On 3/20/2011 11:46 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 11:06:25 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:04:41 -0400,
wrote:

I was wrong, I did misread the first note. John does have a point
though. The media fought Bush for the right to go out to Dover and
take pictures of coffins from the Iraq war and now that they have that
right, they are not showing the coffins coming home from Afghanistan.

I don't really think it is a liberal conspiracy though. I think the TV
networks just figured out they sell more products if they don't show
coffins and they like the American public to be as blissfully ignorant
of this war as Oprah. It does demonstrate how phony the righteous
indignation of the left was when Bush was the president. It was never
about the war. It was only about Bush.
That's about as simple-minded an analysis as I've seen. Maybe there's
less reportage about the bodies because it's been reported and it's boring.


So you are saying Bush made war a safe prospect for Democrats? Now
nobody cares that our kids are being killed for no particular reason
and they can stay in the blissful ignorance Oprah is so proud of.


No, I am not saying that Bush made way a "safe prospect." What I posted,
in plain English, is easy enough to understand: maybe there is less
reportage about the bodies because it's been reported and it's boring.

The young U.S. men and women who died in Iraq during Bush's war were
killed for no particular reason. The last time large numbers of U.S.
troops died for a particular reason was in World War II.

The question still stands, where is the outrage from the left about
the kids who are still coming home from Afghanistan in a box?

Will there be any outrage about dead kids coming home from Libya?

The whole topic *bores* Krause.

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 12:18:37 -0400, Ernie wrote:

On 3/20/2011 11:46 AM, wrote:

Will there be any outrage about dead kids coming home from Libya?

The whole topic *bores* Krause.

I am always amused when the democrats sit idly by as a democratic
president prosecutes an idiotic war but they get all over a republican
for the same war.

Looks like you're about to join the traitors.
Are you seriously comparing Iraq to Libya?
It appears you just called them "the same war."
Are you anticipating the death of American military in Libya?
Will that happening "prove you right?"
Do you want to be "right?"
You just dropped 97 notches on the intelligence scale.
I'm surprised.
But as I said in another post, low politics has no morality or sense of
judgement.
As soon as you start talking "democrat" and "republican" you forfeit the
right to be taken seriously.
You become a puppet to those labels.
But it's amusing to see you join the ranks of Mike Moore and Scotty
Ingersoll in one fell swoop.

In article ,
says...

The pedophile Harry Krause using his Boating all out persona is stalking
me again.. Pffftttt...

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:35:17 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 12:31:43 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 12:18:37 -0400, Ernie wrote:

On 3/20/2011 11:46 AM, wrote:

Will there be any outrage about dead kids coming home from Libya?

The whole topic *bores* Krause.

I am always amused when the democrats sit idly by as a democratic
president prosecutes an idiotic war but they get all over a republican
for the same war.

Looks like you're about to join the traitors.
Are you seriously comparing Iraq to Libya?
It appears you just called them "the same war."
Are you anticipating the death of American military in Libya?
Will that happening "prove you right?"
Do you want to be "right?"
You just dropped 97 notches on the intelligence scale.
I'm surprised.
But as I said in another post, low politics has no morality or sense of
judgement.
As soon as you start talking "democrat" and "republican" you forfeit the
right to be taken seriously.
You become a puppet to those labels.
But it's amusing to see you join the ranks of Mike Moore and Scotty
Ingersoll in one fell swoop.




Iraq started as a no fly zone, as did Bosnia. We are still in both
countries.

It did not start as a no-fly zone. It started with Bush I rolling back
the Iraqi advance into Kuwait.

Perhaps Bosnia was worth it? Or, do you think ethnic cleansing is
ok...

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:23:45 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 13:16:41 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:35:17 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 12:31:43 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 12:18:37 -0400, Ernie wrote:

On 3/20/2011 11:46 AM, wrote:

Will there be any outrage about dead kids coming home from Libya?

The whole topic *bores* Krause.

I am always amused when the democrats sit idly by as a democratic
president prosecutes an idiotic war but they get all over a republican
for the same war.

Looks like you're about to join the traitors.
Are you seriously comparing Iraq to Libya?
It appears you just called them "the same war."
Are you anticipating the death of American military in Libya?
Will that happening "prove you right?"
Do you want to be "right?"
You just dropped 97 notches on the intelligence scale.
I'm surprised.
But as I said in another post, low politics has no morality or sense of
judgement.
As soon as you start talking "democrat" and "republican" you forfeit the
right to be taken seriously.
You become a puppet to those labels.
But it's amusing to see you join the ranks of Mike Moore and Scotty
Ingersoll in one fell swoop.




Iraq started as a no fly zone, as did Bosnia. We are still in both
countries.

It did not start as a no-fly zone. It started with Bush I rolling back
the Iraqi advance into Kuwait.

No that mission ended when we wisely abandoned the pursuit of the
Republican guard into Iraq. We were supposed to come home, only
leaving a token force behind to protect Kuwait ... for a short period
of time.

The whole no fly zone thing came about as a totally different policy
when some moron decided if we could keep Saddam's air force down, the
Kurds would topple Saddam. It sounds like what we are doing in Libya
today.

Under which presidency was that? Hmmm... GHWB. As I said, it started
as a roll-back from Kuwait.

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.

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 21:17:27 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 17:40:48 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:23:45 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 13:16:41 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:35:17 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 12:31:43 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 12:18:37 -0400, Ernie wrote:

On 3/20/2011 11:46 AM, wrote:

Will there be any outrage about dead kids coming home from Libya?

The whole topic *bores* Krause.

I am always amused when the democrats sit idly by as a democratic
president prosecutes an idiotic war but they get all over a republican
for the same war.

Looks like you're about to join the traitors.
Are you seriously comparing Iraq to Libya?
It appears you just called them "the same war."
Are you anticipating the death of American military in Libya?
Will that happening "prove you right?"
Do you want to be "right?"
You just dropped 97 notches on the intelligence scale.
I'm surprised.
But as I said in another post, low politics has no morality or sense of
judgement.
As soon as you start talking "democrat" and "republican" you forfeit the
right to be taken seriously.
You become a puppet to those labels.
But it's amusing to see you join the ranks of Mike Moore and Scotty
Ingersoll in one fell swoop.




Iraq started as a no fly zone, as did Bosnia. We are still in both
countries.

It did not start as a no-fly zone. It started with Bush I rolling back
the Iraqi advance into Kuwait.

No that mission ended when we wisely abandoned the pursuit of the
Republican guard into Iraq. We were supposed to come home, only
leaving a token force behind to protect Kuwait ... for a short period
of time.

The whole no fly zone thing came about as a totally different policy
when some moron decided if we could keep Saddam's air force down, the
Kurds would topple Saddam. It sounds like what we are doing in Libya
today.

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.


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.

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.




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.

On Mar 21, 1:24*am, 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.











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.

bull****. If Mr. Fretwell said there was no threat then you say there
is one. If he says there is a threat then you challenge him for proof.

D'Plume, you're a moron.

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.




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.

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 12:29:41 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 12:18:37 -0400, Ernie wrote:

On 3/20/2011 11:46 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 11:06:25 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:04:41 -0400,
wrote:

I was wrong, I did misread the first note. John does have a point
though. The media fought Bush for the right to go out to Dover and
take pictures of coffins from the Iraq war and now that they have that
right, they are not showing the coffins coming home from Afghanistan.

I don't really think it is a liberal conspiracy though. I think the TV
networks just figured out they sell more products if they don't show
coffins and they like the American public to be as blissfully ignorant
of this war as Oprah. It does demonstrate how phony the righteous
indignation of the left was when Bush was the president. It was never
about the war. It was only about Bush.
That's about as simple-minded an analysis as I've seen. Maybe there's
less reportage about the bodies because it's been reported and it's boring.


So you are saying Bush made war a safe prospect for Democrats? Now
nobody cares that our kids are being killed for no particular reason
and they can stay in the blissful ignorance Oprah is so proud of.


No, I am not saying that Bush made way a "safe prospect." What I posted,
in plain English, is easy enough to understand: maybe there is less
reportage about the bodies because it's been reported and it's boring.

The young U.S. men and women who died in Iraq during Bush's war were
killed for no particular reason. The last time large numbers of U.S.
troops died for a particular reason was in World War II.

The question still stands, where is the outrage from the left about
the kids who are still coming home from Afghanistan in a box?

Will there be any outrage about dead kids coming home from Libya?

The whole topic *bores* Krause.

I am always amused when the democrats sit idly by as a democratic
president prosecutes an idiotic war but they get all over a republican
for the same war.

That's totally disingenuous and you know it. Bush lied us into a war.
Please name a Dem. president post Johnson who did that.