Canuck57 wrote:
jps wrote:
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:48:28 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:43:31 -0500, "H the K (I post with a Mac)"
wrote:

The bush admin deliberately let bin laden get away:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk_IL...layer_embedded


snerk
I think Bin Laden is really pretty insignificant in the grand scheme
of things but if we didn't have him around we would invent another
bogie man to give us an excuse to look.
I always believed we did kill OBL in Tora Bora and we just let the
legend live on unchallenged for that reason.


We're going to smoke him out... perhaps he meant via wacky tobacci...

Dead or alive.

Obama Bin Laden, ooops, sorry, Osama Bin Laden will die an old man of
natural causes. Far too many make far too much money not to catch him.

The old approach of fly in, bomb the targets and leave was a far better
policy than occupation. THe west hasn't got the politicial guts to win
this war for many of the same reasons as Vietnam.



Sorry, scheisskopf, you cannot win these wars by "bombing the targets."
Of course, you can't win these wars with occupation, either.

This is a new age...we're not fighting centralized, industrial,
western-like powers in that part of the world. They were living as they
lived 500 years ago before we got there, and they'll be living that way
long after we leave.

In Afghani-like scenarios, the military is...obsolete.


--
If you are flajim, herring, loogy, GC boater, johnson, topbassdog, rob,
achmed the sock puppet, or one of a half dozen others, you're wasting
your time by trying to *communicate* with me through rec.boats, because,
well, you are among the permanent members of my dumbfoch dumpster, and I
don't read the vomit you post, except by accident on occasion. As
always, have a nice, simple-minded day.

"H the K (I post with a Mac)" wrote in message
...
H the K (I post with a Mac) wrote:


On second thought, it's a pipe dream to think we can prance in there and
stabilize the region. It can't be done, ever.
This whole affair is a cluster****. The fool on the hill should have
pulled all our troups out instead of sending 30000 more of our fine men
and women to be slaughtered by those **** stains. Kill em all and let
Allah sort them out. We have the technology.


Sorry, but to say you post with a mac, you have to post with a mac. You're
just the harry wannabe, posting via windows on aioe.org.

Too bad your life is such a worthless piece of crap you feel the need to
impersonate your superiors.

Oh...and you can't write, spell or punctuate, either, and your mommy
dresses you funny.

"troups" crikey...



Those pseudo Harrys still trying to fool the newsgroup?
They should give it up...The Freak is the only one who can't figure their
game out.

On Dec 1, 12:47*am, wrote:
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:20:45 -0800, jps wrote:
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 23:19:47 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:48:28 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:43:31 -0500, "H the K (I post with a Mac)"
wrote:

The bush admin deliberately let bin laden get away:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk_IL...layer_embedded

snerk

I think Bin Laden is really pretty insignificant in the grand scheme
of things but if we didn't have him around we would invent another
bogie man to give us an excuse to look.
I always believed we did kill OBL in Tora Bora and we just let the
legend live on unchallenged for that reason.

We're going to smoke him out... perhaps he meant via wacky tobacci...

The Afghanis always made the best hash

Well then, we should be promoting its production instead of poppies.
I'd like for the 30,000 troops to help them build schools, hospitals
and reseed their poppy fields with hemp.

Afghani clothing and hash would be fine exports that'd put the world
in a better mood.

A lot better plan than the one we will hear tomorrow. You should run
for office.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Uh, how do you know that if you haven't heard the plan yet? This
means, that without ANY facts, you're already making negative remarks.

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:48:28 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:43:31 -0500, "H the K (I post with a Mac)"
wrote:

The bush admin deliberately let bin laden get away:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk_IL...layer_embedded


snerk

I think Bin Laden is really pretty insignificant in the grand scheme
of things but if we didn't have him around we would invent another
bogie man to give us an excuse to look.
I always believed we did kill OBL in Tora Bora and we just let the
legend live on unchallenged for that reason.



We're going to smoke him out... perhaps he meant via wacky tobacci...


The Afghanis always made the best hash

Wow, I dunno.... What about Turkey and Lebanon? At least that was what I
was told by those silly Heads...

In article dc57c3f9-3893-42d8-abc6-
,
says...

On Dec 1, 12:47*am, wrote:
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:20:45 -0800, jps wrote:
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 23:19:47 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:48:28 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:43:31 -0500, "H the K (I post with a Mac)"
wrote:

The bush admin deliberately let bin laden get away:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk_IL...layer_embedded

snerk

I think Bin Laden is really pretty insignificant in the grand scheme
of things but if we didn't have him around we would invent another
bogie man to give us an excuse to look.
I always believed we did kill OBL in Tora Bora and we just let the
legend live on unchallenged for that reason.

We're going to smoke him out... perhaps he meant via wacky tobacci...

The Afghanis always made the best hash

Well then, we should be promoting its production instead of poppies.
I'd like for the 30,000 troops to help them build schools, hospitals
and reseed their poppy fields with hemp.

Afghani clothing and hash would be fine exports that'd put the world
in a better mood.

A lot better plan than the one we will hear tomorrow. You should run
for office.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Uh, how do you know that if you haven't heard the plan yet? This
means, that without ANY facts, you're already making negative remarks.

Wow. From what I can see, this is a whole Bush bash thread, with the
pink army. Even the title of the thread is a Bush bash, and you wait
till now to make a comment to Gene? Just sayin' FarmVille
boooeeeeeyyyyie

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 05:23:49 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:

The old approach of fly in, bomb the targets and leave was a far better
policy than occupation.

The problem with that is it accomplishes nothing and alienates
everyone, including people who should be our allies.
By the end of the "bomb them from orbit" Clinton administration we had
lost the respect of most of the world. That is why the Iraq sanctions
were failing.


Again with the revisionist history lesson?? Clinton was hugely popular both
here and abroad. He remains so. It's Bush who lost the world's respect for
the US.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 09:51:19 -0500, I am Tosk
wrote:

In article dc57c3f9-3893-42d8-abc6-
,
says...

On Dec 1, 12:47*am, wrote:
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:20:45 -0800, jps wrote:
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 23:19:47 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:48:28 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:43:31 -0500, "H the K (I post with a Mac)"
wrote:

The bush admin deliberately let bin laden get away:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk_IL...layer_embedded

snerk

I think Bin Laden is really pretty insignificant in the grand scheme
of things but if we didn't have him around we would invent another
bogie man to give us an excuse to look.
I always believed we did kill OBL in Tora Bora and we just let the
legend live on unchallenged for that reason.

We're going to smoke him out... perhaps he meant via wacky tobacci...

The Afghanis always made the best hash

Well then, we should be promoting its production instead of poppies.
I'd like for the 30,000 troops to help them build schools, hospitals
and reseed their poppy fields with hemp.

Afghani clothing and hash would be fine exports that'd put the world
in a better mood.

A lot better plan than the one we will hear tomorrow. You should run
for office.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Uh, how do you know that if you haven't heard the plan yet? This
means, that without ANY facts, you're already making negative remarks.

Wow. From what I can see, this is a whole Bush bash thread, with the
pink army. Even the title of the thread is a Bush bash, and you wait
till now to make a comment to Gene? Just sayin' FarmVille
boooeeeeeyyyyie

My wife does the farmville bit, so I told her to link up with you. She
couldn't figure out how to do it.
--

John H

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 10:16:38 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 05:23:49 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:

The old approach of fly in, bomb the targets and leave was a far better
policy than occupation.

The problem with that is it accomplishes nothing and alienates
everyone, including people who should be our allies.
By the end of the "bomb them from orbit" Clinton administration we had
lost the respect of most of the world. That is why the Iraq sanctions
were failing.


Again with the revisionist history lesson?? Clinton was hugely popular
both
here and abroad. He remains so. It's Bush who lost the world's respect for
the US.
Perhaps I need to clarify, Clinton was popular but his Iraq policy was
roundly rebuked. There were protesters in the street all over Europe.
Most of the EU was defying the embargo.


His containment policy worked pretty well, although it was starting to
weaken toward the end of his second term. It was a heck of a lot better than
what came next though.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 19:35:57 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

The old approach of fly in, bomb the targets and leave was a far
better
policy than occupation.

The problem with that is it accomplishes nothing and alienates
everyone, including people who should be our allies.
By the end of the "bomb them from orbit" Clinton administration we had
lost the respect of most of the world. That is why the Iraq sanctions
were failing.


Again with the revisionist history lesson?? Clinton was hugely popular
both
here and abroad. He remains so. It's Bush who lost the world's respect
for
the US.
Perhaps I need to clarify, Clinton was popular but his Iraq policy was
roundly rebuked. There were protesters in the street all over Europe.
Most of the EU was defying the embargo.


His containment policy worked pretty well, although it was starting to
weaken toward the end of his second term. It was a heck of a lot better
than
what came next though.

You are admitting the "containment" strategy was failing, thanks for
being honest. The reality is, when the EU abandoned the embargo and
Saddam threw out the inspectors, the containment was more rhetoric
than reality.
What would your next step going to be if we didn't put boots on the
ground there? Basically it was either getting out or going in.
We were running out of excuses to keep bombing Iraqi civilians in the
name of saving the Kurds and the coup we wanted out of them wasn't
going to happen.



I'm admitting no such thing. I said "weakening," which means it could have
been strenthened if Bush has the desire to try. Saddam also let the
inspectors back in, but that wasn't good enough for warmonger Bush.

My next step? I wasn't the president, and there was no threat to the US.
Israel certainly could and can take care of itself. He wasn't invading
anyone.

Yet again, you're revising history. Bush said nothing about the poor Iraqi
people until the WMD bs wouldn't float any more. The Kurds has a very secure
area with Saddam contained. He did nothing to them leading up to the
invasion. He gassed them in 1988...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190446,00.html.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 22:11:34 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 19:35:57 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

The old approach of fly in, bomb the targets and leave was a far
better
policy than occupation.

The problem with that is it accomplishes nothing and alienates
everyone, including people who should be our allies.
By the end of the "bomb them from orbit" Clinton administration we
had
lost the respect of most of the world. That is why the Iraq
sanctions
were failing.


Again with the revisionist history lesson?? Clinton was hugely popular
both
here and abroad. He remains so. It's Bush who lost the world's respect
for
the US.
Perhaps I need to clarify, Clinton was popular but his Iraq policy was
roundly rebuked. There were protesters in the street all over Europe.
Most of the EU was defying the embargo.


His containment policy worked pretty well, although it was starting to
weaken toward the end of his second term. It was a heck of a lot better
than
what came next though.

You are admitting the "containment" strategy was failing, thanks for
being honest. The reality is, when the EU abandoned the embargo and
Saddam threw out the inspectors, the containment was more rhetoric
than reality.
What would your next step going to be if we didn't put boots on the
ground there? Basically it was either getting out or going in.
We were running out of excuses to keep bombing Iraqi civilians in the
name of saving the Kurds and the coup we wanted out of them wasn't
going to happen.



I'm admitting no such thing. I said "weakening," which means it could have
been strenthened if Bush has the desire to try. Saddam also let the
inspectors back in, but that wasn't good enough for warmonger Bush.

My next step? I wasn't the president, and there was no threat to the US.
Israel certainly could and can take care of itself. He wasn't invading
anyone.

Yet again, you're revising history. Bush said nothing about the poor Iraqi
people until the WMD bs wouldn't float any more. The Kurds has a very
secure
area with Saddam contained. He did nothing to them leading up to the
invasion. He gassed them in 1988...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190446,00.html.

Clinton was the one who said he was saving the Kurds, that was the
excuse for the no fly zones.

I said, "with Saddam contained." Thus Clinton was ensuring the Kurds'
continued security.

I am not here to defend Bush, he was wrong. My question is why didn't
Clinton get us out of there? Saddam was clearly slipping away from
containment and without an effective embargo we really didn't have any
way to contain him without more military action.

Because the containment was still working. It's unclear if other means could
be used to continue to thwart Saddam's greater designs on the region. We
didn't get a chance to try ala Bush.

--
Nom=de=Plume