wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:34:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Thanks for your service...


Yes, thanks. But, the VN war was considered a loss. We certainly didn't
win,
and the North did take over (April 1975). I'm not sure how anyone could
realistically claim it was even a tie. Perhaps Korea was a tie
(technically
it's not over right?).


Vietnam was a strategic clusterfk that we finally abandoned but the
GIs, in country, won virtually every battle they were in.

I thank those guys for their service too.

Unfortunately, winning battles doesn't mean winning the war.

--
Nom=de=Plume

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.

They may be in the middle of nowhere, but the reports I've seen from
Afghanistan indicate they all know what the score is and who wants
what.

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:45:07 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:34:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Thanks for your service...


Yes, thanks. But, the VN war was considered a loss. We certainly didn't
win,
and the North did take over (April 1975). I'm not sure how anyone could
realistically claim it was even a tie. Perhaps Korea was a tie
(technically
it's not over right?).


Vietnam was a strategic clusterfk that we finally abandoned but the
GIs, in country, won virtually every battle they were in.

I thank those guys for their service too.

Unfortunately, winning battles doesn't mean winning the war.

Again, the military didn't lose the war either. The politicians left.
But, you anti-military liberals must keep your head buried. So be it.
lol lol

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*?

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.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"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.

--
Nom=de=Plume

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
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.

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

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:45:07 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:34:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Thanks for your service...


Yes, thanks. But, the VN war was considered a loss. We certainly didn't
win,
and the North did take over (April 1975). I'm not sure how anyone could
realistically claim it was even a tie. Perhaps Korea was a tie
(technically
it's not over right?).


Vietnam was a strategic clusterfk that we finally abandoned but the
GIs, in country, won virtually every battle they were in.

I thank those guys for their service too.

Unfortunately, winning battles doesn't mean winning the war.

Again, the military didn't lose the war either. The politicians left.
But, you anti-military liberals must keep your head buried. So be it.
lol lol


Show me where I said they did. Lying about what I said isn't making you more
credible.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:40:29 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:45:07 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:34:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Thanks for your service...


Yes, thanks. But, the VN war was considered a loss. We certainly didn't
win,
and the North did take over (April 1975). I'm not sure how anyone could
realistically claim it was even a tie. Perhaps Korea was a tie
(technically
it's not over right?).


Vietnam was a strategic clusterfk that we finally abandoned but the
GIs, in country, won virtually every battle they were in.

I thank those guys for their service too.

Unfortunately, winning battles doesn't mean winning the war.

Again, the military didn't lose the war either. The politicians left.
But, you anti-military liberals must keep your head buried. So be it.
lol lol


Show me where I said they did. Lying about what I said isn't making you more
credible.


Yes, I'm a liberal and anti-military as the solution to most conflict.
Iraq was completely unnecessary. We've invested trillions in a
senseless war that could have been invested in our own infrastructure.

That's a bad investment. We could have built schools and hospitals in
Afghanistan and instead we've invested in bullets, bombs and blood.

If spilling money into the Pentagon is considered supporting the
military then yes, I'm against it.

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
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.

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.]