"TopBassDog" wrote in message
...
On Jul 26, 8:24 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 11:03:31 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

and george bush killed 4400 US troops in iraq while spending a
trillion there

how'd that work out?

About the same as Afghanistan, what's your point.?
Obama is still in both places.

And, the troop numbers in Iraq are dropping as per his stated
objective.

I suppose you heard about the Afghan surge? They still have more
people GOING IN.

And, they have an exit strategy. A flexible one, but a stated one. Next
question.

Yes, yes, D'Plume. And exit strategy which is second only to the exit
strategy for Gitmo.

Poor guy. Don't like Obama do you. Too bad!

On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 10:53:14 -0400, wrote:

The difference is it will be a Muslim theocracy like Iran
instead of a simple thug like Saddam. We know how to deal with thugs.
We are batting zero with ayatollahs.

The most likely scenario for Iraq after we leave is a major civil war
between the various Muslim factions. The one good thing about Saddam
was that he knew how to keep a lid on that.

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 21:00:28 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

and afganistan? guess you havent heard of 9/11.


Yeah I heard of it. I also heard the people who planned it have not
been in Afghanistan for 6 years.

hmmm...again you need to read the news.

the taliban just abducted 2 US servicemen the other day

The Taliban had nothing to do with 9-11. They are simply reacting to
our invasion of their country.

Not directly, but they were certainly allowing bin laden to do whatever he
wanted inside the Afg. border.


When people actually start reading "Pentagon papers II" this war will
go the way of Vietnam.
Our government knows we are not winning. They just won't tell us and
keep spinning the yarn that "a few thousand more men will do it".
We are just driving this problem into Pakistan, a whole lot more
frightening scenario than Afghanistan,

As for Iraq, the same thing is going to happen there was would have
happened if we came home the day Saddam died, or in 1991 for that
matter. The strongest dictator will take over and they will still hate
the US. The difference is it will be a Muslim theocracy like Iran
instead of a simple thug like Saddam. We know how to deal with thugs.
We are batting zero with ayatollahs.

According to you. You don't know this at all.

On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 12:16:13 -0400, wrote:

It makes me wonder, what would happen to the world if the US was not
the planet's policeman. Would things for us be better or worse?

Good question. You could make the argument that it's better to put
out small fires before they grow into big ones. I think you could
also make the argument however that we were better off, at least in
the short run, when Iran and Iraq kept busy fighting each other.

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 12:16:13 -0400, wrote:

It makes me wonder, what would happen to the world if the US was not
the planet's policeman. Would things for us be better or worse?

Good question. You could make the argument that it's better to put
out small fires before they grow into big ones. I think you could
also make the argument however that we were better off, at least in
the short run, when Iran and Iraq kept busy fighting each other.


I think we either need to embrace the roll of international policeman or be
very, very careful about getting involved. I don't think we can call fall
back to an isolationist position, as there are just too many things that
could adversely affect us, and we should be willing to be proactive when
necessary, but are leaders need to think things through before they act.

On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 10:53:14 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 21:00:28 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

and afganistan? guess you havent heard of 9/11.


Yeah I heard of it. I also heard the people who planned it have not
been in Afghanistan for 6 years.

hmmm...again you need to read the news.

the taliban just abducted 2 US servicemen the other day

The Taliban had nothing to do with 9-11. They are simply reacting to
our invasion of their country.

well, i always said the right was full of bull****

this proves it

the taliban had control of kabul on 9/11. osama bin laden was living
in a taliban controlled area and had daily contact with the taliban on
9/11

you were saying?


When people actually start reading "Pentagon papers II" this war will
go the way of Vietnam.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

can't help it you're stupid, dude. you did that to yourself



As for Iraq, the same thing is going to happen there was would have
happened if we came home the day Saddam died, or in 1991 for that
matter. The strongest dictator will take over and they will still hate
the US. The difference is it will be a Muslim theocracy like Iran
instead of a simple thug like Saddam. We know how to deal with thugs.
We are batting zero with ayatollahs.


the difference is there was no reason to go to iraq even though the
right wing wanted it.

there was, and is, a reason to be in afghanistan. but you're a fascist
sympathizer so cant stand to watch a fascist insurgence held at bay

and you're a liar.

On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 11:34:30 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 10:53:14 -0400, wrote:

The difference is it will be a Muslim theocracy like Iran
instead of a simple thug like Saddam. We know how to deal with thugs.
We are batting zero with ayatollahs.

The most likely scenario for Iraq after we leave is a major civil war
between the various Muslim factions. The one good thing about Saddam
was that he knew how to keep a lid on that.

muslims like to kill each other. it's part of the religion

On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 16:55:45 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 10:02:31 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:



Not directly, but they were certainly allowing bin laden to do whatever he
wanted inside the Afg. border.


That was then, this is now and OBL is not in Afghanistan.

any reason to believe the taliban wouldnt allow AQ to resume their
acxtivities?

i mean, other than you and your boys sitting around a campfire singing
'kumbyah'??

We have
managed to push that problem into a country that is a lot more
dangerous than Afghanistan and almost as unstable, getting worse every
day.

now let's see...so we just sit back and watch fascists overseas attack
the US while your wall street buddies attack the middle class...

gee. why didn't you tell us neville chamberlain was here?

On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 16:58:08 -0400, wrote:

As long as we are doing this we can't complain too much about spending
3/4ths of a trillion every year on DoD.

I just wonder if there is not a better use for the money.

Of course there is: Subsidized diesel fuel for trawler owners. :-)

On 7/27/10 7:29 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 16:58:08 -0400, wrote:

As long as we are doing this we can't complain too much about spending
3/4ths of a trillion every year on DoD.

I just wonder if there is not a better use for the money.

Of course there is: Subsidized diesel fuel for trawler owners. :-)


Why don't you hire a couple of impoverished out-of-work Gulf guys to
sponge up some oil for you...if they were illegals, you could pay them
$2.00 an hour and feel good about it, in your own smug, self-satisfied
Republican way.