|
An OT question
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 14:19:19 -0400, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 23:30:42 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 02:16:24 -0400, wrote: Sure thing. Screw the Japanese. Let them suffer. You're quite a humanitarian. What does Korea have to do with Japan? Not a thing, but the same argument applies. Should we just abandon the Koreans? You're quite a humanitarian. Like I said, changing the subject again. Like you said, nothing. Sounds to me like you're just unable to keep up with the conversation. I guess the real question in Korea is, would the US support another Korean war right now (perhaps a nuclear war) Would we have really been better off if we had let the big dog eat in 1950? So, wipe out S. Korean, forget all the economic benefit that's come from that country... The fall of Vietnam did not cause all the problems the hawks predicted to justify killing 60,000 Americans and a couple million Vietnamese. So? Your point? Are you changing the subject again? The troops in Bosnia are engaged in peacekeeping activities. What the hell does that mean? If this is really "peace keeping", send the peace corps, other wise it is a military adventure. Really? Who have we shot at recently in Bosnia? Are you saying we shouldn't be there either. Now we are getting somewhere. I'm saying we're doing a valuable job there, whether or not you like it. Didn't you just get through saying we stopped all the genocide and scolded me because I said they still had two populations who hate each other. We stopped it, and we're preventing a redux. It's called peacekeeping. It's a worthy job. FYI, it's a UN operation, not just the US, but of course, the facts don't really matter, right? Mostly, it's monitoring, but like I said, facts don't matter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timelin...eping_missions The UN is the US. If we are not providing the lion's share of the military force, it is a farce. No, it isn't. Even though you want to believe it it's not true. Talk to the UK and France about who's been flying. What is this "valuable job"? Iraq seems an "iffy" proposition. Many believe open warfare will break out there as we begin pulling out in large numbers. I've always thought Iraq was and would remain a disaster. Count on it. No, you count on it... the rest of us will go with the facts on the ground. The "facts on the ground" are that as soon as we pull back from a place in Afghanistan, it goes back to the way it was like pulling your foot out of a bucket of mud. Maybe, but of course you're the expert in all things, so it's got to be true. I know a little about the history there. Evidently you don't. So far, you haven't demonstrated that in this thread. You tell me a story about anyone who has imposed any real influence over the tribes in Afghanistan Ms history major. Which has nothing to do with the subject of stabilization, which takes time Mr. I Know Everything about Everything. Afghanistan, now there's the rub. I have no idea why we are in Afghanistan, and it is one of the issues I have with the Obama administration. We have always agreed there. Sometimes I think we maintain these overseas positions in order to give our boys in uniform something to do, possibilities for promotion, and the ability to remain in uniform. After all, if we weren't so active, we could cut the military budget in half, at least, and muster out hundreds of thousands of marginal troops like Herring. We could still cut the budget in half but the real problem is, most of the DoD budget is a pork barrel jobs program. Which is, of course, Obama's fault. Certainly not Reagan's. Probably more like George Washington, certainly FDR. Eisenhower tried to warn us but JFK cranked up the arms race (on a lie about a nonexistent missile gap) and it never stopped Sure... Reagan, the God, couldn't be at fault. What does Reagan have to do with the arms race? It started in 1960. Reagan was still making movies. Nothing. He just increased the Navy to... what was it... 600 ships or something like that. He was a dove, according to you. No I am just saying he continued the policy started by JFK Nope. He didn't. His goal was to increase the military. That wasn't JFK's goal and you know it. |
An OT question
Gene wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:21:46 -0400, John wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 07:34:00 -0400, wrote: On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 15:48:24 -0400, John wrote: Last night I heard Oprah saying the war in Afghanistan had very little impact on her because there was little to remind her it was going on. Anyone? Anybody that watches (or can STAND to watch) Oprah has problems....... I keep telling my wife that, but she doesn't listen to me. Besides, that wasn't the point. (As you well know.) My guess: News sells.... bad news sells good. When the troop casualties were increasing, it was salable news. Now that they have dropped significantly, it isn't the moneymaker it was... and the supply has diminished... ..... yes, it is macabre and disgusting... but that is what keeps a news corporation in the black.... http://icasualties.org/oef/ByYear.aspx Getting back to the other issue here, which is more interesting... ....and that is the expressions of disdain and even disgust some have posted here about Oprah. I've been a fan of Oprah since she won the libel suit brought against her in the late 1990's by those Texas cattlemen. I don't watch her show, but I am aware of her presence and many of the good deeds she does with her money and influence. She publishes a classy magazine, too. I know that because my wife subscribes and I look through it every month. My gut tells me Oprah is not liked by a certain element here because: A. She's black and, even worse, a black woman. B. She's very influential in many areas, perhaps the most influential woman in the world. C. She's a self-made billionaire. D. She's pretty much dedicated to liberal causes. E. She helped Obama get elected. These, to me, are all reasons to admire her, and reasons for the wigged-out righties to hate her. Live long and prosper, Oprah. |
An OT question
In article , payer3389
@mypacks.net says... Getting back to the other issue here, which is more interesting... Interesting. Sure. What about Jessica Simpson? Or Jaylo? ...and that is the expressions of disdain and even disgust some have posted here about Oprah. I've been a fan of Oprah since she won the libel suit brought against her in the late 1990's by those Texas cattlemen. I don't watch her show, but I am aware of her presence and many of the good deeds she does with her money and influence. She publishes a classy magazine, too. I know that because my wife subscribes and I look through it every month. My gut tells me Oprah is not liked by a certain element here because: A. She's black and, even worse, a black woman. B. She's very influential in many areas, perhaps the most influential woman in the world. C. She's a self-made billionaire. D. She's pretty much dedicated to liberal causes. E. She helped Obama get elected. These, to me, are all reasons to admire her, and reasons for the wigged-out righties to hate her. I'm not a righty, and don't care one way or the other about Oprah. Oprah is totally boring to me. It's a chick show for Chist's sake. You go ahead and be a fan, Harriet. More power to ya. Live long and prosper, Oprah. |
An OT question
On 3/21/2011 5:27 PM, Harryk wrote:
Gene wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:21:46 -0400, John wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 07:34:00 -0400, wrote: On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 15:48:24 -0400, John wrote: Last night I heard Oprah saying the war in Afghanistan had very little impact on her because there was little to remind her it was going on. Anyone? Anybody that watches (or can STAND to watch) Oprah has problems....... I keep telling my wife that, but she doesn't listen to me. Besides, that wasn't the point. (As you well know.) My guess: News sells.... bad news sells good. When the troop casualties were increasing, it was salable news. Now that they have dropped significantly, it isn't the moneymaker it was... and the supply has diminished... ..... yes, it is macabre and disgusting... but that is what keeps a news corporation in the black.... http://icasualties.org/oef/ByYear.aspx Getting back to the other issue here, which is more interesting... ...and that is the expressions of disdain and even disgust some have posted here about Oprah. I've been a fan of Oprah since she won the libel suit brought against her in the late 1990's by those Texas cattlemen. I don't watch her show, but I am aware of her presence and many of the good deeds she does with her money and influence. She publishes a classy magazine, too. I know that because my wife subscribes and I look through it every month. My gut tells me Oprah is not liked by a certain element here because: A. She's black and, even worse, a black woman. B. She's very influential in many areas, perhaps the most influential woman in the world. C. She's a self-made billionaire. D. She's pretty much dedicated to liberal causes. E. She helped Obama get elected. These, to me, are all reasons to admire her, and reasons for the wigged-out righties to hate her. Live long and prosper, Oprah. Sounds to me that you are overcompensating for shameful atrocities you and your ancestors perpetrated on blacks and Jews. Are you a former KKK Klansman? BTW D and E is all that's needed to make her one of those steeenkin groupies. |
An OT question
In article ,
says... On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:21:46 -0400, John H wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 07:34:00 -0400, Gene wrote: On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 15:48:24 -0400, John H wrote: Last night I heard Oprah saying the war in Afghanistan had very little impact on her because there was little to remind her it was going on. Anyone? Anybody that watches (or can STAND to watch) Oprah has problems....... I keep telling my wife that, but she doesn't listen to me. Besides, that wasn't the point. (As you well know.) My guess: News sells.... bad news sells good. When the troop casualties were increasing, it was salable news. Now that they have dropped significantly, it isn't the moneymaker it was... and the supply has diminished... ..... yes, it is macabre and disgusting... but that is what keeps a news corporation in the black.... http://icasualties.org/oef/ByYear.aspx OH for **** sake Gene.. The pictures stopped in the news on Jan 21, 2008... Why keep acting like you don't see it? |
An OT question
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:24:34 -0400, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:48:09 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 14:04:18 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 23:24:00 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 02:09:51 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:17:37 -0700, wrote: Under which presidency was that? Hmmm... GHWB. As I said, it started as a roll-back from Kuwait. The no fly zones had nothing to do with rolling back from Kuwait. It was all about supporting the Northern Alliance. Huh? I never said they did. Bush I ordered the attack after Kuwait. That's when it started. But, of course, Bush is a Republican, so it's ok. You said it 6 lines up. The no fly zones had nothing to do with rolling back from Kuwait. They did. They started after that in August 1992. Bush I was in office. The second NFZ started in 1996 under Clinton. You're going to claim that the NFZ had no relationship to the Kuwait invasion? Take you're head out of the sand. OK explain the relationship (other than the fact that we had the power in the region to do it) There was no direct connection to Kuwait in any way. To start with the first NFZs were in NORTHERN Iraq. Kuwait is south. The NFZs were sold to us as humanitarian, saving the Kurds with the back story that if they could move freely they would topple Saddam. Where was your head when this story was all over the media? The NFZs followed the Kuwait roll-back. So, I guess humanitarian goals aren't valid, according to you anyway. Then, Bush I abandoned the Shiite in the south. Saddam was contained and he made no further attempts at regional conquest under Clinton. Then Bush II/Cheney decided to "finish" the job, and we got a war we didn't need. I agree we should have simply come home, right after desert storm in 1991. Any further involvement was just going to result in more involvement. We did what was appropriate at the time of the UN resolution. Clinton did as best he could, and he certainly didn't make things worse. What was the logical conclusion of this operation going to be? Were we still going to be "flying the box" there 20 years later enforcing that NFZ and bombing them a few times a week? According to you.. Perhaps Bosnia was worth it? Or, do you think ethnic cleansing is ok... I am not sure we did much more than postpone the next round of ethnic cleansing. If we really thought we had fixed anything we would come home but we have just created another Korea where we keep 50,000 troops to keep people who want to kill each other from killing each other, basically replacing the Soviets who did that for 45 years. Really? I guess you haven't been keeping up on the current events. Do a Google search and get back to us. Enlighten me. Tell me something different. Are you saying the Soviets didn't tamp down this 500 year feud? Are you saying it didn't start back up shortly after they left? We did all celebrate their freedom from communism, until we figured out what they were going to do with their freedom. I'm saying that the Bosnian war was successful in stopping the genocide. Do you really think they suddenly are going to let bygones be bygones and forget the feud? As soon as we leave they will be back at it. According to you, international and all-things expert. If there was no ongoing threat, why are we still there? Never said there was "no threat." I said that we're on a peacekeeping mission. Try again. "Peacekeeping"? Nice euphemism, ... and what happens when we stop "keeping peace"? Exactly what I said will happen. They will start killing each other again. According to you. Have you actually looked at who's in Bosnia right now? Wow... so many US troops there... it's shocking! http://www.stripes.com/news/imminent...roatia-1.62196 Keep claiming all your nonsense, but I think you're a bit behind the times. It is still a couple thousand guys according to your article which could not provide the number for Croatia. I assume they gave this to NATO so we could send the troops to Afghanistan. How horrible... we're a successful peacekeeping force. It's a national disgrace. Call CNN. |
An OT question
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:38:49 -0400, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:51:59 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 14:19:19 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 23:30:42 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 02:16:24 -0400, wrote: Sure thing. Screw the Japanese. Let them suffer. You're quite a humanitarian. What does Korea have to do with Japan? Not a thing, but the same argument applies. Should we just abandon the Koreans? You're quite a humanitarian. Like I said, changing the subject again. Like you said, nothing. Sounds to me like you're just unable to keep up with the conversation. I guess the real question in Korea is, would the US support another Korean war right now (perhaps a nuclear war) Would we have really been better off if we had let the big dog eat in 1950? So, wipe out S. Korean, forget all the economic benefit that's come from that country... The fall of Vietnam did not cause all the problems the hawks predicted to justify killing 60,000 Americans and a couple million Vietnamese. So? Your point? See above. We don't know what would have happened if we had not intervened in ther civil war. Oh come on. You're just trying to support an untenable argument at this point. You're not making much sense... see what happens??? Are you changing the subject again? The troops in Bosnia are engaged in peacekeeping activities. What the hell does that mean? If this is really "peace keeping", send the peace corps, other wise it is a military adventure. Really? Who have we shot at recently in Bosnia? Are you saying we shouldn't be there either. Now we are getting somewhere. I'm saying we're doing a valuable job there, whether or not you like it. Didn't you just get through saying we stopped all the genocide and scolded me because I said they still had two populations who hate each other. We stopped it, and we're preventing a redux. It's called peacekeeping. It's a worthy job. FYI, it's a UN operation, not just the US, but of course, the facts don't really matter, right? Mostly, it's monitoring, but like I said, facts don't matter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timelin...eping_missions The UN is the US. If we are not providing the lion's share of the military force, it is a farce. No, it isn't. Even though you want to believe it it's not true. Talk to the UK and France about who's been flying. Bull**** The US is the hammer for the UN. Nobody else can come close to providing the logistic support, the air power or the mechanized ground troops. We're supplying logistics and air power. We are part of the UN force. So, no bull****, as you put it. No other country has a credible naval force either. (Reagan's 600 ships) Basically we go in, clear the zone and the UN/NATO puts in guys in blue helmets when the place is so safe we don't even want to pay "danger pay" to our troops. (according to your article) Yet there are other ships in the area, and they've launched missiles. What is this "valuable job"? Iraq seems an "iffy" proposition. Many believe open warfare will break out there as we begin pulling out in large numbers. I've always thought Iraq was and would remain a disaster. Count on it. No, you count on it... the rest of us will go with the facts on the ground. The "facts on the ground" are that as soon as we pull back from a place in Afghanistan, it goes back to the way it was like pulling your foot out of a bucket of mud. Maybe, but of course you're the expert in all things, so it's got to be true. I know a little about the history there. Evidently you don't. So far, you haven't demonstrated that in this thread. You tell me a story about anyone who has imposed any real influence over the tribes in Afghanistan Ms history major. Which has nothing to do with the subject of stabilization, which takes time Mr. I Know Everything about Everything. If the place has never been stable and the only places that are stable now are the places where we have overwhelming force on the ground, I do sound like I know. I am not the only person who thinks Afghanistan is a fools errand, unfortunately Obama is just not listening to them. Give him a call. I'm sure he'll take your views under advisement, since you're such an expert! Afghanistan, now there's the rub. I have no idea why we are in Afghanistan, and it is one of the issues I have with the Obama administration. We have always agreed there. Sometimes I think we maintain these overseas positions in order to give our boys in uniform something to do, possibilities for promotion, and the ability to remain in uniform. After all, if we weren't so active, we could cut the military budget in half, at least, and muster out hundreds of thousands of marginal troops like Herring. We could still cut the budget in half but the real problem is, most of the DoD budget is a pork barrel jobs program. Which is, of course, Obama's fault. Certainly not Reagan's. Probably more like George Washington, certainly FDR. Eisenhower tried to warn us but JFK cranked up the arms race (on a lie about a nonexistent missile gap) and it never stopped Sure... Reagan, the God, couldn't be at fault. What does Reagan have to do with the arms race? It started in 1960. Reagan was still making movies. Nothing. He just increased the Navy to... what was it... 600 ships or something like that. He was a dove, according to you. No I am just saying he continued the policy started by JFK Nope. He didn't. His goal was to increase the military. That wasn't JFK's goal and you know it. Of course it was JFKs goal. What other reason would he have to continue lying about a missile gap, after he got his presidential briefing? The fact was that the Soviets only had about 6 missiles capable of hitting any part of the US and the process of fueling and firing them was more like a moon shot than pushing a button. Kennedy knew this on January 20 1961 but it was not public knowledge because we did not want to disclose the fact that we were still illegally flying over USSR and taking pictures. We also did not want to expose the Corona program (space surveillance) Feel free to blame JFK for all your problems. I don't think he cares at this point. |
An OT question
On Mar 21, 4:09*pm, Gene wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:21:46 -0400, John H wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 07:34:00 -0400, Gene wrote: On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 15:48:24 -0400, John H wrote: Last night I heard Oprah saying the war in Afghanistan had very little impact on her because there was little to remind her it was going on. Anyone? Anybody that watches (or can STAND to watch) Oprah has problems....... I keep telling my wife that, but she doesn't listen to me. Besides, that wasn't the point. (As you well know.) My guess: News sells.... bad news sells good. When the troop casualties were increasing, it was salable news. Now that they have dropped significantly, it isn't the moneymaker it was... and the supply has diminished... ..... yes, it is macabre and disgusting... but that is what keeps a news corporation in the black.... http://icasualties.org/oef/ByYear.aspx -- Fort Agent 6.00 Build 1186 "Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So, throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." * - Unknown Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC. Homepage *http://pamandgene.tranquilrefuge.net/boating/the_boat/my_boat.htm Like the old newspaper motto...."If it bleeds, it reads" |
An OT question
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:21 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com