we hadn't had an attack since 9/11. So it stands that Obama is doing a great job at it too. I made several comments about how lame that reasoning was. Oh my goodness. You may be right again, although I can't remember *ever* uttering a comment about how safe Bush was keeping us. Perhaps you could find even *one* example of such? And, I've done nothing *but* agree that 'Bama is doing a super job at keeping us safe from man made disasters. What the hell more do you want? Yeah, me either but don't let that stop anybody from stereotyping us, especially a representative of "the tolerant party"...;) I can't figure Loogy out. Hell, I praise the hell out of 'Bama, but it's never good enough. Just today, 'Bama saved over 240,000 jobs. The guy is probably the best leader since Moses. -- John H John, your condescending bull**** is getting old. |
What was that?
"BAR" wrote in message
... nom=de=plume wrote: "BAR" wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: "BAR" wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: "JustWait" wrote in message ... In article , says... JustWait wrote: In article , says... 9/11 came and went without much fanfare. I wonder why that is. Far less people were killed at Pearl Harbor, but the outrage was much more. I thought it was sad that so many have forgotten so soon, so many think it was a conspiracy from within, and that we don't have to worry about future terrorism. We are all so safe now that terrorism has been removed from the vocabulary. Steve Forgetting is politically expedient for nearly half of the country... Obama is keeping us safe from the evil terrorists, just like the right claimed Bush was doing because there wasn't an attack after 9/11 I think the Bush Admin. already took care of the heavy lifting... Using your analogy, my Doctor has kept me safe from bubonic plague.. -- Wafa free since 2009 Yeah, like starting a war to inflame the Islamic world. A war of choice, a war where 1000s of our men and women died for no reason. Your doctor didn't keep you safe. It was institutions such as the CDC.. gov't run agencies. The CDC is an information clearing house and policy producing organization. The CDC is not on the leading edge of research. In that case, don't follow their recommendations. Duhh... Wasn't the CDC involved in the plastic wrap and duct tape reccomendation? Nope... that was DHS. Are you sure? I didn't think the DHS had been created or congealed at that time. I was referring to this incident... were you thinking of something else? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duct_tape_alert -- Nom=de=Plume |
What was that?
"wf3h" wrote in message
... On Sep 14, 12:51 am, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message ... "H the K" wrote in message om... Calif Bill wrote: "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "JustWait" wrote in message ... In article , says... On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 09:59:56 -0400, NotNow wrote: JustWait wrote: In article , says... 9/11 came and went without much fanfare. I wonder why that is. Far less people were killed at Pearl Harbor, but the outrage was much more. I thought it was sad that so many have forgotten so soon, so many think it was a conspiracy from within, and that we don't have to worry about future terrorism. We are all so safe now that terrorism has been removed from the vocabulary. Steve Forgetting is politically expedient for nearly half of the country... Obama is keeping us safe from the evil terrorists, just like the right claimed Bush was doing because there wasn't an attack after 9/11 You are correct. That's another thing I can add to the list of great Obama accomplishments. Yup, it's great that Bush spent 8 years softening them up:) snerk -- Wafa free since 2009 Yeah, murdering people. Lots of people. One of Bush's accomplishments in your mind anyway. -- Nom=de=Plume Just continuing in the footsteps of his predecessor. Bush killed at least 100,000 people. He also allowed 3000+ U.S. civilians to be killed. -- Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger: Idiots All And Clinton was killing people in Irag, Bosnia, and allowed Ben Ladin to walk, so he could plan and train the pilots on his watch. They both suck. They suck as much as you suck and that is a whole bunch of suck. Allowed bin Laden to walk? How's that? He tried to get him several times. not only that, but every time clinton did something, the GOP complained it was 'political'. if he'd killed bin laden the GOP would have impeached him They found something else.... lol -- Nom=de=Plume |
What was that?
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:41:32 -0400, NotNow wrote:
JohnH wrote: On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 20:43:48 -0400, JustWait wrote: In article , says... On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 16:35:06 -0400, NotNow wrote: JohnH wrote: On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 11:35:26 -0400, NotNow wrote: JustWait wrote: In article , says... JustWait wrote: In article , says... 9/11 came and went without much fanfare. I wonder why that is. Far less people were killed at Pearl Harbor, but the outrage was much more. I thought it was sad that so many have forgotten so soon, so many think it was a conspiracy from within, and that we don't have to worry about future terrorism. We are all so safe now that terrorism has been removed from the vocabulary. Steve Forgetting is politically expedient for nearly half of the country... Obama is keeping us safe from the evil terrorists, just like the right claimed Bush was doing because there wasn't an attack after 9/11 I think the Bush Admin. already took care of the heavy lifting... Using your analogy, my Doctor has kept me safe from bubonic plague.. Your party was the one claiming that Bush was keeping us safe. And the reasoning was because there hadn't been an attack since 9/11. SO, it's a simple analogy that Obama is keeping us safe also. But, I honestly suspected that you'd figure out a way to spin it so that Bush is the hero, and Obama hasn't done anything. Typical and expected. Loogy, I think you're correct on this one. 'Bama has done a super job at preventing terrorist attacks. Of course, there's no such thing as a terrorist attack, but he's been successful in preventing 'man made disasters' also. And, I've not caught bubonic plague either! -- John H You're missing the point! When Bush was president, you and other righties made frequent comments about how safe he was keeping us because we hadn't had an attack since 9/11. So it stands that Obama is doing a great job at it too. I made several comments about how lame that reasoning was. Oh my goodness. You may be right again, although I can't remember *ever* uttering a comment about how safe Bush was keeping us. Perhaps you could find even *one* example of such? And, I've done nothing *but* agree that 'Bama is doing a super job at keeping us safe from man made disasters. What the hell more do you want? Yeah, me either but don't let that stop anybody from stereotyping us, especially a representative of "the tolerant party"...;) I can't figure Loogy out. Hell, I praise the hell out of 'Bama, but it's never good enough. Just today, 'Bama saved over 240,000 jobs. The guy is probably the best leader since Moses. -- John H John, your condescending bull**** is getting old. Loogy, you'd whine if someone ****ed in your beer. Are you implying he *didn't* save 240,000 jobs today? -- John H |
What was that?
wrote in message
... On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 23:26:33 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: The interesting thing to me was said on Anderson Cooper the other night from Afghanistan. It turns out we don't even think Bin Laden is there anymore and that the Taliban has absolutely no global aspirations. Their connection to Al Queda is tenuous at best. I thought it was pretty clear that bin laden is in Pakistan. He left Tora Bora, right... Yet we are still losing Americans every day looking for him in Afghanistan ... amazing. There does seem to be a double standard on the left. If this was GWB doing this, it would be the only thing the talking heads on TV were talking about. Not to my knowledge we are.... we're supposedly trying to protect the Afg. people and ensuring a stable gov't there. I haven't heard anything about hunting for bin laden in Afg. since he left Tora Bora. Not sure what you mean by the double standard comment. The Afg. war was supported by the world community, by both right and left in this country, and now is being criticized by many on the left as a waste of effort. -- Nom=de=Plume |
What was that?
wrote in message
... On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 05:37:41 -0700 (PDT), wf3h wrote: Let's hope Obama doesn't break that record but the worst days of the "good war" are on Obama's watch. I still am not sure why we are there. http://icasualties.org/oef/ I don't have a good feeling about increasing troop strength at this point. As Obama said (paraphrasing), the generals are thinking about the war, the president needs to think about the world. The interesting thing to me was said on Anderson Cooper the other night from Afghanistan. It turns out we don't even think Bin Laden is there anymore and that the Taliban has absolutely no global aspirations. Their connection to Al Queda is tenuous at best.- today that's true. wasn't true on 9/11. If you believe that you are saying GWB was right and BHO is wrong. Are you sure you don't want to reconsider? Personally I don't believe the Taliban has ever had any grudge with the US beyond our invading their country and if we leave they won't care about us at all. They tolerated al queda but, I doubt they had anything to do with 9-11 ?? The Taliban were clearly supporting bin laden, although not many years prior to 9/11, certainly leading up to it. They did more than tolerate them. They actively supported them in the timeframe I notes. -- Nom=de=Plume |
What was that?
JohnH wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:41:32 -0400, NotNow wrote: JohnH wrote: On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 20:43:48 -0400, JustWait wrote: In article , says... On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 16:35:06 -0400, NotNow wrote: JohnH wrote: On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 11:35:26 -0400, NotNow wrote: JustWait wrote: In article , says... JustWait wrote: In article , says... 9/11 came and went without much fanfare. I wonder why that is. Far less people were killed at Pearl Harbor, but the outrage was much more. I thought it was sad that so many have forgotten so soon, so many think it was a conspiracy from within, and that we don't have to worry about future terrorism. We are all so safe now that terrorism has been removed from the vocabulary. Steve Forgetting is politically expedient for nearly half of the country... Obama is keeping us safe from the evil terrorists, just like the right claimed Bush was doing because there wasn't an attack after 9/11 I think the Bush Admin. already took care of the heavy lifting... Using your analogy, my Doctor has kept me safe from bubonic plague.. Your party was the one claiming that Bush was keeping us safe. And the reasoning was because there hadn't been an attack since 9/11. SO, it's a simple analogy that Obama is keeping us safe also. But, I honestly suspected that you'd figure out a way to spin it so that Bush is the hero, and Obama hasn't done anything. Typical and expected. Loogy, I think you're correct on this one. 'Bama has done a super job at preventing terrorist attacks. Of course, there's no such thing as a terrorist attack, but he's been successful in preventing 'man made disasters' also. And, I've not caught bubonic plague either! -- John H You're missing the point! When Bush was president, you and other righties made frequent comments about how safe he was keeping us because we hadn't had an attack since 9/11. So it stands that Obama is doing a great job at it too. I made several comments about how lame that reasoning was. Oh my goodness. You may be right again, although I can't remember *ever* uttering a comment about how safe Bush was keeping us. Perhaps you could find even *one* example of such? And, I've done nothing *but* agree that 'Bama is doing a super job at keeping us safe from man made disasters. What the hell more do you want? Yeah, me either but don't let that stop anybody from stereotyping us, especially a representative of "the tolerant party"...;) I can't figure Loogy out. Hell, I praise the hell out of 'Bama, but it's never good enough. Just today, 'Bama saved over 240,000 jobs. The guy is probably the best leader since Moses. -- John H John, your condescending bull**** is getting old. Loogy, you'd whine if someone ****ed in your beer. Are you implying he *didn't* save 240,000 jobs today? -- John H No, I'm "implying" your condescending bull**** is getting old. AND lame. |
What was that?
"SteveB" wrote in message
... wrote in message ... On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 21:52:52 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 20:19:15 -0400, H the K wrote: Bush killed at least 100,000 people. He also allowed 3000+ U.S. civilians to be killed. Let's hope Obama doesn't break that record but the worst days of the "good war" are on Obama's watch. I still am not sure why we are there. http://icasualties.org/oef/ I don't have a good feeling about increasing troop strength at this point. As Obama said (paraphrasing), the generals are thinking about the war, the president needs to think about the world. The interesting thing to me was said on Anderson Cooper the other night from Afghanistan. It turns out we don't even think Bin Laden is there anymore and that the Taliban has absolutely no global aspirations. Their connection to Al Queda is tenuous at best. But you have to admit that a dozen crazies can do a lot of damage..................... You're talking about the neocons, right? lol -- Nom=de=Plume |
What was that?
"SteveB" wrote in message
... wrote in message ... On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 20:19:15 -0400, H the K wrote: Bush killed at least 100,000 people. He also allowed 3000+ U.S. civilians to be killed. Let's hope Obama doesn't break that record but the worst days of the "good war" are on Obama's watch. I still am not sure why we are there. http://icasualties.org/oef/ A bad day in LA or NYC could kill about 7,000,000. Steve Which, unfortunately, is what at least one Fox pundit would like to see happen... -- Nom=de=Plume |
What was that?
wrote in message
... On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 23:28:03 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 21:50:06 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Just continuing in the footsteps of his predecessor. Clinton murdered 1000s of people in Iraq? Maybe you mean Bosnia? -- Nom=de=Plume Saddam said about 20,000 died in the "no fly zone" bombings. We denied it but we really didn't have any way to prove him wrong. We were shooting missiles into residential areas to suppress Iraqi radar sites on a pretty regular basis. I have to believe some people died, even if it was just radar operators. I understand Saddam put his people at risk by locating these sites in residential areas but we still shot at them. At a certain point you have to admit these were still acts of war. That is why I say Iraq is an 18 year war, spanning 4 presidents now. That is the kind of record you expects out of 14th century European monarchies I wouldn't believe Saddam on most anything. He actually lied about the WMDs, I guess mostly to keep the Iranians at bay. You also have to believe they were killing someone with the thousand or so HARMs they fired over that 10 year silent war. I do, but not thousands of innocent people. -- Nom=de=Plume |
What was that?
wrote in message ... On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 21:51:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: And Clinton was killing people in Irag, Bosnia, and allowed Ben Ladin to walk, so he could plan and train the pilots on his watch. They both suck. They suck as much as you suck and that is a whole bunch of suck. Allowed bin Laden to walk? How's that? He tried to get him several times. I think that when two guys are talking about sucking, it's time to try a different thread. He is talking about when Sudan offered up Bin Laden and Clinton didn't know what we could charge him with so he didn't act. Personally I think we should have just sent a team of Africans (with plausible deniability to the US) in there to shoot him in the head but I may be too pragmatic. I would have sent Delta Force unit. No real prohibition against shooting him. The Executive order against assassinations is against leaders of a country. |
What was that?
On Sep 13, 3:02*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"JustWait" wrote in message ... In article , says... JustWait wrote: In article , says... 9/11 came and went without much fanfare. *I wonder why that is. *Far less people were killed at Pearl Harbor, but the outrage was much more. *I thought it was sad that so many have forgotten so soon, so many think it was a conspiracy from within, and that we don't have to worry about future terrorism. *We are all so safe now that terrorism has been removed from the vocabulary. Steve Forgetting is politically expedient for nearly half of the country.... Obama is keeping us safe from the evil terrorists, just like the right claimed Bush was doing because there wasn't an attack after 9/11 I think the Bush Admin. already took care of the heavy lifting... Using your analogy, my Doctor has kept me safe from bubonic plague.. -- Wafa free since 2009 Yeah, like starting a war to inflame the Islamic world. A war of choice, a war where 1000s of our men and women died for no reason. Your doctor didn't keep you safe. It was institutions such as the CDC.. gov't run agencies. -- Nom=de=Plume Your doctor didn't keep you safe. It was institutions such as the CDC.. gov't run agencies. Justhate is on Welfare...THAT kept him from the plague...... |
What was that?
Scott Dickson wrote:
On Sep 13, 3:02 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "JustWait" wrote in message ... In article , says... JustWait wrote: In article , says... 9/11 came and went without much fanfare. I wonder why that is. Far less people were killed at Pearl Harbor, but the outrage was much more. I thought it was sad that so many have forgotten so soon, so many think it was a conspiracy from within, and that we don't have to worry about future terrorism. We are all so safe now that terrorism has been removed from the vocabulary. Steve Forgetting is politically expedient for nearly half of the country... Obama is keeping us safe from the evil terrorists, just like the right claimed Bush was doing because there wasn't an attack after 9/11 I think the Bush Admin. already took care of the heavy lifting... Using your analogy, my Doctor has kept me safe from bubonic plague.. -- Wafa free since 2009 Yeah, like starting a war to inflame the Islamic world. A war of choice, a war where 1000s of our men and women died for no reason. Your doctor didn't keep you safe. It was institutions such as the CDC.. gov't run agencies. -- Nom=de=Plume Your doctor didn't keep you safe. It was institutions such as the CDC.. gov't run agencies. Justhate is on Welfare...THAT kept him from the plague...... JustHate doesn't work, and hasn't worked a real job in years and years. And he's getting taxpayer help for his medical problems. But he's against meaningful health care reform. Go figure. -- Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger: Idiots All |
What was that?
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
m... wrote in message ... On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 21:51:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: And Clinton was killing people in Irag, Bosnia, and allowed Ben Ladin to walk, so he could plan and train the pilots on his watch. They both suck. They suck as much as you suck and that is a whole bunch of suck. Allowed bin Laden to walk? How's that? He tried to get him several times. I think that when two guys are talking about sucking, it's time to try a different thread. He is talking about when Sudan offered up Bin Laden and Clinton didn't know what we could charge him with so he didn't act. Personally I think we should have just sent a team of Africans (with plausible deniability to the US) in there to shoot him in the head but I may be too pragmatic. I would have sent Delta Force unit. No real prohibition against shooting him. The Executive order against assassinations is against leaders of a country. Why wasn't this done? We certainly knew where he was in Tora Bora. Instead of using US personnel, we relied on local militia, who let him go. -- Nom=de=Plume |
What was that?
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Calif Bill" wrote in message m... wrote in message ... On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 21:51:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: And Clinton was killing people in Irag, Bosnia, and allowed Ben Ladin to walk, so he could plan and train the pilots on his watch. They both suck. They suck as much as you suck and that is a whole bunch of suck. Allowed bin Laden to walk? How's that? He tried to get him several times. I think that when two guys are talking about sucking, it's time to try a different thread. He is talking about when Sudan offered up Bin Laden and Clinton didn't know what we could charge him with so he didn't act. Personally I think we should have just sent a team of Africans (with plausible deniability to the US) in there to shoot him in the head but I may be too pragmatic. I would have sent Delta Force unit. No real prohibition against shooting him. The Executive order against assassinations is against leaders of a country. Why wasn't this done? We certainly knew where he was in Tora Bora. Instead of using US personnel, we relied on local militia, who let him go. -- Nom=de=Plume Because we screwed the pooch. |
What was that?
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:35:13 -0700, nom=de=plume wrote:
I would have sent Delta Force unit. No real prohibition against shooting him. The Executive order against assassinations is against leaders of a country. Why wasn't this done? We certainly knew where he was in Tora Bora. Instead of using US personnel, we relied on local militia, who let him go. It was done in Tora Bora. According to "Dalton Fury", a pen name for a Delta Force commander, it didn't work for three reasons. 1. we trusted Pakistan to have their border sealed. 2. The NATO allies didn't want to use "GATOR" mines. 3. And most importantly, we used our Afghan allies as the major attacking force. |
What was that?
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:48:29 -0400, NotNow wrote:
JohnH wrote: On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:41:32 -0400, NotNow wrote: JohnH wrote: On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 20:43:48 -0400, JustWait wrote: In article , says... On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 16:35:06 -0400, NotNow wrote: JohnH wrote: On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 11:35:26 -0400, NotNow wrote: JustWait wrote: In article , says... JustWait wrote: In article , says... 9/11 came and went without much fanfare. I wonder why that is. Far less people were killed at Pearl Harbor, but the outrage was much more. I thought it was sad that so many have forgotten so soon, so many think it was a conspiracy from within, and that we don't have to worry about future terrorism. We are all so safe now that terrorism has been removed from the vocabulary. Steve Forgetting is politically expedient for nearly half of the country... Obama is keeping us safe from the evil terrorists, just like the right claimed Bush was doing because there wasn't an attack after 9/11 I think the Bush Admin. already took care of the heavy lifting... Using your analogy, my Doctor has kept me safe from bubonic plague.. Your party was the one claiming that Bush was keeping us safe. And the reasoning was because there hadn't been an attack since 9/11. SO, it's a simple analogy that Obama is keeping us safe also. But, I honestly suspected that you'd figure out a way to spin it so that Bush is the hero, and Obama hasn't done anything. Typical and expected. Loogy, I think you're correct on this one. 'Bama has done a super job at preventing terrorist attacks. Of course, there's no such thing as a terrorist attack, but he's been successful in preventing 'man made disasters' also. And, I've not caught bubonic plague either! -- John H You're missing the point! When Bush was president, you and other righties made frequent comments about how safe he was keeping us because we hadn't had an attack since 9/11. So it stands that Obama is doing a great job at it too. I made several comments about how lame that reasoning was. Oh my goodness. You may be right again, although I can't remember *ever* uttering a comment about how safe Bush was keeping us. Perhaps you could find even *one* example of such? And, I've done nothing *but* agree that 'Bama is doing a super job at keeping us safe from man made disasters. What the hell more do you want? Yeah, me either but don't let that stop anybody from stereotyping us, especially a representative of "the tolerant party"...;) I can't figure Loogy out. Hell, I praise the hell out of 'Bama, but it's never good enough. Just today, 'Bama saved over 240,000 jobs. The guy is probably the best leader since Moses. -- John H John, your condescending bull**** is getting old. Loogy, you'd whine if someone ****ed in your beer. Are you implying he *didn't* save 240,000 jobs today? -- John H No, I'm "implying" your condescending bull**** is getting old. AND lame. That's a shame. I thought your '...we're eating the elderly...(or whatever)..' were quite enlightening. You **** and moan 'cause I don't say enough nice things about 'Bama, then **** and moan when I do. You tell me what you want me to say. -- John H |
What was that?
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:35:13 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message om... wrote in message ... On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 21:51:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: And Clinton was killing people in Irag, Bosnia, and allowed Ben Ladin to walk, so he could plan and train the pilots on his watch. They both suck. They suck as much as you suck and that is a whole bunch of suck. Allowed bin Laden to walk? How's that? He tried to get him several times. I think that when two guys are talking about sucking, it's time to try a different thread. He is talking about when Sudan offered up Bin Laden and Clinton didn't know what we could charge him with so he didn't act. Personally I think we should have just sent a team of Africans (with plausible deniability to the US) in there to shoot him in the head but I may be too pragmatic. I would have sent Delta Force unit. No real prohibition against shooting him. The Executive order against assassinations is against leaders of a country. Why wasn't this done? We certainly knew where he was in Tora Bora. Instead of using US personnel, we relied on local militia, who let him go. We thought we 'knew' that he was in Tora Bora. We didn't know 'where' in Tora Bora. Tora Bora is a pretty good sized area with lots of hiding places, as you can see: http://papundits.files.wordpress.com...ora-fata-8.jpg Some more info on the Tora Bora battle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tora_Bora Do some more reading. That was a foolish question. -- John H |
What was that?
"JohnH" wrote in message
... On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:35:13 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message news:59GdnYnDoLlwCzPXnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@earthlink. com... wrote in message ... On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 21:51:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: And Clinton was killing people in Irag, Bosnia, and allowed Ben Ladin to walk, so he could plan and train the pilots on his watch. They both suck. They suck as much as you suck and that is a whole bunch of suck. Allowed bin Laden to walk? How's that? He tried to get him several times. I think that when two guys are talking about sucking, it's time to try a different thread. He is talking about when Sudan offered up Bin Laden and Clinton didn't know what we could charge him with so he didn't act. Personally I think we should have just sent a team of Africans (with plausible deniability to the US) in there to shoot him in the head but I may be too pragmatic. I would have sent Delta Force unit. No real prohibition against shooting him. The Executive order against assassinations is against leaders of a country. Why wasn't this done? We certainly knew where he was in Tora Bora. Instead of using US personnel, we relied on local militia, who let him go. We thought we 'knew' that he was in Tora Bora. We didn't know 'where' in Tora Bora. Tora Bora is a pretty good sized area with lots of hiding places, as you can see: http://papundits.files.wordpress.com...ora-fata-8.jpg Some more info on the Tora Bora battle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tora_Bora Do some more reading. That was a foolish question. -- John H So stupid... except you didn't even bother to read the article... "A search of the area by U.S. forces continued into January, but no sign of bin Laden or the al-Qaeda leadership emerged. Former CIA officer Gary Berntsen, who led the CIA team (consisting primarily of CIA Paramilitary Officers from Special Activities Division) in Afghanistan that was tasked with locating Osama bin Laden, claims in his 2005 book Jawbreaker that he and his team had pinpointed the location of Osama bin Laden." -- Nom=de=Plume |
What was that?
In article ,
says... On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:48:29 -0400, NotNow wrote: JohnH wrote: On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:41:32 -0400, NotNow wrote: JohnH wrote: On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 20:43:48 -0400, JustWait wrote: In article , says... On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 16:35:06 -0400, NotNow wrote: JohnH wrote: On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 11:35:26 -0400, NotNow wrote: JustWait wrote: In article , says... JustWait wrote: In article , says... 9/11 came and went without much fanfare. I wonder why that is. Far less people were killed at Pearl Harbor, but the outrage was much more. I thought it was sad that so many have forgotten so soon, so many think it was a conspiracy from within, and that we don't have to worry about future terrorism. We are all so safe now that terrorism has been removed from the vocabulary. Steve Forgetting is politically expedient for nearly half of the country... Obama is keeping us safe from the evil terrorists, just like the right claimed Bush was doing because there wasn't an attack after 9/11 I think the Bush Admin. already took care of the heavy lifting... Using your analogy, my Doctor has kept me safe from bubonic plague.. Your party was the one claiming that Bush was keeping us safe. And the reasoning was because there hadn't been an attack since 9/11. SO, it's a simple analogy that Obama is keeping us safe also. But, I honestly suspected that you'd figure out a way to spin it so that Bush is the hero, and Obama hasn't done anything. Typical and expected. Loogy, I think you're correct on this one. 'Bama has done a super job at preventing terrorist attacks. Of course, there's no such thing as a terrorist attack, but he's been successful in preventing 'man made disasters' also. And, I've not caught bubonic plague either! -- John H You're missing the point! When Bush was president, you and other righties made frequent comments about how safe he was keeping us because we hadn't had an attack since 9/11. So it stands that Obama is doing a great job at it too. I made several comments about how lame that reasoning was. Oh my goodness. You may be right again, although I can't remember *ever* uttering a comment about how safe Bush was keeping us. Perhaps you could find even *one* example of such? And, I've done nothing *but* agree that 'Bama is doing a super job at keeping us safe from man made disasters. What the hell more do you want? Yeah, me either but don't let that stop anybody from stereotyping us, especially a representative of "the tolerant party"...;) I can't figure Loogy out. Hell, I praise the hell out of 'Bama, but it's never good enough. Just today, 'Bama saved over 240,000 jobs. The guy is probably the best leader since Moses. -- John H John, your condescending bull**** is getting old. Loogy, you'd whine if someone ****ed in your beer. Are you implying he *didn't* save 240,000 jobs today? -- John H No, I'm "implying" your condescending bull**** is getting old. AND lame. That's a shame. I thought your '...we're eating the elderly...(or whatever)..' were quite enlightening. You **** and moan 'cause I don't say enough nice things about 'Bama, then **** and moan when I do. You tell me what you want me to say. They don't want you to say anything... -- Wafa free since 2009 |
What was that?
JustWait wrote:
In article , says... On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:48:29 -0400, NotNow wrote: JohnH wrote: On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:41:32 -0400, NotNow wrote: JohnH wrote: On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 20:43:48 -0400, JustWait wrote: In article , says... On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 16:35:06 -0400, NotNow wrote: JohnH wrote: On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 11:35:26 -0400, NotNow wrote: JustWait wrote: In article , says... JustWait wrote: In article , says... 9/11 came and went without much fanfare. I wonder why that is. Far less people were killed at Pearl Harbor, but the outrage was much more. I thought it was sad that so many have forgotten so soon, so many think it was a conspiracy from within, and that we don't have to worry about future terrorism. We are all so safe now that terrorism has been removed from the vocabulary. Steve Forgetting is politically expedient for nearly half of the country... Obama is keeping us safe from the evil terrorists, just like the right claimed Bush was doing because there wasn't an attack after 9/11 I think the Bush Admin. already took care of the heavy lifting... Using your analogy, my Doctor has kept me safe from bubonic plague.. Your party was the one claiming that Bush was keeping us safe. And the reasoning was because there hadn't been an attack since 9/11. SO, it's a simple analogy that Obama is keeping us safe also. But, I honestly suspected that you'd figure out a way to spin it so that Bush is the hero, and Obama hasn't done anything. Typical and expected. Loogy, I think you're correct on this one. 'Bama has done a super job at preventing terrorist attacks. Of course, there's no such thing as a terrorist attack, but he's been successful in preventing 'man made disasters' also. And, I've not caught bubonic plague either! -- John H You're missing the point! When Bush was president, you and other righties made frequent comments about how safe he was keeping us because we hadn't had an attack since 9/11. So it stands that Obama is doing a great job at it too. I made several comments about how lame that reasoning was. Oh my goodness. You may be right again, although I can't remember *ever* uttering a comment about how safe Bush was keeping us. Perhaps you could find even *one* example of such? And, I've done nothing *but* agree that 'Bama is doing a super job at keeping us safe from man made disasters. What the hell more do you want? Yeah, me either but don't let that stop anybody from stereotyping us, especially a representative of "the tolerant party"...;) I can't figure Loogy out. Hell, I praise the hell out of 'Bama, but it's never good enough. Just today, 'Bama saved over 240,000 jobs. The guy is probably the best leader since Moses. -- John H John, your condescending bull**** is getting old. Loogy, you'd whine if someone ****ed in your beer. Are you implying he *didn't* save 240,000 jobs today? -- John H No, I'm "implying" your condescending bull**** is getting old. AND lame. That's a shame. I thought your '...we're eating the elderly...(or whatever)..' were quite enlightening. You **** and moan 'cause I don't say enough nice things about 'Bama, then **** and moan when I do. You tell me what you want me to say. They don't want you to say anything... Rave on, right-wing morons. It's all you have left. -- Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger: Idiots All |
What was that?
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 17:20:02 -0400, JustWait
wrote: In article , says... On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:48:29 -0400, NotNow wrote: JohnH wrote: On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:41:32 -0400, NotNow wrote: JohnH wrote: On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 20:43:48 -0400, JustWait wrote: In article , says... On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 16:35:06 -0400, NotNow wrote: JohnH wrote: On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 11:35:26 -0400, NotNow wrote: JustWait wrote: In article , says... JustWait wrote: In article , says... 9/11 came and went without much fanfare. I wonder why that is. Far less people were killed at Pearl Harbor, but the outrage was much more. I thought it was sad that so many have forgotten so soon, so many think it was a conspiracy from within, and that we don't have to worry about future terrorism. We are all so safe now that terrorism has been removed from the vocabulary. Steve Forgetting is politically expedient for nearly half of the country... Obama is keeping us safe from the evil terrorists, just like the right claimed Bush was doing because there wasn't an attack after 9/11 I think the Bush Admin. already took care of the heavy lifting... Using your analogy, my Doctor has kept me safe from bubonic plague.. Your party was the one claiming that Bush was keeping us safe. And the reasoning was because there hadn't been an attack since 9/11. SO, it's a simple analogy that Obama is keeping us safe also. But, I honestly suspected that you'd figure out a way to spin it so that Bush is the hero, and Obama hasn't done anything. Typical and expected. Loogy, I think you're correct on this one. 'Bama has done a super job at preventing terrorist attacks. Of course, there's no such thing as a terrorist attack, but he's been successful in preventing 'man made disasters' also. And, I've not caught bubonic plague either! -- John H You're missing the point! When Bush was president, you and other righties made frequent comments about how safe he was keeping us because we hadn't had an attack since 9/11. So it stands that Obama is doing a great job at it too. I made several comments about how lame that reasoning was. Oh my goodness. You may be right again, although I can't remember *ever* uttering a comment about how safe Bush was keeping us. Perhaps you could find even *one* example of such? And, I've done nothing *but* agree that 'Bama is doing a super job at keeping us safe from man made disasters. What the hell more do you want? Yeah, me either but don't let that stop anybody from stereotyping us, especially a representative of "the tolerant party"...;) I can't figure Loogy out. Hell, I praise the hell out of 'Bama, but it's never good enough. Just today, 'Bama saved over 240,000 jobs. The guy is probably the best leader since Moses. -- John H John, your condescending bull**** is getting old. Loogy, you'd whine if someone ****ed in your beer. Are you implying he *didn't* save 240,000 jobs today? -- John H No, I'm "implying" your condescending bull**** is getting old. AND lame. That's a shame. I thought your '...we're eating the elderly...(or whatever)..' were quite enlightening. You **** and moan 'cause I don't say enough nice things about 'Bama, then **** and moan when I do. You tell me what you want me to say. They don't want you to say anything... Well, who would explain the difficult analogies to them? Loogy? -- John H |
What was that?
JohnH wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:48:29 -0400, NotNow wrote: JohnH wrote: On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:41:32 -0400, NotNow wrote: JohnH wrote: On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 20:43:48 -0400, JustWait wrote: In article , says... On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 16:35:06 -0400, NotNow wrote: JohnH wrote: On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 11:35:26 -0400, NotNow wrote: JustWait wrote: In article , says... JustWait wrote: In article , says... 9/11 came and went without much fanfare. I wonder why that is. Far less people were killed at Pearl Harbor, but the outrage was much more. I thought it was sad that so many have forgotten so soon, so many think it was a conspiracy from within, and that we don't have to worry about future terrorism. We are all so safe now that terrorism has been removed from the vocabulary. Steve Forgetting is politically expedient for nearly half of the country... Obama is keeping us safe from the evil terrorists, just like the right claimed Bush was doing because there wasn't an attack after 9/11 I think the Bush Admin. already took care of the heavy lifting... Using your analogy, my Doctor has kept me safe from bubonic plague.. Your party was the one claiming that Bush was keeping us safe. And the reasoning was because there hadn't been an attack since 9/11. SO, it's a simple analogy that Obama is keeping us safe also. But, I honestly suspected that you'd figure out a way to spin it so that Bush is the hero, and Obama hasn't done anything. Typical and expected. Loogy, I think you're correct on this one. 'Bama has done a super job at preventing terrorist attacks. Of course, there's no such thing as a terrorist attack, but he's been successful in preventing 'man made disasters' also. And, I've not caught bubonic plague either! -- John H You're missing the point! When Bush was president, you and other righties made frequent comments about how safe he was keeping us because we hadn't had an attack since 9/11. So it stands that Obama is doing a great job at it too. I made several comments about how lame that reasoning was. Oh my goodness. You may be right again, although I can't remember *ever* uttering a comment about how safe Bush was keeping us. Perhaps you could find even *one* example of such? And, I've done nothing *but* agree that 'Bama is doing a super job at keeping us safe from man made disasters. What the hell more do you want? Yeah, me either but don't let that stop anybody from stereotyping us, especially a representative of "the tolerant party"...;) I can't figure Loogy out. Hell, I praise the hell out of 'Bama, but it's never good enough. Just today, 'Bama saved over 240,000 jobs. The guy is probably the best leader since Moses. -- John H John, your condescending bull**** is getting old. Loogy, you'd whine if someone ****ed in your beer. Are you implying he *didn't* save 240,000 jobs today? -- John H No, I'm "implying" your condescending bull**** is getting old. AND lame. That's a shame. I thought your '...we're eating the elderly...(or whatever)..' were quite enlightening. You **** and moan 'cause I don't say enough nice things about 'Bama, then **** and moan when I do. You tell me what you want me to say. -- John H reverseHarryism. |
What was that?
JustWait wrote:
In article , says... On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:48:29 -0400, NotNow wrote: JohnH wrote: On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:41:32 -0400, NotNow wrote: JohnH wrote: On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 20:43:48 -0400, JustWait wrote: In article , says... On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 16:35:06 -0400, NotNow wrote: JohnH wrote: On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 11:35:26 -0400, NotNow wrote: JustWait wrote: In article , says... JustWait wrote: In article , says... 9/11 came and went without much fanfare. I wonder why that is. Far less people were killed at Pearl Harbor, but the outrage was much more. I thought it was sad that so many have forgotten so soon, so many think it was a conspiracy from within, and that we don't have to worry about future terrorism. We are all so safe now that terrorism has been removed from the vocabulary. Steve Forgetting is politically expedient for nearly half of the country... Obama is keeping us safe from the evil terrorists, just like the right claimed Bush was doing because there wasn't an attack after 9/11 I think the Bush Admin. already took care of the heavy lifting... Using your analogy, my Doctor has kept me safe from bubonic plague.. Your party was the one claiming that Bush was keeping us safe. And the reasoning was because there hadn't been an attack since 9/11. SO, it's a simple analogy that Obama is keeping us safe also. But, I honestly suspected that you'd figure out a way to spin it so that Bush is the hero, and Obama hasn't done anything. Typical and expected. Loogy, I think you're correct on this one. 'Bama has done a super job at preventing terrorist attacks. Of course, there's no such thing as a terrorist attack, but he's been successful in preventing 'man made disasters' also. And, I've not caught bubonic plague either! -- John H You're missing the point! When Bush was president, you and other righties made frequent comments about how safe he was keeping us because we hadn't had an attack since 9/11. So it stands that Obama is doing a great job at it too. I made several comments about how lame that reasoning was. Oh my goodness. You may be right again, although I can't remember *ever* uttering a comment about how safe Bush was keeping us. Perhaps you could find even *one* example of such? And, I've done nothing *but* agree that 'Bama is doing a super job at keeping us safe from man made disasters. What the hell more do you want? Yeah, me either but don't let that stop anybody from stereotyping us, especially a representative of "the tolerant party"...;) I can't figure Loogy out. Hell, I praise the hell out of 'Bama, but it's never good enough. Just today, 'Bama saved over 240,000 jobs. The guy is probably the best leader since Moses. -- John H John, your condescending bull**** is getting old. Loogy, you'd whine if someone ****ed in your beer. Are you implying he *didn't* save 240,000 jobs today? -- John H No, I'm "implying" your condescending bull**** is getting old. AND lame. That's a shame. I thought your '...we're eating the elderly...(or whatever)..' were quite enlightening. You **** and moan 'cause I don't say enough nice things about 'Bama, then **** and moan when I do. You tell me what you want me to say. They don't want you to say anything... Where did I say that? |
What was that?
"Gene" wrote in message
... On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 10:23:04 -0700 (PDT), wf3h penned the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: | We were attacked by 19 Saudis who did as much of this planning in | western Europe as anywhere. Did the Saudis have a grudge? Why were they all Saudis? Was the Saudi Connection ever investigated or punished? Why? Oil. Don't you remember Bush II holding hands with the prince... -- Nom=de=Plume |
What was that?
On Sep 16, 1:22*am, wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 11:48:11 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message .. . On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 05:37:41 -0700 (PDT), wf3h wrote: Let's hope Obama doesn't break that record but the worst days of the "good war" are on Obama's watch. I still am not sure why we are there. http://icasualties.org/oef/ I don't have a good feeling about increasing troop strength at this point. As Obama said (paraphrasing), the generals are thinking about the war, the president needs to think about the world. The interesting thing to me was said on Anderson Cooper the other night from Afghanistan. It turns out we don't even think Bin Laden is there anymore and that the Taliban has absolutely no global aspirations. Their connection to Al Queda is tenuous at best.- today that's true. wasn't true on 9/11. If you believe that you are saying GWB was right and BHO is wrong. Are you sure you don't want to reconsider? Personally I don't believe the Taliban has ever had any grudge with the US beyond our invading their country and if we leave they won't care about us at all. They tolerated al queda but, I doubt they had anything to do with 9-11 ?? The Taliban were clearly supporting bin laden, although not many years prior to 9/11, certainly leading up to it. They did more than tolerate them. They actively supported them in the timeframe I notes. It wasn't all that many years since Bin Laden was in Sudan 3 years earlier (when Clinton let him go) We punished them by blowing up their aspirin factory and killing a security guard. That showed them! Support? What kind of support? If you mean they let him use a cave, so what. they didn't let him 'use a cave'. he was in power, bankrolling the taliban regime. we insisted he be turned over to us. they refused. but you seem willing to ignore that. These guys are Saudis. Rich Saudis. What did we do to Saudi Arabia? We held their hand and gave them $100 for oil the saudis practice wahabi islam, a paranoid, hated filled view of an already backward religion. it's no wonder most of the killers were saudi. |
What was that?
On Sep 16, 1:04*am, wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 10:24:26 -0700 (PDT), wf3h wrote: What is so hard to believe? If the Americans bombed your village and killed your family, wouldn't you want some payback? if murderers had killed someone else then took refuge in my house, i'd certainly blame them if the other person blew up my house. why is that so hard to believe? The murders died in the plane crash ... unless you are a "911 truther". wrong. not ALL the murderers did. you're a remarkably ignorant moron even for a right winger. khalid sheikh mohammed planned the attacks. he didn't die on 9/11. osama gave approval and helped bankroll it. he didn't die in the attack. so you need to learn a bit more about history The rest of this "war" is just chasing a ghost who may have really been killed in Tora Bora years ago. Even those who say Bin Laden is alive say he is NOT in Afghanistan. To follow your analogy, we would still be bombing Japan for Pearl Harbor. if the japanese hadn't surrendered, yes. I do find it strange that the same people who called Bush a moron and a tyrant for the exact same war are now supporting Obama. we don't. you obviously don't know why bush was an idiot. You don't support the war? ... and no I don't think Bush was an idiot, he was just not well spoken. Obama is pretty much duplicating his policies. (war, debt and rights violations) the reason bush was an idiot is he's done nothing about the war in afghanistan. he ignored calls for more troops, for building the afghan security services, for working with pakistan to destroy the taliban, etc... At least I am consistent. I think they are both stupid to be in this war. IOW you have no principles on which to base your conclusions. The principle I have is this war is totally ineffective, even if you believe killing thousands of random Taliban (and as many innocent civilians) will stop global terrorism. We still can't kill them all. Islamic terrorists can come from anywhere. There are a billion of them in the pool and it only took 19 on 9/11. The war is stupid, It is just our 21st century Vietnam.- i guess if you can't think outside the box and have a religious faith in cliches, then, yes, it would seem like vietnam. to those of us who follow what islamists are actually saying, have read qutb, azzam, huntington, etc., it's a cultural war that may take generations. but that's hardly unique in world history. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:22 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com