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

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 "

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

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

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

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.

"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.

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
news

"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.



According to Bill McKee, the expert in foreign relations.

Why don't you tell us about your many patents again.

--
Nom=de=Plume

nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
news
"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.



According to Bill McKee, the expert in foreign relations.

Why don't you tell us about your many patents again.

Why don't you look them up yourself and show us what a great looker
upper you are.

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
news

"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.



According to Bill McKee, the expert in foreign relations.

Why don't you tell us about your many patents again.

--
Nom=de=Plume


You are the one who claims to be a patent attorney.