About Us

Boating All Out

In article ,
says...

The Brits were still parroting his stories and fed the information to
Powell.

A lot of this "independent confirmation" was the same false info making
the rounds through the intel agencies of different countries.

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.

Got news for you. GW Bush invaded Iraq.
Nobody else.
You sure want to blame everybody else for the Iraq war.

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.

GW Bush invaded Iraq. Nobody else. I see only one idiot.
GW Bush and crew lied. I see only those liars.
Obama never said he would "stop both wars" on a dime. That's crazy.
The only schedule "the idiot" had for Iraq troop withdrawal was the one
Maliki made him swallow and he cut that deal before he left office.
Obama's honoring that. All troops out of Iraq by the end of this year.
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.
So just vote for his opponent in '12 and see how that goes.
GW Bush never wanted a timetable for anything. You forgot?
There was mo timetable for Afghanistan before Obama.
Afghanistan troop draw down starts in July and complete exit by 2014.
Obama caught all kinds of hell from left and right for that.
"Too long" from the left, and "we want endless war" from the right.
You can blame Obama for whatever happens in Afghanistan.
He's got absolutely not a ****ing thing to do with starting the Iraq
war, nor did Reagan, Bush I, or Clinton.
No matter what bull**** you come up with to defend GW Bush and his
crowd.

Boating All Out

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.

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.

Boating All Out

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.

[email protected]

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.

[email protected]

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.

[email protected]

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 20:19:24 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:37:14 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

The Brits were still parroting his stories and fed the information to
Powell.

A lot of this "independent confirmation" was the same false info making
the rounds through the intel agencies of different countries.

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.

Got news for you. GW Bush invaded Iraq.
Nobody else.
You sure want to blame everybody else for the Iraq war.

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.

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

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).

Saying the same thing over and over doesn't give it any more
legitimacy.

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.

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.

Canuck57[_9_]

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.

[email protected]

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.

I_am_Tosk

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...

[email protected]

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.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The Smell of Blood	HK	General	0	June 25th 09 07:50 PM
A little something to get the blood moving...	Tom Francis - SWSports	General	1	October 24th 08 02:50 PM
Blood on my mast	Joe	ASA	58	November 27th 06 04:13 AM
Kira draw blood yet?	Joe	ASA	13	December 31st 05 02:44 PM
O/T Any French blood out there?	Don White	General	0	July 16th 04 02:36 PM

Menu

About Us