that BASTARD criticizes previous administration!!!
 

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 09:49:58 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 14:23:29 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Give me a break. Cheney orchestrated the increase of use of Haliburton
and
Blackwater.

Unless you were a stock watcher you probably thought Haliburton was an
oil service company in 1990-91 but that was the Gulf War play when
Kuwait was invaded because they were the prime DoD contractor for
logistics. For the 6 months of GW1 there was a lot of money to be made
betting on them, then after the war they went down with the rest of
the market.
After it was clear that Clinton was not going to end the war the stock
soared again. As I said, they were the prime contractor for the no fly
zone war throughout the Clinton administration (when Cheney worked
for them).


Clinton never said he was going to end the war.

I know but we thought it would be over soon. After all we won the war
didn't we?? ... but there was too much money to be made staying
there.
Clinton was saber rattling for his whole 8 years, bombing people in
Iraq almost every day and W was so dumb he took the threats Clinton
made in 1998-1999 seriously, enforcing those UN resolutions that were
just supposed to be empty rhetoric. Didn't he understand the UN is
just a paper tiger?


So, even though he never said that, it's still his fault?

Clinton was slammed over and over by the right for not being militaristic
enough...

Never said what? I agree they did not acknowledge the Iraq war much
during the 8 years Clinton waged it. We just saw all of the camera
shots from the GBU 25s smashing into "targets" without really
admitting they were people.

The main criticism I heard about Clinton't lack of military acumen was
his over dependence on guided munitions. (AKA Tomahawk Diplomacy).




Never said that he was going to "end" the war in Iraq.

He almost got bin laden with this "diplomacy."


--
Nom=de=Plume

that BASTARD criticizes previous administration!!!
 

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 10:30:23 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Never said that he was going to "end" the war in Iraq.

He also never said it would go on 8 more years.

He never said it wouldn't either.


He almost got bin laden with this "diplomacy."


Hit a night watchman instead.

"almost" means, umm... almost.

--
Nom=de=Plume

that BASTARD criticizes previous administration!!!
 

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 20:12:05 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 10:30:23 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Never said that he was going to "end" the war in Iraq.

He also never said it would go on 8 more years.

He never said it wouldn't either.

One of the reasons I wouldn't vote for him


He almost got bin laden with this "diplomacy."


Hit a night watchman instead.

"almost" means, umm... almost.

This is a digital situation, You get him or you don't.
Bush "almost" got him too but you don't say much about that.


Bush almost got him, but then gave up. He even lied about continuing to try
to get him.

Clinton didn't give up. You claimed that his missile attacks were somehow a
bad thing. He tried and he was castigated for it by the Right Wing.

--
Nom=de=Plume

that BASTARD criticizes previous administration!!!
 

On Feb 2, 1:43*am, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
wrote in message

...



On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 20:12:05 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 10:30:23 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Never said that he was going to "end" the war in Iraq.

He also never said it would go on 8 more years.

He never said it wouldn't either.

One of the reasons I wouldn't vote for him

He almost got bin laden with this "diplomacy."

Hit a night watchman instead.

"almost" means, umm... almost.

This is a digital situation, You get him or you don't.
Bush "almost" got him too but you don't say much about that.

Bush almost got him, but then gave up. He even lied about continuing to try
to get him.

Clinton didn't give up. You claimed that his missile attacks were somehow a
bad thing. He tried and he was castigated for it by the Right Wing.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Could you try again in English..."

--
"Nom=de=Plume "

that BASTARD criticizes previous administration!!!
 

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 23:43:26 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

He almost got bin laden with this "diplomacy."


Hit a night watchman instead.

"almost" means, umm... almost.

This is a digital situation, You get him or you don't.
Bush "almost" got him too but you don't say much about that.


Bush almost got him, but then gave up. He even lied about continuing to
try
to get him.

Clinton didn't give up. You claimed that his missile attacks were somehow
a
bad thing. He tried and he was castigated for it by the Right Wing.

When you are killing more innocents than bad guys it is always a bad
thing. That is the problem with Afghanistan now and Iraq since 1991.

Bombing alone never won a war, unless you use a nuke and that has the
potential of ending the world as we know it.


I don't think that's happening in Afg. right now... at least not from our
side. I could be wrong. In any case, you've identified the problem that we
shouldn't be there for the long term certainly or in Iraq any longer than
humanly possible. So, what's your solution? If we "just leave," a lot more
civilians would die, at least that's what all the generals are saying.

--
Nom=de=Plume

that BASTARD criticizes previous administration!!!
 

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 15:50:59 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

When you are killing more innocents than bad guys it is always a bad
thing. That is the problem with Afghanistan now and Iraq since 1991.

Bombing alone never won a war, unless you use a nuke and that has the
potential of ending the world as we know it.


I don't think that's happening in Afg. right now... at least not from our
side. I could be wrong. In any case, you've identified the problem that we
shouldn't be there for the long term certainly or in Iraq any longer than
humanly possible. So, what's your solution? If we "just leave," a lot more
civilians would die, at least that's what all the generals are saying.

So what? That will happen whenever we leave. We had the same
experience in Vietnam but a few years later everything worked itself
out and now they are members of the global economy. Have you looked at
the country of manufacture of wooden furniture lately?


According to who? The more stable we can make it, the fewer lives will be
lost. So, your solution is.....

--
Nom=de=Plume

that BASTARD criticizes previous administration!!!
 

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 20:10:51 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I don't think that's happening in Afg. right now... at least not from
our
side. I could be wrong. In any case, you've identified the problem that
we
shouldn't be there for the long term certainly or in Iraq any longer
than
humanly possible. So, what's your solution? If we "just leave," a lot
more
civilians would die, at least that's what all the generals are saying.

So what? That will happen whenever we leave. We had the same
experience in Vietnam but a few years later everything worked itself
out and now they are members of the global economy. Have you looked at
the country of manufacture of wooden furniture lately?


According to who? The more stable we can make it, the fewer lives will be
lost. So, your solution is.....

Get the hell out and let the big dog eat.

We are not in Iran and they look like they are going to throw out the
mullahs all on their own (perhaps with a little covert help from the
CIA)



Basically, you're saying that even though we broke it, we'll let a massacre
take place and that's ok. It isn't.

--
Nom=de=Plume

that BASTARD criticizes previous administration!!!
 

nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 20:10:51 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I don't think that's happening in Afg. right now... at least not from
our
side. I could be wrong. In any case, you've identified the problem that
we
shouldn't be there for the long term certainly or in Iraq any longer
than
humanly possible. So, what's your solution? If we "just leave," a lot
more
civilians would die, at least that's what all the generals are saying.
So what? That will happen whenever we leave. We had the same
experience in Vietnam but a few years later everything worked itself
out and now they are members of the global economy. Have you looked at
the country of manufacture of wooden furniture lately?

According to who? The more stable we can make it, the fewer lives will be
lost. So, your solution is.....
Get the hell out and let the big dog eat.

We are not in Iran and they look like they are going to throw out the
mullahs all on their own (perhaps with a little covert help from the
CIA)



Basically, you're saying that even though we broke it, we'll let a massacre
take place and that's ok. It isn't.

I'll bet you have a peachy keen alternative plan. Let's hear it.

that BASTARD criticizes previous administration!!!
 

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 23:21:35 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Get the hell out and let the big dog eat.

We are not in Iran and they look like they are going to throw out the
mullahs all on their own (perhaps with a little covert help from the
CIA)



Basically, you're saying that even though we broke it, we'll let a
massacre
take place and that's ok. It isn't.

I don't think there is a "fix". These people will have to work out
their own problems. We are just prolonging the agony.


I agree. There's no complete fix, but we certainly have the obligation to
make the situation better. Just leaving isn't the best option for either
them or us.

--
Nom=de=Plume

that BASTARD criticizes previous administration!!!
 

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 20:10:51 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I don't think that's happening in Afg. right now... at least not from
our
side. I could be wrong. In any case, you've identified the problem that
we
shouldn't be there for the long term certainly or in Iraq any longer
than
humanly possible. So, what's your solution? If we "just leave," a lot
more
civilians would die, at least that's what all the generals are saying.

So what? That will happen whenever we leave. We had the same
experience in Vietnam but a few years later everything worked itself
out and now they are members of the global economy. Have you looked at
the country of manufacture of wooden furniture lately?


According to who? The more stable we can make it, the fewer lives will be
lost. So, your solution is.....

Get the hell out and let the big dog eat.

We are not in Iran and they look like they are going to throw out the
mullahs all on their own (perhaps with a little covert help from the
CIA)



Basically, you're saying that even though we broke it, we'll let a
massacre take place and that's ok. It isn't.

--
Nom=de=Plume


If we got out tomorrow, there will be civil war of 3-6 months. Until they
decide what they want as a country. If we get out in 10 years, there will
be civil war of 3-6 months. Until they decide what they want as a country.