Too good to pass up...
 

On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 09:00:22 -0400, Jack "You know
wrote:

On 10/21/2011 12:47 AM, 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.

YOUR ELOQUENCE IS UNDERWHELMING

Your caps lock is on.

Too good to pass up...
 

On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 08:56:38 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



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


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.

Damn, Richard, Saddam was broke. He didn't have any ability to defend
himself let alone be aggressive.

And we would have been able to further confirm the weapons inspectors
suspicions if half-cocked Bush hadn't have gotten his panties in a
bunch.

Petulant fool spent a ****load of money and American blood for nothing
because he didn't have the patience of a 12 year old.

Too good to pass up...
 

On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 09:19:57 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



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

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.
-------------------------------------------------------------

That's your view and you have made it abundantly clear. I am not convinced
that Bush knowingly lied at the time, but
those that believe it in the Monday morning quarterbacking circles will
never consider any other thoughts or opinions.

I *do* believe that Bush came to realize later that the multi-nation intel
was faulty with regard to the WMDs (he has
admitted it) but at the time of making the decision to act, it was
considered reliable. Only later did it become a
partisan political issue with many in Congress who initially supported Bush
turning against him and condemning him.

Tough job, being POTUS ..... as our current one is learning.

Bush thought he was lying for the right reason.

Turns out he was wrong.

Too good to pass up...
 

On 10/21/11 11:19 AM, jps wrote:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 09:19:57 -0400, wrote:



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

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.
-------------------------------------------------------------

That's your view and you have made it abundantly clear. I am not convinced
that Bush knowingly lied at the time, but
those that believe it in the Monday morning quarterbacking circles will
never consider any other thoughts or opinions.

I *do* believe that Bush came to realize later that the multi-nation intel
was faulty with regard to the WMDs (he has
admitted it) but at the time of making the decision to act, it was
considered reliable. Only later did it become a
partisan political issue with many in Congress who initially supported Bush
turning against him and condemning him.

Tough job, being POTUS ..... as our current one is learning.

Bush thought he was lying for the right reason.

Turns out he was wrong.

You have to chuckle at the growing attempts to salvage Bush's reputation.

Too good to pass up...
 

In article om,
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.

Too good to pass up...
 

On 10/21/2011 12:27 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 09:04:04 -0400, X `
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 question is why he pushed this into a crisis at all. If he had
just quietly agreed to pull the obsolete missiles out of Turkey the
whole mess would have been avoided. There would have never been any
missiles in Cuba and there is a whole lot better chance that we might
have been able to avoid the cluster **** that our Cuban policy has
been for the last 50 years. That is all he had to do to end the
"crisis" anyway. All of that bluster was just a dangerous show that
could have easily gone the other way.

BTW, talking about lies, the whole "missile gap" that prompted our
arms race with the Soviets was a lie and JFK knew it the day he walked
into the White House and got his intel briefing. That was what all of
those U2 flights were all about and why Eisenhower had the warning
about the "military industrial complex" in his exit speech.
Yet JFK escalated the arms buildup anyway..


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

GW Bush was 15, was the missile crisis his fault then too? Why does
every conversation fall back to Bush?

Because you are conversing with a liar...

Too good to pass up...
 

On 10/21/11 12:27 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 09:04:04 -0400, X `
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 question is why he pushed this into a crisis at all. If he had
just quietly agreed to pull the obsolete missiles out of Turkey the
whole mess would have been avoided. There would have never been any
missiles in Cuba and there is a whole lot better chance that we might
have been able to avoid the cluster **** that our Cuban policy has
been for the last 50 years. That is all he had to do to end the
"crisis" anyway. All of that bluster was just a dangerous show that
could have easily gone the other way.

BTW, talking about lies, the whole "missile gap" that prompted our
arms race with the Soviets was a lie and JFK knew it the day he walked
into the White House and got his intel briefing. That was what all of
those U2 flights were all about and why Eisenhower had the warning
about the "military industrial complex" in his exit speech.
Yet JFK escalated the arms buildup anyway..


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

GW Bush was 15, was the missile crisis his fault then too? Why does
every conversation fall back to Bush?



Maybe because Bush ****ed this country in destruction.

Too good to pass up...
 

On 10/21/11 12:33 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 09:29:53 -0400, wrote:

If JFK had instead opted for some of his advisor's recommendations to bomb
the missile sites (which according
to historians he seriously considered) and:

the operation had been successful and:
Khrushchev had ordered the delivery ships home with their tails between
their legs,
he (JFK) would now be credited with making "the right decision".

Eisboch

The problem with that scenario was that they still might have been
able to get a missile or two off before they were destroyed.

We did not understand at the time that some of these missiles were
ready to fire and that the people in Cuba had tactical control.

Kennedy made the right decision based upon what he knew at the time.

I remember his speech. It was a Monday night, and I was in the student
union for something or other, and saw Kennedy on the tube in the lounge.
I was a lowly freshman, taking 16 credit hours, and I was swamped with
studying I had to do and papers I had to write.

A year and a month later, and Kennedy was dead. What a time.

Too good to pass up...
 

On 20/10/2011 5:12 PM, X ` Man 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.

Just face it, Repubs, you suck at anything other than lowering taxes for
yourselves and bankrupting the United States. Maybe it's time for you to
sit the **** down, shut the **** up, and let the adults handle things.

Okay?

Okay.

---

Swiped from KOS, and spot-on.

I never once advocated assassination of Libya's by the USA or Canada. I
side with Ron Paul on this, we have no business being there.

Fact is the US-Euro Regime act of aggression. To by-pass congress, use
UN-NATO. Sort of dishonors the intent of some congressional/senate
legislation on war.

IMF debt extortion wouldn't work, Qaddafi ran the country with almost no
debt. In fact left behind assets. I wonder how much of the 144 tons of
gold is missing already. Certainly US-Euro Banks have shut down the no
debt Central Bank for Libya. Yep, he ran banks better than American
presidents (all).

Hey, I am no Qaddafi lover, but this was a 0bama political thing. Hand
shake 0bama one day, then assassination attempts begin that even kill
children. My guess is Qaddafi told 0bama to **** off.

So you fleaggars remember, 0bama opened up the can of worms and was the
first to endorse assassination of foreign counties leaders in the public
forum. As what goes around comes around. Memory will be short when
your own politicians get assassinated.

In fact 0bama has a totally unsubstantiated claim that Iran has tried
with a diplomat. But 0bama's attitude is do as I ask not as I do.

What a egomaniac hypocrite. Without a constitution and congress 0bama
doesn't take too seriously, 0bama would be a similar dictator.

So a new radical Islamic nation is born. Lots of vids on the revenge
murdering going on. And Egypt is no longer a democracy.

So who is 0bama the meddlesome going to march on next?
--
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 1:09 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:43:32 -0400, X `
wrote:

On 10/21/11 12:33 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 09:29:53 -0400, wrote:

If JFK had instead opted for some of his advisor's recommendations to bomb
the missile sites (which according
to historians he seriously considered) and:

the operation had been successful and:
Khrushchev had ordered the delivery ships home with their tails between
their legs,
he (JFK) would now be credited with making "the right decision".

Eisboch

The problem with that scenario was that they still might have been
able to get a missile or two off before they were destroyed.

We did not understand at the time that some of these missiles were
ready to fire and that the people in Cuba had tactical control.

Kennedy made the right decision based upon what he knew at the time.

I remember his speech. It was a Monday night, and I was in the student
union for something or other, and saw Kennedy on the tube in the lounge.
I was a lowly freshman, taking 16 credit hours, and I was swamped with
studying I had to do and papers I had to write.

A year and a month later, and Kennedy was dead. What a time.

I watched it with my father who was in Naval intelligence at the time.
He said JFK was screwing up and really wanted my mom to take us all to
the mountains in southern Virginia. He went to work shortly after that
and did not come home for almost 2 weeks. He looked 10 years older
when he got home.

If JFK had not been assassinated, this legacy would have come out
differently. I think his chance for reelection was 50:50 at best. That
is why he was in Dallas in the first place. He was losing the south
and that used to be where the Democrats were.
http://www.presidentelect.org/e1960.html



Nice site, a keeper...thanks!