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 Mon, 21 Mar 2011 02:16:24 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:20:34 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 21:23:57 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 17:42:45 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:01:48 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:54:36 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

Why does there have to be outrage from the left? Where are the
Republicans who want the Afg. war to end right now? There aren't many.
Sounds to me like you're bitter about something. Perhaps you should
write Bush a letter and tell him how you feel about the two wars he
started, one of choice, while he pretty much ignored the one that had
some justification.

Actually I would write Obama a letter and ask him what happened to his
2007 and early 2008 promise to end BOTH wars.


Where's all the outrage about the Bosnian conflict? Oh wait, that was
Clinton's war..

I was never happy about Bosnia and we still have troops on the ground
there.


We still have troops in Germany, Korea, and Japan.

I don't understand Germany and Japan either.

Maybe we should remove them right now? Would that make you feel
better?

It's a start when we want to chip away at the $600 billion DoD budget

We are still at war with Korea ... as much as we ever were, this is
just a cease fire in an undeclared war.

So, we should just leave, right?

Maybe.

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.

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

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.


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.

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.

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 10:50:32 -0400, wrote:

Duh ... BIKERS. They are supposed to be a little threatening.

Most of the bikers around here are on social security.

You can't tough when after you put the kick stand down you grab your
walker off the back of your bike.

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 21:47:04 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 10:50:32 -0400, wrote:

Duh ... BIKERS. They are supposed to be a little threatening.

Most of the bikers around here are on social security.

If you get up there on the dirt roads in North Ft Myers you can find
the real deal. It is still nothing like the PG county Md bikers.
You have the guys who are really Pagans, the guys who hang around the
Pagans and the guys who know those guys. When I was flipping Harleys I
knew a few of the latter. They are the people who know the most about
Harleys and I had some grudging respect because I had a knack for
transmissions and I could get a Bendix carb working.

We had a nice little restaurant new where I grew up that was taken over
by the Pagans, it slowly turned into a titty bar but nobody went to it
except the Pagans and some idiot young soldiers from Ft Belvior. Then
there was the False Alarm down in Woodbridge

On Mar 21, 6:34*am, 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.......

--

Forté 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

i never saw much benefit in watching Oprah.

Gene 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.......





That's absurd. Watching Oprah would be a terrific idea for some of the
righties here, who are totally devoid of compassion.

On 3/21/2011 7:49 AM, Harryk wrote:
Gene 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.......





That's absurd. Watching Oprah would be a terrific idea for some of the
righties here, who are totally devoid of compassion.
Would you think so if she were a fat white lady

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.)

John H 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.


Your wife seems to be a decent person. You are a piece of ****. That
probably explains it, eh?