|
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
... There is no reason to believe that we missed an opportunity to do the same in Iraq, and will never again have a chance. Instead, Bush chose to invade that country for reasons which are not worth debating here. Correction: There is EVERY reason to believe... |
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message . .. JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... basskisser wrote: Harry Krause wrote: Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 21:58:47 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: wrote: Don White wrote: Why are you dissin' the French? They softened the Viet Cong up for you al through the 50's and you still couldn't win. Courtesy of the Paris "peace" talks? I'll diss the french on that one What's absolutely amazing is that we didn't seem to learn much from our war against Vietnam and its various "insurgencies." I'm hearing the same sorts of really stupid talk from our Prez and company about our war against Iraq as I remember from the late 1960s and early 1970s, and there is still a large percentage of American people who actually believe the Chimp-in-Chief and his henchmen. When will they ever learn? I'm not sure you can directly analogize the Vietnam conflict with the Iraqi War, but I get your point. No, the conflicts are not the same, but the callousness, stupidity, and b.s. coming from our national leaders is pretty much the same. I watched Rumsfeld testifying last week, no, telling one lie after another last week. It was an incredible performance. Hell, all of the talk radio Fox news types are saying we are in WW3 and claiming that this is just like the rise of the Nazis in the late '30s. All you have to do is get past your hatred for the Bush administration and "Big Oil" and things will become clear. You've got it backwards. Any chance that if Bush had NOT invaded Iraq, he would have more friends, or at least more people who would patiently wait for him to vanish from public life? Or, do you think a person's deeds are not connected with his reputation? I thought it was the intent rather than the action that determines the effectiveness of a person or a project? That makes no sense. If a project fails, but you gave it your best effort, then your intent was wrong? The intent of Johnson's great society was wrong, it failed. Bush *needed* a war, for personal reasons. Cheney needed it for his own reasons. It had nothing at all to do with the good of this country. What personal reasons? |
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
Don White wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote: All you have to do is get past your hatred for the Bush administration and "Big Oil" and things will become clear. Since you brought up Bush.... caught part of his newsconference from the ranch yesterday. He didn't look or sound that good. Too much RnR? You aren't worth the effort... |
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
basskisser wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... basskisser wrote: Harry Krause wrote: Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 21:58:47 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: wrote: Don White wrote: Why are you dissin' the French? They softened the Viet Cong up for you al through the 50's and you still couldn't win. Courtesy of the Paris "peace" talks? I'll diss the french on that one What's absolutely amazing is that we didn't seem to learn much from our war against Vietnam and its various "insurgencies." I'm hearing the same sorts of really stupid talk from our Prez and company about our war against Iraq as I remember from the late 1960s and early 1970s, and there is still a large percentage of American people who actually believe the Chimp-in-Chief and his henchmen. When will they ever learn? I'm not sure you can directly analogize the Vietnam conflict with the Iraqi War, but I get your point. No, the conflicts are not the same, but the callousness, stupidity, and b.s. coming from our national leaders is pretty much the same. I watched Rumsfeld testifying last week, no, telling one lie after another last week. It was an incredible performance. Hell, all of the talk radio Fox news types are saying we are in WW3 and claiming that this is just like the rise of the Nazis in the late '30s. All you have to do is get past your hatred for the Bush administration and "Big Oil" and things will become clear. You've got it backwards. Any chance that if Bush had NOT invaded Iraq, he would have more friends, or at least more people who would patiently wait for him to vanish from public life? Or, do you think a person's deeds are not connected with his reputation? Pre-war Iraqi output = more than 2.2 million barrels In May, 2006 output = 1.1 million barrels. Even Bert should be able to figure out that yes, BushCo DID help cause our current conditions. Why are you complaining, Bush has succeeded in reducing our dependence upon foreign oil by 50% from Iraq. |
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message ... "Harry Krause" wrote in message . .. The loss in Vietnam was a harbinger. I'm sure our military forces can take on and defeat any modern uniformed military force waging traditional warfare, assuming no great disparity in the order of battle or availability of troops. That is, we can take on and defeat uniformed, traditionally organized forces that are smaller than ours, the same size as ours or perhaps somewhat larger. What our military cannot do is defeat a large, well-organized, non-uniformed and non-traditional group or groups of motivated partisans in areas outside of urban areas. Thus, we flopped in Vietnam and we're flopping in Iraq, even though we defeated the Iraqi army, and why the Taliban are re-emerging in Afghanistan, and why the Israelis are having so much trouble with Hezbollah and Hamas. So .... assuming for the moment that a well-organized, non-uniformed, non-traditional group deserves to be defeated (Al Qaeda and Bin Laden come immediately to mind) ... how do you win? Or do you simply give up? All sorts of ideas: 1) If you're a competent leader, you notice that the various groups causing the trouble have been at each other's throats since before you got it in your head to "help". You learn from the experiences of other countries that have had their heads handed to them. You also notice that sometimes, stability is a good thing, even if you don't like the reason for it. This last FACT was obvious to past presidents (from both political parties) who dwarfed your intellectual capabilities. Need I say more about this? Thanks for your insight General. 2) If you're a competent leader, you listen to your best military people, who, from the beginning, told you that we'd be facing a non-traditional enemy which, depending on the specific city, time of day, and position of the moon and stars, might have popular support and be impossible to dig out of their holes. Like you buddy Johnson did? 3) If you're a competent leader, you realize that the enemy is driven by the exact same religious zeal that drives your own decisions, and which also makes you unfit for the office you hold. What are you talking about? 4) If you're a competent PARENT, you realize that kids are still very idealistic at age 19. So, you don't tell your underlings to go digging for happy tra-la-la stories about kids who think it's delightful that they built a school for some Iraqi kids, and hope these stories will cause your employers (aka "voters") to enter a trance state and not notice how badly you screwed up. You notice that when 19 year old soldiers are interviewed, they don't sound much different than 16 year olds, in terms of their ability to put your little war in perspective. Maybe when they're 45, they'll have some perspective. You are a pessimistic delusional twit. 5) If you're a competent leader, you realize that ripping the Saudis a new asshole right after 9/11 would've been the right thing to do. Even if out of spite, they raised the price of oil, the instability created by your war did the exact same thing. Even if "the rip" involved nothing but throwing their sorry asses out of the country and cancelling their country club memberships, it would've been the right thing to do. Was that before or after we sacrificed the US troops in Saudi Arabia on Sept. 12? Seems to me you have to keep trying ... picking away at the core and at all the supporting elements, learning as you go, modifying tactics and slowly diminishing the enemy's ability to conduct warfare or terrorism. Good idea. You do it. Or, send your kids & grandkids. Do it right now. What the hell? They're expendable, right? Anything to support the rhetoric. Diplomacy hasn't worked at all in this environment, despite the best efforts of world leaders including several US Presidents of both parties. Remember the stability mentioned in #1, above? About two years after we "enclosed" Saddam and began flying endless patrols around his borders, I read an article in which an Air Force general said, in effect, "We couldn't ask for a better setup for testing every manner of new weapon technology". That wasn't diplomacy. That was stability, no different than the tense situation we juggled with the USSR beginning right after WWII. So, you are in favor of using live humans to test our military weaponry? How nice of you to think so little of human life. You'd better have one hell of a good fairy tale ready for your grandkids, because if we ever leave Iraq, it will be no different than when we got there, except that we will have converted people who were curious about us into people who think we're animals. I thought you and your ilk wanted us out of Iraq last month? |
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
Harry Krause wrote:
JohnH wrote: On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 09:27:09 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: Bert Robbins wrote: JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... basskisser wrote: Harry Krause wrote: Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 21:58:47 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: wrote: Don White wrote: Why are you dissin' the French? They softened the Viet Cong up for you al through the 50's and you still couldn't win. Courtesy of the Paris "peace" talks? I'll diss the french on that one What's absolutely amazing is that we didn't seem to learn much from our war against Vietnam and its various "insurgencies." I'm hearing the same sorts of really stupid talk from our Prez and company about our war against Iraq as I remember from the late 1960s and early 1970s, and there is still a large percentage of American people who actually believe the Chimp-in-Chief and his henchmen. When will they ever learn? I'm not sure you can directly analogize the Vietnam conflict with the Iraqi War, but I get your point. No, the conflicts are not the same, but the callousness, stupidity, and b.s. coming from our national leaders is pretty much the same. I watched Rumsfeld testifying last week, no, telling one lie after another last week. It was an incredible performance. Hell, all of the talk radio Fox news types are saying we are in WW3 and claiming that this is just like the rise of the Nazis in the late '30s. All you have to do is get past your hatred for the Bush administration and "Big Oil" and things will become clear. You've got it backwards. Any chance that if Bush had NOT invaded Iraq, he would have more friends, or at least more people who would patiently wait for him to vanish from public life? Or, do you think a person's deeds are not connected with his reputation? I thought it was the intent rather than the action that determines the effectiveness of a person or a project? And, if Pres. Bush had stayed out of Iraq the BP pipeline wouldn't have rusted and corroded? If Bush hadn't lied us into Iraq and remained there, there likely would be more oil on the market, with disruptions of supply, at lower prices, and Iran wouldn't be so aggressively pursuing our demise, North Korea might be behaving, and Hezbollah wouldn't have invaded Israel. Many of the serious problems the world is facing right now can be attributed to the ignorance, hubris, stupidity, laziness and utter incompetence of Bush and his administration. Glad you asked. And Hurricane Katrina wouldn't have happened and all those charter boats would be operating and the shrimp boats would be catching shrimp and Safeway wouldn't be making a fortune on imported shrimp and we'd all be happy ever after, Amen. -- ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** John Silly boy. I was discussing acts and reactions for which Bush can be held strictly accountable. While Bush is responsible for pooching the federal planning and reaction to Katrina, he didn't cause the storm. Apples and oranges. Of course Harry is going to attempt to limit the debate to what thinks he can win. |
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
DSK wrote:
What can be solved (but I don't know how): That book I mentioned said that by Reagan's time in office, many of the CIA's most experienced and creative risk-takers were retired. These were people who started with the OSS, and pretty much invented tactics that we think are only appropriate in movies. One of William Casey's frustrations was finding more people like this. Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: That's one point and a good one. They don't make good spies like they used to. Now they all seem to be Valerie Palme. The only thing Valerie Plame did wrong was to disprove some of Vice President Cheney's pet theories about how to justify starting a war for profit. Valarie Plame wasn't in a policy making job she was just an analyst for the previous five years. I guess when you put ideology above reality, you are obligated to hate the guys (and women) who keep pointing out that water really does run downhill. If you disagree with the direction your employer, I reiterate employer, wants to go in you have the ability to quit and say whatever you want. Whether you have intestinal fortitude to to quit is another issue. |
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message . .. Harry Krause wrote: JohnH wrote: On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 09:27:09 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: Bert Robbins wrote: JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... basskisser wrote: Harry Krause wrote: Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 21:58:47 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: wrote: Don White wrote: Why are you dissin' the French? They softened the Viet Cong up for you al through the 50's and you still couldn't win. Courtesy of the Paris "peace" talks? I'll diss the french on that one What's absolutely amazing is that we didn't seem to learn much from our war against Vietnam and its various "insurgencies." I'm hearing the same sorts of really stupid talk from our Prez and company about our war against Iraq as I remember from the late 1960s and early 1970s, and there is still a large percentage of American people who actually believe the Chimp-in-Chief and his henchmen. When will they ever learn? I'm not sure you can directly analogize the Vietnam conflict with the Iraqi War, but I get your point. No, the conflicts are not the same, but the callousness, stupidity, and b.s. coming from our national leaders is pretty much the same. I watched Rumsfeld testifying last week, no, telling one lie after another last week. It was an incredible performance. Hell, all of the talk radio Fox news types are saying we are in WW3 and claiming that this is just like the rise of the Nazis in the late '30s. All you have to do is get past your hatred for the Bush administration and "Big Oil" and things will become clear. You've got it backwards. Any chance that if Bush had NOT invaded Iraq, he would have more friends, or at least more people who would patiently wait for him to vanish from public life? Or, do you think a person's deeds are not connected with his reputation? I thought it was the intent rather than the action that determines the effectiveness of a person or a project? And, if Pres. Bush had stayed out of Iraq the BP pipeline wouldn't have rusted and corroded? If Bush hadn't lied us into Iraq and remained there, there likely would be more oil on the market, with disruptions of supply, at lower prices, and Iran wouldn't be so aggressively pursuing our demise, North Korea might be behaving, and Hezbollah wouldn't have invaded Israel. Many of the serious problems the world is facing right now can be attributed to the ignorance, hubris, stupidity, laziness and utter incompetence of Bush and his administration. Glad you asked. And Hurricane Katrina wouldn't have happened and all those charter boats would be operating and the shrimp boats would be catching shrimp and Safeway wouldn't be making a fortune on imported shrimp and we'd all be happy ever after, Amen. -- ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** John Silly boy. I was discussing acts and reactions for which Bush can be held strictly accountable. While Bush is responsible for pooching the federal planning and reaction to Katrina, he didn't cause the storm. Apples and oranges. Of course Harry is going to attempt to limit the debate to what thinks he can win. Are you thinking anyone should seriously entertain an idea as stupid as "Bush caused the storm"? |
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. .. You've got it backwards. Any chance that if Bush had NOT invaded Iraq, he would have more friends, or at least more people who would patiently wait for him to vanish from public life? Or, do you think a person's deeds are not connected with his reputation? I thought it was the intent rather than the action that determines the effectiveness of a person or a project? That makes no sense. If a project fails, but you gave it your best effort, then your intent was wrong? The intent of Johnson's great society was wrong, it failed. Your conclusion: 100% of the time, when a project fails, the intent was wrong. Got it. Just wanted to make sure I understood you correctly. Bush *needed* a war, for personal reasons. Cheney needed it for his own reasons. It had nothing at all to do with the good of this country. What personal reasons? Nothing you're educated enough to understand. |
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
wrote in message ... On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 20:08:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: Maybe I'm wrong, but I recall our limiting our bombing to points containing radar & antiaircraft weaponry, not missions into their cities. Never mind. The point was that our goal at that stage was, as you said, the no-fly zone, or containment. We always have some bull**** goal when we bomb brown people, that doesn't mean it is right If you read what Europe was saying about us at the time you will see out intent didn't really match where the bombs were falling. We seem to have forgotten the French, Italians and Germans had already left the reservation on Iraq long before GW showed up. Al Jazerra was showing pictures of dead civilians to the Muslim world. OK, but we're getting far afield here. Saddam could've been contained forever, with little or no cost to us. Now, you can be silly and say that our pounding of his radar installations would do nothing to stop wire transfers of currency to terrorists, but that's another subject which has no known end. |
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message . .. Harry Krause wrote: JohnH wrote: On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 09:27:09 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: Bert Robbins wrote: JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... basskisser wrote: Harry Krause wrote: Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 21:58:47 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: wrote: Don White wrote: Why are you dissin' the French? They softened the Viet Cong up for you al through the 50's and you still couldn't win. Courtesy of the Paris "peace" talks? I'll diss the french on that one What's absolutely amazing is that we didn't seem to learn much from our war against Vietnam and its various "insurgencies." I'm hearing the same sorts of really stupid talk from our Prez and company about our war against Iraq as I remember from the late 1960s and early 1970s, and there is still a large percentage of American people who actually believe the Chimp-in-Chief and his henchmen. When will they ever learn? I'm not sure you can directly analogize the Vietnam conflict with the Iraqi War, but I get your point. No, the conflicts are not the same, but the callousness, stupidity, and b.s. coming from our national leaders is pretty much the same. I watched Rumsfeld testifying last week, no, telling one lie after another last week. It was an incredible performance. Hell, all of the talk radio Fox news types are saying we are in WW3 and claiming that this is just like the rise of the Nazis in the late '30s. All you have to do is get past your hatred for the Bush administration and "Big Oil" and things will become clear. You've got it backwards. Any chance that if Bush had NOT invaded Iraq, he would have more friends, or at least more people who would patiently wait for him to vanish from public life? Or, do you think a person's deeds are not connected with his reputation? I thought it was the intent rather than the action that determines the effectiveness of a person or a project? And, if Pres. Bush had stayed out of Iraq the BP pipeline wouldn't have rusted and corroded? If Bush hadn't lied us into Iraq and remained there, there likely would be more oil on the market, with disruptions of supply, at lower prices, and Iran wouldn't be so aggressively pursuing our demise, North Korea might be behaving, and Hezbollah wouldn't have invaded Israel. Many of the serious problems the world is facing right now can be attributed to the ignorance, hubris, stupidity, laziness and utter incompetence of Bush and his administration. Glad you asked. And Hurricane Katrina wouldn't have happened and all those charter boats would be operating and the shrimp boats would be catching shrimp and Safeway wouldn't be making a fortune on imported shrimp and we'd all be happy ever after, Amen. -- ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** John Silly boy. I was discussing acts and reactions for which Bush can be held strictly accountable. While Bush is responsible for pooching the federal planning and reaction to Katrina, he didn't cause the storm. Apples and oranges. Of course Harry is going to attempt to limit the debate to what thinks he can win. Are you thinking anyone should seriously entertain an idea as stupid as "Bush caused the storm"? Sure, you believe in black helicopters and I bet you are one of the 1/3 of Americans who believe that Bush blew up the WTC and that the Pentagon was hit by a missle? |
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message . .. DSK wrote: What can be solved (but I don't know how): That book I mentioned said that by Reagan's time in office, many of the CIA's most experienced and creative risk-takers were retired. These were people who started with the OSS, and pretty much invented tactics that we think are only appropriate in movies. One of William Casey's frustrations was finding more people like this. Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: That's one point and a good one. They don't make good spies like they used to. Now they all seem to be Valerie Palme. The only thing Valerie Plame did wrong was to disprove some of Vice President Cheney's pet theories about how to justify starting a war for profit. Valarie Plame wasn't in a policy making job she was just an analyst for the previous five years. I guess when you put ideology above reality, you are obligated to hate the guys (and women) who keep pointing out that water really does run downhill. If you disagree with the direction your employer, I reiterate employer, wants to go in you have the ability to quit and say whatever you want. Whether you have intestinal fortitude to to quit is another issue. You also have the option of staying, and criticizing the employer, especially when he is killing teenagers for fun. It's up to the employer to fire you. Some employers might have the intestinal fortitude to actually fire you and not be ashamed to tell the country why. Others would be sneaky about it. |
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
|
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message . .. DSK wrote: What can be solved (but I don't know how): That book I mentioned said that by Reagan's time in office, many of the CIA's most experienced and creative risk-takers were retired. These were people who started with the OSS, and pretty much invented tactics that we think are only appropriate in movies. One of William Casey's frustrations was finding more people like this. Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: That's one point and a good one. They don't make good spies like they used to. Now they all seem to be Valerie Palme. The only thing Valerie Plame did wrong was to disprove some of Vice President Cheney's pet theories about how to justify starting a war for profit. Valarie Plame wasn't in a policy making job she was just an analyst for the previous five years. I guess when you put ideology above reality, you are obligated to hate the guys (and women) who keep pointing out that water really does run downhill. If you disagree with the direction your employer, I reiterate employer, wants to go in you have the ability to quit and say whatever you want. Whether you have intestinal fortitude to to quit is another issue. You also have the option of staying, and criticizing the employer, especially when he is killing teenagers for fun. It's up to the employer to fire you. Some employers might have the intestinal fortitude to actually fire you and not be ashamed to tell the country why. Others would be sneaky about it. Bush is a fair minded man and he decided to let Plame continue to be employed. However, Plame decided to terminate her employment. |
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message . .. You've got it backwards. Any chance that if Bush had NOT invaded Iraq, he would have more friends, or at least more people who would patiently wait for him to vanish from public life? Or, do you think a person's deeds are not connected with his reputation? I thought it was the intent rather than the action that determines the effectiveness of a person or a project? That makes no sense. If a project fails, but you gave it your best effort, then your intent was wrong? The intent of Johnson's great society was wrong, it failed. Your conclusion: 100% of the time, when a project fails, the intent was wrong. Got it. Just wanted to make sure I understood you correctly. Bush *needed* a war, for personal reasons. Cheney needed it for his own reasons. It had nothing at all to do with the good of this country. What personal reasons? Nothing you're educated enough to understand. Why can't you them Doug and we will see if I can read them at least. |
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message ... On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 20:08:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: Maybe I'm wrong, but I recall our limiting our bombing to points containing radar & antiaircraft weaponry, not missions into their cities. Never mind. The point was that our goal at that stage was, as you said, the no-fly zone, or containment. We always have some bull**** goal when we bomb brown people, that doesn't mean it is right If you read what Europe was saying about us at the time you will see out intent didn't really match where the bombs were falling. We seem to have forgotten the French, Italians and Germans had already left the reservation on Iraq long before GW showed up. Al Jazerra was showing pictures of dead civilians to the Muslim world. OK, but we're getting far afield here. Saddam could've been contained forever, with little or no cost to us. Now, you can be silly and say that our pounding of his radar installations would do nothing to stop wire transfers of currency to terrorists, but that's another subject which has no known end. Can you put an actual number or range of number on your "little or no cost to us" assertion. |
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
Harry Krause wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote: JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Bert Robbins" wrote in message . .. You've got it backwards. Any chance that if Bush had NOT invaded Iraq, he would have more friends, or at least more people who would patiently wait for him to vanish from public life? Or, do you think a person's deeds are not connected with his reputation? I thought it was the intent rather than the action that determines the effectiveness of a person or a project? That makes no sense. If a project fails, but you gave it your best effort, then your intent was wrong? The intent of Johnson's great society was wrong, it failed. Your conclusion: 100% of the time, when a project fails, the intent was wrong. Got it. Just wanted to make sure I understood you correctly. Bush *needed* a war, for personal reasons. Cheney needed it for his own reasons. It had nothing at all to do with the good of this country. What personal reasons? Nothing you're educated enough to understand. Why can't you them Doug and we will see if I can read them at least. Read them? You can't even write a coherent sentence. Go back to high school, Bertbrain. Try to graduate this time. Joining the marines is not an excuse for dropping out of high school. You and Doug aren't worth the effort to re-read what I write in this newsgroup? Does that sound familiar, it should. |
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. .. 3) If you're a competent leader, you realize that the enemy is driven by the exact same religious zeal that drives your own decisions, and which also makes you unfit for the office you hold. What are you talking about? This is probably too long a response for you to cope with, but your answer is within. There's a very short list of reasons why politicians do things which are doomed to failure before they even leave the planning stage. It doesn't matter whether it's a war, or some lame-ass public works project. A few weeks ago, I watched with great joy as a city councilman was brutally interrogated by a couple of citizens at a public comment meeting for a ridiculous apartment project that will destroy a beautiful waterfront park, and which only the politicians are in love with. The consultants for this plan think 400 apartments would be feasible. The councilman insisted that "the area could probably support 1000 units". One by one, the two citizens went through the list of reasons below, and when they got to #6, the councilman turned red and left the meeting. 1) Too stupid or incompetent to see what a bad plan they're in love with. 2) Too young to be aware of history and too proud or stupid to listen. 3) Old enough to know better, but too stupid to learn from the past. 4) Ego out of control - must do something, ANYTHING with the hope of being remembered. "I'm a WAR president!" 5) Blind faith in the idea. This takes training, which I believe is most likely found in religion. 6) Crooked: The politician is receiving some kind of incentive for his love affair with the idea. Your president certainly falls into category 1, 3, 4 and 5. Guaranteed. |
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
wrote in message
... On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 00:20:47 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: Saddam could've been contained forever So you think we could still be flying 100 sorties a week over Iraq bombing them and the world would be fine with it? Absolutely, although I think it wouldn't have lasted more than another year or two, for other reasons which you may remember. |
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. .. JoeSpareBedroom wrote: wrote in message ... On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 20:08:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: Maybe I'm wrong, but I recall our limiting our bombing to points containing radar & antiaircraft weaponry, not missions into their cities. Never mind. The point was that our goal at that stage was, as you said, the no-fly zone, or containment. We always have some bull**** goal when we bomb brown people, that doesn't mean it is right If you read what Europe was saying about us at the time you will see out intent didn't really match where the bombs were falling. We seem to have forgotten the French, Italians and Germans had already left the reservation on Iraq long before GW showed up. Al Jazerra was showing pictures of dead civilians to the Muslim world. OK, but we're getting far afield here. Saddam could've been contained forever, with little or no cost to us. Now, you can be silly and say that our pounding of his radar installations would do nothing to stop wire transfers of currency to terrorists, but that's another subject which has no known end. Can you put an actual number or range of number on your "little or no cost to us" assertion. You can help. How many pilots did we lose during the period when we were enforcing the no-fly zone? |
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. .. JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Bert Robbins" wrote in message . .. You've got it backwards. Any chance that if Bush had NOT invaded Iraq, he would have more friends, or at least more people who would patiently wait for him to vanish from public life? Or, do you think a person's deeds are not connected with his reputation? I thought it was the intent rather than the action that determines the effectiveness of a person or a project? That makes no sense. If a project fails, but you gave it your best effort, then your intent was wrong? The intent of Johnson's great society was wrong, it failed. Your conclusion: 100% of the time, when a project fails, the intent was wrong. Got it. Just wanted to make sure I understood you correctly. Bush *needed* a war, for personal reasons. Cheney needed it for his own reasons. It had nothing at all to do with the good of this country. What personal reasons? Nothing you're educated enough to understand. Why can't you them Doug and we will see if I can read them at least. Your president once said he spent a couple of hours per day playing video games. He also stated that he doesn't read much. That may be appropriate for some grown men, but not for a president. I am 100% sure that his world view is based on his pastimes, as well as a religion which promotes the concept of a savior. |
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
Bert Robbins wrote:
Don White wrote: Bert Robbins wrote: All you have to do is get past your hatred for the Bush administration and "Big Oil" and things will become clear. Since you brought up Bush.... caught part of his newsconference from the ranch yesterday. He didn't look or sound that good. Too much RnR? You aren't worth the effort... You can't dream up an excuse for your exaulted ruler? What kind of yes man are you? |
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
JoeSpareBedroom wrote: .. I am 100% sure that his world view is based on his pastimes, as well as a religion which promotes the concept of a savior. Pardon me, but is there really anything wrong with believing in a "Saviour"? |
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
Harry Krause wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote: JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Bert Robbins" wrote in message . .. You've got it backwards. Any chance that if Bush had NOT invaded Iraq, he would have more friends, or at least more people who would patiently wait for him to vanish from public life? Or, do you think a person's deeds are not connected with his reputation? I thought it was the intent rather than the action that determines the effectiveness of a person or a project? That makes no sense. If a project fails, but you gave it your best effort, then your intent was wrong? The intent of Johnson's great society was wrong, it failed. Your conclusion: 100% of the time, when a project fails, the intent was wrong. Got it. Just wanted to make sure I understood you correctly. Bush *needed* a war, for personal reasons. Cheney needed it for his own reasons. It had nothing at all to do with the good of this country. What personal reasons? Nothing you're educated enough to understand. Why can't you them Doug and we will see if I can read them at least. Read them? You can't even write a coherent sentence. Go back to high school, Bertbrain. Try to graduate this time. Joining the marines is not an excuse for dropping out of high school. Sad what booze can do. |
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
wrote in message
oups.com... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: . I am 100% sure that his world view is based on his pastimes, as well as a religion which promotes the concept of a savior. Pardon me, but is there really anything wrong with believing in a "Saviour"? No. Not until you begin to believe that YOU are the savior. You, and soldiers who just happen to be somebody else's children. Keep your religion apart from your political decisions. This requires strength. I can only think of ONE politician who was able to correctly do this. Sadly, he has returned to private law practice. |
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
JoeSpareBedroom wrote: Keep your religion apart from your political decisions. This requires strength. I can only think of ONE politician who was able to correctly do this. Sadly, he has returned to private law practice. If you are saying politican, instead of POTUS, Don't forget the WWII general or, the one assasinated in Dallas, the one buried on his texas ranch. The one who wasn't a crook. The one who stumbled getting off a plane Those are the ones I remember, Of course, except for Gerald, they're all dead now. |
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message . .. JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "Harry Krause" wrote in message . .. The loss in Vietnam was a harbinger. I'm sure our military forces can take on and defeat any modern uniformed military force waging traditional warfare, assuming no great disparity in the order of battle or availability of troops. That is, we can take on and defeat uniformed, traditionally organized forces that are smaller than ours, the same size as ours or perhaps somewhat larger. What our military cannot do is defeat a large, well-organized, non-uniformed and non-traditional group or groups of motivated partisans in areas outside of urban areas. Thus, we flopped in Vietnam and we're flopping in Iraq, even though we defeated the Iraqi army, and why the Taliban are re-emerging in Afghanistan, and why the Israelis are having so much trouble with Hezbollah and Hamas. So .... assuming for the moment that a well-organized, non-uniformed, non-traditional group deserves to be defeated (Al Qaeda and Bin Laden come immediately to mind) ... how do you win? Or do you simply give up? All sorts of ideas: 1) If you're a competent leader, you notice that the various groups causing the trouble have been at each other's throats since before you got it in your head to "help". You learn from the experiences of other countries that have had their heads handed to them. You also notice that sometimes, stability is a good thing, even if you don't like the reason for it. This last FACT was obvious to past presidents (from both political parties) who dwarfed your intellectual capabilities. Need I say more about this? Thanks for your insight General. 2) If you're a competent leader, you listen to your best military people, who, from the beginning, told you that we'd be facing a non-traditional enemy which, depending on the specific city, time of day, and position of the moon and stars, might have popular support and be impossible to dig out of their holes. Like you buddy Johnson did? 3) If you're a competent leader, you realize that the enemy is driven by the exact same religious zeal that drives your own decisions, and which also makes you unfit for the office you hold. What are you talking about? 4) If you're a competent PARENT, you realize that kids are still very idealistic at age 19. So, you don't tell your underlings to go digging for happy tra-la-la stories about kids who think it's delightful that they built a school for some Iraqi kids, and hope these stories will cause your employers (aka "voters") to enter a trance state and not notice how badly you screwed up. You notice that when 19 year old soldiers are interviewed, they don't sound much different than 16 year olds, in terms of their ability to put your little war in perspective. Maybe when they're 45, they'll have some perspective. You are a pessimistic delusional twit. You forgot arrogant elitist 5) If you're a competent leader, you realize that ripping the Saudis a new asshole right after 9/11 would've been the right thing to do. Even if out of spite, they raised the price of oil, the instability created by your war did the exact same thing. Even if "the rip" involved nothing but throwing their sorry asses out of the country and cancelling their country club memberships, it would've been the right thing to do. Was that before or after we sacrificed the US troops in Saudi Arabia on Sept. 12? Seems to me you have to keep trying ... picking away at the core and at all the supporting elements, learning as you go, modifying tactics and slowly diminishing the enemy's ability to conduct warfare or terrorism. Good idea. You do it. Or, send your kids & grandkids. Do it right now. What the hell? They're expendable, right? Anything to support the rhetoric. Diplomacy hasn't worked at all in this environment, despite the best efforts of world leaders including several US Presidents of both parties. Remember the stability mentioned in #1, above? About two years after we "enclosed" Saddam and began flying endless patrols around his borders, I read an article in which an Air Force general said, in effect, "We couldn't ask for a better setup for testing every manner of new weapon technology". That wasn't diplomacy. That was stability, no different than the tense situation we juggled with the USSR beginning right after WWII. So, you are in favor of using live humans to test our military weaponry? How nice of you to think so little of human life. You'd better have one hell of a good fairy tale ready for your grandkids, because if we ever leave Iraq, it will be no different than when we got there, except that we will have converted people who were curious about us into people who think we're animals. I thought you and your ilk wanted us out of Iraq last month? That is what happens to when one swallows the NYT hook line and sinker. |
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message . .. DSK wrote: I guess when you put ideology above reality, you are obligated to hate the guys (and women) who keep pointing out that water really does run downhill. If you disagree with the direction your employer, I reiterate employer, wants to go in you have the ability to quit and say whatever you want. Whether you have intestinal fortitude to to quit is another issue. In a nutshell, DSK defined the problem with liebrals |
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message . .. Harry Krause wrote: Bert Robbins wrote: JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... basskisser wrote: Harry Krause wrote: Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 21:58:47 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: wrote: Don White wrote: Why are you dissin' the French? They softened the Viet Cong up for you al through the 50's and you still couldn't win. Courtesy of the Paris "peace" talks? I'll diss the french on that one What's absolutely amazing is that we didn't seem to learn much from our war against Vietnam and its various "insurgencies." I'm hearing the same sorts of really stupid talk from our Prez and company about our war against Iraq as I remember from the late 1960s and early 1970s, and there is still a large percentage of American people who actually believe the Chimp-in-Chief and his henchmen. When will they ever learn? I'm not sure you can directly analogize the Vietnam conflict with the Iraqi War, but I get your point. No, the conflicts are not the same, but the callousness, stupidity, and b.s. coming from our national leaders is pretty much the same. I watched Rumsfeld testifying last week, no, telling one lie after another last week. It was an incredible performance. Hell, all of the talk radio Fox news types are saying we are in WW3 and claiming that this is just like the rise of the Nazis in the late '30s. All you have to do is get past your hatred for the Bush administration and "Big Oil" and things will become clear. You've got it backwards. Any chance that if Bush had NOT invaded Iraq, he would have more friends, or at least more people who would patiently wait for him to vanish from public life? Or, do you think a person's deeds are not connected with his reputation? I thought it was the intent rather than the action that determines the effectiveness of a person or a project? And, if Pres. Bush had stayed out of Iraq the BP pipeline wouldn't have rusted and corroded? If Bush hadn't lied us into Iraq and remained there, there likely would be more oil on the market, with disruptions of supply, at lower prices, and Iran wouldn't be so aggressively pursuing our demise, North Korea might be behaving, and Hezbollah wouldn't have invaded Israel. "Lied us into Iraq?" It appears that the congress, the House and Senate failed in their duties didn't they. The President doesn't go to war without congresses consent. If your crystal ball is so good why are you living in a broken down house in bum**** Maryland? That is all his wife can afford Many of the serious problems the world is facing right now can be attributed to the ignorance, hubris, stupidity, laziness and utter incompetence of Bush and his administration. When did history start? Was it January 20, 2001? Harry, as usual, is one presidency off from where the blame lies |
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message . .. 3) If you're a competent leader, you realize that the enemy is driven by the exact same religious zeal that drives your own decisions, and which also makes you unfit for the office you hold. What are you talking about? This is probably too long a response for you to cope with, but your answer is within. There's a very short list of reasons why politicians do things which are doomed to failure before they even leave the planning stage. It doesn't matter whether it's a war, or some lame-ass public works project. A few weeks ago, I watched with great joy as a city councilman was brutally interrogated by a couple of citizens at a public comment meeting for a ridiculous apartment project that will destroy a beautiful waterfront park, and which only the politicians are in love with. The consultants for this plan think 400 apartments would be feasible. The councilman insisted that "the area could probably support 1000 units". One by one, the two citizens went through the list of reasons below, and when they got to #6, the councilman turned red and left the meeting. 1) Too stupid or incompetent to see what a bad plan they're in love with. 2) Too young to be aware of history and too proud or stupid to listen. 3) Old enough to know better, but too stupid to learn from the past. 4) Ego out of control - must do something, ANYTHING with the hope of being remembered. "I'm a WAR president!" 5) Blind faith in the idea. This takes training, which I believe is most likely found in religion. 6) Crooked: The politician is receiving some kind of incentive for his love affair with the idea. Your president certainly falls into category 1, 3, 4 and 5. Guaranteed. He is our President! Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. You are really full of yourself today! |
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
|
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
Don White wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote: Don White wrote: Bert Robbins wrote: All you have to do is get past your hatred for the Bush administration and "Big Oil" and things will become clear. Since you brought up Bush.... caught part of his newsconference from the ranch yesterday. He didn't look or sound that good. Too much RnR? You aren't worth the effort... You can't dream up an excuse for your exaulted ruler? What kind of yes man are you? A better one than you, Don. I don't suffer from an inferiority complex like you and others. |
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message oups.com... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: . I am 100% sure that his world view is based on his pastimes, as well as a religion which promotes the concept of a savior. Pardon me, but is there really anything wrong with believing in a "Saviour"? No. Not until you begin to believe that YOU are the savior. You, and soldiers who just happen to be somebody else's children. Keep your religion apart from your political decisions. This requires strength. I can only think of ONE politician who was able to correctly do this. Sadly, he has returned to private law practice. You can't separate politics and religion. The real question is what is a religion. |
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
Bert Robbins wrote: basskisser wrote: JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... basskisser wrote: Harry Krause wrote: Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 21:58:47 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: wrote: Don White wrote: Why are you dissin' the French? They softened the Viet Cong up for you al through the 50's and you still couldn't win. Courtesy of the Paris "peace" talks? I'll diss the french on that one What's absolutely amazing is that we didn't seem to learn much from our war against Vietnam and its various "insurgencies." I'm hearing the same sorts of really stupid talk from our Prez and company about our war against Iraq as I remember from the late 1960s and early 1970s, and there is still a large percentage of American people who actually believe the Chimp-in-Chief and his henchmen. When will they ever learn? I'm not sure you can directly analogize the Vietnam conflict with the Iraqi War, but I get your point. No, the conflicts are not the same, but the callousness, stupidity, and b.s. coming from our national leaders is pretty much the same. I watched Rumsfeld testifying last week, no, telling one lie after another last week. It was an incredible performance. Hell, all of the talk radio Fox news types are saying we are in WW3 and claiming that this is just like the rise of the Nazis in the late '30s. All you have to do is get past your hatred for the Bush administration and "Big Oil" and things will become clear. You've got it backwards. Any chance that if Bush had NOT invaded Iraq, he would have more friends, or at least more people who would patiently wait for him to vanish from public life? Or, do you think a person's deeds are not connected with his reputation? Pre-war Iraqi output = more than 2.2 million barrels In May, 2006 output = 1.1 million barrels. Even Bert should be able to figure out that yes, BushCo DID help cause our current conditions. Why are you complaining, Bush has succeeded in reducing our dependence upon foreign oil by 50% from Iraq. Holy ****!!! Do you honestly believe that, Bert? Let's see the data!!!!!! |
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
wrote in message
oups.com... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: Keep your religion apart from your political decisions. This requires strength. I can only think of ONE politician who was able to correctly do this. Sadly, he has returned to private law practice. If you are saying politican, instead of POTUS, Don't forget the WWII general or, the one assasinated in Dallas, the one buried on his texas ranch. The one who wasn't a crook. The one who stumbled getting off a plane Those are the ones I remember, Of course, except for Gerald, they're all dead now. My comment was written in haste, in the middle of doing 8 different things. I should've said there was only one I know who was deeply religious and knew how it fit with his duties while in public office. I knew because he explained it so well. He still does, occasionally, and not in terms intended for (and obviously originating with) a simpleton. Every now and then, he tells people they should stop dreaming about his running for president. |
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
wrote in message ... On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 00:43:15 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: Can you put an actual number or range of number on your "little or no cost to us" assertion. You can help. How many pilots did we lose during the period when we were enforcing the no-fly zone? The problem was how many muslin civilians we were killing. That came home to bite us on 9-11. "Death from the air" with no danger to us got turned back on us by Islam. We can sit here and say 6 billion muslims spread around the 3d world don't mean much and there is nothing they can do to us but a wise person knows that isn't true. They have TV too and they see our air power is simply bullying the weak. It is signifcant that we had the same amount of support for the no fly zones from our european allies when Clinton lerft office as we do for the war now. Most of europe think it is folly to screw with these crazy SOBs. It is pretty much just us and the brits. This is all true. It's interesting, though, that some here can create a house of cards in their minds which justifies sending our kids over there because of misplaced valor. |
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
... wrote in message ... On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 00:20:47 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: Saddam could've been contained forever So you think we could still be flying 100 sorties a week over Iraq bombing them and the world would be fine with it? Absolutely, although I think it wouldn't have lasted more than another year or two, for other reasons which you may remember. There was talk of how much suffering we were causing because food or medicine couldn't reach innocent civilians, although that criticism was directed more at the oil trade limitiations. Whether it was true or not, I think that would've ended our involvement simply for reasons of public image. |
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. .. JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Bert Robbins" wrote in message . .. 3) If you're a competent leader, you realize that the enemy is driven by the exact same religious zeal that drives your own decisions, and which also makes you unfit for the office you hold. What are you talking about? This is probably too long a response for you to cope with, but your answer is within. There's a very short list of reasons why politicians do things which are doomed to failure before they even leave the planning stage. It doesn't matter whether it's a war, or some lame-ass public works project. A few weeks ago, I watched with great joy as a city councilman was brutally interrogated by a couple of citizens at a public comment meeting for a ridiculous apartment project that will destroy a beautiful waterfront park, and which only the politicians are in love with. The consultants for this plan think 400 apartments would be feasible. The councilman insisted that "the area could probably support 1000 units". One by one, the two citizens went through the list of reasons below, and when they got to #6, the councilman turned red and left the meeting. 1) Too stupid or incompetent to see what a bad plan they're in love with. 2) Too young to be aware of history and too proud or stupid to listen. 3) Old enough to know better, but too stupid to learn from the past. 4) Ego out of control - must do something, ANYTHING with the hope of being remembered. "I'm a WAR president!" 5) Blind faith in the idea. This takes training, which I believe is most likely found in religion. 6) Crooked: The politician is receiving some kind of incentive for his love affair with the idea. Your president certainly falls into category 1, 3, 4 and 5. Guaranteed. He is our President! Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. You are really full of yourself today! I've disowned him. He's YOUR president. His father was another story. I didn't agree with everything he did, but I was still willing to use the word "my" with regard to him. |
What's a little more manipulation from Big Oil among friends?
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message . .. JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Bert Robbins" wrote in message . .. 3) If you're a competent leader, you realize that the enemy is driven by the exact same religious zeal that drives your own decisions, and which also makes you unfit for the office you hold. What are you talking about? This is probably too long a response for you to cope with, but your answer is within. There's a very short list of reasons why politicians do things which are doomed to failure before they even leave the planning stage. It doesn't matter whether it's a war, or some lame-ass public works project. A few weeks ago, I watched with great joy as a city councilman was brutally interrogated by a couple of citizens at a public comment meeting for a ridiculous apartment project that will destroy a beautiful waterfront park, and which only the politicians are in love with. The consultants for this plan think 400 apartments would be feasible. The councilman insisted that "the area could probably support 1000 units". One by one, the two citizens went through the list of reasons below, and when they got to #6, the councilman turned red and left the meeting. 1) Too stupid or incompetent to see what a bad plan they're in love with. 2) Too young to be aware of history and too proud or stupid to listen. 3) Old enough to know better, but too stupid to learn from the past. 4) Ego out of control - must do something, ANYTHING with the hope of being remembered. "I'm a WAR president!" 5) Blind faith in the idea. This takes training, which I believe is most likely found in religion. 6) Crooked: The politician is receiving some kind of incentive for his love affair with the idea. Your president certainly falls into category 1, 3, 4 and 5. Guaranteed. He is our President! Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. You are really full of yourself today! I've disowned him. He's YOUR president. His father was another story. I didn't agree with everything he did, but I was still willing to use the word "my" with regard to him. You really are an idiot. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:40 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com