|
Obama and Hitler
"John H." wrote in message
... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:38:18 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message . .. On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message om... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. This is a war of necessity. It is necessary that we *win* this war. So saith the messiah. What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*? Possibly, unless the local gov't has/gets some credibility and takes action. Who used the word "crusade" about fighting over there? I don't think it was Obama. I've no idea who said 'crusade'. This is the first I've seen it used in this context. George W. Bush did. 'Bama said this was a war of necessity. I would think that means we should win it, not cut and run like we did in Vietnam. If we do that, then you liberals will say, "We lost". And, please show how or when we've "cut and run" if you're able. Keep trying the attack "you liberals" if you think that'll give your argument merit. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Obama and Hitler
"jps" wrote in message
... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:19:58 -0500, thunder wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:07:01 -0400, John H. wrote: I've no idea who said 'crusade'. This is the first I've seen it used in this context. Selective, or defective memory? It was, of course, GWB that used the word "crusade". "This is a new kind of, a new kind of evil. And the American people are beginning to understand. This crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take a while. And American people must be patient." George W. Bush, Sept. 16, 2001. Hence the close association with Eric Prince. There was lots done in the name of Jesus. That's how Bush got Blair on his side. Blackwater was by far the worst book I've read (worst in the sense of identifying horrors) since Fiasco. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Obama and Hitler
"John H." wrote in message
... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:19:58 -0500, thunder wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:07:01 -0400, John H. wrote: I've no idea who said 'crusade'. This is the first I've seen it used in this context. Selective, or defective memory? It was, of course, GWB that used the word "crusade". "This is a new kind of, a new kind of evil. And the American people are beginning to understand. This crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take a while. And American people must be patient." George W. Bush, Sept. 16, 2001. Sorry. I thought the post was referring to Afghanistan. I do remember the above, and I do find it applicable - to the worldwide war on terrorism. Of course, we are no longer at war with terrorists because they don't exist. It's hard to keep up. No doubt about that... keep trying. It's good for the soul. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Obama and Hitler
"Tosk" wrote in message
... In article , says... wrote in message ... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. I don't think most GIs think it's a crusade. Certainly, the Iraqis/Afghanis do. Did you just make that up or did you get it from MoveOn.org? Please show where the regular GI thinks it's a crusade. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Obama and Hitler
wrote in message
... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:36:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message m... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. I don't think most GIs think it's a crusade. Certainly, the Iraqis/Afghanis do. To GIs it is just a mission, Yes sir and take the fkn hill. That is what they do for a living. That is one reason why I don't pay much attention to generals telling is what we should do. They are the nation's hammer and to them everything looks like a nail. Somebody has to stand back away from the fight and ask, what are our objectives and can they be achieved with military force. In Afghanistan the answer to that has always been no. I agree. I think that assessment is going on now. Latest I heard was the go/no go decision will be made after the runoff. According to the generals, that's still in the timeframe of doable if Obama decides to escalate. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Obama and Hitler
"John H." wrote in message
... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:40:29 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: But, the VN war was considered a loss And your point? -- Nom=de=Plume |
Obama and Hitler
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:32:57 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:40:29 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: But, the VN war was considered a loss And your point? Be patient. He'll think of something. |
Obama and Hitler
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:27:21 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:21:09 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:51:17 -0400, John H. wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news:4brsd59fogd9kvvfkee3793an2p21bcaib@4ax. com... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. This is a war of necessity. It is necessary that we *win* this war. So saith the messiah. What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*? This is the messiah of change and he has demonstrated it is easy to change his mind on things. A couple CNN polls seems to do the trick. I think we are going to declare victory, cut and run ... at least I hope so. So, if 'Bama says, "We've won!", then we won the war, yes? If that's the case, couldn't he say, "We won in Vietnam too"? Gosh, we'd be big time winners everywhere! [Note: Unless you want to royally **** off a few liberals here (not Loogy), you should use an upper-case 'M' in messiah when referring to 'Bama.] Nice distortion. This is a typical non-rational attack. You don't like someone, call him names or make fun of his name. Newsflash: It didn't work in the last election. According to Herring, he *never* calls people names. Lying asshole, to himself. |
Obama and Hitler
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:30:59 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... wrote in message ... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. I don't think most GIs think it's a crusade. Certainly, the Iraqis/Afghanis do. Did you just make that up or did you get it from MoveOn.org? Please show where the regular GI thinks it's a crusade. Notice how he didn't call you a name but disparaged your ability to synthesize information for yourself. Projecting that you must have gotten it from a website since that's where he gets his thoughts. Herring was probably good at taking instructions and respecting his commanding officers. From the drivel he posts, I'm guessing his commanding officer now works for Worldnet Daily. |
Obama and Hitler
"jps" wrote in message
... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:32:57 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message . .. On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:40:29 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: But, the VN war was considered a loss And your point? Be patient. He'll think of something. I'm sure that's possible. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Obama and Hitler
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:51:17 -0400, John H. wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message om... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. This is a war of necessity. It is necessary that we *win* this war. So saith the messiah. What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*? This is the messiah of change and he has demonstrated it is easy to change his mind on things. A couple CNN polls seems to do the trick. I think we are going to declare victory, cut and run ... at least I hope so. What's wrong with changing your mind about something? If you can't do that, you shouldn't be in charge. -- Nom=de=Plume There is no problem with his changing his mind. Unless it is because a CNN poll says he should change his stance. We did not hire him to be an arbitrator of popularity. He needs to learn the "Buck Stops Here" part of the Presidency. |
Obama and Hitler
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:15:32 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote: "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:51:17 -0400, John H. wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news:4brsd59fogd9kvvfkee3793an2p21bcaib@4ax. com... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. This is a war of necessity. It is necessary that we *win* this war. So saith the messiah. What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*? This is the messiah of change and he has demonstrated it is easy to change his mind on things. A couple CNN polls seems to do the trick. I think we are going to declare victory, cut and run ... at least I hope so. What's wrong with changing your mind about something? If you can't do that, you shouldn't be in charge. -- Nom=de=Plume There is no problem with his changing his mind. Unless it is because a CNN poll says he should change his stance. We did not hire him to be an arbitrator of popularity. He needs to learn the "Buck Stops Here" part of the Presidency. There are those elected who think the interaction with their constituency stops there. Those that govern *well* keep listening. Bush thought he knew best and kept on the straight and narrow, no matter what data came in subsequentely. Obama has the presence of mind to keep listening and adjusting the solution to best fit the problem and future. |
Obama and Hitler
"jps" wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:15:32 -0700, "Bill McKee" wrote: "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:51:17 -0400, John H. wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news:4brsd59fogd9kvvfkee3793an2p21bcaib@4ax .com... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. This is a war of necessity. It is necessary that we *win* this war. So saith the messiah. What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*? This is the messiah of change and he has demonstrated it is easy to change his mind on things. A couple CNN polls seems to do the trick. I think we are going to declare victory, cut and run ... at least I hope so. What's wrong with changing your mind about something? If you can't do that, you shouldn't be in charge. -- Nom=de=Plume There is no problem with his changing his mind. Unless it is because a CNN poll says he should change his stance. We did not hire him to be an arbitrator of popularity. He needs to learn the "Buck Stops Here" part of the Presidency. There are those elected who think the interaction with their constituency stops there. Those that govern *well* keep listening. Bush thought he knew best and kept on the straight and narrow, no matter what data came in subsequentely. Obama has the presence of mind to keep listening and adjusting the solution to best fit the problem and future. Nope, Obama is like Clinton. Go the way the wind blows. Bad in a CEO. You can listen to the constituents, but you better make decisions on the facts. Clinton had the charisma and votes to be a great POTUS. He failed the test. |
Obama and Hitler
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:21:02 -0700, jps wrote:
Yes, given the choice between having a beer with Jesse Owens or Mein Fuhrer, Herring would certainly opt for Adolph. Adolf. Took me fifty years to get it straight. Casady |
Obama and Hitler
|
Obama and Hitler
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:51:17 -0400, John H. wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news:4brsd59fogd9kvvfkee3793an2p21bcaib@4ax. com... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. This is a war of necessity. It is necessary that we *win* this war. So saith the messiah. What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*? This is the messiah of change and he has demonstrated it is easy to change his mind on things. A couple CNN polls seems to do the trick. I think we are going to declare victory, cut and run ... at least I hope so. What's wrong with changing your mind about something? If you can't do that, you shouldn't be in charge. -- Nom=de=Plume There is no problem with his changing his mind. Unless it is because a CNN poll says he should change his stance. We did not hire him to be an arbitrator of popularity. He needs to learn the "Buck Stops Here" part of the Presidency. I agree. What makes you think he's being an arbiter of popularity? -- Nom=de=Plume |
Obama and Hitler
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m... "jps" wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:15:32 -0700, "Bill McKee" wrote: "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:51:17 -0400, John H. wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news:4brsd59fogd9kvvfkee3793an2p21bcaib@4a x.com... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. This is a war of necessity. It is necessary that we *win* this war. So saith the messiah. What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*? This is the messiah of change and he has demonstrated it is easy to change his mind on things. A couple CNN polls seems to do the trick. I think we are going to declare victory, cut and run ... at least I hope so. What's wrong with changing your mind about something? If you can't do that, you shouldn't be in charge. -- Nom=de=Plume There is no problem with his changing his mind. Unless it is because a CNN poll says he should change his stance. We did not hire him to be an arbitrator of popularity. He needs to learn the "Buck Stops Here" part of the Presidency. There are those elected who think the interaction with their constituency stops there. Those that govern *well* keep listening. Bush thought he knew best and kept on the straight and narrow, no matter what data came in subsequentely. Obama has the presence of mind to keep listening and adjusting the solution to best fit the problem and future. Nope, Obama is like Clinton. Go the way the wind blows. Bad in a CEO. You can listen to the constituents, but you better make decisions on the facts. Clinton had the charisma and votes to be a great POTUS. He failed the test. Looks to me like he's the opposite of Clinton. Please show me where his decisions have been based on poll numbers or is there something else? -- Nom=de=Plume |
Obama and Hitler
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 21:38:46 -0700, jps wrote:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:30:59 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... wrote in message ... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. I don't think most GIs think it's a crusade. Certainly, the Iraqis/Afghanis do. Did you just make that up or did you get it from MoveOn.org? Please show where the regular GI thinks it's a crusade. Notice how he didn't call you a name but disparaged your ability to synthesize information for yourself. Projecting that you must have gotten it from a website since that's where he gets his thoughts. Herring was probably good at taking instructions and respecting his commanding officers. From the drivel he posts, I'm guessing his commanding officer now works for Worldnet Daily. Notice that Herring wasn't in this series of posts. Of course, that makes no difference, jps makes things up as he goes, according to Tosk. Actually, I'm thinking that may be correct. Actually, one of my commanders was Secretary of State. He's now retired. Oh, and Bill Clinton was one of my commanders also. I'm really disappointed that jps saw fit to disparage me with only two paragraphs about me. That's quite disappointing. |
Obama and Hitler
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:36:37 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:41:16 -0700, jps wrote: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:15:01 -0500, Vic Smith wrote: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 01:39:36 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:28:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: I've no idea who said 'crusade'. This is the first I've seen it used in this context. George W. Bush did. Pope Urban II was the first to say it in 1095. Man, those were the days, weren't they? --Vic I think they had fireplaces by then. Yeah, but they hadn't invented the fork or spoon. --Vic Who needs utensils when there's beer, bread, potatoes and the occasional meat? A spoon may have come in handy for soup but with enough beer, who cares? |
Obama and Hitler
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:59:27 -0700, jps wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:36:37 -0500, Vic Smith wrote: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:41:16 -0700, jps wrote: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:15:01 -0500, Vic Smith wrote: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 01:39:36 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:28:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: I've no idea who said 'crusade'. This is the first I've seen it used in this context. George W. Bush did. Pope Urban II was the first to say it in 1095. Man, those were the days, weren't they? --Vic I think they had fireplaces by then. Yeah, but they hadn't invented the fork or spoon. --Vic Who needs utensils when there's beer, bread, potatoes and the occasional meat? A spoon may have come in handy for soup but with enough beer, who cares? I do. My Cheerios demand a spoon. --Vic |
Obama and Hitler
"John H." wrote in message
... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:26:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message . .. On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:39:21 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message m... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:51:17 -0400, John H. wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news:4brsd59fogd9kvvfkee3793an2p21bcaib@4a x.com... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. This is a war of necessity. It is necessary that we *win* this war. So saith the messiah. What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*? This is the messiah of change and he has demonstrated it is easy to change his mind on things. A couple CNN polls seems to do the trick. I think we are going to declare victory, cut and run ... at least I hope so. What's wrong with changing your mind about something? If you can't do that, you shouldn't be in charge. Didn't we change our minds about Vietnam? Does changing your mind mean you've 'lost'? So, what you're saying is that if one changes one mind once, and it doesn't turn out the way you want, it's a bad thing to change your mind in the future? Where did you see me say that? This was my last post: "Didn't we change our minds about Vietnam? Does changing your mind mean you've 'lost'?" You implied that it was OK for the President to change his mind, meaning, I suppose, that the Afghanistan war is no longer one of necessity. OK, so if we now cut and run, will we have lost? If you want to change the subject and run, that's OK. You backed yourself into a corner. My question, from the last post, still stands. Read my response to the previous post and get back to me when you understand it. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Obama and Hitler
"John H." wrote in message
... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:27:21 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message . .. On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:21:09 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:51:17 -0400, John H. wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news:4brsd59fogd9kvvfkee3793an2p21bcaib@4ax .com... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. This is a war of necessity. It is necessary that we *win* this war. So saith the messiah. What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*? This is the messiah of change and he has demonstrated it is easy to change his mind on things. A couple CNN polls seems to do the trick. I think we are going to declare victory, cut and run ... at least I hope so. So, if 'Bama says, "We've won!", then we won the war, yes? If that's the case, couldn't he say, "We won in Vietnam too"? Gosh, we'd be big time winners everywhere! [Note: Unless you want to royally **** off a few liberals here (not Loogy), you should use an upper-case 'M' in messiah when referring to 'Bama.] Nice distortion. This is a typical non-rational attack. You don't like someone, call him names or make fun of his name. Newsflash: It didn't work in the last election. Then address the post. If 'Bama says we've won in Afghanistan, after cutting and running, will we have won? Read my previous comment. No answer is required to your question. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Obama and Hitler
"John H." wrote in message
... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:28:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message . .. On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:38:18 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message m... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news:4brsd59fogd9kvvfkee3793an2p21bcaib@4ax .com... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. This is a war of necessity. It is necessary that we *win* this war. So saith the messiah. What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*? Possibly, unless the local gov't has/gets some credibility and takes action. Who used the word "crusade" about fighting over there? I don't think it was Obama. I've no idea who said 'crusade'. This is the first I've seen it used in this context. George W. Bush did. 'Bama said this was a war of necessity. I would think that means we should win it, not cut and run like we did in Vietnam. If we do that, then you liberals will say, "We lost". And, please show how or when we've "cut and run" if you're able. Keep trying the attack "you liberals" if you think that'll give your argument merit. We cut and ran from Vietnam. What would you have called it? I use the term 'you liberals', because you liberals are so quick to say the military 'lost' the Vietnam war. Losing. The US lost the war. If you don't understand that simple statement of fact, there's not much else I can add. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Obama and Hitler
Vic Smith wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:59:27 -0700, jps wrote: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:36:37 -0500, Vic Smith wrote: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:41:16 -0700, jps wrote: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:15:01 -0500, Vic Smith wrote: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 01:39:36 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:28:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: I've no idea who said 'crusade'. This is the first I've seen it used in this context. George W. Bush did. Pope Urban II was the first to say it in 1095. Man, those were the days, weren't they? --Vic I think they had fireplaces by then. Yeah, but they hadn't invented the fork or spoon. --Vic Who needs utensils when there's beer, bread, potatoes and the occasional meat? A spoon may have come in handy for soup but with enough beer, who cares? I do. My Cheerios demand a spoon. --Vic Spoonin came first. Forkin came later. |
Obama and Hitler
nom=de=plume wrote:
"John H." wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:28:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:38:18 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. This is a war of necessity. It is necessary that we *win* this war. So saith the messiah. What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*? Possibly, unless the local gov't has/gets some credibility and takes action. Who used the word "crusade" about fighting over there? I don't think it was Obama. I've no idea who said 'crusade'. This is the first I've seen it used in this context. George W. Bush did. 'Bama said this was a war of necessity. I would think that means we should win it, not cut and run like we did in Vietnam. If we do that, then you liberals will say, "We lost". And, please show how or when we've "cut and run" if you're able. Keep trying the attack "you liberals" if you think that'll give your argument merit. We cut and ran from Vietnam. What would you have called it? I use the term 'you liberals', because you liberals are so quick to say the military 'lost' the Vietnam war. Losing. The US lost the war. If you don't understand that simple statement of fact, there's not much else I can add. I agree. You've said quite enough. lol lol |
Obama and Hitler
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:06:59 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:26:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:39:21 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message om... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:51:17 -0400, John H. wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news:4brsd59fogd9kvvfkee3793an2p21bcaib@4 ax.com... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. This is a war of necessity. It is necessary that we *win* this war. So saith the messiah. What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*? This is the messiah of change and he has demonstrated it is easy to change his mind on things. A couple CNN polls seems to do the trick. I think we are going to declare victory, cut and run ... at least I hope so. What's wrong with changing your mind about something? If you can't do that, you shouldn't be in charge. Didn't we change our minds about Vietnam? Does changing your mind mean you've 'lost'? So, what you're saying is that if one changes one mind once, and it doesn't turn out the way you want, it's a bad thing to change your mind in the future? Where did you see me say that? This was my last post: "Didn't we change our minds about Vietnam? Does changing your mind mean you've 'lost'?" You implied that it was OK for the President to change his mind, meaning, I suppose, that the Afghanistan war is no longer one of necessity. OK, so if we now cut and run, will we have lost? If you want to change the subject and run, that's OK. You backed yourself into a corner. My question, from the last post, still stands. Read my response to the previous post and get back to me when you understand it. Don't hold your breath. Herring's strongest suit is in infuriating. |
Obama and Hitler
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:06:59 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:26:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:39:21 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message om... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:51:17 -0400, John H. wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news:4brsd59fogd9kvvfkee3793an2p21bcaib@4 ax.com... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. This is a war of necessity. It is necessary that we *win* this war. So saith the messiah. What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*? This is the messiah of change and he has demonstrated it is easy to change his mind on things. A couple CNN polls seems to do the trick. I think we are going to declare victory, cut and run ... at least I hope so. What's wrong with changing your mind about something? If you can't do that, you shouldn't be in charge. Didn't we change our minds about Vietnam? Does changing your mind mean you've 'lost'? So, what you're saying is that if one changes one mind once, and it doesn't turn out the way you want, it's a bad thing to change your mind in the future? Where did you see me say that? This was my last post: "Didn't we change our minds about Vietnam? Does changing your mind mean you've 'lost'?" You implied that it was OK for the President to change his mind, meaning, I suppose, that the Afghanistan war is no longer one of necessity. OK, so if we now cut and run, will we have lost? If you want to change the subject and run, that's OK. You backed yourself into a corner. My question, from the last post, still stands. Read my response to the previous post and get back to me when you understand it. It's understood. Now answer the question. |
Obama and Hitler
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:07:42 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:27:21 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:21:09 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:51:17 -0400, John H. wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news:4brsd59fogd9kvvfkee3793an2p21bcaib@4a x.com... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. This is a war of necessity. It is necessary that we *win* this war. So saith the messiah. What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*? This is the messiah of change and he has demonstrated it is easy to change his mind on things. A couple CNN polls seems to do the trick. I think we are going to declare victory, cut and run ... at least I hope so. So, if 'Bama says, "We've won!", then we won the war, yes? If that's the case, couldn't he say, "We won in Vietnam too"? Gosh, we'd be big time winners everywhere! [Note: Unless you want to royally **** off a few liberals here (not Loogy), you should use an upper-case 'M' in messiah when referring to 'Bama.] Nice distortion. This is a typical non-rational attack. You don't like someone, call him names or make fun of his name. Newsflash: It didn't work in the last election. Then address the post. If 'Bama says we've won in Afghanistan, after cutting and running, will we have won? Read my previous comment. No answer is required to your question. IOW - you give up. |
Obama and Hitler
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:08:43 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:28:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:38:18 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message om... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news:4brsd59fogd9kvvfkee3793an2p21bcaib@4a x.com... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. This is a war of necessity. It is necessary that we *win* this war. So saith the messiah. What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*? Possibly, unless the local gov't has/gets some credibility and takes action. Who used the word "crusade" about fighting over there? I don't think it was Obama. I've no idea who said 'crusade'. This is the first I've seen it used in this context. George W. Bush did. 'Bama said this was a war of necessity. I would think that means we should win it, not cut and run like we did in Vietnam. If we do that, then you liberals will say, "We lost". And, please show how or when we've "cut and run" if you're able. Keep trying the attack "you liberals" if you think that'll give your argument merit. We cut and ran from Vietnam. What would you have called it? I use the term 'you liberals', because you liberals are so quick to say the military 'lost' the Vietnam war. Losing. The US lost the war. If you don't understand that simple statement of fact, there's not much else I can add. You're a sly one. When we cut and run from Afghanistan, using your logic, 'Bama will have 'lost' another one. |
Obama and Hitler
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:03:32 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:59:27 -0700, jps wrote: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:36:37 -0500, Vic Smith wrote: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:41:16 -0700, jps wrote: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:15:01 -0500, Vic Smith wrote: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 01:39:36 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:28:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: I've no idea who said 'crusade'. This is the first I've seen it used in this context. George W. Bush did. Pope Urban II was the first to say it in 1095. Man, those were the days, weren't they? --Vic I think they had fireplaces by then. Yeah, but they hadn't invented the fork or spoon. --Vic Who needs utensils when there's beer, bread, potatoes and the occasional meat? A spoon may have come in handy for soup but with enough beer, who cares? I do. My Cheerios demand a spoon. --Vic They didn't have Cheerios in 1095. They had beer for breakfast. |
Obama and Hitler
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:08:43 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:28:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:38:18 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message om... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news:4brsd59fogd9kvvfkee3793an2p21bcaib@4a x.com... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. This is a war of necessity. It is necessary that we *win* this war. So saith the messiah. What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*? Possibly, unless the local gov't has/gets some credibility and takes action. Who used the word "crusade" about fighting over there? I don't think it was Obama. I've no idea who said 'crusade'. This is the first I've seen it used in this context. George W. Bush did. 'Bama said this was a war of necessity. I would think that means we should win it, not cut and run like we did in Vietnam. If we do that, then you liberals will say, "We lost". And, please show how or when we've "cut and run" if you're able. Keep trying the attack "you liberals" if you think that'll give your argument merit. We cut and ran from Vietnam. What would you have called it? I use the term 'you liberals', because you liberals are so quick to say the military 'lost' the Vietnam war. Losing. The US lost the war. If you don't understand that simple statement of fact, there's not much else I can add. No one that I know says "the military" lost the war in Vietnam. The war in Vietnam wasn't winnable, just like in Afghanistan. The United States did lose the war in Vietnam. We should never have been there in the first place, just like Iraq. We should have attacked Afghanistan with schools and hospitals. We'd have won that war already. The US' business is arms. Every disagreement looks like a good case for war if that's your business. We have a long history in the drug trade as well. The best country in the world!!! |
Obama and Hitler
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:01:22 -0700, jps wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:08:43 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message . .. On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:28:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message m... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:38:18 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:iqptd5hu679nglvuhk4dvbjsciar6tkrc8@4ax. com... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news:4brsd59fogd9kvvfkee3793an2p21bcaib@4 ax.com... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. This is a war of necessity. It is necessary that we *win* this war. So saith the messiah. What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*? Possibly, unless the local gov't has/gets some credibility and takes action. Who used the word "crusade" about fighting over there? I don't think it was Obama. I've no idea who said 'crusade'. This is the first I've seen it used in this context. George W. Bush did. 'Bama said this was a war of necessity. I would think that means we should win it, not cut and run like we did in Vietnam. If we do that, then you liberals will say, "We lost". And, please show how or when we've "cut and run" if you're able. Keep trying the attack "you liberals" if you think that'll give your argument merit. We cut and ran from Vietnam. What would you have called it? I use the term 'you liberals', because you liberals are so quick to say the military 'lost' the Vietnam war. Losing. The US lost the war. If you don't understand that simple statement of fact, there's not much else I can add. No one that I know says "the military" lost the war in Vietnam. The war in Vietnam wasn't winnable, just like in Afghanistan. I guess you've really never met Harry, so you 'could' say you don't know him. He's said it multiple times, and you've never mentioned a differing opinion. The United States did lose the war in Vietnam. Bull****. The US cut and run. We should never have been there in the first place, just like Iraq. We had a good reason to be in Iraq. We should have attacked Afghanistan with schools and hospitals. We'd have won that war already. Agreed, and we should have built the schools and hospitals as soon as the Russians left. The US' business is arms. Every disagreement looks like a good case for war if that's your business. We have a long history in the drug trade as well. The best country in the world!!! You've got that right ! |
Obama and Hitler
John H. wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:06:59 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:26:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:39:21 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:51:17 -0400, John H. wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. This is a war of necessity. It is necessary that we *win* this war. So saith the messiah. What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*? This is the messiah of change and he has demonstrated it is easy to change his mind on things. A couple CNN polls seems to do the trick. I think we are going to declare victory, cut and run ... at least I hope so. What's wrong with changing your mind about something? If you can't do that, you shouldn't be in charge. Didn't we change our minds about Vietnam? Does changing your mind mean you've 'lost'? So, what you're saying is that if one changes one mind once, and it doesn't turn out the way you want, it's a bad thing to change your mind in the future? Where did you see me say that? This was my last post: "Didn't we change our minds about Vietnam? Does changing your mind mean you've 'lost'?" You implied that it was OK for the President to change his mind, meaning, I suppose, that the Afghanistan war is no longer one of necessity. OK, so if we now cut and run, will we have lost? If you want to change the subject and run, that's OK. You backed yourself into a corner. My question, from the last post, still stands. Read my response to the previous post and get back to me when you understand it. It's understood. Now answer the question. Pushy little broad, eh? |
Obama and Hitler
"John H." wrote in message
... On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:06:59 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message . .. On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:26:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message m... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:39:21 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news:m0dud5tu1gsfdtj9417fnsutflg2l2pgro@4ax. com... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:51:17 -0400, John H. wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news:4brsd59fogd9kvvfkee3793an2p21bcaib@ 4ax.com... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. This is a war of necessity. It is necessary that we *win* this war. So saith the messiah. What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*? This is the messiah of change and he has demonstrated it is easy to change his mind on things. A couple CNN polls seems to do the trick. I think we are going to declare victory, cut and run ... at least I hope so. What's wrong with changing your mind about something? If you can't do that, you shouldn't be in charge. Didn't we change our minds about Vietnam? Does changing your mind mean you've 'lost'? So, what you're saying is that if one changes one mind once, and it doesn't turn out the way you want, it's a bad thing to change your mind in the future? Where did you see me say that? This was my last post: "Didn't we change our minds about Vietnam? Does changing your mind mean you've 'lost'?" You implied that it was OK for the President to change his mind, meaning, I suppose, that the Afghanistan war is no longer one of necessity. OK, so if we now cut and run, will we have lost? If you want to change the subject and run, that's OK. You backed yourself into a corner. My question, from the last post, still stands. Read my response to the previous post and get back to me when you understand it. It's understood. Now answer the question. Your question implies that cutting and running is what happens when one decides that Afghanistan war is no longer a war of necessity, thus your question is mu. Have we "cut and run" in Iraq? How long should we stay there? That certainly wasn't a war of necessity even from the beginning. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Obama and Hitler
"John H." wrote in message
... On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:01:22 -0700, jps wrote: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:08:43 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:28:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message om... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:38:18 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:iqptd5hu679nglvuhk4dvbjsciar6tkrc8@4ax .com... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news:4brsd59fogd9kvvfkee3793an2p21bcaib@ 4ax.com... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. This is a war of necessity. It is necessary that we *win* this war. So saith the messiah. What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*? Possibly, unless the local gov't has/gets some credibility and takes action. Who used the word "crusade" about fighting over there? I don't think it was Obama. I've no idea who said 'crusade'. This is the first I've seen it used in this context. George W. Bush did. 'Bama said this was a war of necessity. I would think that means we should win it, not cut and run like we did in Vietnam. If we do that, then you liberals will say, "We lost". And, please show how or when we've "cut and run" if you're able. Keep trying the attack "you liberals" if you think that'll give your argument merit. We cut and ran from Vietnam. What would you have called it? I use the term 'you liberals', because you liberals are so quick to say the military 'lost' the Vietnam war. Losing. The US lost the war. If you don't understand that simple statement of fact, there's not much else I can add. No one that I know says "the military" lost the war in Vietnam. The war in Vietnam wasn't winnable, just like in Afghanistan. I guess you've really never met Harry, so you 'could' say you don't know him. He's said it multiple times, and you've never mentioned a differing opinion. The United States did lose the war in Vietnam. Bull****. The US cut and run. ?? I think you need to make your complaint to Richard M. Nixon for that one. We lost. Nixon ended the war, and we would have lost even more of our soldiers if we would have stayed... for no reason whatsoever. We should never have been there in the first place, just like Iraq. We had a good reason to be in Iraq. ?? Really? What was the reason? WMDs? Saddam was training jihadists? We should have attacked Afghanistan with schools and hospitals. We'd have won that war already. Agreed, and we should have built the schools and hospitals as soon as the Russians left. We funded the bin laden crowd to get the Russians to leave. So, your statement makes no sense. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Obama and Hitler
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:49:44 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:01:22 -0700, jps wrote: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:08:43 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message m... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:28:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:fumud51a1t69p69popunial2ellms0ovh9@4ax. com... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:38:18 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:iqptd5hu679nglvuhk4dvbjsciar6tkrc8@4a x.com... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news:4brsd59fogd9kvvfkee3793an2p21bcaib @4ax.com... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. This is a war of necessity. It is necessary that we *win* this war. So saith the messiah. What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*? Possibly, unless the local gov't has/gets some credibility and takes action. Who used the word "crusade" about fighting over there? I don't think it was Obama. I've no idea who said 'crusade'. This is the first I've seen it used in this context. George W. Bush did. 'Bama said this was a war of necessity. I would think that means we should win it, not cut and run like we did in Vietnam. If we do that, then you liberals will say, "We lost". And, please show how or when we've "cut and run" if you're able. Keep trying the attack "you liberals" if you think that'll give your argument merit. We cut and ran from Vietnam. What would you have called it? I use the term 'you liberals', because you liberals are so quick to say the military 'lost' the Vietnam war. Losing. The US lost the war. If you don't understand that simple statement of fact, there's not much else I can add. No one that I know says "the military" lost the war in Vietnam. The war in Vietnam wasn't winnable, just like in Afghanistan. I guess you've really never met Harry, so you 'could' say you don't know him. He's said it multiple times, and you've never mentioned a differing opinion. The United States did lose the war in Vietnam. Bull****. The US cut and run. ?? I think you need to make your complaint to Richard M. Nixon for that one. We lost. Nixon ended the war, and we would have lost even more of our soldiers if we would have stayed... for no reason whatsoever. What's the definition of losing? Do you fight 'til the last man, 'til the last bomb, plane, ship? What's the difference between cutting and running and losing? Maybe we just haven't parsed the terms to their essence? We should never have been there in the first place, just like Iraq. We had a good reason to be in Iraq. ?? Really? What was the reason? WMDs? Saddam was training jihadists? He had a Winnebago, some balsa wood drones and a lot of oil. Plus, he slandered our CIC's daddy. We should have attacked Afghanistan with schools and hospitals. We'd have won that war already. Agreed, and we should have built the schools and hospitals as soon as the Russians left. We funded the bin laden crowd to get the Russians to leave. So, your statement makes no sense. That would be par for his course. |
Obama and Hitler
"Jim" wrote in message
... John H. wrote: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:06:59 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:26:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:39:21 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:51:17 -0400, John H. wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. This is a war of necessity. It is necessary that we *win* this war. So saith the messiah. What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*? This is the messiah of change and he has demonstrated it is easy to change his mind on things. A couple CNN polls seems to do the trick. I think we are going to declare victory, cut and run ... at least I hope so. What's wrong with changing your mind about something? If you can't do that, you shouldn't be in charge. Didn't we change our minds about Vietnam? Does changing your mind mean you've 'lost'? So, what you're saying is that if one changes one mind once, and it doesn't turn out the way you want, it's a bad thing to change your mind in the future? Where did you see me say that? This was my last post: "Didn't we change our minds about Vietnam? Does changing your mind mean you've 'lost'?" You implied that it was OK for the President to change his mind, meaning, I suppose, that the Afghanistan war is no longer one of necessity. OK, so if we now cut and run, will we have lost? If you want to change the subject and run, that's OK. You backed yourself into a corner. My question, from the last post, still stands. Read my response to the previous post and get back to me when you understand it. It's understood. Now answer the question. Pushy little broad, eh? Got any other names you'd like to call me? If so, go for it... I'm sure we'll be impressed. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Obama and Hitler
"jps" wrote in message
... On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:49:44 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message . .. On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:01:22 -0700, jps wrote: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:08:43 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message om... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:28:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:fumud51a1t69p69popunial2ellms0ovh9@4ax .com... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:38:18 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:iqptd5hu679nglvuhk4dvbjsciar6tkrc8@4 ax.com... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news:4brsd59fogd9kvvfkee3793an2p21bcai ... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. This is a war of necessity. It is necessary that we *win* this war. So saith the messiah. What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*? Possibly, unless the local gov't has/gets some credibility and takes action. Who used the word "crusade" about fighting over there? I don't think it was Obama. I've no idea who said 'crusade'. This is the first I've seen it used in this context. George W. Bush did. 'Bama said this was a war of necessity. I would think that means we should win it, not cut and run like we did in Vietnam. If we do that, then you liberals will say, "We lost". And, please show how or when we've "cut and run" if you're able. Keep trying the attack "you liberals" if you think that'll give your argument merit. We cut and ran from Vietnam. What would you have called it? I use the term 'you liberals', because you liberals are so quick to say the military 'lost' the Vietnam war. Losing. The US lost the war. If you don't understand that simple statement of fact, there's not much else I can add. No one that I know says "the military" lost the war in Vietnam. The war in Vietnam wasn't winnable, just like in Afghanistan. I guess you've really never met Harry, so you 'could' say you don't know him. He's said it multiple times, and you've never mentioned a differing opinion. The United States did lose the war in Vietnam. Bull****. The US cut and run. ?? I think you need to make your complaint to Richard M. Nixon for that one. We lost. Nixon ended the war, and we would have lost even more of our soldiers if we would have stayed... for no reason whatsoever. What's the definition of losing? Do you fight 'til the last man, 'til the last bomb, plane, ship? What's the difference between cutting and running and losing? Maybe we just haven't parsed the terms to their essence? We should never have been there in the first place, just like Iraq. We had a good reason to be in Iraq. ?? Really? What was the reason? WMDs? Saddam was training jihadists? He had a Winnebago, some balsa wood drones and a lot of oil. Plus, he slandered our CIC's daddy. We should have attacked Afghanistan with schools and hospitals. We'd have won that war already. Agreed, and we should have built the schools and hospitals as soon as the Russians left. We funded the bin laden crowd to get the Russians to leave. So, your statement makes no sense. That would be par for his course. I was thinking A Hole in one. Sorry, bad pun. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Obama and Hitler
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:45:00 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:06:59 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:26:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message om... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:39:21 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news:m0dud5tu1gsfdtj9417fnsutflg2l2pgro@4ax .com... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:51:17 -0400, John H. wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news:4brsd59fogd9kvvfkee3793an2p21bcaib @4ax.com... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. This is a war of necessity. It is necessary that we *win* this war. So saith the messiah. What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*? This is the messiah of change and he has demonstrated it is easy to change his mind on things. A couple CNN polls seems to do the trick. I think we are going to declare victory, cut and run ... at least I hope so. What's wrong with changing your mind about something? If you can't do that, you shouldn't be in charge. Didn't we change our minds about Vietnam? Does changing your mind mean you've 'lost'? So, what you're saying is that if one changes one mind once, and it doesn't turn out the way you want, it's a bad thing to change your mind in the future? Where did you see me say that? This was my last post: "Didn't we change our minds about Vietnam? Does changing your mind mean you've 'lost'?" You implied that it was OK for the President to change his mind, meaning, I suppose, that the Afghanistan war is no longer one of necessity. OK, so if we now cut and run, will we have lost? If you want to change the subject and run, that's OK. You backed yourself into a corner. My question, from the last post, still stands. Read my response to the previous post and get back to me when you understand it. It's understood. Now answer the question. Your question implies that cutting and running is what happens when one decides that Afghanistan war is no longer a war of necessity, thus your question is mu. Well, what would *you* call it when the President 'changes his mind' and pulls out of Afghanistan? Have we "cut and run" in Iraq? How long should we stay there? That certainly wasn't a war of necessity even from the beginning. Iraq is not the subject of this discussion. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:35 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com