| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
that BASTARD criticizes previous administration!!!
"To understand the State of the Union, we must look not only at where
we are and where we’re going but where we’ve been. The situation at this time last year was truly ominous. [...] First, we must understand what’s happening at the moment to the economy. Our current problems are not the product of the recovery program that’s only just now getting under way, as some would have you believe; they are the inheritance of decades of tax and tax, and spend and spend. [...] The only alternative being offered to this economic program is a return to the policies that gave us a trillion-dollar debt, runaway inflation, runaway interest rates and unemployment ----------------- oh...wait...that was reagan in his first SOTU address sorry. my mistake the right pretends obama's a coward for simply telling the truth. |
that BASTARD criticizes previous administration!!!
On Jan 28, 6:21*pm, bpuharic wrote:
"To understand the State of the Union, we must look not only at where we are and where we re going but where we ve been. The situation at this time last year was truly ominous. [...] First, we must understand what s happening at the moment to the economy. Our current problems are not the product of the recovery program that s only just now getting under way, as some would have you believe; they are the inheritance of decades of tax and tax, and spend and spend. [...] The only alternative being offered to this economic program is a return to the policies that gave us a trillion-dollar debt, runaway inflation, runaway interest rates and unemployment ----------------- oh...wait...that was reagan in his first SOTU address sorry. *my mistake the right pretends obama's a coward for simply telling the truth. Did Reagan own a Boat? |
that BASTARD criticizes previous administration!!!
"bpuharic" wrote in message
... "To understand the State of the Union, we must look not only at where we are and where we're going but where we've been. The situation at this time last year was truly ominous. [...] First, we must understand what's happening at the moment to the economy. Our current problems are not the product of the recovery program that's only just now getting under way, as some would have you believe; they are the inheritance of decades of tax and tax, and spend and spend. [...] The only alternative being offered to this economic program is a return to the policies that gave us a trillion-dollar debt, runaway inflation, runaway interest rates and unemployment ----------------- oh...wait...that was reagan in his first SOTU address sorry. my mistake the right pretends obama's a coward for simply telling the truth. It would have been more believable if you had spoofed Froggie :) -- Nom=de=Plume |
that BASTARD criticizes previous administration!!!
|
that BASTARD criticizes previous administration!!!
On 1/28/10 7:02 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message ... "To understand the State of the Union, we must look not only at where we are and where we're going but where we've been. The situation at this time last year was truly ominous. [...] First, we must understand what's happening at the moment to the economy. Our current problems are not the product of the recovery program that's only just now getting under way, as some would have you believe; they are the inheritance of decades of tax and tax, and spend and spend. [...] The only alternative being offered to this economic program is a return to the policies that gave us a trillion-dollar debt, runaway inflation, runaway interest rates and unemployment ----------------- oh...wait...that was reagan in his first SOTU address sorry. my mistake the right pretends obama's a coward for simply telling the truth. It would have been more believable if you had spoofed Froggie :) You have to be really truly crazy to pull that off... |
that BASTARD criticizes previous administration!!!
On 28/01/2010 4:21 PM, bpuharic wrote:
"To understand the State of the Union, we must look not only at where we are and where we’re going but where we’ve been. The situation at this time last year was truly ominous. [...] First, we must understand what’s happening at the moment to the economy. Our current problems are not the product of the recovery program that’s only just now getting under way, as some would have you believe; they are the inheritance of decades of tax and tax, and spend and spend. [...] The only alternative being offered to this economic program is a return to the policies that gave us a trillion-dollar debt, runaway inflation, runaway interest rates and unemployment ----------------- oh...wait...that was reagan in his first SOTU address sorry. my mistake the right pretends obama's a coward for simply telling the truth. No. I think we are reasonable to expect some results from the biggest debt spend in the history of economics. But you can't find $2 trillion of benefits. Obama is ****ing away the American dream. Only the stupid believe him, a polished bull****er. But BS is all he has. Just jive. While he sells Americans out to debt-government-servatude. |
that BASTARD criticizes previous administration!!!
"Canuck57" wrote in message
... On 28/01/2010 4:21 PM, bpuharic wrote: "To understand the State of the Union, we must look not only at where we are and where we’re going but where we’ve been. The situation at this time last year was truly ominous. [...] First, we must understand what’s happening at the moment to the economy. Our current problems are not the product of the recovery program that’s only just now getting under way, as some would have you believe; they are the inheritance of decades of tax and tax, and spend and spend. [...] The only alternative being offered to this economic program is a return to the policies that gave us a trillion-dollar debt, runaway inflation, runaway interest rates and unemployment ----------------- oh...wait...that was reagan in his first SOTU address sorry. my mistake the right pretends obama's a coward for simply telling the truth. No. I think we are reasonable to expect some results from the biggest debt spend in the history of economics. But you can't find $2 trillion of benefits. Obama is ****ing away the American dream. Only the stupid believe him, a polished bull****er. But BS is all he has. Just jive. While he sells Americans out to debt-government-servatude. You sure care a lot for someone who cares so much about America that you've left and will never return. At least, I hope you never return. -- Nom=de=Plume |
that BASTARD criticizes previous administration!!!
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 18:11:48 -0700, Canuck57
wrote: On 28/01/2010 4:21 PM, bpuharic wrote: "To understand the State of the Union, we must look not only at where we are and where we’re going but where we’ve been. The situation at this time last year was truly ominous. [...] First, we must understand what’s happening at the moment to the economy. Our current problems are not the product of the recovery program that’s only just now getting under way, as some would have you believe; they are the inheritance of decades of tax and tax, and spend and spend. [...] The only alternative being offered to this economic program is a return to the policies that gave us a trillion-dollar debt, runaway inflation, runaway interest rates and unemployment ----------------- oh...wait...that was reagan in his first SOTU address sorry. my mistake the right pretends obama's a coward for simply telling the truth. No. I think we are reasonable to expect some results from the biggest debt spend in the history of economics. says the crybaby, ignoring the fact his friends engineered -the biggest theft of funds in history from the middle class to the rich -the biggest bank failures in history since th 29 crash guess he, being a right winger, doesn't know history But you can't find $2 trillion of benefits. hell, bush spent a trillion dollars on the iraq war alone. that ****ed money away like it was water Obama is ****ing away the American dream. Only the stupid believe him, a polished bull****er. But BS is all he has. Just jive. While he sells Americans out to debt-government-servatude. says the crybaby forgetting that the right engineered the biggest bank collapse in recent history |
that BASTARD criticizes previous administration!!!
wrote in message
... On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 21:21:32 -0500, bpuharic wrote: hell, bush spent a trillion dollars on the iraq war alone. that ****ed money away like it was water That used to be s shock line and you had to do some creative bookkeeping to get to a trillion. The TARP (and other handouts) cost twice that much in one tenth the time. We didn't even create any jobs. At least The Iraq war employed lots of people for 10 years making vehicles for the insurgents to blow up, materiel for the troops and all manner of industrial goods we gave the Iraqis. At a certain point what we paid AIG makes Haliburton look like small time thieves pinching candy bars from the 7-11. Geithner was on TV yesterday trying to convince me that was a good idea. Most of TARP has or will be repaid. Not so with the deaths in Iraq. Haliburton soak us out of billions, and it's still going on. -- Nom=de=Plume |
that BASTARD criticizes previous administration!!!
|
that BASTARD criticizes previous administration!!!
|
that BASTARD criticizes previous administration!!!
|
that BASTARD criticizes previous administration!!!
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message ... On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 21:21:32 -0500, bpuharic wrote: hell, bush spent a trillion dollars on the iraq war alone. that ****ed money away like it was water That used to be s shock line and you had to do some creative bookkeeping to get to a trillion. The TARP (and other handouts) cost twice that much in one tenth the time. We didn't even create any jobs. At least The Iraq war employed lots of people for 10 years making vehicles for the insurgents to blow up, materiel for the troops and all manner of industrial goods we gave the Iraqis. At a certain point what we paid AIG makes Haliburton look like small time thieves pinching candy bars from the 7-11. Geithner was on TV yesterday trying to convince me that was a good idea. Most of TARP has or will be repaid. Not so with the deaths in Iraq. Haliburton soak us out of billions, and it's still going on. It costs lots of money to run a couple of wars toots. If Halliburton wasn't profitable then Obama would be bailing them out. No? |
that BASTARD criticizes previous administration!!!
|
that BASTARD criticizes previous administration!!!
On 1/29/10 11:43 AM, I am Tosk wrote:
In , says... On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 06:22:14 -0500, wrote: The TARP (and other handouts) cost twice that much in one tenth the time. and the TARP saved the banking system, created over 1M jobs and prevented a great depression We didn't even create any jobs. At least The Iraq war employed lots of people for 10 years making uh huh. according to a consensus of economists interviewed monday by USAToday, the TARP created about 1.2M jobs Surprising to see you praising a Bush policy decision with such vigor. I still think it was a big gift to a lot of rich people. The idea that it "saved or created" any jobs has been pretty much debunked. Just because you have no job skills and are unemployable doesn't mean others are in your burning boat. |
that BASTARD criticizes previous administration!!!
|
that BASTARD criticizes previous administration!!!
wrote in message
... On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 21:42:39 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 21:21:32 -0500, bpuharic wrote: hell, bush spent a trillion dollars on the iraq war alone. that ****ed money away like it was water That used to be s shock line and you had to do some creative bookkeeping to get to a trillion. The TARP (and other handouts) cost twice that much in one tenth the time. We didn't even create any jobs. At least The Iraq war employed lots of people for 10 years making vehicles for the insurgents to blow up, materiel for the troops and all manner of industrial goods we gave the Iraqis. At a certain point what we paid AIG makes Haliburton look like small time thieves pinching candy bars from the 7-11. Geithner was on TV yesterday trying to convince me that was a good idea. Most of TARP has or will be repaid. Not so with the deaths in Iraq. Haliburton soak us out of billions, and it's still going on. We'll see how much really gets paid. The big banks were able to pay but some of them are now saying they didn't really need the money in the first place. The rat hole that won't give up any of it's money is AIG. There is nobody there to pay it back. Hedge fund guys like Soros have it all. AIG owes about $70B. That's about 1 years worth of the Iraqi war. I believe all of the major banks have paid back the money. Keep blaming Soros if that makes you feel better. Again, you can hate Haliburton but they did create a lot of jobs. How many jobs did TARP create? For that matter you really need a good sense of humor to believe the stimulus is creating many jobs. The $2B clunker deal may have kept some Canadians and Japs working an extra month last fall and a few car dealers got through Thanksgiving with the lights on but they are screwed again now. Believe what you want. The stim helped, which is obvious. Is it the final answer, no. -- Nom=de=Plume |
that BASTARD criticizes previous administration!!!
wrote in message
... On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 06:23:39 -0500, bpuharic wrote: On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 02:28:15 -0500, wrote: We'll see how much really gets paid. The big banks were able to pay but some of them are now saying they didn't really need the money in the first place. The rat hole that won't give up any of it's money is AIG. There is nobody there to pay it back. Hedge fund guys like Soros have it all. and how much money will iraq pay to the US for the trillion we spent there? Again, you can hate Haliburton but they did create a lot of jobs and the war created 4400 corpses...the flower of american youth. but, then, they were middle class kids. and the right doesn't particularly care about american soldiers. I am not a fan of the war, never have been. I am still waiting for Obama to get us out. But it's his fault that the country is in financial trouble, even though Bush got us into Iraq, which is costing $10B a month??? -- Nom=de=Plume |
that BASTARD criticizes previous administration!!!
wrote in message
... On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 21:42:39 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Not so with the deaths in Iraq. Haliburton soak us out of billions, and it's still going on. I agree the Iraq war was stupid but I have thought that since 1991. We should have come home when Powell said we should. Haliburton was simply the price we paid for not having a draft. In earlier times it would have been army draftees doing those jobs. Haliburton was simply the only company that had the resources to do the mission. They really don't have any meaningful competition in that arena. This is not really a "Cheney" problem. I made a lot of money in the 90s on HAL when it was Clinton buying their services ... in a no bid contract. If you realized Clinton was not going to stop the Iraq war in 1992 and loaded up on HAL in the single digits you saw it go to $30. They were doing the logistics for the ground services in the "no fly zone" war too. That was where we got the money for our kitchen remodel ;-) Give me a break. Cheney orchestrated the increase of use of Haliburton and Blackwater. -- Nom=de=Plume |
that BASTARD criticizes previous administration!!!
wrote in message
... On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 06:22:14 -0500, bpuharic wrote: The TARP (and other handouts) cost twice that much in one tenth the time. and the TARP saved the banking system, created over 1M jobs and prevented a great depression We didn't even create any jobs. At least The Iraq war employed lots of people for 10 years making uh huh. according to a consensus of economists interviewed monday by USAToday, the TARP created about 1.2M jobs Surprising to see you praising a Bush policy decision with such vigor. I still think it was a big gift to a lot of rich people. The Bush "policy" decision was that he didn't want to be known as the president who caused the world financial markets to collapse. He had to be pushed into it by Paulson, et. al. -- Nom=de=Plume |
that BASTARD criticizes previous administration!!!
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message ... On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 06:22:14 -0500, bpuharic wrote: The TARP (and other handouts) cost twice that much in one tenth the time. and the TARP saved the banking system, created over 1M jobs and prevented a great depression We didn't even create any jobs. At least The Iraq war employed lots of people for 10 years making uh huh. according to a consensus of economists interviewed monday by USAToday, the TARP created about 1.2M jobs Surprising to see you praising a Bush policy decision with such vigor. I still think it was a big gift to a lot of rich people. The Bush "policy" decision was that he didn't want to be known as the president who caused the world financial markets to collapse. He had to be pushed into it by Paulson, et. al. Correct. He had no choice. Always got pushed around by others. But he redeemed himself by resisting Cheney's effort to have him pardon Scooter. So he came out of his 8 years in fine shape, and so it will be written when the history of his Presidency is scribed. BTW, I apologize for calling you "toots." Didn't want to sound sexist. Is honeybuns ok? Seems pretty neutral, but I'm not real sure. |
that BASTARD criticizes previous administration!!!
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 11:30:38 -0500, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 06:23:39 -0500, bpuharic wrote: On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 02:28:15 -0500, wrote: We'll see how much really gets paid. The big banks were able to pay but some of them are now saying they didn't really need the money in the first place. The rat hole that won't give up any of it's money is AIG. There is nobody there to pay it back. Hedge fund guys like Soros have it all. and how much money will iraq pay to the US for the trillion we spent there? Again, you can hate Haliburton but they did create a lot of jobs and the war created 4400 corpses...the flower of american youth. but, then, they were middle class kids. and the right doesn't particularly care about american soldiers. I am not a fan of the war, never have been. I am still waiting for Obama to get us out. you just don't leave a war like you leave a dance. and the last american marine has already left iraq. the army will follow next year. |
that BASTARD criticizes previous administration!!!
|
that BASTARD criticizes previous administration!!!
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 11:43:33 -0500, I am Tosk
wrote: In article , says... On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 06:22:14 -0500, bpuharic wrote: The TARP (and other handouts) cost twice that much in one tenth the time. and the TARP saved the banking system, created over 1M jobs and prevented a great depression We didn't even create any jobs. At least The Iraq war employed lots of people for 10 years making uh huh. according to a consensus of economists interviewed monday by USAToday, the TARP created about 1.2M jobs Surprising to see you praising a Bush policy decision with such vigor. I still think it was a big gift to a lot of rich people. The idea that it "saved or created" any jobs has been pretty much debunked. really? the american enterprise institute, an archconservative 'think tank' (there's an oxymoron) says it created jobs and i just referenced 50 economists who said it make 1.2M jobs oh. you're a right winger. you don't read sorry. i forgot |
that BASTARD criticizes previous administration!!!
On 1/29/10 9:19 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 11:43:33 -0500, I am Tosk wrote: In , says... On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 06:22:14 -0500, wrote: The TARP (and other handouts) cost twice that much in one tenth the time. and the TARP saved the banking system, created over 1M jobs and prevented a great depression We didn't even create any jobs. At least The Iraq war employed lots of people for 10 years making uh huh. according to a consensus of economists interviewed monday by USAToday, the TARP created about 1.2M jobs Surprising to see you praising a Bush policy decision with such vigor. I still think it was a big gift to a lot of rich people. The idea that it "saved or created" any jobs has been pretty much debunked. really? the american enterprise institute, an archconservative 'think tank' (there's an oxymoron) says it created jobs and i just referenced 50 economists who said it make 1.2M jobs oh. you're a right winger. you don't read sorry. i forgot It's far worse than that: Tosk is an ill-educated, uninformed, skill-less hippy wannabe who couldn't hold down a job sweeping streets. |
that BASTARD criticizes previous administration!!!
Harry wrote:
On 1/29/10 9:19 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 11:43:33 -0500, I am Tosk wrote: In , says... On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 06:22:14 -0500, wrote: The TARP (and other handouts) cost twice that much in one tenth the time. and the TARP saved the banking system, created over 1M jobs and prevented a great depression We didn't even create any jobs. At least The Iraq war employed lots of people for 10 years making uh huh. according to a consensus of economists interviewed monday by USAToday, the TARP created about 1.2M jobs Surprising to see you praising a Bush policy decision with such vigor. I still think it was a big gift to a lot of rich people. The idea that it "saved or created" any jobs has been pretty much debunked. really? the american enterprise institute, an archconservative 'think tank' (there's an oxymoron) says it created jobs and i just referenced 50 economists who said it make 1.2M jobs oh. you're a right winger. you don't read sorry. i forgot It's far worse than that: Tosk is an ill-educated, uninformed, skill-less hippy wannabe who couldn't hold down a job sweeping streets. And you talk about sniping.... |
that BASTARD criticizes previous administration!!!
wrote in message
... On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 11:47:03 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: But it's his fault that the country is in financial trouble, even though Bush got us into Iraq, which is costing $10B a month??? Which Bush? HW got us into Iraq and his 3 sons have not extracted us yet. Granted W was the worst by a long shot but they all spent exorbitant sums there I was talking about Obama, but you chopped that part out. At least Bush I stopped before toppling the gov't. He actually listened to his advisors. Bush II just listened to Cheney. -- Nom=de=Plume |
that BASTARD criticizes previous administration!!!
wrote in message
... On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 11:48:07 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 21:42:39 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Not so with the deaths in Iraq. Haliburton soak us out of billions, and it's still going on. I agree the Iraq war was stupid but I have thought that since 1991. We should have come home when Powell said we should. Haliburton was simply the price we paid for not having a draft. In earlier times it would have been army draftees doing those jobs. Haliburton was simply the only company that had the resources to do the mission. They really don't have any meaningful competition in that arena. This is not really a "Cheney" problem. I made a lot of money in the 90s on HAL when it was Clinton buying their services ... in a no bid contract. If you realized Clinton was not going to stop the Iraq war in 1992 and loaded up on HAL in the single digits you saw it go to $30. They were doing the logistics for the ground services in the "no fly zone" war too. That was where we got the money for our kitchen remodel ;-) 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. -- Nom=de=Plume |
that BASTARD criticizes previous administration!!!
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... -- Nom=de=Plume |
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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:06 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com