Too good to pass up...
 

On 20/10/2011 7:26 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 19:12:03 -0400, X `
wrote:

In March, you Republicans said Obama didn't act quickly enough and with
enough force in going after Gaddafi.

Then when Obama acted, you said Obama acted too hastily, acted
unconstitutionally and needed to be impeached.

Today, you say Obama didn't act soon enough.

Pobrecitos. You can't handle the fact that **** gets done nowadays. In 6
months, Libya went from status quo to Gaddafi dead, something at which
Saint Ronny Raegan tried and failed. Osama bin Laden is dead, something
Dubya couldn't do in 8 years. Now, with US and NATO assistance, the
Libyan government has changed hands and Gaddafi is dead.

The open question will be whether we are actually better off with him
gone. As the Clinton people used to say about Saddam, we had Qdaffy
"contained". (a lot more than Saddam)

This whole Arab Spring thing can still blow up in our face if these
guys don't turn out to be the peace loving people we hope they will
be. I can remember people talking about what a great guy Castro was
because he defeated that evil dictator Batista and how he was going to
bring freedom to the island.. That lasted about 6 weeks until Castro
said, "Oh wait. Maybe I am really a communist" (after denying it for
years) and started nationalizing the whole island. Two years later we
damned near had WWIII over Cuba.

This time it might be WWIII over Israel.

Actually here is what I think is happening.

More or less most leaders in the middle east had US support to get their
power or maintain it. Even Saudi. The policy was lots of little
fiefdom countries not run by radical Islam types.

Now the policy is to depose them, and let the Arab/middle eat unity as a
radical Islamic nation. I think Saudi was intending to be the center
of this, but realized all too late it was going to be Muslim
Brotherhood. So like Egypt, democracy has ended, Muslim Brotherhood now
have it as a Muslim/Islam state ignoring justice for the non-Muslims as
they are persecuted.

Arab Spring alright, it is the rise of the Islam/Sharia super-state.
Just might take a few more year to find most of the Arab world is no
longer US friendly at all. Iraq and Afghanistan will fall hours after
Americans leave. Be worse than Vietnam.

A huge long term problem. Iran and Pakistan now have nukes. USA broke,
Islam unifying slowly having their AK-47 elections....

Going to be interesting in say 5 years.
--
Eat the rich, screw the companies and wonder why there are no jobs. But
we have big huge government we can't afford...
-- Obama and the lefty fleabagger attitude

Too good to pass up...
 

On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:14:39 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:47:27 -0700, jps wrote:

On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 00:16:53 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:33:25 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

This whole Arab Spring thing can still blow up in our face if these
guys don't turn out to be the peace loving people we hope they will
be. I can remember people talking about what a great guy Castro was
because he defeated that evil dictator Batista and how he was going to
bring freedom to the island.. That lasted about 6 weeks until Castro
said, "Oh wait. Maybe I am really a communist" (after denying it for
years) and started nationalizing the whole island. Two years later we
damned near had WWIII over Cuba.

This time it might be WWIII over Israel.

Fortunately, we didn't have an absolute dummy in the white house during
the cuban missle crisis. We did have an absolute dummy in the white
house from 2001 to January 2009. You know, the guy who started two wars
with countries not at war with us. That dummy.

JFK was pretty stupid in that affair and was clearly thinking with his
dick not his brain.
He took this whole thing to the brink of WWIII for exactly the same
deal he could have had 10 months before without any drama.
The Soviets wanted our missiles out of Turkey, they pushed the issue
by putting missiles in Cuba and in the end we pulled the missiles out
of Turkey.
We just had a dick measuring contest that almost destroyed the world
before we did it.
I never thought this was a success, on any level. All we proved was
that the Soviets were not as crazy as we thought they were. What we
didn't understand was that Castro had operational control of some of
those missiles and that they were capable of firing them. (a serious
CIA failure)

And Bush wanted to measure dicks with somebody who didn't have one.

We will have spent 5000 American lives, 50,000 wounded, 1 million
Iraqis dead or displaced.

All for a dick measurement against no one.

I agree Iraq was stupid but it wasn't toying with thermonuclear war.

Your point being?

Too good to pass up...
 

On 10/21/2011 2:20 PM, jps wrote:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:14:39 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:47:27 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 00:16:53 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:33:25 -0400, X `
wrote:

This whole Arab Spring thing can still blow up in our face if these
guys don't turn out to be the peace loving people we hope they will
be. I can remember people talking about what a great guy Castro was
because he defeated that evil dictator Batista and how he was going to
bring freedom to the island.. That lasted about 6 weeks until Castro
said, "Oh wait. Maybe I am really a communist" (after denying it for
years) and started nationalizing the whole island. Two years later we
damned near had WWIII over Cuba.

This time it might be WWIII over Israel.

Fortunately, we didn't have an absolute dummy in the white house during
the cuban missle crisis. We did have an absolute dummy in the white
house from 2001 to January 2009. You know, the guy who started two wars
with countries not at war with us. That dummy.

JFK was pretty stupid in that affair and was clearly thinking with his
dick not his brain.
He took this whole thing to the brink of WWIII for exactly the same
deal he could have had 10 months before without any drama.
The Soviets wanted our missiles out of Turkey, they pushed the issue
by putting missiles in Cuba and in the end we pulled the missiles out
of Turkey.
We just had a dick measuring contest that almost destroyed the world
before we did it.
I never thought this was a success, on any level. All we proved was
that the Soviets were not as crazy as we thought they were. What we
didn't understand was that Castro had operational control of some of
those missiles and that they were capable of firing them. (a serious
CIA failure)

And Bush wanted to measure dicks with somebody who didn't have one.

We will have spent 5000 American lives, 50,000 wounded, 1 million
Iraqis dead or displaced.

All for a dick measurement against no one.

I agree Iraq was stupid but it wasn't toying with thermonuclear war.

Your point being?

His point being that Kennedy was "toying with thermonuclear war"... What
is so hard about that. Are you such an ideologue, you can't even read a
plainly put statement? Really...

And quite frankly, the one obvious reason we went into Iraq (if we
suggest there was an alternative for the sake of "this" argument), poke
holes in the suggestion that we went in to try and get some American
troops and supply lines closer to Iran, who is still working furiously
to get a nuke to Isreal, Saudi, USA, and Europe... Think about it, if
you can get the Bush Derangement Syndrome under control for a minute...

Too good to pass up...
 

On 20/10/2011 10:16 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:33:25 -0400, X `
wrote:

This whole Arab Spring thing can still blow up in our face if these
guys don't turn out to be the peace loving people we hope they will
be. I can remember people talking about what a great guy Castro was
because he defeated that evil dictator Batista and how he was going to
bring freedom to the island.. That lasted about 6 weeks until Castro
said, "Oh wait. Maybe I am really a communist" (after denying it for
years) and started nationalizing the whole island. Two years later we
damned near had WWIII over Cuba.

This time it might be WWIII over Israel.

Fortunately, we didn't have an absolute dummy in the white house during
the cuban missle crisis. We did have an absolute dummy in the white
house from 2001 to January 2009. You know, the guy who started two wars
with countries not at war with us. That dummy.

JFK was pretty stupid in that affair and was clearly thinking with his
dick not his brain.

I thought it was a good move. No nukes 10 minutes away.

He took this whole thing to the brink of WWIII for exactly the same
deal he could have had 10 months before without any drama.

Maybe sensationalized. 0bama is moving back into it. You should see
what the Chinese and Russian news say about the US-Euro Debtors
Regime...Syria might be the one to start it up all over again.

The Soviets wanted our missiles out of Turkey, they pushed the issue
by putting missiles in Cuba and in the end we pulled the missiles out
of Turkey.

Yep, DC hypocrisy.

We just had a dick measuring contest that almost destroyed the world
before we did it.

Another reason why big government is bad. Becomes a political power
**** fest at the citizens expense. Be it JFK or 0bama or in-between.

I never thought this was a success, on any level. All we proved was
that the Soviets were not as crazy as we thought they were. What we
didn't understand was that Castro had operational control of some of
those missiles and that they were capable of firing them. (a serious
CIA failure)

Yep. But both sides got what they wanted politically. And excuse to
spend trillions on war machinery making war industrialists lots of money
off the taxpayers.
--
Eat the rich, screw the companies and wonder why there are no jobs. But
we have big huge government we can't afford...
-- Obama and the lefty fleabagger attitude

Too good to pass up...
 

On 20/10/2011 10:47 PM, jps wrote:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 00:16:53 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:33:25 -0400, X `
wrote:

This whole Arab Spring thing can still blow up in our face if these
guys don't turn out to be the peace loving people we hope they will
be. I can remember people talking about what a great guy Castro was
because he defeated that evil dictator Batista and how he was going to
bring freedom to the island.. That lasted about 6 weeks until Castro
said, "Oh wait. Maybe I am really a communist" (after denying it for
years) and started nationalizing the whole island. Two years later we
damned near had WWIII over Cuba.

This time it might be WWIII over Israel.

Fortunately, we didn't have an absolute dummy in the white house during
the cuban missle crisis. We did have an absolute dummy in the white
house from 2001 to January 2009. You know, the guy who started two wars
with countries not at war with us. That dummy.

JFK was pretty stupid in that affair and was clearly thinking with his
dick not his brain.
He took this whole thing to the brink of WWIII for exactly the same
deal he could have had 10 months before without any drama.
The Soviets wanted our missiles out of Turkey, they pushed the issue
by putting missiles in Cuba and in the end we pulled the missiles out
of Turkey.
We just had a dick measuring contest that almost destroyed the world
before we did it.
I never thought this was a success, on any level. All we proved was
that the Soviets were not as crazy as we thought they were. What we
didn't understand was that Castro had operational control of some of
those missiles and that they were capable of firing them. (a serious
CIA failure)

And Bush wanted to measure dicks with somebody who didn't have one.

We will have spent 5000 American lives, 50,000 wounded, 1 million
Iraqis dead or displaced.

All for a dick measurement against no one.

And with Democrat approval no less. You seem to forget that.
--
Eat the rich, screw the companies and wonder why there are no jobs. But
we have big huge government we can't afford...
-- Obama and the lefty fleabagger attitude

Too good to pass up...
 

On 21/10/2011 7:04 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/21/11 8:56 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"X ` Man" wrote in message
m...


Fortunately, we didn't have an absolute dummy in the white house during
the cuban missle crisis. We did have an absolute dummy in the white
house from 2001 to January 2009. You know, the guy who started two wars
with countries not at war with us. That dummy.

------------------------------------------------------------------

I am old enough to remember well the Cuban missile crisis and watching
JFK on television announcing the blockade.
It turns out he made the right choice of his options but most historians
agree that we were never closer to WWIII.
It could have gone another way. Khrushchev also got much of what he
wanted in under reported, secret negotiations.

I think many are too quick to condemn Bush for some of his decisions and
seem to forget that forcing Saddam Hussein
from power was not without at least 6 months of international discussion
and debate in the UN. Hussein was becoming increasingly more
defiant of the resolutions imposed by the international community (UN)
following his invasion of Kuwait, firing on
aircraft patrolling the "no fly" zone, etc. I am sure there was some
pressure from other nations as well to keep him in check.

We can only speculate on what actions Hussein would have taken if he was
not confronted. If Bush had done nothing and
Hussein had become more aggressive again, internally and with neighbors,
Bush would be regarded as a dummy for not doing anything rather than
being a dummy for the action he took. Tough job, being POTUS. I surely
would never want it.

President Obama rightly deserves some credit for helping rid the world
of Gaddafi. Hussein was also a war mongering
dictator who ruled by imposing terror on Iraqi citizens who didn't
pledge their allegiance to him. So why is Bush a dummy
and Obama a hero?

The argument that Obama took a "back seat" role versus a major military
action doesn't hold up. Different situations, different
difficulties and challenges.





I was in my first year of college when the Cuban missile crisis took
place. Kennedy was smart enough to go for the blockade instead of
bombing the missile sites, which would have resulted in the deaths of a
lot of Russian personnel.

The Cuban missile problem was real. The Bush Administration lied us into
Iraq and Afghanistan. Neither of those countries was involved in 9-11.

Not at all. There were terrorists there. But admit, it was an excuse.

Should have just bombed them for 30 days and leveled the government,
then leave. Play the terrorist hit and run tactics and forget the
ground WW II style war.
--
Eat the rich, screw the companies and wonder why there are no jobs. But
we have big huge government we can't afford...
-- Obama and the lefty fleabagger attitude

Too good to pass up...
 

In article ,
says...

On 10/21/2011 2:20 PM, jps wrote:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:14:39 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:47:27 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 00:16:53 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:33:25 -0400, X `
wrote:

This whole Arab Spring thing can still blow up in our face if these
guys don't turn out to be the peace loving people we hope they will
be. I can remember people talking about what a great guy Castro was
because he defeated that evil dictator Batista and how he was going to
bring freedom to the island.. That lasted about 6 weeks until Castro
said, "Oh wait. Maybe I am really a communist" (after denying it for
years) and started nationalizing the whole island. Two years later we
damned near had WWIII over Cuba.

This time it might be WWIII over Israel.

Fortunately, we didn't have an absolute dummy in the white house during
the cuban missle crisis. We did have an absolute dummy in the white
house from 2001 to January 2009. You know, the guy who started two wars
with countries not at war with us. That dummy.

JFK was pretty stupid in that affair and was clearly thinking with his
dick not his brain.
He took this whole thing to the brink of WWIII for exactly the same
deal he could have had 10 months before without any drama.
The Soviets wanted our missiles out of Turkey, they pushed the issue
by putting missiles in Cuba and in the end we pulled the missiles out
of Turkey.
We just had a dick measuring contest that almost destroyed the world
before we did it.
I never thought this was a success, on any level. All we proved was
that the Soviets were not as crazy as we thought they were. What we
didn't understand was that Castro had operational control of some of
those missiles and that they were capable of firing them. (a serious
CIA failure)

And Bush wanted to measure dicks with somebody who didn't have one.

We will have spent 5000 American lives, 50,000 wounded, 1 million
Iraqis dead or displaced.

All for a dick measurement against no one.

I agree Iraq was stupid but it wasn't toying with thermonuclear war.

Your point being?

His point being that Kennedy was "toying with thermonuclear war"... What
is so hard about that. Are you such an ideologue, you can't even read a
plainly put statement? Really...

And quite frankly, the one obvious reason we went into Iraq (if we
suggest there was an alternative for the sake of "this" argument), poke
holes in the suggestion that we went in to try and get some American
troops and supply lines closer to Iran, who is still working furiously
to get a nuke to Isreal, Saudi, USA, and Europe... Think about it, if
you can get the Bush Derangement Syndrome under control for a minute...

That's about the stupidest excuse for going there that I've ever heard!

Too good to pass up...
 

On 10/21/2011 2:53 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,
says...

On 10/21/2011 2:20 PM, jps wrote:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:14:39 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:47:27 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 00:16:53 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:33:25 -0400, X `
wrote:

This whole Arab Spring thing can still blow up in our face if these
guys don't turn out to be the peace loving people we hope they will
be. I can remember people talking about what a great guy Castro was
because he defeated that evil dictator Batista and how he was going to
bring freedom to the island.. That lasted about 6 weeks until Castro
said, "Oh wait. Maybe I am really a communist" (after denying it for
years) and started nationalizing the whole island. Two years later we
damned near had WWIII over Cuba.

This time it might be WWIII over Israel.

Fortunately, we didn't have an absolute dummy in the white house during
the cuban missle crisis. We did have an absolute dummy in the white
house from 2001 to January 2009. You know, the guy who started two wars
with countries not at war with us. That dummy.

JFK was pretty stupid in that affair and was clearly thinking with his
dick not his brain.
He took this whole thing to the brink of WWIII for exactly the same
deal he could have had 10 months before without any drama.
The Soviets wanted our missiles out of Turkey, they pushed the issue
by putting missiles in Cuba and in the end we pulled the missiles out
of Turkey.
We just had a dick measuring contest that almost destroyed the world
before we did it.
I never thought this was a success, on any level. All we proved was
that the Soviets were not as crazy as we thought they were. What we
didn't understand was that Castro had operational control of some of
those missiles and that they were capable of firing them. (a serious
CIA failure)

And Bush wanted to measure dicks with somebody who didn't have one.

We will have spent 5000 American lives, 50,000 wounded, 1 million
Iraqis dead or displaced.

All for a dick measurement against no one.

I agree Iraq was stupid but it wasn't toying with thermonuclear war.

Your point being?

His point being that Kennedy was "toying with thermonuclear war"... What
is so hard about that. Are you such an ideologue, you can't even read a
plainly put statement? Really...

And quite frankly, the one obvious reason we went into Iraq (if we
suggest there was an alternative for the sake of "this" argument), poke
holes in the suggestion that we went in to try and get some American
troops and supply lines closer to Iran, who is still working furiously
to get a nuke to Isreal, Saudi, USA, and Europe... Think about it, if
you can get the Bush Derangement Syndrome under control for a minute...

That's about the stupidest excuse for going there that I've ever heard!

So, you don't think Iran's nukes are a threat? You don't think Pakistan
is a threat? Wow, talk about stupid...

Too good to pass up...
 

In article ,
says...

On 10/21/2011 2:53 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,
says...

On 10/21/2011 2:20 PM, jps wrote:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:14:39 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:47:27 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 00:16:53 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:33:25 -0400, X `
wrote:

This whole Arab Spring thing can still blow up in our face if these
guys don't turn out to be the peace loving people we hope they will
be. I can remember people talking about what a great guy Castro was
because he defeated that evil dictator Batista and how he was going to
bring freedom to the island.. That lasted about 6 weeks until Castro
said, "Oh wait. Maybe I am really a communist" (after denying it for
years) and started nationalizing the whole island. Two years later we
damned near had WWIII over Cuba.

This time it might be WWIII over Israel.

Fortunately, we didn't have an absolute dummy in the white house during
the cuban missle crisis. We did have an absolute dummy in the white
house from 2001 to January 2009. You know, the guy who started two wars
with countries not at war with us. That dummy.

JFK was pretty stupid in that affair and was clearly thinking with his
dick not his brain.
He took this whole thing to the brink of WWIII for exactly the same
deal he could have had 10 months before without any drama.
The Soviets wanted our missiles out of Turkey, they pushed the issue
by putting missiles in Cuba and in the end we pulled the missiles out
of Turkey.
We just had a dick measuring contest that almost destroyed the world
before we did it.
I never thought this was a success, on any level. All we proved was
that the Soviets were not as crazy as we thought they were. What we
didn't understand was that Castro had operational control of some of
those missiles and that they were capable of firing them. (a serious
CIA failure)

And Bush wanted to measure dicks with somebody who didn't have one.

We will have spent 5000 American lives, 50,000 wounded, 1 million
Iraqis dead or displaced.

All for a dick measurement against no one.

I agree Iraq was stupid but it wasn't toying with thermonuclear war.

Your point being?

His point being that Kennedy was "toying with thermonuclear war"... What
is so hard about that. Are you such an ideologue, you can't even read a
plainly put statement? Really...

And quite frankly, the one obvious reason we went into Iraq (if we
suggest there was an alternative for the sake of "this" argument), poke
holes in the suggestion that we went in to try and get some American
troops and supply lines closer to Iran, who is still working furiously
to get a nuke to Isreal, Saudi, USA, and Europe... Think about it, if
you can get the Bush Derangement Syndrome under control for a minute...

That's about the stupidest excuse for going there that I've ever heard!

So, you don't think Iran's nukes are a threat? You don't think Pakistan
is a threat? Wow, talk about stupid...

Good god, man!!! I never said that Iran's nukes aren't a threat. And no,
Pakistan is not a threat, but alas, I never said that neither. What I
said was "That's about the stupidest excuse for going there that I've
ever heard." If Bush spent billions of dollars to go to Iraq and start a
war to have access to Iran, that's beyond stupid.

Too good to pass up...
 

On 10/21/11 3:11 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/21/2011 2:53 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,
says...

On 10/21/2011 2:20 PM, jps wrote:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:14:39 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:47:27 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 00:16:53 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:33:25 -0400, X `
wrote:

This whole Arab Spring thing can still blow up in our face if
these
guys don't turn out to be the peace loving people we hope they
will
be. I can remember people talking about what a great guy Castro
was
because he defeated that evil dictator Batista and how he was
going to
bring freedom to the island.. That lasted about 6 weeks until
Castro
said, "Oh wait. Maybe I am really a communist" (after denying
it for
years) and started nationalizing the whole island. Two years
later we
damned near had WWIII over Cuba.

This time it might be WWIII over Israel.

Fortunately, we didn't have an absolute dummy in the white house
during
the cuban missle crisis. We did have an absolute dummy in the white
house from 2001 to January 2009. You know, the guy who started
two wars
with countries not at war with us. That dummy.

JFK was pretty stupid in that affair and was clearly thinking
with his
dick not his brain.
He took this whole thing to the brink of WWIII for exactly the same
deal he could have had 10 months before without any drama.
The Soviets wanted our missiles out of Turkey, they pushed the issue
by putting missiles in Cuba and in the end we pulled the missiles
out
of Turkey.
We just had a dick measuring contest that almost destroyed the world
before we did it.
I never thought this was a success, on any level. All we proved was
that the Soviets were not as crazy as we thought they were. What we
didn't understand was that Castro had operational control of some of
those missiles and that they were capable of firing them. (a serious
CIA failure)

And Bush wanted to measure dicks with somebody who didn't have one.

We will have spent 5000 American lives, 50,000 wounded, 1 million
Iraqis dead or displaced.

All for a dick measurement against no one.

I agree Iraq was stupid but it wasn't toying with thermonuclear war.

Your point being?

His point being that Kennedy was "toying with thermonuclear war"... What
is so hard about that. Are you such an ideologue, you can't even read a
plainly put statement? Really...

And quite frankly, the one obvious reason we went into Iraq (if we
suggest there was an alternative for the sake of "this" argument), poke
holes in the suggestion that we went in to try and get some American
troops and supply lines closer to Iran, who is still working furiously
to get a nuke to Isreal, Saudi, USA, and Europe... Think about it, if
you can get the Bush Derangement Syndrome under control for a minute...

That's about the stupidest excuse for going there that I've ever heard!

So, you don't think Iran's nukes are a threat? You don't think Pakistan
is a threat? Wow, talk about stupid...


We're not going to invade Iran absent a powerful and significant act of
war on its part so long as someone mentally competent is in the White
House. Yet another reason not to vote for Republicans.

Too good to pass up...
 

On 10/21/2011 11:56 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In raweb.com,
says...

On 10/21/2011 10:55 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In aweb.com,
says...

On 10/21/2011 8:56 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"X ` Man" wrote in message
m...


Fortunately, we didn't have an absolute dummy in the white house during
the cuban missle crisis. We did have an absolute dummy in the white
house from 2001 to January 2009. You know, the guy who started two wars
with countries not at war with us. That dummy.

------------------------------------------------------------------

I am old enough to remember well the Cuban missile crisis and watching
JFK on television announcing the blockade.
It turns out he made the right choice of his options but most historians
agree that we were never closer to WWIII.
It could have gone another way. Khrushchev also got much of what he
wanted in under reported, secret negotiations.

I think many are too quick to condemn Bush for some of his decisions and
seem to forget that forcing Saddam Hussein
from power was not without at least 6 months of international discussion
and debate in the UN. Hussein was becoming increasingly more
defiant of the resolutions imposed by the international community (UN)
following his invasion of Kuwait, firing on
aircraft patrolling the "no fly" zone, etc. I am sure there was some
pressure from other nations as well to keep him in check.

We can only speculate on what actions Hussein would have taken if he was
not confronted. If Bush had done nothing and
Hussein had become more aggressive again, internally and with neighbors,
Bush would be regarded as a dummy for not doing anything rather than
being a dummy for the action he took. Tough job, being POTUS. I surely
would never want it.

President Obama rightly deserves some credit for helping rid the world
of Gaddafi. Hussein was also a war mongering
dictator who ruled by imposing terror on Iraqi citizens who didn't
pledge their allegiance to him. So why is Bush a dummy
and Obama a hero?

The argument that Obama took a "back seat" role versus a major military
action doesn't hold up. Different situations, different
difficulties and challenges.





O/bama seems to be implying he deserves credit for Gaddafi's killing.
Covert operations generally go un credited but Obama is changing all
that. Makes the secret services job a little tougher.

Do you mean like Bush "getting" Saddam?

Did bush murder Sadaam?

I don't see where what I replied to had anything to do with murder.

Actually doofus what you replied to had nothing to do with Bush

Too good to pass up...
 

On 10/21/2011 3:21 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,
says...

On 10/21/2011 2:53 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,
says...

On 10/21/2011 2:20 PM, jps wrote:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:14:39 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:47:27 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 00:16:53 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:33:25 -0400, X `
wrote:

This whole Arab Spring thing can still blow up in our face if these
guys don't turn out to be the peace loving people we hope they will
be. I can remember people talking about what a great guy Castro was
because he defeated that evil dictator Batista and how he was going to
bring freedom to the island.. That lasted about 6 weeks until Castro
said, "Oh wait. Maybe I am really a communist" (after denying it for
years) and started nationalizing the whole island. Two years later we
damned near had WWIII over Cuba.

This time it might be WWIII over Israel.

Fortunately, we didn't have an absolute dummy in the white house during
the cuban missle crisis. We did have an absolute dummy in the white
house from 2001 to January 2009. You know, the guy who started two wars
with countries not at war with us. That dummy.

JFK was pretty stupid in that affair and was clearly thinking with his
dick not his brain.
He took this whole thing to the brink of WWIII for exactly the same
deal he could have had 10 months before without any drama.
The Soviets wanted our missiles out of Turkey, they pushed the issue
by putting missiles in Cuba and in the end we pulled the missiles out
of Turkey.
We just had a dick measuring contest that almost destroyed the world
before we did it.
I never thought this was a success, on any level. All we proved was
that the Soviets were not as crazy as we thought they were. What we
didn't understand was that Castro had operational control of some of
those missiles and that they were capable of firing them. (a serious
CIA failure)

And Bush wanted to measure dicks with somebody who didn't have one.

We will have spent 5000 American lives, 50,000 wounded, 1 million
Iraqis dead or displaced.

All for a dick measurement against no one.

I agree Iraq was stupid but it wasn't toying with thermonuclear war.

Your point being?

His point being that Kennedy was "toying with thermonuclear war"... What
is so hard about that. Are you such an ideologue, you can't even read a
plainly put statement? Really...

And quite frankly, the one obvious reason we went into Iraq (if we
suggest there was an alternative for the sake of "this" argument), poke
holes in the suggestion that we went in to try and get some American
troops and supply lines closer to Iran, who is still working furiously
to get a nuke to Isreal, Saudi, USA, and Europe... Think about it, if
you can get the Bush Derangement Syndrome under control for a minute...

That's about the stupidest excuse for going there that I've ever heard!

So, you don't think Iran's nukes are a threat? You don't think Pakistan
is a threat? Wow, talk about stupid...

Good god, man!!! I never said that Iran's nukes aren't a threat. And no,
Pakistan is not a threat, but alas, I never said that neither. What I
said was "That's about the stupidest excuse for going there that I've
ever heard." If Bush spent billions of dollars to go to Iraq and start a
war to have access to Iran, that's beyond stupid.

Ever play Risk? Your opinion is no different than mine, except yours
comes with the obligatory insults...

Too good to pass up...
 

On 10/21/2011 3:22 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/21/11 3:11 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/21/2011 2:53 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,
says...

On 10/21/2011 2:20 PM, jps wrote:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:14:39 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:47:27 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 00:16:53 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:33:25 -0400, X `
wrote:

This whole Arab Spring thing can still blow up in our face if
these
guys don't turn out to be the peace loving people we hope they
will
be. I can remember people talking about what a great guy Castro
was
because he defeated that evil dictator Batista and how he was
going to
bring freedom to the island.. That lasted about 6 weeks until
Castro
said, "Oh wait. Maybe I am really a communist" (after denying
it for
years) and started nationalizing the whole island. Two years
later we
damned near had WWIII over Cuba.

This time it might be WWIII over Israel.

Fortunately, we didn't have an absolute dummy in the white house
during
the cuban missle crisis. We did have an absolute dummy in the
white
house from 2001 to January 2009. You know, the guy who started
two wars
with countries not at war with us. That dummy.

JFK was pretty stupid in that affair and was clearly thinking
with his
dick not his brain.
He took this whole thing to the brink of WWIII for exactly the same
deal he could have had 10 months before without any drama.
The Soviets wanted our missiles out of Turkey, they pushed the
issue
by putting missiles in Cuba and in the end we pulled the missiles
out
of Turkey.
We just had a dick measuring contest that almost destroyed the
world
before we did it.
I never thought this was a success, on any level. All we proved was
that the Soviets were not as crazy as we thought they were. What we
didn't understand was that Castro had operational control of
some of
those missiles and that they were capable of firing them. (a
serious
CIA failure)

And Bush wanted to measure dicks with somebody who didn't have one.

We will have spent 5000 American lives, 50,000 wounded, 1 million
Iraqis dead or displaced.

All for a dick measurement against no one.

I agree Iraq was stupid but it wasn't toying with thermonuclear war.

Your point being?

His point being that Kennedy was "toying with thermonuclear war"...
What
is so hard about that. Are you such an ideologue, you can't even read a
plainly put statement? Really...

And quite frankly, the one obvious reason we went into Iraq (if we
suggest there was an alternative for the sake of "this" argument), poke
holes in the suggestion that we went in to try and get some American
troops and supply lines closer to Iran, who is still working furiously
to get a nuke to Isreal, Saudi, USA, and Europe... Think about it, if
you can get the Bush Derangement Syndrome under control for a minute...

That's about the stupidest excuse for going there that I've ever heard!

So, you don't think Iran's nukes are a threat? You don't think Pakistan
is a threat? Wow, talk about stupid...


We're not going to invade Iran absent a powerful and significant act of
war on its part so long as someone mentally competent is in the White
House. Yet another reason not to vote for Republicans.

Yeah, and in the mean time Obama is making sure there is a huge buffer
of Iran friendly countries between us, and them... We just got kicked
out of Iraq because Obama couldn't negotiate a deal to protect our
Soldiers from the Iranian influence in Iraq.

Too good to pass up...
 

On 10/21/11 3:36 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/21/2011 3:22 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/21/11 3:11 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/21/2011 2:53 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,
says...

On 10/21/2011 2:20 PM, jps wrote:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:14:39 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:47:27 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 00:16:53 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:33:25 -0400, X `

wrote:

This whole Arab Spring thing can still blow up in our face if
these
guys don't turn out to be the peace loving people we hope they
will
be. I can remember people talking about what a great guy Castro
was
because he defeated that evil dictator Batista and how he was
going to
bring freedom to the island.. That lasted about 6 weeks until
Castro
said, "Oh wait. Maybe I am really a communist" (after denying
it for
years) and started nationalizing the whole island. Two years
later we
damned near had WWIII over Cuba.

This time it might be WWIII over Israel.

Fortunately, we didn't have an absolute dummy in the white house
during
the cuban missle crisis. We did have an absolute dummy in the
white
house from 2001 to January 2009. You know, the guy who started
two wars
with countries not at war with us. That dummy.

JFK was pretty stupid in that affair and was clearly thinking
with his
dick not his brain.
He took this whole thing to the brink of WWIII for exactly the
same
deal he could have had 10 months before without any drama.
The Soviets wanted our missiles out of Turkey, they pushed the
issue
by putting missiles in Cuba and in the end we pulled the missiles
out
of Turkey.
We just had a dick measuring contest that almost destroyed the
world
before we did it.
I never thought this was a success, on any level. All we proved
was
that the Soviets were not as crazy as we thought they were.
What we
didn't understand was that Castro had operational control of
some of
those missiles and that they were capable of firing them. (a
serious
CIA failure)

And Bush wanted to measure dicks with somebody who didn't have one.

We will have spent 5000 American lives, 50,000 wounded, 1 million
Iraqis dead or displaced.

All for a dick measurement against no one.

I agree Iraq was stupid but it wasn't toying with thermonuclear war.

Your point being?

His point being that Kennedy was "toying with thermonuclear war"...
What
is so hard about that. Are you such an ideologue, you can't even
read a
plainly put statement? Really...

And quite frankly, the one obvious reason we went into Iraq (if we
suggest there was an alternative for the sake of "this" argument),
poke
holes in the suggestion that we went in to try and get some American
troops and supply lines closer to Iran, who is still working furiously
to get a nuke to Isreal, Saudi, USA, and Europe... Think about it, if
you can get the Bush Derangement Syndrome under control for a
minute...

That's about the stupidest excuse for going there that I've ever heard!

So, you don't think Iran's nukes are a threat? You don't think Pakistan
is a threat? Wow, talk about stupid...


We're not going to invade Iran absent a powerful and significant act of
war on its part so long as someone mentally competent is in the White
House. Yet another reason not to vote for Republicans.

Yeah, and in the mean time Obama is making sure there is a huge buffer
of Iran friendly countries between us, and them... We just got kicked
out of Iraq because Obama couldn't negotiate a deal to protect our
Soldiers from the Iranian influence in Iraq.


Iraq isn't and never will be one of those "friendly" post WWII defeated
countries like Japan or Germany. If we have a small force in a
*belligerent* country and it cannot protect itself, we have no business
having troops there.

Of all the problems Bush opened in his Pandora's box of invading Iraq,
the most significant was the fact that he didn't have an End Game
because...there isn't one.

Too good to pass up...
 

On 21/10/2011 1:11 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/21/2011 2:53 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,
says...

On 10/21/2011 2:20 PM, jps wrote:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:14:39 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:47:27 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 00:16:53 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:33:25 -0400, X `
wrote:

This whole Arab Spring thing can still blow up in our face if
these
guys don't turn out to be the peace loving people we hope they
will
be. I can remember people talking about what a great guy Castro
was
because he defeated that evil dictator Batista and how he was
going to
bring freedom to the island.. That lasted about 6 weeks until
Castro
said, "Oh wait. Maybe I am really a communist" (after denying
it for
years) and started nationalizing the whole island. Two years
later we
damned near had WWIII over Cuba.

This time it might be WWIII over Israel.

Fortunately, we didn't have an absolute dummy in the white house
during
the cuban missle crisis. We did have an absolute dummy in the white
house from 2001 to January 2009. You know, the guy who started
two wars
with countries not at war with us. That dummy.

JFK was pretty stupid in that affair and was clearly thinking
with his
dick not his brain.
He took this whole thing to the brink of WWIII for exactly the same
deal he could have had 10 months before without any drama.
The Soviets wanted our missiles out of Turkey, they pushed the issue
by putting missiles in Cuba and in the end we pulled the missiles
out
of Turkey.
We just had a dick measuring contest that almost destroyed the world
before we did it.
I never thought this was a success, on any level. All we proved was
that the Soviets were not as crazy as we thought they were. What we
didn't understand was that Castro had operational control of some of
those missiles and that they were capable of firing them. (a serious
CIA failure)

And Bush wanted to measure dicks with somebody who didn't have one.

We will have spent 5000 American lives, 50,000 wounded, 1 million
Iraqis dead or displaced.

All for a dick measurement against no one.

I agree Iraq was stupid but it wasn't toying with thermonuclear war.

Your point being?

His point being that Kennedy was "toying with thermonuclear war"... What
is so hard about that. Are you such an ideologue, you can't even read a
plainly put statement? Really...

And quite frankly, the one obvious reason we went into Iraq (if we
suggest there was an alternative for the sake of "this" argument), poke
holes in the suggestion that we went in to try and get some American
troops and supply lines closer to Iran, who is still working furiously
to get a nuke to Isreal, Saudi, USA, and Europe... Think about it, if
you can get the Bush Derangement Syndrome under control for a minute...

That's about the stupidest excuse for going there that I've ever heard!

So, you don't think Iran's nukes are a threat? You don't think Pakistan
is a threat? Wow, talk about stupid...

Especially since religious fanatics are at the buttons. Good part is
they are probably crude and low yield. But still.
--
Eat the rich, screw the companies and wonder why there are no jobs. But
we have big huge government we can't afford...
-- Obama and the lefty fleabagger attitude

Too good to pass up...
 

In article om,
says...

On 10/21/2011 11:56 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In raweb.com,
says...

On 10/21/2011 10:55 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In aweb.com,
says...

On 10/21/2011 8:56 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"X ` Man" wrote in message
m...


Fortunately, we didn't have an absolute dummy in the white house during
the cuban missle crisis. We did have an absolute dummy in the white
house from 2001 to January 2009. You know, the guy who started two wars
with countries not at war with us. That dummy.

------------------------------------------------------------------

I am old enough to remember well the Cuban missile crisis and watching
JFK on television announcing the blockade.
It turns out he made the right choice of his options but most historians
agree that we were never closer to WWIII.
It could have gone another way. Khrushchev also got much of what he
wanted in under reported, secret negotiations.

I think many are too quick to condemn Bush for some of his decisions and
seem to forget that forcing Saddam Hussein
from power was not without at least 6 months of international discussion
and debate in the UN. Hussein was becoming increasingly more
defiant of the resolutions imposed by the international community (UN)
following his invasion of Kuwait, firing on
aircraft patrolling the "no fly" zone, etc. I am sure there was some
pressure from other nations as well to keep him in check.

We can only speculate on what actions Hussein would have taken if he was
not confronted. If Bush had done nothing and
Hussein had become more aggressive again, internally and with neighbors,
Bush would be regarded as a dummy for not doing anything rather than
being a dummy for the action he took. Tough job, being POTUS. I surely
would never want it.

President Obama rightly deserves some credit for helping rid the world
of Gaddafi. Hussein was also a war mongering
dictator who ruled by imposing terror on Iraqi citizens who didn't
pledge their allegiance to him. So why is Bush a dummy
and Obama a hero?

The argument that Obama took a "back seat" role versus a major military
action doesn't hold up. Different situations, different
difficulties and challenges.





O/bama seems to be implying he deserves credit for Gaddafi's killing.
Covert operations generally go un credited but Obama is changing all
that. Makes the secret services job a little tougher.

Do you mean like Bush "getting" Saddam?

Did bush murder Sadaam?

I don't see where what I replied to had anything to do with murder.

Actually doofus what you replied to had nothing to do with Bush

Sure it did, it described his actions to a tee!

Too good to pass up...
 

On 21/10/2011 1:42 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/21/11 3:36 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/21/2011 3:22 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/21/11 3:11 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/21/2011 2:53 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,

says...

On 10/21/2011 2:20 PM, jps wrote:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:14:39 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:47:27 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 00:16:53 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:33:25 -0400, X `

wrote:

This whole Arab Spring thing can still blow up in our face if
these
guys don't turn out to be the peace loving people we hope they
will
be. I can remember people talking about what a great guy Castro
was
because he defeated that evil dictator Batista and how he was
going to
bring freedom to the island.. That lasted about 6 weeks until
Castro
said, "Oh wait. Maybe I am really a communist" (after denying
it for
years) and started nationalizing the whole island. Two years
later we
damned near had WWIII over Cuba.

This time it might be WWIII over Israel.

Fortunately, we didn't have an absolute dummy in the white house
during
the cuban missle crisis. We did have an absolute dummy in the
white
house from 2001 to January 2009. You know, the guy who started
two wars
with countries not at war with us. That dummy.

JFK was pretty stupid in that affair and was clearly thinking
with his
dick not his brain.
He took this whole thing to the brink of WWIII for exactly the
same
deal he could have had 10 months before without any drama.
The Soviets wanted our missiles out of Turkey, they pushed the
issue
by putting missiles in Cuba and in the end we pulled the missiles
out
of Turkey.
We just had a dick measuring contest that almost destroyed the
world
before we did it.
I never thought this was a success, on any level. All we proved
was
that the Soviets were not as crazy as we thought they were.
What we
didn't understand was that Castro had operational control of
some of
those missiles and that they were capable of firing them. (a
serious
CIA failure)

And Bush wanted to measure dicks with somebody who didn't have
one.

We will have spent 5000 American lives, 50,000 wounded, 1 million
Iraqis dead or displaced.

All for a dick measurement against no one.

I agree Iraq was stupid but it wasn't toying with thermonuclear
war.

Your point being?

His point being that Kennedy was "toying with thermonuclear war"...
What
is so hard about that. Are you such an ideologue, you can't even
read a
plainly put statement? Really...

And quite frankly, the one obvious reason we went into Iraq (if we
suggest there was an alternative for the sake of "this" argument),
poke
holes in the suggestion that we went in to try and get some American
troops and supply lines closer to Iran, who is still working
furiously
to get a nuke to Isreal, Saudi, USA, and Europe... Think about it, if
you can get the Bush Derangement Syndrome under control for a
minute...

That's about the stupidest excuse for going there that I've ever
heard!

So, you don't think Iran's nukes are a threat? You don't think Pakistan
is a threat? Wow, talk about stupid...


We're not going to invade Iran absent a powerful and significant act of
war on its part so long as someone mentally competent is in the White
House. Yet another reason not to vote for Republicans.

Yeah, and in the mean time Obama is making sure there is a huge buffer
of Iran friendly countries between us, and them... We just got kicked
out of Iraq because Obama couldn't negotiate a deal to protect our
Soldiers from the Iranian influence in Iraq.


Iraq isn't and never will be one of those "friendly" post WWII defeated
countries like Japan or Germany. If we have a small force in a
*belligerent* country and it cannot protect itself, we have no business
having troops there.

Of all the problems Bush opened in his Pandora's box of invading Iraq,
the most significant was the fact that he didn't have an End Game
because...there isn't one.

Agreed. There is no end game. USA could save trillions and just let
them all build up for a Iran/Iraq war amongst themselves. No need for
Americans to be the bad boys. Islam gets along with no one, and often
not even with themselves. Use it.
--
Eat the rich, screw the companies and wonder why there are no jobs. But
we have big huge government we can't afford...
-- Obama and the lefty fleabagger attitude

Too good to pass up...
 

On 10/21/11 3:44 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 21/10/2011 1:11 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/21/2011 2:53 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,
says...

On 10/21/2011 2:20 PM, jps wrote:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:14:39 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:47:27 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 00:16:53 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:33:25 -0400, X `
wrote:

This whole Arab Spring thing can still blow up in our face if
these
guys don't turn out to be the peace loving people we hope they
will
be. I can remember people talking about what a great guy Castro
was
because he defeated that evil dictator Batista and how he was
going to
bring freedom to the island.. That lasted about 6 weeks until
Castro
said, "Oh wait. Maybe I am really a communist" (after denying
it for
years) and started nationalizing the whole island. Two years
later we
damned near had WWIII over Cuba.

This time it might be WWIII over Israel.

Fortunately, we didn't have an absolute dummy in the white house
during
the cuban missle crisis. We did have an absolute dummy in the
white
house from 2001 to January 2009. You know, the guy who started
two wars
with countries not at war with us. That dummy.

JFK was pretty stupid in that affair and was clearly thinking
with his
dick not his brain.
He took this whole thing to the brink of WWIII for exactly the same
deal he could have had 10 months before without any drama.
The Soviets wanted our missiles out of Turkey, they pushed the
issue
by putting missiles in Cuba and in the end we pulled the missiles
out
of Turkey.
We just had a dick measuring contest that almost destroyed the
world
before we did it.
I never thought this was a success, on any level. All we proved was
that the Soviets were not as crazy as we thought they were. What we
didn't understand was that Castro had operational control of
some of
those missiles and that they were capable of firing them. (a
serious
CIA failure)

And Bush wanted to measure dicks with somebody who didn't have one.

We will have spent 5000 American lives, 50,000 wounded, 1 million
Iraqis dead or displaced.

All for a dick measurement against no one.

I agree Iraq was stupid but it wasn't toying with thermonuclear war.

Your point being?

His point being that Kennedy was "toying with thermonuclear war"...
What
is so hard about that. Are you such an ideologue, you can't even read a
plainly put statement? Really...

And quite frankly, the one obvious reason we went into Iraq (if we
suggest there was an alternative for the sake of "this" argument), poke
holes in the suggestion that we went in to try and get some American
troops and supply lines closer to Iran, who is still working furiously
to get a nuke to Isreal, Saudi, USA, and Europe... Think about it, if
you can get the Bush Derangement Syndrome under control for a minute...

That's about the stupidest excuse for going there that I've ever heard!

So, you don't think Iran's nukes are a threat? You don't think Pakistan
is a threat? Wow, talk about stupid...

Especially since religious fanatics are at the buttons. Good part is
they are probably crude and low yield. But still.


You'd better hope Cain or Perry aren't the next president because
they're also religious fanatics, especially Perry.

Too good to pass up...
 

On 10/21/2011 3:25 PM, Drifter wrote:
On 10/21/2011 11:56 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In raweb.com,
says...

On 10/21/2011 10:55 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In aweb.com,
says...

On 10/21/2011 8:56 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"X ` Man" wrote in message
m...


Fortunately, we didn't have an absolute dummy in the white house
during
the cuban missle crisis. We did have an absolute dummy in the white
house from 2001 to January 2009. You know, the guy who started two
wars
with countries not at war with us. That dummy.

------------------------------------------------------------------

I am old enough to remember well the Cuban missile crisis and
watching
JFK on television announcing the blockade.
It turns out he made the right choice of his options but most
historians
agree that we were never closer to WWIII.
It could have gone another way. Khrushchev also got much of what he
wanted in under reported, secret negotiations.

I think many are too quick to condemn Bush for some of his
decisions and
seem to forget that forcing Saddam Hussein
from power was not without at least 6 months of international
discussion
and debate in the UN. Hussein was becoming increasingly more
defiant of the resolutions imposed by the international community
(UN)
following his invasion of Kuwait, firing on
aircraft patrolling the "no fly" zone, etc. I am sure there was some
pressure from other nations as well to keep him in check.

We can only speculate on what actions Hussein would have taken if
he was
not confronted. If Bush had done nothing and
Hussein had become more aggressive again, internally and with
neighbors,
Bush would be regarded as a dummy for not doing anything rather than
being a dummy for the action he took. Tough job, being POTUS. I
surely
would never want it.

President Obama rightly deserves some credit for helping rid the
world
of Gaddafi. Hussein was also a war mongering
dictator who ruled by imposing terror on Iraqi citizens who didn't
pledge their allegiance to him. So why is Bush a dummy
and Obama a hero?

The argument that Obama took a "back seat" role versus a major
military
action doesn't hold up. Different situations, different
difficulties and challenges.





O/bama seems to be implying he deserves credit for Gaddafi's killing.
Covert operations generally go un credited but Obama is changing all
that. Makes the secret services job a little tougher.

Do you mean like Bush "getting" Saddam?

Did bush murder Sadaam?

I don't see where what I replied to had anything to do with murder.

Actually doofus what you replied to had nothing to do with Bush

snerk

Too good to pass up...
 

On 10/21/2011 3:42 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/21/11 3:36 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/21/2011 3:22 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/21/11 3:11 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/21/2011 2:53 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,

says...

On 10/21/2011 2:20 PM, jps wrote:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:14:39 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:47:27 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 00:16:53 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:33:25 -0400, X `

wrote:

This whole Arab Spring thing can still blow up in our face if
these
guys don't turn out to be the peace loving people we hope they
will
be. I can remember people talking about what a great guy Castro
was
because he defeated that evil dictator Batista and how he was
going to
bring freedom to the island.. That lasted about 6 weeks until
Castro
said, "Oh wait. Maybe I am really a communist" (after denying
it for
years) and started nationalizing the whole island. Two years
later we
damned near had WWIII over Cuba.

This time it might be WWIII over Israel.

Fortunately, we didn't have an absolute dummy in the white house
during
the cuban missle crisis. We did have an absolute dummy in the
white
house from 2001 to January 2009. You know, the guy who started
two wars
with countries not at war with us. That dummy.

JFK was pretty stupid in that affair and was clearly thinking
with his
dick not his brain.
He took this whole thing to the brink of WWIII for exactly the
same
deal he could have had 10 months before without any drama.
The Soviets wanted our missiles out of Turkey, they pushed the
issue
by putting missiles in Cuba and in the end we pulled the missiles
out
of Turkey.
We just had a dick measuring contest that almost destroyed the
world
before we did it.
I never thought this was a success, on any level. All we proved
was
that the Soviets were not as crazy as we thought they were.
What we
didn't understand was that Castro had operational control of
some of
those missiles and that they were capable of firing them. (a
serious
CIA failure)

And Bush wanted to measure dicks with somebody who didn't have
one.

We will have spent 5000 American lives, 50,000 wounded, 1 million
Iraqis dead or displaced.

All for a dick measurement against no one.

I agree Iraq was stupid but it wasn't toying with thermonuclear
war.

Your point being?

His point being that Kennedy was "toying with thermonuclear war"...
What
is so hard about that. Are you such an ideologue, you can't even
read a
plainly put statement? Really...

And quite frankly, the one obvious reason we went into Iraq (if we
suggest there was an alternative for the sake of "this" argument),
poke
holes in the suggestion that we went in to try and get some American
troops and supply lines closer to Iran, who is still working
furiously
to get a nuke to Isreal, Saudi, USA, and Europe... Think about it, if
you can get the Bush Derangement Syndrome under control for a
minute...

That's about the stupidest excuse for going there that I've ever
heard!

So, you don't think Iran's nukes are a threat? You don't think Pakistan
is a threat? Wow, talk about stupid...


We're not going to invade Iran absent a powerful and significant act of
war on its part so long as someone mentally competent is in the White
House. Yet another reason not to vote for Republicans.

Yeah, and in the mean time Obama is making sure there is a huge buffer
of Iran friendly countries between us, and them... We just got kicked
out of Iraq because Obama couldn't negotiate a deal to protect our
Soldiers from the Iranian influence in Iraq.


Iraq isn't and never will be one of those "friendly" post WWII defeated
countries like Japan or Germany. If we have a small force in a
*belligerent* country and it cannot protect itself, we have no business
having troops there.

Of all the problems Bush opened in his Pandora's box of invading Iraq,
the most significant was the fact that he didn't have an End Game
because...there isn't one.

In your opinion, but it would be nice to have a full array of deterrent
in Iraq while Iran is working so hard on a bomb and delivery system, the
only way you can deny that, is if you are a liar... oh wait!

Too good to pass up...
 

On 21/10/2011 1:48 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/21/11 3:44 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 21/10/2011 1:11 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/21/2011 2:53 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,
says...

On 10/21/2011 2:20 PM, jps wrote:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:14:39 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:47:27 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 00:16:53 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:33:25 -0400, X `

wrote:

This whole Arab Spring thing can still blow up in our face if
these
guys don't turn out to be the peace loving people we hope they
will
be. I can remember people talking about what a great guy Castro
was
because he defeated that evil dictator Batista and how he was
going to
bring freedom to the island.. That lasted about 6 weeks until
Castro
said, "Oh wait. Maybe I am really a communist" (after denying
it for
years) and started nationalizing the whole island. Two years
later we
damned near had WWIII over Cuba.

This time it might be WWIII over Israel.

Fortunately, we didn't have an absolute dummy in the white house
during
the cuban missle crisis. We did have an absolute dummy in the
white
house from 2001 to January 2009. You know, the guy who started
two wars
with countries not at war with us. That dummy.

JFK was pretty stupid in that affair and was clearly thinking
with his
dick not his brain.
He took this whole thing to the brink of WWIII for exactly the
same
deal he could have had 10 months before without any drama.
The Soviets wanted our missiles out of Turkey, they pushed the
issue
by putting missiles in Cuba and in the end we pulled the missiles
out
of Turkey.
We just had a dick measuring contest that almost destroyed the
world
before we did it.
I never thought this was a success, on any level. All we proved
was
that the Soviets were not as crazy as we thought they were.
What we
didn't understand was that Castro had operational control of
some of
those missiles and that they were capable of firing them. (a
serious
CIA failure)

And Bush wanted to measure dicks with somebody who didn't have one.

We will have spent 5000 American lives, 50,000 wounded, 1 million
Iraqis dead or displaced.

All for a dick measurement against no one.

I agree Iraq was stupid but it wasn't toying with thermonuclear war.

Your point being?

His point being that Kennedy was "toying with thermonuclear war"...
What
is so hard about that. Are you such an ideologue, you can't even
read a
plainly put statement? Really...

And quite frankly, the one obvious reason we went into Iraq (if we
suggest there was an alternative for the sake of "this" argument),
poke
holes in the suggestion that we went in to try and get some American
troops and supply lines closer to Iran, who is still working furiously
to get a nuke to Isreal, Saudi, USA, and Europe... Think about it, if
you can get the Bush Derangement Syndrome under control for a
minute...

That's about the stupidest excuse for going there that I've ever heard!

So, you don't think Iran's nukes are a threat? You don't think Pakistan
is a threat? Wow, talk about stupid...

Especially since religious fanatics are at the buttons. Good part is
they are probably crude and low yield. But still.


You'd better hope Cain or Perry aren't the next president because
they're also religious fanatics, especially Perry.

Actually, I couldn't really give a ****. So what if they are religious?
If that is what it takes to get some people with integrity and honor
let them in. I worry more about character and past history than
fleabagger smear and fear.

But personally think a Bahmann/Paul ticket is best, but under no
illuson, when push comes to shove people vote greed and not integrity.
But my job is to work with it. But my job is to work with it.

Just made and collected $26K from the USD devaluation screw up and a
small foreign exchange play. Nice for only 5 weeks in. Sweet, you can
count on corruption in DC money print for 0bama delinquent debt spend.
--
Eat the rich, screw the companies and wonder why there are no jobs. But
we have big huge government we can't afford...
-- Obama and the lefty fleabagger attitude

Too good to pass up...
 

On 10/21/11 4:03 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/21/2011 3:42 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/21/11 3:36 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/21/2011 3:22 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/21/11 3:11 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/21/2011 2:53 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,

says...

On 10/21/2011 2:20 PM, jps wrote:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:14:39 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:47:27 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 00:16:53 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:33:25 -0400, X `

wrote:

This whole Arab Spring thing can still blow up in our face if
these
guys don't turn out to be the peace loving people we hope they
will
be. I can remember people talking about what a great guy
Castro
was
because he defeated that evil dictator Batista and how he was
going to
bring freedom to the island.. That lasted about 6 weeks until
Castro
said, "Oh wait. Maybe I am really a communist" (after denying
it for
years) and started nationalizing the whole island. Two years
later we
damned near had WWIII over Cuba.

This time it might be WWIII over Israel.

Fortunately, we didn't have an absolute dummy in the white
house
during
the cuban missle crisis. We did have an absolute dummy in the
white
house from 2001 to January 2009. You know, the guy who started
two wars
with countries not at war with us. That dummy.

JFK was pretty stupid in that affair and was clearly thinking
with his
dick not his brain.
He took this whole thing to the brink of WWIII for exactly the
same
deal he could have had 10 months before without any drama.
The Soviets wanted our missiles out of Turkey, they pushed the
issue
by putting missiles in Cuba and in the end we pulled the
missiles
out
of Turkey.
We just had a dick measuring contest that almost destroyed the
world
before we did it.
I never thought this was a success, on any level. All we proved
was
that the Soviets were not as crazy as we thought they were.
What we
didn't understand was that Castro had operational control of
some of
those missiles and that they were capable of firing them. (a
serious
CIA failure)

And Bush wanted to measure dicks with somebody who didn't have
one.

We will have spent 5000 American lives, 50,000 wounded, 1 million
Iraqis dead or displaced.

All for a dick measurement against no one.

I agree Iraq was stupid but it wasn't toying with thermonuclear
war.

Your point being?

His point being that Kennedy was "toying with thermonuclear war"...
What
is so hard about that. Are you such an ideologue, you can't even
read a
plainly put statement? Really...

And quite frankly, the one obvious reason we went into Iraq (if we
suggest there was an alternative for the sake of "this" argument),
poke
holes in the suggestion that we went in to try and get some American
troops and supply lines closer to Iran, who is still working
furiously
to get a nuke to Isreal, Saudi, USA, and Europe... Think about
it, if
you can get the Bush Derangement Syndrome under control for a
minute...

That's about the stupidest excuse for going there that I've ever
heard!

So, you don't think Iran's nukes are a threat? You don't think
Pakistan
is a threat? Wow, talk about stupid...


We're not going to invade Iran absent a powerful and significant act of
war on its part so long as someone mentally competent is in the White
House. Yet another reason not to vote for Republicans.

Yeah, and in the mean time Obama is making sure there is a huge buffer
of Iran friendly countries between us, and them... We just got kicked
out of Iraq because Obama couldn't negotiate a deal to protect our
Soldiers from the Iranian influence in Iraq.


Iraq isn't and never will be one of those "friendly" post WWII defeated
countries like Japan or Germany. If we have a small force in a
*belligerent* country and it cannot protect itself, we have no business
having troops there.

Of all the problems Bush opened in his Pandora's box of invading Iraq,
the most significant was the fact that he didn't have an End Game
because...there isn't one.

In your opinion, but it would be nice to have a full array of deterrent
in Iraq while Iran is working so hard on a bomb and delivery system, the
only way you can deny that, is if you are a liar... oh wait!


The Iraqis are tired of our occupation of their country. I don't blame
them. Besides, we don't have the case to maintain a "full array" of much
of anything in Iraq, thanks to Bush.

Too good to pass up...
 

In article ,
says...

On 10/21/2011 3:21 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,
says...

On 10/21/2011 2:53 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,
says...

On 10/21/2011 2:20 PM, jps wrote:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:14:39 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:47:27 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 00:16:53 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:33:25 -0400, X `
wrote:

This whole Arab Spring thing can still blow up in our face if these
guys don't turn out to be the peace loving people we hope they will
be. I can remember people talking about what a great guy Castro was
because he defeated that evil dictator Batista and how he was going to
bring freedom to the island.. That lasted about 6 weeks until Castro
said, "Oh wait. Maybe I am really a communist" (after denying it for
years) and started nationalizing the whole island. Two years later we
damned near had WWIII over Cuba.

This time it might be WWIII over Israel.

Fortunately, we didn't have an absolute dummy in the white house during
the cuban missle crisis. We did have an absolute dummy in the white
house from 2001 to January 2009. You know, the guy who started two wars
with countries not at war with us. That dummy.

JFK was pretty stupid in that affair and was clearly thinking with his
dick not his brain.
He took this whole thing to the brink of WWIII for exactly the same
deal he could have had 10 months before without any drama.
The Soviets wanted our missiles out of Turkey, they pushed the issue
by putting missiles in Cuba and in the end we pulled the missiles out
of Turkey.
We just had a dick measuring contest that almost destroyed the world
before we did it.
I never thought this was a success, on any level. All we proved was
that the Soviets were not as crazy as we thought they were. What we
didn't understand was that Castro had operational control of some of
those missiles and that they were capable of firing them. (a serious
CIA failure)

And Bush wanted to measure dicks with somebody who didn't have one.

We will have spent 5000 American lives, 50,000 wounded, 1 million
Iraqis dead or displaced.

All for a dick measurement against no one.

I agree Iraq was stupid but it wasn't toying with thermonuclear war.

Your point being?

His point being that Kennedy was "toying with thermonuclear war"... What
is so hard about that. Are you such an ideologue, you can't even read a
plainly put statement? Really...

And quite frankly, the one obvious reason we went into Iraq (if we
suggest there was an alternative for the sake of "this" argument), poke
holes in the suggestion that we went in to try and get some American
troops and supply lines closer to Iran, who is still working furiously
to get a nuke to Isreal, Saudi, USA, and Europe... Think about it, if
you can get the Bush Derangement Syndrome under control for a minute...

That's about the stupidest excuse for going there that I've ever heard!

So, you don't think Iran's nukes are a threat? You don't think Pakistan
is a threat? Wow, talk about stupid...

Good god, man!!! I never said that Iran's nukes aren't a threat. And no,
Pakistan is not a threat, but alas, I never said that neither. What I
said was "That's about the stupidest excuse for going there that I've
ever heard." If Bush spent billions of dollars to go to Iraq and start a
war to have access to Iran, that's beyond stupid.

Ever play Risk? Your opinion is no different than mine, except yours
comes with the obligatory insults...

Do you mean like "Talk about stupid"?

Too good to pass up...
 

On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 20:05:41 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 11:20:58 -0700, jps wrote:

On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:14:39 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:47:27 -0700, jps wrote:

On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 00:16:53 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:33:25 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

This whole Arab Spring thing can still blow up in our face if these
guys don't turn out to be the peace loving people we hope they will
be. I can remember people talking about what a great guy Castro was
because he defeated that evil dictator Batista and how he was going to
bring freedom to the island.. That lasted about 6 weeks until Castro
said, "Oh wait. Maybe I am really a communist" (after denying it for
years) and started nationalizing the whole island. Two years later we
damned near had WWIII over Cuba.

This time it might be WWIII over Israel.

Fortunately, we didn't have an absolute dummy in the white house during
the cuban missle crisis. We did have an absolute dummy in the white
house from 2001 to January 2009. You know, the guy who started two wars
with countries not at war with us. That dummy.

JFK was pretty stupid in that affair and was clearly thinking with his
dick not his brain.
He took this whole thing to the brink of WWIII for exactly the same
deal he could have had 10 months before without any drama.
The Soviets wanted our missiles out of Turkey, they pushed the issue
by putting missiles in Cuba and in the end we pulled the missiles out
of Turkey.
We just had a dick measuring contest that almost destroyed the world
before we did it.
I never thought this was a success, on any level. All we proved was
that the Soviets were not as crazy as we thought they were. What we
didn't understand was that Castro had operational control of some of
those missiles and that they were capable of firing them. (a serious
CIA failure)

And Bush wanted to measure dicks with somebody who didn't have one.

We will have spent 5000 American lives, 50,000 wounded, 1 million
Iraqis dead or displaced.

All for a dick measurement against no one.

I agree Iraq was stupid but it wasn't toying with thermonuclear war.

Your point being?
You made one of those false equivalencies.

What was false about it? Bush wanted to measure dicks with Saddam.

exactly,...i completely agree with your views,..!
what's the guarantee this whole agitation and rebellion in Libya will not produce many more qaddafis,...????

Too good to pass up...
 

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 00:35:00 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 19:47:16 -0700, jps wrote:

On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 20:05:41 -0400, wrote:



I agree Iraq was stupid but it wasn't toying with thermonuclear war.

Your point being?
You made one of those false equivalencies.

What was false about it? Bush wanted to measure dicks with Saddam.

The worst thing that could happen Iraq happened and most of the world
was unchanged. If the Cuban missile Crisis had a tiny little glitch,
western civilization could have been set back to the dark ages.

At least Bush can say he toppled a dictator. JFK didn't accomplish a
thing, in Cuba or the USSR. It was all for nothing.
The Cuban dictator is still there 50 years later.The Soviet
dictatorship lasted 36 more years and it is easy to say Russia is
still a virtual dictatorship. (unless you really believe Putin can be
tossed out in an election)

We didn't invade Cuba, commit a trillion dollars and 5000 lives.

I prefer Kennedy's outcome.

Too good to pass up...
 

On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 16:16:23 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

On 10/21/11 4:03 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/21/2011 3:42 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/21/11 3:36 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/21/2011 3:22 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/21/11 3:11 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/21/2011 2:53 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,

says...

On 10/21/2011 2:20 PM, jps wrote:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:14:39 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:47:27 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 00:16:53 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:33:25 -0400, X `

wrote:

This whole Arab Spring thing can still blow up in our face if
these
guys don't turn out to be the peace loving people we hope they
will
be. I can remember people talking about what a great guy
Castro
was
because he defeated that evil dictator Batista and how he was
going to
bring freedom to the island.. That lasted about 6 weeks until
Castro
said, "Oh wait. Maybe I am really a communist" (after denying
it for
years) and started nationalizing the whole island. Two years
later we
damned near had WWIII over Cuba.

This time it might be WWIII over Israel.

Fortunately, we didn't have an absolute dummy in the white
house
during
the cuban missle crisis. We did have an absolute dummy in the
white
house from 2001 to January 2009. You know, the guy who started
two wars
with countries not at war with us. That dummy.

JFK was pretty stupid in that affair and was clearly thinking
with his
dick not his brain.
He took this whole thing to the brink of WWIII for exactly the
same
deal he could have had 10 months before without any drama.
The Soviets wanted our missiles out of Turkey, they pushed the
issue
by putting missiles in Cuba and in the end we pulled the
missiles
out
of Turkey.
We just had a dick measuring contest that almost destroyed the
world
before we did it.
I never thought this was a success, on any level. All we proved
was
that the Soviets were not as crazy as we thought they were.
What we
didn't understand was that Castro had operational control of
some of
those missiles and that they were capable of firing them. (a
serious
CIA failure)

And Bush wanted to measure dicks with somebody who didn't have
one.

We will have spent 5000 American lives, 50,000 wounded, 1 million
Iraqis dead or displaced.

All for a dick measurement against no one.

I agree Iraq was stupid but it wasn't toying with thermonuclear
war.

Your point being?

His point being that Kennedy was "toying with thermonuclear war"...
What
is so hard about that. Are you such an ideologue, you can't even
read a
plainly put statement? Really...

And quite frankly, the one obvious reason we went into Iraq (if we
suggest there was an alternative for the sake of "this" argument),
poke
holes in the suggestion that we went in to try and get some American
troops and supply lines closer to Iran, who is still working
furiously
to get a nuke to Isreal, Saudi, USA, and Europe... Think about
it, if
you can get the Bush Derangement Syndrome under control for a
minute...

That's about the stupidest excuse for going there that I've ever
heard!

So, you don't think Iran's nukes are a threat? You don't think
Pakistan
is a threat? Wow, talk about stupid...


We're not going to invade Iran absent a powerful and significant act of
war on its part so long as someone mentally competent is in the White
House. Yet another reason not to vote for Republicans.

Yeah, and in the mean time Obama is making sure there is a huge buffer
of Iran friendly countries between us, and them... We just got kicked
out of Iraq because Obama couldn't negotiate a deal to protect our
Soldiers from the Iranian influence in Iraq.


Iraq isn't and never will be one of those "friendly" post WWII defeated
countries like Japan or Germany. If we have a small force in a
*belligerent* country and it cannot protect itself, we have no business
having troops there.

Of all the problems Bush opened in his Pandora's box of invading Iraq,
the most significant was the fact that he didn't have an End Game
because...there isn't one.

In your opinion, but it would be nice to have a full array of deterrent
in Iraq while Iran is working so hard on a bomb and delivery system, the
only way you can deny that, is if you are a liar... oh wait!


The Iraqis are tired of our occupation of their country. I don't blame
them. Besides, we don't have the case to maintain a "full array" of much
of anything in Iraq, thanks to Bush.

Harry, you're picking on the mentally challenged. Bad form.

Too good to pass up...
 

On Oct 22, 1:21*pm, jps wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 00:35:00 -0400, wrote:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 19:47:16 -0700, jps wrote:

On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 20:05:41 -0400, wrote:

I agree Iraq was stupid but it wasn't toying with thermonuclear war.

Your point being?
You made one of those false equivalencies.

What was false about it? *Bush wanted to measure dicks with Saddam.

The worst thing that could happen Iraq happened and most of the world
was unchanged. If the Cuban missile Crisis had a tiny little glitch,
western civilization could have been set back to the dark ages.

At least Bush can say he toppled a dictator. JFK didn't accomplish a
thing, in Cuba or the USSR. It was all for nothing.
The Cuban dictator is still there 50 years later.The Soviet
dictatorship lasted 36 more years and it is easy to say Russia is
still a virtual dictatorship. (unless you really believe Putin can be
tossed out in an election)

We didn't invade Cuba, commit a trillion dollars and 5000 lives.

I prefer Kennedy's outcome.

Of course, you did enjoy having ICBM's aimed at the US for the next
30+ years, including all the fear and manpower to keep an eye on "Cube-
r" and it's two bit dictator.

I suppose to you that was cheaper.

Too good to pass up...
 

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 22:41:49 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 11:21:27 -0700, jps wrote:

What was false about it? Bush wanted to measure dicks with Saddam.

The worst thing that could happen Iraq happened and most of the world
was unchanged. If the Cuban missile Crisis had a tiny little glitch,
western civilization could have been set back to the dark ages.

At least Bush can say he toppled a dictator. JFK didn't accomplish a
thing, in Cuba or the USSR. It was all for nothing.
The Cuban dictator is still there 50 years later.The Soviet
dictatorship lasted 36 more years and it is easy to say Russia is
still a virtual dictatorship. (unless you really believe Putin can be
tossed out in an election)

We didn't invade Cuba, commit a trillion dollars and 5000 lives.

I prefer Kennedy's outcome.

The outcome was we caved in to the Soviet demands. We could have done
that without all the risk of WWIII. It was a stupid gamble that he
just got lucky on, but JFK had a history of stupid gambles. Some
didn't come out as well.
The whole Cuban debacle that we are still mired in, started with JFK.

And how many lives, wounded and trillions has that cost?

Too good to pass up...
 

On 10/22/11 10:41 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 11:21:27 -0700, wrote:

What was false about it? Bush wanted to measure dicks with Saddam.

The worst thing that could happen Iraq happened and most of the world
was unchanged. If the Cuban missile Crisis had a tiny little glitch,
western civilization could have been set back to the dark ages.

At least Bush can say he toppled a dictator. JFK didn't accomplish a
thing, in Cuba or the USSR. It was all for nothing.
The Cuban dictator is still there 50 years later.The Soviet
dictatorship lasted 36 more years and it is easy to say Russia is
still a virtual dictatorship. (unless you really believe Putin can be
tossed out in an election)

We didn't invade Cuba, commit a trillion dollars and 5000 lives.

I prefer Kennedy's outcome.

The outcome was we caved in to the Soviet demands. We could have done
that without all the risk of WWIII. It was a stupid gamble that he
just got lucky on, but JFK had a history of stupid gambles. Some
didn't come out as well.
The whole Cuban debacle that we are still mired in, started with JFK.





The outcome was that Russia packed up its nuclear missiles and took them
home.

Too good to pass up...
 

On 10/23/11 5:40 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/22/11 10:41 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 11:21:27 -0700, wrote:

What was false about it? Bush wanted to measure dicks with Saddam.

The worst thing that could happen Iraq happened and most of the world
was unchanged. If the Cuban missile Crisis had a tiny little glitch,
western civilization could have been set back to the dark ages.

At least Bush can say he toppled a dictator. JFK didn't accomplish a
thing, in Cuba or the USSR. It was all for nothing.
The Cuban dictator is still there 50 years later.The Soviet
dictatorship lasted 36 more years and it is easy to say Russia is
still a virtual dictatorship. (unless you really believe Putin can be
tossed out in an election)

We didn't invade Cuba, commit a trillion dollars and 5000 lives.

I prefer Kennedy's outcome.

The outcome was we caved in to the Soviet demands. We could have done
that without all the risk of WWIII. It was a stupid gamble that he
just got lucky on, but JFK had a history of stupid gambles. Some
didn't come out as well.
The whole Cuban debacle that we are still mired in, started with JFK.





The outcome was that Russia packed up its nuclear missiles and took them
home.


Actually, the debacle started long before Kennedy was president. It
started with our support of Fulgencio Batista, the right-wing dictator,
who, during his second round of being Cuba's dictator, sold out the
working classes and his homeland to American capitalists and brutalized
his people. Since Batista was in bed with American corporations, we
supported him. U.S. corporations owned a great deal of Cuban farmland
and most of the island's mineral rights and, of course, Batista was a
bloodthirsty thug.

*That* set the stage for Castro.

We had a penchant for supporting right-wing dictators in those days...in
South Korea, in Iran, in Cuba, in Vietnam. Too bad we didn't line up
with the aspirations of the common man and woman in those countries.

Too good to pass up...
 

On 10/23/2011 1:19 AM, jps wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 22:41:49 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 11:21:27 -0700, wrote:

What was false about it? Bush wanted to measure dicks with Saddam.

The worst thing that could happen Iraq happened and most of the world
was unchanged. If the Cuban missile Crisis had a tiny little glitch,
western civilization could have been set back to the dark ages.

At least Bush can say he toppled a dictator. JFK didn't accomplish a
thing, in Cuba or the USSR. It was all for nothing.
The Cuban dictator is still there 50 years later.The Soviet
dictatorship lasted 36 more years and it is easy to say Russia is
still a virtual dictatorship. (unless you really believe Putin can be
tossed out in an election)

We didn't invade Cuba, commit a trillion dollars and 5000 lives.

I prefer Kennedy's outcome.

The outcome was we caved in to the Soviet demands. We could have done
that without all the risk of WWIII. It was a stupid gamble that he
just got lucky on, but JFK had a history of stupid gambles. Some
didn't come out as well.
The whole Cuban debacle that we are still mired in, started with JFK.

And how many lives, wounded and trillions has that cost?

Who knows... We will probably never know how many lives have been lost
making the crossing, and how many families have been tortured and killed
because family members did.... But we know you Progressives, sweep that
under the rug for convenience...

Too good to pass up...
 

On 10/23/2011 5:40 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/22/11 10:41 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 11:21:27 -0700, wrote:

What was false about it? Bush wanted to measure dicks with Saddam.

The worst thing that could happen Iraq happened and most of the world
was unchanged. If the Cuban missile Crisis had a tiny little glitch,
western civilization could have been set back to the dark ages.

At least Bush can say he toppled a dictator. JFK didn't accomplish a
thing, in Cuba or the USSR. It was all for nothing.
The Cuban dictator is still there 50 years later.The Soviet
dictatorship lasted 36 more years and it is easy to say Russia is
still a virtual dictatorship. (unless you really believe Putin can be
tossed out in an election)

We didn't invade Cuba, commit a trillion dollars and 5000 lives.

I prefer Kennedy's outcome.

The outcome was we caved in to the Soviet demands. We could have done
that without all the risk of WWIII. It was a stupid gamble that he
just got lucky on, but JFK had a history of stupid gambles. Some
didn't come out as well.
The whole Cuban debacle that we are still mired in, started with JFK.





The outcome was that Russia packed up its nuclear missiles and took them
home.

No, the outcome was we picked up our missiles in Europe, and brought
them home... Just as Russia demanded...

Too good to pass up...
 

On 10/23/11 10:32 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/23/2011 5:40 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/22/11 10:41 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 11:21:27 -0700, wrote:

What was false about it? Bush wanted to measure dicks with Saddam.

The worst thing that could happen Iraq happened and most of the world
was unchanged. If the Cuban missile Crisis had a tiny little glitch,
western civilization could have been set back to the dark ages.

At least Bush can say he toppled a dictator. JFK didn't accomplish a
thing, in Cuba or the USSR. It was all for nothing.
The Cuban dictator is still there 50 years later.The Soviet
dictatorship lasted 36 more years and it is easy to say Russia is
still a virtual dictatorship. (unless you really believe Putin can be
tossed out in an election)

We didn't invade Cuba, commit a trillion dollars and 5000 lives.

I prefer Kennedy's outcome.

The outcome was we caved in to the Soviet demands. We could have done
that without all the risk of WWIII. It was a stupid gamble that he
just got lucky on, but JFK had a history of stupid gambles. Some
didn't come out as well.
The whole Cuban debacle that we are still mired in, started with JFK.





The outcome was that Russia packed up its nuclear missiles and took them
home.

No, the outcome was we picked up our missiles in Europe, and brought
them home... Just as Russia demanded...


Uhhh...we have missiles in Europe, little man, and if memory serves,
we'll soon have them in additional places in Europe. We also have them
in the Persian Gulf and, of course, on board nuclear submarines.

Too good to pass up...
 

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 22:41:49 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 11:21:27 -0700, jps wrote:

What was false about it? Bush wanted to measure dicks with Saddam.

The worst thing that could happen Iraq happened and most of the world
was unchanged. If the Cuban missile Crisis had a tiny little glitch,
western civilization could have been set back to the dark ages.

At least Bush can say he toppled a dictator. JFK didn't accomplish a
thing, in Cuba or the USSR. It was all for nothing.
The Cuban dictator is still there 50 years later.The Soviet
dictatorship lasted 36 more years and it is easy to say Russia is
still a virtual dictatorship. (unless you really believe Putin can be
tossed out in an election)

We didn't invade Cuba, commit a trillion dollars and 5000 lives.

I prefer Kennedy's outcome.

The outcome was we caved in to the Soviet demands. We could have done
that without all the risk of WWIII. It was a stupid gamble that he
just got lucky on, but JFK had a history of stupid gambles. Some
didn't come out as well.
The whole Cuban debacle that we are still mired in, started with JFK.

And how many lives, wounded and trillions has that cost?

The cold war produced many wounded and killed all around the world.

Too good to pass up...
 

On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 11:25:36 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 22:19:50 -0700, jps wrote:

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 22:41:49 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 11:21:27 -0700, jps wrote:

What was false about it? Bush wanted to measure dicks with Saddam.

The worst thing that could happen Iraq happened and most of the world
was unchanged. If the Cuban missile Crisis had a tiny little glitch,
western civilization could have been set back to the dark ages.

At least Bush can say he toppled a dictator. JFK didn't accomplish a
thing, in Cuba or the USSR. It was all for nothing.
The Cuban dictator is still there 50 years later.The Soviet
dictatorship lasted 36 more years and it is easy to say Russia is
still a virtual dictatorship. (unless you really believe Putin can be
tossed out in an election)

We didn't invade Cuba, commit a trillion dollars and 5000 lives.

I prefer Kennedy's outcome.

The outcome was we caved in to the Soviet demands. We could have done
that without all the risk of WWIII. It was a stupid gamble that he
just got lucky on, but JFK had a history of stupid gambles. Some
didn't come out as well.
The whole Cuban debacle that we are still mired in, started with JFK.

And how many lives, wounded and trillions has that cost?

Cuban lives? Oh they are brown people who don't count.
Inflation adjusted, Cuba has probably cost more than Iraq over the
years.

Not to the US. Cuba made its own bed. We didn't break it and we
didn't have to buy it.

We bought Iraq with American taxes and American blood. We broke it
and we're having to fix it. No upside for the US, just a ****load or
sunk cost.

Too good to pass up...
 

"X ` Man" wrote in message
m...

On 10/22/11 10:41 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 11:21:27 -0700, wrote:

What was false about it? Bush wanted to measure dicks with Saddam.

The worst thing that could happen Iraq happened and most of the world
was unchanged. If the Cuban missile Crisis had a tiny little glitch,
western civilization could have been set back to the dark ages.

At least Bush can say he toppled a dictator. JFK didn't accomplish a
thing, in Cuba or the USSR. It was all for nothing.
The Cuban dictator is still there 50 years later.The Soviet
dictatorship lasted 36 more years and it is easy to say Russia is
still a virtual dictatorship. (unless you really believe Putin can be
tossed out in an election)

We didn't invade Cuba, commit a trillion dollars and 5000 lives.

I prefer Kennedy's outcome.

The outcome was we caved in to the Soviet demands. We could have done
that without all the risk of WWIII. It was a stupid gamble that he
just got lucky on, but JFK had a history of stupid gambles. Some
didn't come out as well.
The whole Cuban debacle that we are still mired in, started with JFK.





The outcome was that Russia packed up its nuclear missiles and took them
home.
---------------------------------------------

The whole thing was initiated by the attempt to overthrow Castro in the Bay
of Pigs fiasco.
The idea originated in the latter months of Eisenhower's administration but
was approved
for execution by Kennedy. Using the Bay of Pigs as a reason, Castro warmed
up to the
Soviet Union for security, which led to the Missile Crisis. The Soviets
removed the Cuban
based missiles because Kennedy agreed to remove ours from certain bases in
Europe.

Nobody "won".

Too good to pass up...
 

On 10/23/11 7:33 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"X ` Man" wrote in message
m...

On 10/22/11 10:41 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 11:21:27 -0700, wrote:

What was false about it? Bush wanted to measure dicks with Saddam.

The worst thing that could happen Iraq happened and most of the world
was unchanged. If the Cuban missile Crisis had a tiny little glitch,
western civilization could have been set back to the dark ages.

At least Bush can say he toppled a dictator. JFK didn't accomplish a
thing, in Cuba or the USSR. It was all for nothing.
The Cuban dictator is still there 50 years later.The Soviet
dictatorship lasted 36 more years and it is easy to say Russia is
still a virtual dictatorship. (unless you really believe Putin can be
tossed out in an election)

We didn't invade Cuba, commit a trillion dollars and 5000 lives.

I prefer Kennedy's outcome.

The outcome was we caved in to the Soviet demands. We could have done
that without all the risk of WWIII. It was a stupid gamble that he
just got lucky on, but JFK had a history of stupid gambles. Some
didn't come out as well.
The whole Cuban debacle that we are still mired in, started with JFK.





The outcome was that Russia packed up its nuclear missiles and took them
home.
---------------------------------------------

The whole thing was initiated by the attempt to overthrow Castro in the
Bay of Pigs fiasco.
The idea originated in the latter months of Eisenhower's administration
but was approved
for execution by Kennedy. Using the Bay of Pigs as a reason, Castro
warmed up to the
Soviet Union for security, which led to the Missile Crisis. The Soviets
removed the Cuban
based missiles because Kennedy agreed to remove ours from certain bases
in Europe.

Nobody "won".



Watch it, fella...reasonable posits ain't allowed here.