basskisser wrote:
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!!!!!!


No data needed, I just need to keep repeating the statement until it is
accepted as fact.

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
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.

It just bothers you that I don't automatically bestow respect on someone
because of their title. There are many like you. I don't recall in which NG
it was where I insisted on using the word "employees" to describe police
officers. Someone became insanely angry because I refused to allow the term
"public servant" into the discussion. I believe that person was on the verge
of a stroke because of his anger.

You apply all sorts of nonsensical terms to the office of president, like
commander in chief, which, in your mind, exalts Bush to god-like status.
Wrong. He is an employee. He never would've gotten past the first interview
at many companies, unless they were looking for someone to rake leaves.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
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.

It just bothers you that I don't automatically bestow respect on someone
because of their title. There are many like you. I don't recall in which NG
it was where I insisted on using the word "employees" to describe police
officers. Someone became insanely angry because I refused to allow the term
"public servant" into the discussion. I believe that person was on the verge
of a stroke because of his anger.

You apply all sorts of nonsensical terms to the office of president, like
commander in chief, which, in your mind, exalts Bush to god-like status.
Wrong. He is an employee. He never would've gotten past the first interview
at many companies, unless they were looking for someone to rake leaves.

Doug you really have to wonder where the anger of yours comes from? You
sit in your cubicle all day long as a shipping agent and when you no
longer have your current job you will most likely be standing in the
welfare line addressed as "next" with your hand out asking for somebody
to do something for you. When President Bush no longer has his current
job he will still be addressed as Mr. President and won't have to stand
in any lines.

On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 00:20:47 GMT, "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.

like iran!
--
******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

John

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 20:40:39 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 20:25:20 -0400, JohnH wrote:

How does one tell the difference between a dead civilian and a dead
terrorist? Please don't say the terrorist will have a rifle in his hands.
--
Those infant terrorists were the sneakiest little *******s

Ah, I didn't realize they were all infants.
--
******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

John

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 00:20:47 GMT, "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.

like iran!
John

Besides Iran's obnoxious behavior, what do you hear about the country
lately, John?

Bert Robbins wrote:

No data needed, I just need to keep repeating the statement until it is
accepted as fact.

As suspected. Nothing but blather from you.

On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 13:57:21 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 00:20:47 GMT, "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.

like iran!
John

Besides Iran's obnoxious behavior, what do you hear about the country
lately, John?


Nothing! They seem to be just sitting there peacefully doing their thing,
tending their flocks and whatnot.

Well, I guess there's a little concern about nuclear weapons, but I'm sure
that's just misinformation.

I wonder what the fishing and boating are like in the Persian Gulf?
--
******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

John

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 13:57:21 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 00:20:47 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:


wrote in message
m...
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.

like iran!
John

Besides Iran's obnoxious behavior, what do you hear about the country
lately, John?


Nothing! They seem to be just sitting there peacefully doing their thing,
tending their flocks and whatnot.

Well, I guess there's a little concern about nuclear weapons, but I'm sure
that's just misinformation.

I wonder what the fishing and boating are like in the Persian Gulf?
John

So, all you've got is sarcasm? You know nothing else about Iran except the
nuclear threat, which, by the way, I agree with you about?

On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 14:40:46 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 13:57:21 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 00:20:47 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:


wrote in message
om...
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.

like iran!
John

Besides Iran's obnoxious behavior, what do you hear about the country
lately, John?


Nothing! They seem to be just sitting there peacefully doing their thing,
tending their flocks and whatnot.

Well, I guess there's a little concern about nuclear weapons, but I'm sure
that's just misinformation.

I wonder what the fishing and boating are like in the Persian Gulf?
John

So, all you've got is sarcasm? You know nothing else about Iran except the
nuclear threat, which, by the way, I agree with you about?


Oh no. But just think, if we'd left Iraq alone, we could have *two* Irans!

Now *that* would be exciting!

No more until September!
--
******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

John