Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#2
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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... |
#3
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#4
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
The Smell of Blood | General | |||
A little something to get the blood moving... | General | |||
Blood on my mast | ASA | |||
Kira draw blood yet? | ASA | |||
O/T Any French blood out there? | General |