| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Too good to pass up...
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. |
Too good to pass up...
On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 19:12:03 -0400, 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. No ****. They're excellent liars and incredibly good at getting people to vote against their own best interests. But they hate governing and do a ****ty job at it. The only reason they want to be a part of it is to rip it apart. |
Too good to pass up...
|
Too good to pass up...
On 10/20/11 9:40 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/20/2011 9:26 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. Well, it's clear that is Obamas desire... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J27IjWHp_bQ snerk *Scotty doesn't know* is linking us to Sean Hannity, one of the Faux News flaming assholes. To numbskulls, Faux News is the same as the old library in Alexandria, Egypt. |
Too good to pass up...
On 10/20/2011 9:33 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/20/11 9:26 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. 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. You mean the dummy who is running around assassinating citizens without a trial, killing foreign leaders, shooting at uniformed soldiers, they shooting back, but we are not at war, that dummy. Yeah, he is a traitor and has blown the constitution all to hell... |
Too good to pass up...
|
Too good to pass up...
On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:43:31 -0400, X ` Man
wrote: On 10/20/11 9:40 PM, JustWait wrote: On 10/20/2011 9:26 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. Well, it's clear that is Obamas desire... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J27IjWHp_bQ snerk *Scotty doesn't know* is linking us to Sean Hannity, one of the Faux News flaming assholes. To numbskulls, Faux News is the same as the old library in Alexandria, Egypt. Hannity does not consider himself a journalist. He's a professional idiot. |
Too good to pass up...
"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. |
Too good to pass up...
|
Too good to pass up...
In article ,
says... On 10/20/2011 9:33 PM, X ` Man wrote: On 10/20/11 9:26 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. 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. You mean the dummy who is running around assassinating citizens without a trial, killing foreign leaders, shooting at uniformed soldiers, they shooting back, but we are not at war, that dummy. Yeah, he is a traitor and has blown the constitution all to hell... No, Bush isn't president now. |
Too good to pass up...
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. |
Too good to pass up...
"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. |
Too good to pass up...
On 10/21/11 9:19 AM, Eisboch 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. It is a tough job. My feeling about Bush, based upon many of his "decisions," is that he rarely thought things through and acted impulsively. These are both characteristics of a personality prone to substance abuse, which plagued him for many years. |
Too good to pass up...
"X ` Man" wrote in message m... 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. -------------------------------------------------- Harry, your comment above is sorta the point I am trying to make about Monday morning quarterbacks. 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 |
Too good to pass up...
"X ` Man" wrote in message m... On 10/21/11 9:19 AM, Eisboch 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. It is a tough job. My feeling about Bush, based upon many of his "decisions," is that he rarely thought things through and acted impulsively. These are both characteristics of a personality prone to substance abuse, which plagued him for many years. -------------------------------------------------------- Being nowhere near an expert in linking presidential decisions with substance abuse, I have no idea or opinion. I judge by what the actions are, what the reasons are and try to keep a somewhat logical, open mind about them. |
Too good to pass up...
On 10/21/11 9:29 AM, Eisboch wrote:
"X ` Man" wrote in message m... 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. -------------------------------------------------- Harry, your comment above is sorta the point I am trying to make about Monday morning quarterbacks. 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 right decision, which Kennedy made, was to not get into a shooting war with the Russians. |
Too good to pass up...
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. |
Too good to pass up...
On 10/21/2011 9:00 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In , says... On 10/20/2011 9:33 PM, X ` Man wrote: On 10/20/11 9:26 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. 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. You mean the dummy who is running around assassinating citizens without a trial, killing foreign leaders, shooting at uniformed soldiers, they shooting back, but we are not at war, that dummy. Yeah, he is a traitor and has blown the constitution all to hell... No, Bush isn't president now. He wasn't talking about Bush. |
Too good to pass up...
"X ` Man" wrote in message m... On 10/21/11 9:29 AM, Eisboch wrote: "X ` Man" wrote in message m... 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. -------------------------------------------------- Harry, your comment above is sorta the point I am trying to make about Monday morning quarterbacks. 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 right decision, which Kennedy made, was to not get into a shooting war with the Russians. ---------------------------------------------------------- Ah, come on. Kennedy threatened a shooting war by imposing the blockade. There's no purpose in a blockade if you don't intend to enforce it. It was a roll of the dice. Credit also has to be given to Khrushchev because he actually benefited more in the end with regard to our missile sites in Europe. |
Too good to pass up...
On 10/21/2011 9:44 AM, Drifter wrote:
On 10/21/2011 9:00 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 10/20/2011 9:33 PM, X ` Man wrote: On 10/20/11 9:26 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. 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. You mean the dummy who is running around assassinating citizens without a trial, killing foreign leaders, shooting at uniformed soldiers, they shooting back, but we are not at war, that dummy. Yeah, he is a traitor and has blown the constitution all to hell... No, Bush isn't president now. He wasn't talking about Bush. I have given up on that one, she can't read... |
Too good to pass up...
On 10/21/11 9:45 AM, Eisboch wrote:
"X ` Man" wrote in message m... On 10/21/11 9:29 AM, Eisboch wrote: "X ` Man" wrote in message m... 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. -------------------------------------------------- Harry, your comment above is sorta the point I am trying to make about Monday morning quarterbacks. 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 right decision, which Kennedy made, was to not get into a shooting war with the Russians. ---------------------------------------------------------- Ah, come on. Kennedy threatened a shooting war by imposing the blockade. There's no purpose in a blockade if you don't intend to enforce it. It was a roll of the dice. Credit also has to be given to Khrushchev because he actually benefited more in the end with regard to our missile sites in Europe. Threatening a way without starting one... *Brinkmanship* From wiki: Brinkmanship (or brinksmanship) is the practice of pushing dangerous events to the verge of disaster in order to achieve the most advantageous outcome. It occurs in international politics, foreign policy, labour relations, and (in contemporary settings) military strategy involving the threatened use of nuclear weapons. This maneuver of pushing a situation with the opponent to the brink succeeds by forcing the opponent to back down and make concessions. This might be achieved through diplomatic maneuvers by creating the impression that one is willing to use extreme methods rather than concede. During the Cold War, the threat of nuclear force was often used as such an escalating measure. |
Too good to pass up...
On 10/21/2011 9:41 AM, Drifter wrote:
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. Funny, and if the attempt had failed, he would have blamed it on Bush! |
Too good to pass up...
On 10/21/11 10:01 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/21/2011 9:41 AM, Drifter wrote: 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. Funny, and if the attempt had failed, he would have blamed it on Bush! Which fox news moron is saying Obama is implying *he* deserves credit for the death of Gaddafi? I watched Obama's announcement yesterday, and he gave credit to the United States and NATO and their coordinated efforts and the people of Libya. |
Too good to pass up...
On 10/21/2011 10:09 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/21/11 10:01 AM, JustWait wrote: On 10/21/2011 9:41 AM, Drifter wrote: 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. Funny, and if the attempt had failed, he would have blamed it on Bush! Which fox news moron is saying Obama is implying *he* deserves credit for the death of Gaddafi? I watched Obama's announcement yesterday, and he gave credit to the United States and NATO and their coordinated efforts and the people of Libya. O/bama is definitely not a "Fox news moron". He stands on his own moronicity. |
Too good to pass up...
|
Too good to pass up...
|
Too good to pass up...
In article m,
says... On 10/21/2011 9:00 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 10/20/2011 9:33 PM, X ` Man wrote: On 10/20/11 9:26 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. 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. You mean the dummy who is running around assassinating citizens without a trial, killing foreign leaders, shooting at uniformed soldiers, they shooting back, but we are not at war, that dummy. Yeah, he is a traitor and has blown the constitution all to hell... No, Bush isn't president now. He wasn't talking about Bush. Sure fooled me! |
Too good to pass up...
In article ,
says... On 10/21/2011 9:44 AM, Drifter wrote: On 10/21/2011 9:00 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In , says... On 10/20/2011 9:33 PM, X ` Man wrote: On 10/20/11 9:26 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. 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. You mean the dummy who is running around assassinating citizens without a trial, killing foreign leaders, shooting at uniformed soldiers, they shooting back, but we are not at war, that dummy. Yeah, he is a traitor and has blown the constitution all to hell... No, Bush isn't president now. He wasn't talking about Bush. I have given up on that one, she can't read... Sure, I read it and you described Bush to a tee! |
Too good to pass up...
|
Too good to pass up...
|
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...
|
Too good to pass up...
|
Too good to pass up...
|
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! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:36 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com