|
No blood for oil
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:35:03 -0400, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:05:39 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:06:43 -0400, wrote: Clinton kept is in Iraq for 8 years looking for the same WMD you say Bush lied about. Yet, nobody died, and he was successful in getting Saddam to quit their production. As long as you don't count Iraqis. Sounds pretty racist to me. Sounds like you're very interested in grasping at straws. We're talking about US troops. Try and not change the subject. The point is, when we go in, we won't leave. The point is that you have no basis for that statement. Where have we left? |
No blood for oil
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:55:52 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: On 21/03/2011 4:33 PM, wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 13:59:02 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:31:48 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In , says... They are now saying the main source, a British asset who never talked to the US, was a fraud. It is interesting that Blair is not getting more of the blame. All of the things Powell was saying at the UN (mobile weapons labs and WMD accidents that killed a number of workers) came from the Brits. The main "source" for mobile weapons labs "intelligence" was Curveball. Curveball was a German "asset." An embezzler, possibly alcoholic, looking for a green card. He was discredited totally by UN weapons inspectors before the war was launched. We can't let facts get in the way of blaming Bush for everything tho. This is some of the most hilarious bull**** I've see in a long time. Bush/Cheney/Tenet/Powell had nothing to do with it. It's all Tony Blairs's fault! Blair certainly has blood on his hands, but for this country, Bush/Cheney/Tenet/Powell (in a lesser role) promoted this "intel" as the excuse to go to war, with no actual corroborating evidence. They have equal if not a greater amount of blood on their hands. That is getting closer to the truth. You also had people in congress, including plenty of Democrats beating the war drum Democrats are stupid, they still think they can debt spend their way out of a debt problem. Between the lot they don't have half a brain. Which would make them twice as smart as you. |
No blood for oil
|
No blood for oil
In article ,
says... On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:06:25 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:33:47 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 13:59:02 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:31:48 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... They are now saying the main source, a British asset who never talked to the US, was a fraud. It is interesting that Blair is not getting more of the blame. All of the things Powell was saying at the UN (mobile weapons labs and WMD accidents that killed a number of workers) came from the Brits. The main "source" for mobile weapons labs "intelligence" was Curveball. Curveball was a German "asset." An embezzler, possibly alcoholic, looking for a green card. He was discredited totally by UN weapons inspectors before the war was launched. We can't let facts get in the way of blaming Bush for everything tho. This is some of the most hilarious bull**** I've see in a long time. Bush/Cheney/Tenet/Powell had nothing to do with it. It's all Tony Blairs's fault! Blair certainly has blood on his hands, but for this country, Bush/Cheney/Tenet/Powell (in a lesser role) promoted this "intel" as the excuse to go to war, with no actual corroborating evidence. They have equal if not a greater amount of blood on their hands. That is getting closer to the truth. You also had people in congress, including plenty of Democrats beating the war drum After having been fed lies from Bush/Cheney... sure. That begs the question, how stupid were the Democrats? Why would they listen to a guy they were calling an idiot? They all heard the same intelligence briefings and they all had the chance to challenge the information. You can't ignore the input of Schumer and Lieberman. I have already told you many times why they wanted Saddam gone, pretty much at any cost. You act like this was Bush's decision, alone and congress did not go along. I could go get the vote if you like. I could also get the sponsors of the resolution and what they wrote. It would be a waste of time for you to do that. These ideologues will never admit any of it anyway. |
No blood for oil
On 21/03/2011 7:43 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:27:47 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:02:41 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:43:19 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:40:55 -0700, wrote: If paygo doesn't apply to the entitlements and the DoD budget it is about as significant as cutting the NPR budget. "Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan and former Congressional Budget Office (CBO) director Dan L. Crippen have pointed to PAYGO as instrumental in establishing the fiscal discipline that gradually decreased the deficit during the 1990s and ultimately led to large surpluses." That was when SS and Medicare were paying their own way. Both are in deficit now. They are not in deficit in any way that affects the upcoming budget. It's nonsense, right-wing fear-mongering. Ya, but look at the debtor that owes money to SS. Seriously, SS has been raided as a cheap money source by the government. Below market rate returns for decauses, a slight of government hand in skimming it. Now the government does not want to have to pay back the SS debt it owes. And as the US government depeciates the currency, it makes SS shortfalls worse. |
No blood for oil
On 21/03/2011 10:11 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:47:58 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 20:19:24 -0400, wrote: You and Plume can't seem to accept that I was against BOTH wars. You assume that if I think Obama is wrong that I must think Bush was right. They were BOTH wrong, along with Clinton and the elder Bush. When Saddam withdrew from Kuwait, our job was done there. The Afg. war wasn't wrong and you know it. We had a legitimate reason for going in. Just because Bush did so stupidly didn't make it wrong. Wait ... are you saying Bush was right about something? I disagree but it is interesting. Afghanistan was always stupid. Sending in a few Deltas to try to assassinate OBL was a good idea but when we missed him we should have backed off and waited for him to pop up again. Invading Afghanistan in force was simply stupid. The idea that we have any business in any country's civil war keeps biting us on the ass and we never learn. Yeah, according to you human rights don't matter. That'll be a great way of leading by example. Why do we have the right to decide what "human rights" mean in a foreign country? In real life we are using human rights to mask an economic or political mission anyway. Right now we are backing the "rebels" in Libya but we do not have a clue who they really are. It is significant that this region is an alleged Al Queda strong hold. We may end up replacing a guy that we had "contained" to use your words, with a gang that we have no influence over at all. You have still not given me an example of a success story in all of our post WWII military adventures. The best that you can point at is a stalemate in the Bulkans where we have 124,000 blue helmets standing between feuding factions. BTW when I went looking for that number I was overwhelmed by reports of the UN "peacekeepers" engaged in human trafficking and rape. Put this on your google bar "Bosnia peace keepers 2010" You can see what wonderful people the UN is putting in there to help out the population. UN has had that problem in Africa too. UN is turning out to be a mecenary army for politicians to bypass their own war conventions and pull stuff that would be illegal in their own countries. Even used to supply money and arms to insurgents to undermine the local government. |
No blood for oil
In article ,
says... On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:43:50 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:27:47 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:02:41 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:43:19 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:40:55 -0700, wrote: If paygo doesn't apply to the entitlements and the DoD budget it is about as significant as cutting the NPR budget. "Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan and former Congressional Budget Office (CBO) director Dan L. Crippen have pointed to PAYGO as instrumental in establishing the fiscal discipline that gradually decreased the deficit during the 1990s and ultimately led to large surpluses." That was when SS and Medicare were paying their own way. Both are in deficit now. They are not in deficit in any way that affects the upcoming budget. It's nonsense, right-wing fear-mongering. You are not that stupid. How can you possibly say a program that spends moire than it takes in is not in deficit? Medicare has been upside down for several years and SS went upside down 2 years ago. She can say that because she knows it will keep you talking to her;) snerk |
No blood for oil
|
No blood for oil
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 23:48:04 -0400, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:43:50 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:27:47 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:02:41 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:43:19 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:40:55 -0700, wrote: If paygo doesn't apply to the entitlements and the DoD budget it is about as significant as cutting the NPR budget. "Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan and former Congressional Budget Office (CBO) director Dan L. Crippen have pointed to PAYGO as instrumental in establishing the fiscal discipline that gradually decreased the deficit during the 1990s and ultimately led to large surpluses." That was when SS and Medicare were paying their own way. Both are in deficit now. They are not in deficit in any way that affects the upcoming budget. It's nonsense, right-wing fear-mongering. You are not that stupid. How can you possibly say a program that spends moire than it takes in is not in deficit? Medicare has been upside down for several years and SS went upside down 2 years ago. And, it is not contributing one penny to the current deficit problem. It "may" at some point if it isn't fixed. |
No blood for oil
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 23:49:45 -0400, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:45:35 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:35:03 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:05:39 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:06:43 -0400, wrote: Clinton kept is in Iraq for 8 years looking for the same WMD you say Bush lied about. Yet, nobody died, and he was successful in getting Saddam to quit their production. As long as you don't count Iraqis. Sounds pretty racist to me. Sounds like you're very interested in grasping at straws. We're talking about US troops. Try and not change the subject. You said "nobody died" Evidently brown people are not people to you. No wonder they hate us. Evidently, you're unwilling to stay on topic. |
No blood for oil
|
No blood for oil
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:48:21 -0400, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:06:25 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:33:47 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 13:59:02 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:31:48 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... They are now saying the main source, a British asset who never talked to the US, was a fraud. It is interesting that Blair is not getting more of the blame. All of the things Powell was saying at the UN (mobile weapons labs and WMD accidents that killed a number of workers) came from the Brits. The main "source" for mobile weapons labs "intelligence" was Curveball. Curveball was a German "asset." An embezzler, possibly alcoholic, looking for a green card. He was discredited totally by UN weapons inspectors before the war was launched. We can't let facts get in the way of blaming Bush for everything tho. This is some of the most hilarious bull**** I've see in a long time. Bush/Cheney/Tenet/Powell had nothing to do with it. It's all Tony Blairs's fault! Blair certainly has blood on his hands, but for this country, Bush/Cheney/Tenet/Powell (in a lesser role) promoted this "intel" as the excuse to go to war, with no actual corroborating evidence. They have equal if not a greater amount of blood on their hands. That is getting closer to the truth. You also had people in congress, including plenty of Democrats beating the war drum After having been fed lies from Bush/Cheney... sure. That begs the question, how stupid were the Democrats? Why would they listen to a guy they were calling an idiot? Well, I guess when the President/VP and CIA gin up a bunch of nonsense, even those dumb Democrats get fooled. They all heard the same intelligence briefings and they all had the chance to challenge the information. You can't ignore the input of Schumer and Lieberman. I have already told you many times why they wanted Saddam gone, pretty much at any cost. You act like this was Bush's decision, alone and congress did not go along. Nonsense. The don't get to "challenge" the evidence. They were consulted and presented with evidence. I could go get the vote if you like. I could also get the sponsors of the resolution and what they wrote. I think you need to get a reality dose. Bush and Cheney lied and murdered a bunch of people. They should go to jail. |
No blood for oil
|
No blood for oil
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 00:11:44 -0400, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:47:58 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 20:19:24 -0400, wrote: You and Plume can't seem to accept that I was against BOTH wars. You assume that if I think Obama is wrong that I must think Bush was right. They were BOTH wrong, along with Clinton and the elder Bush. When Saddam withdrew from Kuwait, our job was done there. The Afg. war wasn't wrong and you know it. We had a legitimate reason for going in. Just because Bush did so stupidly didn't make it wrong. Wait ... are you saying Bush was right about something? I disagree but it is interesting. Wait, you don't have a clue about what I said, clearly. One last time... We had a legitimate reason for going to Afg. under Bush. We did not have a legitimate reason for going to Iraq under Bush. Afghanistan was always stupid. Sending in a few Deltas to try to assassinate OBL was a good idea but when we missed him we should have backed off and waited for him to pop up again. Invading Afghanistan in force was simply stupid. According to you, expert on all things. The idea that we have any business in any country's civil war keeps biting us on the ass and we never learn. Yeah, according to you human rights don't matter. That'll be a great way of leading by example. Why do we have the right to decide what "human rights" mean in a foreign country? In real life we are using human rights to mask an economic or political mission anyway. So, just to be clear, according to you, screw everyone else. If people are murdered by dictators, not our problem. I guess you didn't have a problem with Germany pre-WW2. Why did we attack them? They didn't attack us. Right now we are backing the "rebels" in Libya but we do not have a clue who they really are. It is significant that this region is an alleged Al Queda strong hold. We may end up replacing a guy that we had "contained" to use your words, with a gang that we have no influence over at all. We're not supplying them with weapons so far. I think that would be a mistake on general principles, but we have built some good will which is sorely lacking for us in the region. You have still not given me an example of a success story in all of our post WWII military adventures. The best that you can point at is a stalemate in the Bulkans where we have 124,000 blue helmets standing between feuding factions. No stalemate. No one is dying there as they were previously. BTW when I went looking for that number I was overwhelmed by reports of the UN "peacekeepers" engaged in human trafficking and rape. Put this on your google bar "Bosnia peace keepers 2010" You can see what wonderful people the UN is putting in there to help out the population. So, you're claiming that all the peace keepers (ours included) are trafficking and raping. Seems to me you believe that because a few people do something bad, that means all of them do bad. |
No blood for oil
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:51:33 -0400, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:08:23 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:31:33 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:31:48 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... They are now saying the main source, a British asset who never talked to the US, was a fraud. It is interesting that Blair is not getting more of the blame. All of the things Powell was saying at the UN (mobile weapons labs and WMD accidents that killed a number of workers) came from the Brits. The main "source" for mobile weapons labs "intelligence" was Curveball. Curveball was a German "asset." An embezzler, possibly alcoholic, looking for a green card. He was discredited totally by UN weapons inspectors before the war was launched. The Brits were still parroting his stories and fed the information to Powell. We can't let facts get in the way of blaming Bush for everything tho. This is some of the most hilarious bull**** I've see in a long time. Bush/Cheney/Tenet/Powell had nothing to do with it. It's all Tony Blairs's fault! I never said Bush et al were not at fault. That is the part you all miss. I think the whole ****up in Iraq was unnecessary. We should have left in 1991. Every president since then shares some of the blame. Obama said he would stop both wars yet he clings to the same schedule "the idiot" came up with. It makes you wonder who the idiot (or the liar) really is. Completely untrue. He's implemented a complete withdrawal of combat troops as per the agreement with the Iraqi gov't. The remaining forces are winding down. It's clear who the idiot was... Bush. It's clear who told him what to do.. Cheney, the other war criminal. "Combat troops" is a cute euphemism. It is like when you said we didn't have any combat troops in Vietnam after the cease fire, yet another 362 GIs were killed in combat. Since the biggest cause of death in both of the current wars is from IEDs, not "combat" the term is meaningless. According to you, the expert. I guess you don't care that we're involvement is winding down and it takes some time. How many US deaths now vs. Bush? |
No blood for oil
In article ,
says... On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 00:11:44 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:47:58 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 20:19:24 -0400, wrote: You and Plume can't seem to accept that I was against BOTH wars. You assume that if I think Obama is wrong that I must think Bush was right. They were BOTH wrong, along with Clinton and the elder Bush. When Saddam withdrew from Kuwait, our job was done there. The Afg. war wasn't wrong and you know it. We had a legitimate reason for going in. Just because Bush did so stupidly didn't make it wrong. Wait ... are you saying Bush was right about something? I disagree but it is interesting. Wait, you don't have a clue about what I said, clearly. One last time... We had a legitimate reason for going to Afg. under Bush. We did not have a legitimate reason for going to Iraq under Bush. Afghanistan was always stupid. Sending in a few Deltas to try to assassinate OBL was a good idea but when we missed him we should have backed off and waited for him to pop up again. Invading Afghanistan in force was simply stupid. According to you, expert on all things. The idea that we have any business in any country's civil war keeps biting us on the ass and we never learn. Yeah, according to you human rights don't matter. That'll be a great way of leading by example. Why do we have the right to decide what "human rights" mean in a foreign country? In real life we are using human rights to mask an economic or political mission anyway. So, just to be clear, according to you, screw everyone else. If people are murdered by dictators, not our problem. I guess you didn't have a problem with Germany pre-WW2. Why did we attack them? They didn't attack us. Right now we are backing the "rebels" in Libya but we do not have a clue who they really are. It is significant that this region is an alleged Al Queda strong hold. We may end up replacing a guy that we had "contained" to use your words, with a gang that we have no influence over at all. We're not supplying them with weapons so far. I think that would be a mistake on general principles, but we have built some good will which is sorely lacking for us in the region. You have still not given me an example of a success story in all of our post WWII military adventures. The best that you can point at is a stalemate in the Bulkans where we have 124,000 blue helmets standing between feuding factions. No stalemate. No one is dying there as they were previously. BTW when I went looking for that number I was overwhelmed by reports of the UN "peacekeepers" engaged in human trafficking and rape. Put this on your google bar "Bosnia peace keepers 2010" You can see what wonderful people the UN is putting in there to help out the population. So, you're claiming that all the peace keepers (ours included) are trafficking and raping. Seems to me you believe that because a few people do something bad, that means all of them do bad. That's what you said after AbuGhraib... But of course now that there is a Democrat as commander in Chief... |
No blood for oil
In article ,
says... That begs the question, how stupid were the Democrats? Why would they listen to a guy they were calling an idiot? Well, I guess when the President/VP and CIA gin up a bunch of nonsense, even those dumb Democrats get fooled. http://usliberals.about.com/od/liber...raqNayVote.htm Far more non-sucker Dems than Reps. Iraq War Resolution Act. House against - 126 Dems, 6 Reps. Senate against - 21 Dems, 1 Rep. But enough total suckers to carry the bill in a Rep Congress. Too many suckers. Here's one guy who wasn't buying it. http://www.antiwar.com/orig/feingold1.html Hey, why is Greg talking about Iraq? I thought this was about Afghanistan. |
No blood for oil
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:54:53 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote: In article , says... That begs the question, how stupid were the Democrats? Why would they listen to a guy they were calling an idiot? Well, I guess when the President/VP and CIA gin up a bunch of nonsense, even those dumb Democrats get fooled. http://usliberals.about.com/od/liber...raqNayVote.htm Far more non-sucker Dems than Reps. Iraq War Resolution Act. House against - 126 Dems, 6 Reps. Senate against - 21 Dems, 1 Rep. But enough total suckers to carry the bill in a Rep Congress. Too many suckers. Here's one guy who wasn't buying it. http://www.antiwar.com/orig/feingold1.html Hey, why is Greg talking about Iraq? I thought this was about Afghanistan. It's a lack of facts? |
No blood for oil
wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:54:53 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In , says... That begs the question, how stupid were the Democrats? Why would they listen to a guy they were calling an idiot? Well, I guess when the President/VP and CIA gin up a bunch of nonsense, even those dumb Democrats get fooled. http://usliberals.about.com/od/liber...raqNayVote.htm Far more non-sucker Dems than Reps. Iraq War Resolution Act. House against - 126 Dems, 6 Reps. Senate against - 21 Dems, 1 Rep. That is about the same as the vote on Afghanistan and a Libya vote would not come out that well. BTW you didn't say how many voted FOR. But enough total suckers to carry the bill in a Rep Congress. Too many suckers. Here's one guy who wasn't buying it. http://www.antiwar.com/orig/feingold1.html Hey, why is Greg talking about Iraq? I thought this was about Afghanistan. I am trying to talk about Libya but Plume can let Iraq go. Every time I say anything she responds with Iraq. What point are you trying to make about Libya? Are you contemplating that Obama is going to try to order in significant numbers of ground troups? I don't see that happening. Some wag suggested we arm both sides in these fundamentalist, backwards countries to the teeth, let them fight it out, and then shoot all the members of whichever side emerges, and then shoot whoever wants to take over until there is no one left who wants to rule. At that point, sometime in the future, it is possible a reasonable form of democracy might arise. That's a *bit* too cynical for me. |
No blood for oil
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:43:12 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 10:23:35 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 23:48:04 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:43:50 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:27:47 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:02:41 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:43:19 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:40:55 -0700, wrote: If paygo doesn't apply to the entitlements and the DoD budget it is about as significant as cutting the NPR budget. "Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan and former Congressional Budget Office (CBO) director Dan L. Crippen have pointed to PAYGO as instrumental in establishing the fiscal discipline that gradually decreased the deficit during the 1990s and ultimately led to large surpluses." That was when SS and Medicare were paying their own way. Both are in deficit now. They are not in deficit in any way that affects the upcoming budget. It's nonsense, right-wing fear-mongering. You are not that stupid. How can you possibly say a program that spends moire than it takes in is not in deficit? Medicare has been upside down for several years and SS went upside down 2 years ago. And, it is not contributing one penny to the current deficit problem. It "may" at some point if it isn't fixed. WHAT? We are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar of the short fall and Obama chopping 2% off of the FICA tax rate only makes it worse. WHAT? Not because of SS/MC. I don't agree with any tax cut for the wealthy. Before that, they were trying to say a recovery would put SS back into the black for a year, maybe two. Now they can't even make that claim. Medicare is just spiraling down the black hole of debt with no end in sight. Go hide under your blankey. |
No blood for oil
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:30:52 -0400, Harryk
wrote: wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:54:53 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In , says... That begs the question, how stupid were the Democrats? Why would they listen to a guy they were calling an idiot? Well, I guess when the President/VP and CIA gin up a bunch of nonsense, even those dumb Democrats get fooled. http://usliberals.about.com/od/liber...raqNayVote.htm Far more non-sucker Dems than Reps. Iraq War Resolution Act. House against - 126 Dems, 6 Reps. Senate against - 21 Dems, 1 Rep. That is about the same as the vote on Afghanistan and a Libya vote would not come out that well. BTW you didn't say how many voted FOR. But enough total suckers to carry the bill in a Rep Congress. Too many suckers. Here's one guy who wasn't buying it. http://www.antiwar.com/orig/feingold1.html Hey, why is Greg talking about Iraq? I thought this was about Afghanistan. I am trying to talk about Libya but Plume can let Iraq go. Every time I say anything she responds with Iraq. What point are you trying to make about Libya? Are you contemplating that Obama is going to try to order in significant numbers of ground troups? I don't see that happening. Some wag suggested we arm both sides in these fundamentalist, backwards countries to the teeth, let them fight it out, and then shoot all the members of whichever side emerges, and then shoot whoever wants to take over until there is no one left who wants to rule. At that point, sometime in the future, it is possible a reasonable form of democracy might arise. That's a *bit* too cynical for me. Well, according to the right Obama dithered and did nothing, and now he's a war-monger. Did they flip before they flopped? |
No blood for oil
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:50:10 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 10:27:28 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 23:46:10 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 20:24:52 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... So Obama "lied" about his 16 month campaign withdrawal plan. He decided to listen to military advisers like Petraeus instead of the likes of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al. They still came up with the same plan Show me Obama's plan to invade Iraq. You and Plume have to move up into the 21st century. The war we are talking about is Afghanistan. I know you can't get your mind off of Iraq but that was the last century and a guy who is not president anymore. So, it's ok with you that we went to war for no reason and ignored a place where we did have a reason. We went in two places with no reason. When the Delta team missed OBL, our job was done there. When the Delta team "missed" OBL, Rumsfeld should have resigned along with Bush/Cheney. We should have just waited for him to pop up somewhere else and killed him there. You're quite a military expert aren't you. Obama is the one who doubled down in Afghanistan. Trying to fix Bush's mess. Making a bad decision worse. According to you. |
No blood for oil
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:08:59 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 10:32:43 -0700, wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 00:11:44 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:47:58 -0700, wrote: Why do we have the right to decide what "human rights" mean in a foreign country? In real life we are using human rights to mask an economic or political mission anyway. So, just to be clear, according to you, screw everyone else. If people are murdered by dictators, not our problem. I guess you didn't have a problem with Germany pre-WW2. Why did we attack them? They didn't attack us. Maybe you were absent the day they taught history. Germany declared war on us. But, they didn't attack us. Watch the movie The Mouse that Roared. Right now we are backing the "rebels" in Libya but we do not have a clue who they really are. It is significant that this region is an alleged Al Queda strong hold. We may end up replacing a guy that we had "contained" to use your words, with a gang that we have no influence over at all. We're not supplying them with weapons so far. I think that would be a mistake on general principles, but we have built some good will which is sorely lacking for us in the region. Good will from who? It certainly hasn't become apparent. The Arab League has backed off of their endorsement and is saying this is not what they signed on to. The cheers on the ground in Libya. The Arab League has not backed off much. They backed off the statement that it was more than what they signed on with. You have still not given me an example of a success story in all of our post WWII military adventures. The best that you can point at is a stalemate in the Bulkans where we have 124,000 blue helmets standing between feuding factions. No stalemate. No one is dying there as they were previously. That is the definition of a stalemate. (It is a chess term, referring to a game where no pieces can be taken) No. A stalemate is when neither side gets an advantage. This isn't chess. This is human life. But, I forgot, you don't care. BTW when I went looking for that number I was overwhelmed by reports of the UN "peacekeepers" engaged in human trafficking and rape. Put this on your google bar "Bosnia peace keepers 2010" You can see what wonderful people the UN is putting in there to help out the population. So, you're claiming that all the peace keepers (ours included) are trafficking and raping. Seems to me you believe that because a few people do something bad, that means all of them do bad. Just enough to be a problem. More wonderful press for the UN Problem for the individuals being harmed and some bad press. That's not a rebuke of the UN. |
No blood for oil
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:11:37 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 10:33:53 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:51:33 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:08:23 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:31:33 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:31:48 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... They are now saying the main source, a British asset who never talked to the US, was a fraud. It is interesting that Blair is not getting more of the blame. All of the things Powell was saying at the UN (mobile weapons labs and WMD accidents that killed a number of workers) came from the Brits. The main "source" for mobile weapons labs "intelligence" was Curveball. Curveball was a German "asset." An embezzler, possibly alcoholic, looking for a green card. He was discredited totally by UN weapons inspectors before the war was launched. The Brits were still parroting his stories and fed the information to Powell. We can't let facts get in the way of blaming Bush for everything tho. This is some of the most hilarious bull**** I've see in a long time. Bush/Cheney/Tenet/Powell had nothing to do with it. It's all Tony Blairs's fault! I never said Bush et al were not at fault. That is the part you all miss. I think the whole ****up in Iraq was unnecessary. We should have left in 1991. Every president since then shares some of the blame. Obama said he would stop both wars yet he clings to the same schedule "the idiot" came up with. It makes you wonder who the idiot (or the liar) really is. Completely untrue. He's implemented a complete withdrawal of combat troops as per the agreement with the Iraqi gov't. The remaining forces are winding down. It's clear who the idiot was... Bush. It's clear who told him what to do.. Cheney, the other war criminal. "Combat troops" is a cute euphemism. It is like when you said we didn't have any combat troops in Vietnam after the cease fire, yet another 362 GIs were killed in combat. Since the biggest cause of death in both of the current wars is from IEDs, not "combat" the term is meaningless. According to you, the expert. I guess you don't care that we're involvement is winding down and it takes some time. ... according, literally "to the writing on the wall". Go to DC and look at it sometime. VN is old news. Get a new argument. |
No blood for oil
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 22:26:13 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:30:52 -0400, Harryk wrote: wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:54:53 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In , says... That begs the question, how stupid were the Democrats? Why would they listen to a guy they were calling an idiot? Well, I guess when the President/VP and CIA gin up a bunch of nonsense, even those dumb Democrats get fooled. http://usliberals.about.com/od/liber...raqNayVote.htm Far more non-sucker Dems than Reps. Iraq War Resolution Act. House against - 126 Dems, 6 Reps. Senate against - 21 Dems, 1 Rep. That is about the same as the vote on Afghanistan and a Libya vote would not come out that well. BTW you didn't say how many voted FOR. But enough total suckers to carry the bill in a Rep Congress. Too many suckers. Here's one guy who wasn't buying it. http://www.antiwar.com/orig/feingold1.html Hey, why is Greg talking about Iraq? I thought this was about Afghanistan. I am trying to talk about Libya but Plume can let Iraq go. Every time I say anything she responds with Iraq. What point are you trying to make about Libya? Are you contemplating that Obama is going to try to order in significant numbers of ground troups? I don't see that happening. Some wag suggested we arm both sides in these fundamentalist, backwards countries to the teeth, let them fight it out, and then shoot all the members of whichever side emerges, and then shoot whoever wants to take over until there is no one left who wants to rule. At that point, sometime in the future, it is possible a reasonable form of democracy might arise. That's a *bit* too cynical for me. I just want to hear our exit strategy. It really does not look like air power is going to displace Qdaffy and we will soon find ourselves in a similar position to what we were in with Iraq. If you listened to any news outlet (no Fox doesn't count), you'd know that we'll be handing off more of the air bombing to others. I still remember the early talk about the NFZ there when it was "humanitarian" to save the Kurds with the bonus that they would topple Saddam if we could just give them a chance. I don't think Obama would go in but who knows what the next yahoo might do if he has it all teed up. I agree. Let's try and keep Jeb out of the White House. |
No blood for oil
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 22:43:18 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:40:28 -0700, wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:43:12 -0400, wrote: You are not that stupid. How can you possibly say a program that spends moire than it takes in is not in deficit? Medicare has been upside down for several years and SS went upside down 2 years ago. And, it is not contributing one penny to the current deficit problem. It "may" at some point if it isn't fixed. WHAT? We are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar of the short fall and Obama chopping 2% off of the FICA tax rate only makes it worse. WHAT? Not because of SS/MC. I don't agree with any tax cut for the wealthy. The income taxes have nothing to do with the short fall in FICA. Were do you get the notion that I think FICA and income tax are the same things? As I said the wealthy need to be taxed more not less. Before that, they were trying to say a recovery would put SS back into the black for a year, maybe two. Now they can't even make that claim. Medicare is just spiraling down the black hole of debt with no end in sight. Go hide under your blankey. Denial is not the answer. Ok, so don't hide and face the facts. One fact is that there is no short-term crisis for either program. Another is that lowering taxes on wealthy people will do little or nothing to help job creation. |
No blood for oil
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 22:52:53 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 19:35:05 -0700, wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 22:26:13 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:30:52 -0400, Harryk wrote: wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:54:53 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In , says... That begs the question, how stupid were the Democrats? Why would they listen to a guy they were calling an idiot? Well, I guess when the President/VP and CIA gin up a bunch of nonsense, even those dumb Democrats get fooled. http://usliberals.about.com/od/liber...raqNayVote.htm Far more non-sucker Dems than Reps. Iraq War Resolution Act. House against - 126 Dems, 6 Reps. Senate against - 21 Dems, 1 Rep. That is about the same as the vote on Afghanistan and a Libya vote would not come out that well. BTW you didn't say how many voted FOR. But enough total suckers to carry the bill in a Rep Congress. Too many suckers. Here's one guy who wasn't buying it. http://www.antiwar.com/orig/feingold1.html Hey, why is Greg talking about Iraq? I thought this was about Afghanistan. I am trying to talk about Libya but Plume can let Iraq go. Every time I say anything she responds with Iraq. What point are you trying to make about Libya? Are you contemplating that Obama is going to try to order in significant numbers of ground troups? I don't see that happening. Some wag suggested we arm both sides in these fundamentalist, backwards countries to the teeth, let them fight it out, and then shoot all the members of whichever side emerges, and then shoot whoever wants to take over until there is no one left who wants to rule. At that point, sometime in the future, it is possible a reasonable form of democracy might arise. That's a *bit* too cynical for me. I just want to hear our exit strategy. It really does not look like air power is going to displace Qdaffy and we will soon find ourselves in a similar position to what we were in with Iraq. If you listened to any news outlet (no Fox doesn't count), you'd know that we'll be handing off more of the air bombing to others. I will feel better when it happens. So what? Do you think anyone really wants us to be in another war? Your feelings are irrelevant. I still remember the early talk about the NFZ there when it was "humanitarian" to save the Kurds with the bonus that they would topple Saddam if we could just give them a chance. I don't think Obama would go in but who knows what the next yahoo might do if he has it all teed up. I agree. Let's try and keep Jeb out of the White House. There won't be another Bush in there anytime soon. Huckabee could be scary. I don't really see a viable republican I like. I guess you'll be voting for Obama then. Good for you! |
No blood for oil
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 22:39:31 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:46:01 -0700, wrote: You have still not given me an example of a success story in all of our post WWII military adventures. The best that you can point at is a stalemate in the Bulkans where we have 124,000 blue helmets standing between feuding factions. No stalemate. No one is dying there as they were previously. That is the definition of a stalemate. (It is a chess term, referring to a game where no pieces can be taken) No. A stalemate is when neither side gets an advantage. This isn't chess. This is human life. But, I forgot, you don't care. Then this is still a stalemate by your definition. What "advantage" are we achieving? Peace. People not dying. Seems pretty good to me. BTW when I went looking for that number I was overwhelmed by reports of the UN "peacekeepers" engaged in human trafficking and rape. Put this on your google bar "Bosnia peace keepers 2010" You can see what wonderful people the UN is putting in there to help out the population. So, you're claiming that all the peace keepers (ours included) are trafficking and raping. Seems to me you believe that because a few people do something bad, that means all of them do bad. Just enough to be a problem. More wonderful press for the UN Problem for the individuals being harmed and some bad press. That's not a rebuke of the UN. You certainly have a soft position on rape and human trafficking. ?? That's disingenuous in the extreme and total nonsense. |
No blood for oil
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 22:40:33 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:46:42 -0700, wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:11:37 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 10:33:53 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:51:33 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:08:23 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:31:33 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:31:48 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... They are now saying the main source, a British asset who never talked to the US, was a fraud. It is interesting that Blair is not getting more of the blame. All of the things Powell was saying at the UN (mobile weapons labs and WMD accidents that killed a number of workers) came from the Brits. The main "source" for mobile weapons labs "intelligence" was Curveball. Curveball was a German "asset." An embezzler, possibly alcoholic, looking for a green card. He was discredited totally by UN weapons inspectors before the war was launched. The Brits were still parroting his stories and fed the information to Powell. We can't let facts get in the way of blaming Bush for everything tho. This is some of the most hilarious bull**** I've see in a long time. Bush/Cheney/Tenet/Powell had nothing to do with it. It's all Tony Blairs's fault! I never said Bush et al were not at fault. That is the part you all miss. I think the whole ****up in Iraq was unnecessary. We should have left in 1991. Every president since then shares some of the blame. Obama said he would stop both wars yet he clings to the same schedule "the idiot" came up with. It makes you wonder who the idiot (or the liar) really is. Completely untrue. He's implemented a complete withdrawal of combat troops as per the agreement with the Iraqi gov't. The remaining forces are winding down. It's clear who the idiot was... Bush. It's clear who told him what to do.. Cheney, the other war criminal. "Combat troops" is a cute euphemism. It is like when you said we didn't have any combat troops in Vietnam after the cease fire, yet another 362 GIs were killed in combat. Since the biggest cause of death in both of the current wars is from IEDs, not "combat" the term is meaningless. According to you, the expert. I guess you don't care that we're involvement is winding down and it takes some time. ... according, literally "to the writing on the wall". Go to DC and look at it sometime. VN is old news. Get a new argument. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. Since there's no correlation between VN and our present situation, there's nothing that is going to be repeated. |
No blood for oil
wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 22:26:13 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:30:52 -0400, wrote: wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:54:53 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In , says... That begs the question, how stupid were the Democrats? Why would they listen to a guy they were calling an idiot? Well, I guess when the President/VP and CIA gin up a bunch of nonsense, even those dumb Democrats get fooled. http://usliberals.about.com/od/liber...raqNayVote.htm Far more non-sucker Dems than Reps. Iraq War Resolution Act. House against - 126 Dems, 6 Reps. Senate against - 21 Dems, 1 Rep. That is about the same as the vote on Afghanistan and a Libya vote would not come out that well. BTW you didn't say how many voted FOR. But enough total suckers to carry the bill in a Rep Congress. Too many suckers. Here's one guy who wasn't buying it. http://www.antiwar.com/orig/feingold1.html Hey, why is Greg talking about Iraq? I thought this was about Afghanistan. I am trying to talk about Libya but Plume can let Iraq go. Every time I say anything she responds with Iraq. What point are you trying to make about Libya? Are you contemplating that Obama is going to try to order in significant numbers of ground troups? I don't see that happening. Some wag suggested we arm both sides in these fundamentalist, backwards countries to the teeth, let them fight it out, and then shoot all the members of whichever side emerges, and then shoot whoever wants to take over until there is no one left who wants to rule. At that point, sometime in the future, it is possible a reasonable form of democracy might arise. That's a *bit* too cynical for me. I just want to hear our exit strategy. It really does not look like air power is going to displace Qdaffy and we will soon find ourselves in a similar position to what we were in with Iraq. If you listened to any news outlet (no Fox doesn't count), you'd know that we'll be handing off more of the air bombing to others. I still remember the early talk about the NFZ there when it was "humanitarian" to save the Kurds with the bonus that they would topple Saddam if we could just give them a chance. I don't think Obama would go in but who knows what the next yahoo might do if he has it all teed up. I agree. Let's try and keep Jeb out of the White House. And every other Republican. |
No blood for oil
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 06:18:02 -0400, Harryk
wrote: wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 22:26:13 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:30:52 -0400, wrote: wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:54:53 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In , says... That begs the question, how stupid were the Democrats? Why would they listen to a guy they were calling an idiot? Well, I guess when the President/VP and CIA gin up a bunch of nonsense, even those dumb Democrats get fooled. http://usliberals.about.com/od/liber...raqNayVote.htm Far more non-sucker Dems than Reps. Iraq War Resolution Act. House against - 126 Dems, 6 Reps. Senate against - 21 Dems, 1 Rep. That is about the same as the vote on Afghanistan and a Libya vote would not come out that well. BTW you didn't say how many voted FOR. But enough total suckers to carry the bill in a Rep Congress. Too many suckers. Here's one guy who wasn't buying it. http://www.antiwar.com/orig/feingold1.html Hey, why is Greg talking about Iraq? I thought this was about Afghanistan. I am trying to talk about Libya but Plume can let Iraq go. Every time I say anything she responds with Iraq. What point are you trying to make about Libya? Are you contemplating that Obama is going to try to order in significant numbers of ground troups? I don't see that happening. Some wag suggested we arm both sides in these fundamentalist, backwards countries to the teeth, let them fight it out, and then shoot all the members of whichever side emerges, and then shoot whoever wants to take over until there is no one left who wants to rule. At that point, sometime in the future, it is possible a reasonable form of democracy might arise. That's a *bit* too cynical for me. I just want to hear our exit strategy. It really does not look like air power is going to displace Qdaffy and we will soon find ourselves in a similar position to what we were in with Iraq. If you listened to any news outlet (no Fox doesn't count), you'd know that we'll be handing off more of the air bombing to others. I still remember the early talk about the NFZ there when it was "humanitarian" to save the Kurds with the bonus that they would topple Saddam if we could just give them a chance. I don't think Obama would go in but who knows what the next yahoo might do if he has it all teed up. I agree. Let's try and keep Jeb out of the White House. And every other Republican. For now, I agree with you. None of them are worth much. Perhaps someday regain their moral footing, but until then... |
No blood for oil
wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 06:18:02 -0400, wrote: wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 22:26:13 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:30:52 -0400, wrote: wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:54:53 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In , says... That begs the question, how stupid were the Democrats? Why would they listen to a guy they were calling an idiot? Well, I guess when the President/VP and CIA gin up a bunch of nonsense, even those dumb Democrats get fooled. http://usliberals.about.com/od/liber...raqNayVote.htm Far more non-sucker Dems than Reps. Iraq War Resolution Act. House against - 126 Dems, 6 Reps. Senate against - 21 Dems, 1 Rep. That is about the same as the vote on Afghanistan and a Libya vote would not come out that well. BTW you didn't say how many voted FOR. But enough total suckers to carry the bill in a Rep Congress. Too many suckers. Here's one guy who wasn't buying it. http://www.antiwar.com/orig/feingold1.html Hey, why is Greg talking about Iraq? I thought this was about Afghanistan. I am trying to talk about Libya but Plume can let Iraq go. Every time I say anything she responds with Iraq. What point are you trying to make about Libya? Are you contemplating that Obama is going to try to order in significant numbers of ground troups? I don't see that happening. Some wag suggested we arm both sides in these fundamentalist, backwards countries to the teeth, let them fight it out, and then shoot all the members of whichever side emerges, and then shoot whoever wants to take over until there is no one left who wants to rule. At that point, sometime in the future, it is possible a reasonable form of democracy might arise. That's a *bit* too cynical for me. I just want to hear our exit strategy. It really does not look like air power is going to displace Qdaffy and we will soon find ourselves in a similar position to what we were in with Iraq. If you listened to any news outlet (no Fox doesn't count), you'd know that we'll be handing off more of the air bombing to others. I still remember the early talk about the NFZ there when it was "humanitarian" to save the Kurds with the bonus that they would topple Saddam if we could just give them a chance. I don't think Obama would go in but who knows what the next yahoo might do if he has it all teed up. I agree. Let's try and keep Jeb out of the White House. And every other Republican. For now, I agree with you. None of them are worth much. Perhaps someday regain their moral footing, but until then... The GOP is going to have to push the teahadist nutcases, birthers, women haters and Latino haters out the door before it attracts many reasonable national candidates. Even Romney, who is at least mostly rationale, is kissing the ass of the nutcases. |
No blood for oil
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:11:10 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 23:23:21 -0700, wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 22:43:18 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:40:28 -0700, wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:43:12 -0400, wrote: You are not that stupid. How can you possibly say a program that spends moire than it takes in is not in deficit? Medicare has been upside down for several years and SS went upside down 2 years ago. And, it is not contributing one penny to the current deficit problem. It "may" at some point if it isn't fixed. WHAT? We are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar of the short fall and Obama chopping 2% off of the FICA tax rate only makes it worse. WHAT? Not because of SS/MC. I don't agree with any tax cut for the wealthy. The income taxes have nothing to do with the short fall in FICA. Were do you get the notion that I think FICA and income tax are the same things? ... because you linked the shortfall in SS/MC with the Obama tax cut (It stopped being the Bush tax cut when Obama renewed the bill) I did no such thing. As I said the wealthy need to be taxed more not less. OK, it still won't fix this problem. Which problem is "this"? You keep changing the subject, so it's hard to tell what you're talking about. Before that, they were trying to say a recovery would put SS back into the black for a year, maybe two. Now they can't even make that claim. Medicare is just spiraling down the black hole of debt with no end in sight. Go hide under your blankey. Denial is not the answer. Ok, so don't hide and face the facts. One fact is that there is no short-term crisis for either program. Another is that lowering taxes on wealthy people will do little or nothing to help job creation. The plane has already hit the mountain. We are borrowing money to pay out SS/.MC benefits now and the big outlays are still ahead of us. When do you think this will be a problem? When the bonds demand 3% or 5% to sell? At around 7% and our current rate of borrowing, the interest alone will be bigger that the whole budget is now, within a decade. According to you, Mr. Expert. In fact, it's just a fear-based rant that is getting old and worn out. Why don't you go back to the birth certificate rant, at least that's entertaining on some level. |
No blood for oil
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:13:21 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 23:24:41 -0700, wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 22:52:53 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 19:35:05 -0700, wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 22:26:13 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:30:52 -0400, Harryk wrote: wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:54:53 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In , says... That begs the question, how stupid were the Democrats? Why would they listen to a guy they were calling an idiot? Well, I guess when the President/VP and CIA gin up a bunch of nonsense, even those dumb Democrats get fooled. http://usliberals.about.com/od/liber...raqNayVote.htm Far more non-sucker Dems than Reps. Iraq War Resolution Act. House against - 126 Dems, 6 Reps. Senate against - 21 Dems, 1 Rep. That is about the same as the vote on Afghanistan and a Libya vote would not come out that well. BTW you didn't say how many voted FOR. But enough total suckers to carry the bill in a Rep Congress. Too many suckers. Here's one guy who wasn't buying it. http://www.antiwar.com/orig/feingold1.html Hey, why is Greg talking about Iraq? I thought this was about Afghanistan. I am trying to talk about Libya but Plume can let Iraq go. Every time I say anything she responds with Iraq. What point are you trying to make about Libya? Are you contemplating that Obama is going to try to order in significant numbers of ground troups? I don't see that happening. Some wag suggested we arm both sides in these fundamentalist, backwards countries to the teeth, let them fight it out, and then shoot all the members of whichever side emerges, and then shoot whoever wants to take over until there is no one left who wants to rule. At that point, sometime in the future, it is possible a reasonable form of democracy might arise. That's a *bit* too cynical for me. I just want to hear our exit strategy. It really does not look like air power is going to displace Qdaffy and we will soon find ourselves in a similar position to what we were in with Iraq. If you listened to any news outlet (no Fox doesn't count), you'd know that we'll be handing off more of the air bombing to others. I will feel better when it happens. So what? Do you think anyone really wants us to be in another war? Yet we are Yet that has nothing to do with your "endless" war paranoia. Your feelings are irrelevant. As are yours, nobody really cares what we think. I still remember the early talk about the NFZ there when it was "humanitarian" to save the Kurds with the bonus that they would topple Saddam if we could just give them a chance. I don't think Obama would go in but who knows what the next yahoo might do if he has it all teed up. I agree. Let's try and keep Jeb out of the White House. There won't be another Bush in there anytime soon. Huckabee could be scary. I don't really see a viable republican I like. I guess you'll be voting for Obama then. Good for you! I am not sure who I will vote for. Obama is not standing out as being much more than the 5th Bush brother. Feel free to vote for Palin. |
No blood for oil
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 13:16:03 -0400, Harryk
wrote: wrote: On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 06:18:02 -0400, wrote: wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 22:26:13 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:30:52 -0400, wrote: wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:54:53 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In , says... That begs the question, how stupid were the Democrats? Why would they listen to a guy they were calling an idiot? Well, I guess when the President/VP and CIA gin up a bunch of nonsense, even those dumb Democrats get fooled. http://usliberals.about.com/od/liber...raqNayVote.htm Far more non-sucker Dems than Reps. Iraq War Resolution Act. House against - 126 Dems, 6 Reps. Senate against - 21 Dems, 1 Rep. That is about the same as the vote on Afghanistan and a Libya vote would not come out that well. BTW you didn't say how many voted FOR. But enough total suckers to carry the bill in a Rep Congress. Too many suckers. Here's one guy who wasn't buying it. http://www.antiwar.com/orig/feingold1.html Hey, why is Greg talking about Iraq? I thought this was about Afghanistan. I am trying to talk about Libya but Plume can let Iraq go. Every time I say anything she responds with Iraq. What point are you trying to make about Libya? Are you contemplating that Obama is going to try to order in significant numbers of ground troups? I don't see that happening. Some wag suggested we arm both sides in these fundamentalist, backwards countries to the teeth, let them fight it out, and then shoot all the members of whichever side emerges, and then shoot whoever wants to take over until there is no one left who wants to rule. At that point, sometime in the future, it is possible a reasonable form of democracy might arise. That's a *bit* too cynical for me. I just want to hear our exit strategy. It really does not look like air power is going to displace Qdaffy and we will soon find ourselves in a similar position to what we were in with Iraq. If you listened to any news outlet (no Fox doesn't count), you'd know that we'll be handing off more of the air bombing to others. I still remember the early talk about the NFZ there when it was "humanitarian" to save the Kurds with the bonus that they would topple Saddam if we could just give them a chance. I don't think Obama would go in but who knows what the next yahoo might do if he has it all teed up. I agree. Let's try and keep Jeb out of the White House. And every other Republican. For now, I agree with you. None of them are worth much. Perhaps someday regain their moral footing, but until then... The GOP is going to have to push the teahadist nutcases, birthers, women haters and Latino haters out the door before it attracts many reasonable national candidates. Even Romney, who is at least mostly rationale, is kissing the ass of the nutcases. Same with Pawlenty. |
No blood for oil
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:23:29 -0400, wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 06:18:02 -0400, Harryk wrote: wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 22:26:13 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:30:52 -0400, wrote: I still remember the early talk about the NFZ there when it was "humanitarian" to save the Kurds with the bonus that they would topple Saddam if we could just give them a chance. I don't think Obama would go in but who knows what the next yahoo might do if he has it all teed up. I agree. Let's try and keep Jeb out of the White House. And every other Republican. When we have Democrats like Clinton and Obama, who needs republicans? When they come in, they keep all the same people the GOP had. Vote for Nader or Paul then. See if that makes a difference. They have become redundant. That is why they were taken over by religious fundamentalists. Obama has? Really? That's a new one. |
No blood for oil
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:20:25 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 23:26:26 -0700, wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 22:40:33 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:46:42 -0700, wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:11:37 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 10:33:53 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:51:33 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:08:23 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:31:33 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:31:48 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... They are now saying the main source, a British asset who never talked to the US, was a fraud. It is interesting that Blair is not getting more of the blame. All of the things Powell was saying at the UN (mobile weapons labs and WMD accidents that killed a number of workers) came from the Brits. The main "source" for mobile weapons labs "intelligence" was Curveball. Curveball was a German "asset." An embezzler, possibly alcoholic, looking for a green card. He was discredited totally by UN weapons inspectors before the war was launched. The Brits were still parroting his stories and fed the information to Powell. We can't let facts get in the way of blaming Bush for everything tho. This is some of the most hilarious bull**** I've see in a long time. Bush/Cheney/Tenet/Powell had nothing to do with it. It's all Tony Blairs's fault! I never said Bush et al were not at fault. That is the part you all miss. I think the whole ****up in Iraq was unnecessary. We should have left in 1991. Every president since then shares some of the blame. Obama said he would stop both wars yet he clings to the same schedule "the idiot" came up with. It makes you wonder who the idiot (or the liar) really is. Completely untrue. He's implemented a complete withdrawal of combat troops as per the agreement with the Iraqi gov't. The remaining forces are winding down. It's clear who the idiot was... Bush. It's clear who told him what to do.. Cheney, the other war criminal. "Combat troops" is a cute euphemism. It is like when you said we didn't have any combat troops in Vietnam after the cease fire, yet another 362 GIs were killed in combat. Since the biggest cause of death in both of the current wars is from IEDs, not "combat" the term is meaningless. According to you, the expert. I guess you don't care that we're involvement is winding down and it takes some time. ... according, literally "to the writing on the wall". Go to DC and look at it sometime. VN is old news. Get a new argument. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. Since there's no correlation between VN and our present situation, there's nothing that is going to be repeated. Why not? They are all undeclared wars where we have injected ourselves into another country's civil war. The outcome is likely to be the same. According to Mr. Expert. It may have been worthwhile to send a hit squad team into Afghanistan to kill Bin Laden but when that mission failed, trying to conquer and nation build was stupid. It failed due to the incompetence of Bush and Rumsfeld. There's no "conquering" going on. We all agree Iraq was stupid although, in the end, we will probably be more successful creating something like democracy there. I still don't think that is our job. It's our job now to at least try to complete some sort of stabilization. Seems like things are slowly moving in that direction. |
No blood for oil
|
No blood for oil
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 21:53:42 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: On 23/03/2011 3:48 PM, wrote: It failed due to the incompetence of Bush and Rumsfeld. There's no "conquering" going on. Ya, so far it is just an assassination attempt and blowing things up for the al_Qaeda allies. Ya, so far you're still an idiot. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:55 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com