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
 

In article ,
says...


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.
Obama is the one who doubled down in Afghanistan.


Hey, I'm not the one constantly talking about Iraq no-fly zones, and
blaming old man Bush and Clinton for the Iraq war.
As far as Afghanistan goes, I'll go with the Petraeus/Obama timetable.
The other choice is to nuke them.
We abandoned involvement in Afghanistan when the Soviets pulled out.
That got us 9/11.


Bush invaded Iraq so any stupid thing Obama does is OK now?

I'll hold comment until Obama does something stupid.
Don't exactly believe in cut-and-run.

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
 

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.

Obama is the one who doubled down in Afghanistan.

Trying to fix Bush's mess.

Afghanistan is pretty much all Obama when he expanded the war instead
of winding it down. The lie there is that we are still "going after
Bin Laden" and it is as egregious as the WMD lie, (that I
acknowledge).

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 idea that we have any business in any country's civil war keeps
biting us on the ass and we never learn.

You go on and keep spitting in the wind with that peacenik stuff.
World doesn't work that way and it won't for a long time.
Your problem is that good old false equivalency trap.
Still saying Bush I, Clinton, GW Bush and Obama are one and the same.
I guess they all had 2 legs and a left hand, I'll give you that.
Doesn't matter when the differences are laid out in front of you.
Doesn't matter that only one of 'em invaded Iraq.
They're just all the same to you.
You can't help yourself.
Since I don't think you're stupid the only answer is you got a soft spot
for good old boy GW Bush. Good luck with that.


Bush invaded Iraq so any stupid thing Obama does is OK now?

That's your nonsense, not mine.

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.