John Kerry strikes again..
 

John Kerry strikes again..
 

" JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote in message
. ..

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 02:08:37 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 22:39:40 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"

Well, I got tired waiting and got a beer from the fridge.
I suspect that means you're between boats, but maybe it went over my
head?

--Vic

When people post off topic stuff here, certain parties who have life
accuse the others have not having a boat. Sounds logical to me. Not.


correction: have NO life

Either way works for me (-:

--Vic


Doug Kanter/Joe Sparebedroom was talking about himself.........boatless
and without a life. Stick around and he will show you proof. ;-)


See, Vic?

John Kerry strikes again..
 

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 15:13:03 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

A holy war, but still a war was declared on the US many years ago .

I believe the holy war really started when we didn't go home after the
100 hour war in Kuwait like we said we would. THREE presidents had the
chance, none did.

I heard an interesting talk show last night, with Joseph Wilson (the
ambassador) as the guest. His ideas will enrage the faithful, but that's to
be expected. But, I was pleased to hear one of my own ideas (#1) backed up
by someone who had more information than I do.

1) Before the invasion, the region was as stable as anyone could have
possibly made it. We blew it.

2) Although our focus was the no-fly zone, there was virtually NO part of
Iraq where ANY aircraft could've taken off without our knowing about it.

3) Saddam was, in fact, hiding something very important before we invaded.
He was concealing how little he had, in terms of WMDs. Why did he do this?
Two reasons: First, he had to keep Iran wondering, in case they decided to
pull any stunts during what they perceived to be a time of Iraqi weakness.
Second, to keep his own people wondering, because internal support was
slowly but surely unraveling.

4) "He didn't conform to U.N. blah blah....": Wilson's comment on this was
twofold. It took us 50 years to win the Cold War. We were patient enough to
work for that long, with a threat that was real, and horrific. The only
reason Bush pulled the trigger is that the plan was in the works long before
9/11.

John Kerry strikes again..
 

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 15:13:03 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

A holy war, but still a war was declared on the US many years ago .

I believe the holy war really started when we didn't go home after the
100 hour war in Kuwait like we said we would. THREE presidents had the
chance, none did.

I heard an interesting talk show last night, with Joseph Wilson (the
ambassador) as the guest. His ideas will enrage the faithful, but that's
to be expected. But, I was pleased to hear one of my own ideas (#1) backed
up by someone who had more information than I do.

1) Before the invasion, the region was as stable as anyone could have
possibly made it. We blew it.

2) Although our focus was the no-fly zone, there was virtually NO part of
Iraq where ANY aircraft could've taken off without our knowing about it.

3) Saddam was, in fact, hiding something very important before we invaded.
He was concealing how little he had, in terms of WMDs. Why did he do this?
Two reasons: First, he had to keep Iran wondering, in case they decided to
pull any stunts during what they perceived to be a time of Iraqi weakness.
Second, to keep his own people wondering, because internal support was
slowly but surely unraveling.

4) "He didn't conform to U.N. blah blah....": Wilson's comment on this was
twofold. It took us 50 years to win the Cold War. We were patient enough
to work for that long, with a threat that was real, and horrific. The only
reason Bush pulled the trigger is that the plan was in the works long
before 9/11.


Interesting, but I noticed an apparent contradiction:

1) Before the invasion, the region was as stable as anyone could have
possibly made it. We blew it.

3) ..... Second, to keep his own people wondering, because internal support
was
slowly but surely unraveling.

Eisboch

John Kerry strikes again..
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 15:13:03 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

A holy war, but still a war was declared on the US many years ago .

I believe the holy war really started when we didn't go home after the
100 hour war in Kuwait like we said we would. THREE presidents had the
chance, none did.

I heard an interesting talk show last night, with Joseph Wilson (the
ambassador) as the guest. His ideas will enrage the faithful, but that's
to be expected. But, I was pleased to hear one of my own ideas (#1)
backed up by someone who had more information than I do.

1) Before the invasion, the region was as stable as anyone could have
possibly made it. We blew it.

2) Although our focus was the no-fly zone, there was virtually NO part of
Iraq where ANY aircraft could've taken off without our knowing about it.

3) Saddam was, in fact, hiding something very important before we
invaded. He was concealing how little he had, in terms of WMDs. Why did
he do this? Two reasons: First, he had to keep Iran wondering, in case
they decided to pull any stunts during what they perceived to be a time
of Iraqi weakness. Second, to keep his own people wondering, because
internal support was slowly but surely unraveling.

4) "He didn't conform to U.N. blah blah....": Wilson's comment on this
was twofold. It took us 50 years to win the Cold War. We were patient
enough to work for that long, with a threat that was real, and horrific.
The only reason Bush pulled the trigger is that the plan was in the works
long before 9/11.


Interesting, but I noticed an apparent contradiction:

1) Before the invasion, the region was as stable as anyone could have
possibly made it. We blew it.

3) ..... Second, to keep his own people wondering, because internal
support was
slowly but surely unraveling.

Eisboch

Not necessarily a contradiction. Causing his support to unravel MAY have
been our doing, through covert means. It's the coolest, most manly-man way
of dealing with such a situation. We won't really know until the history
books are written.

John Kerry strikes again..
 

On 1 Nov 2006 16:58:50 -0800, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:


JohnH wrote:

I love that line: "Bush has very cleverly painted Kerry into a corner in
this game of political chess."

Yes Chuck, you and Chris Mathews are of the same mold. Kerry should have
apologized for his misstatement. (If that's what it was.) He could have
done so easily and gotten himself off the hook with which he was
*self*-impaled.

Don't impugn the intellectually lazy. Most of them will vote for a
Democrat, and most don't watch the news anyway.

Well, Kerry has now apologized. And, as I predicted this morning, the
response to this apology has been renewed charges of "flip-flopping".
Can't win either way. Kerry did not apologize immediately after making
the statement because he had no idea how damaging that short phrase,
pulled out of context, would be. In his mind, he made and delivered an
entire speech with a series of jabs at GWB. It took 24 hrs for Kerry to
realize that some clever propagandist had isolated that single phrase
and spun it like a top.

What Kerry *should* have done was to offer a more complete explanation
at yesterday's news conference. Instead, he allowed his anger to be
evident and that is always a loser's move. Instead of yakking about how
most of the Bush administration were Republican hacks that had "never
worn the uniform," etc, he *should* have said. "It has come to my
attention that a portion of my remarks, taken out of context, are being
circulated as some indication that I believe that our brave men and
women serving in Iraq may be undereducated. Nothing could be further
from the truth, and as a veteran myself I know full well the kind of
dedication and sacrifice required of our service members on a daily
basis. Like most Americans, I am grateful for their service. The point
of my remark was intended to be that intellectual laziness is partially
responsible for the current administration being 'stuck in Iraq'. I
apologize for phrasing my remark so carelessly that it was possible to
be manipulated into a hurtful and inconsiderate statement. I apologize
to any service people or their families who were upset as a result of
the isolation from context and the mischaracterization of my remarks by
my political opponents. To our men and women serving in Iraq and
Afghanistan, specifically, I regret that your noble service and
sacrifice continues to be required and I want to assure you that more
of us now realize the most effective way to 'support our troops' is to
bring you home, as soon as strategically possible, and with honor."

So, IMO, that's what he should have said. But the fact that he responds
very poorly to political attacks is exactly why he isn't POTUS today,
and probably does not deserve to be in the future.

I'm now off to the corner to beat my head against the wall for getting
sucked into a political thread after avoiding participating in these
things for a long time. Damn hypocritical and less than perfect of you,
Gould.

A lot of horse pucky.

Kerry should have said, "I apologize to the troops in Iraq for making a
statement which implied their education was lacking. I meant to say Bush
was lacking in his."

Amen, case closed, nothing more need be said. He didn't need to say all the
crap he did, just as you don't need to defend his crap.

John Kerry strikes again..
 

"JohnH" wrote in message
...


Kerry should have said, "I apologize to the troops in Iraq for making a
statement which implied their education was lacking. I meant to say Bush
was lacking in his."

Amen, case closed, nothing more need be said. He didn't need to say all
the
crap he did, just as you don't need to defend his crap.

John? Is that you?

John Kerry strikes again..
 

On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 09:22:16 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 15:13:03 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

A holy war, but still a war was declared on the US many years ago .

I believe the holy war really started when we didn't go home after the
100 hour war in Kuwait like we said we would. THREE presidents had the
chance, none did.

I heard an interesting talk show last night, with Joseph Wilson (the
ambassador) as the guest. His ideas will enrage the faithful, but that's
to be expected. But, I was pleased to hear one of my own ideas (#1) backed
up by someone who had more information than I do.

1) Before the invasion, the region was as stable as anyone could have
possibly made it. We blew it.

2) Although our focus was the no-fly zone, there was virtually NO part of
Iraq where ANY aircraft could've taken off without our knowing about it.

3) Saddam was, in fact, hiding something very important before we invaded.
He was concealing how little he had, in terms of WMDs. Why did he do this?
Two reasons: First, he had to keep Iran wondering, in case they decided to
pull any stunts during what they perceived to be a time of Iraqi weakness.
Second, to keep his own people wondering, because internal support was
slowly but surely unraveling.

4) "He didn't conform to U.N. blah blah....": Wilson's comment on this was
twofold. It took us 50 years to win the Cold War. We were patient enough
to work for that long, with a threat that was real, and horrific. The only
reason Bush pulled the trigger is that the plan was in the works long
before 9/11.


Interesting, but I noticed an apparent contradiction:

1) Before the invasion, the region was as stable as anyone could have
possibly made it. We blew it.

3) ..... Second, to keep his own people wondering, because internal support
was
slowly but surely unraveling.

Eisboch


Quit being realistic!

John Kerry strikes again..
 

On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 15:23:14 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Eisboch" wrote in message
m...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 15:13:03 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

A holy war, but still a war was declared on the US many years ago .

I believe the holy war really started when we didn't go home after the
100 hour war in Kuwait like we said we would. THREE presidents had the
chance, none did.

I heard an interesting talk show last night, with Joseph Wilson (the
ambassador) as the guest. His ideas will enrage the faithful, but that's
to be expected. But, I was pleased to hear one of my own ideas (#1)
backed up by someone who had more information than I do.

1) Before the invasion, the region was as stable as anyone could have
possibly made it. We blew it.

2) Although our focus was the no-fly zone, there was virtually NO part of
Iraq where ANY aircraft could've taken off without our knowing about it.

3) Saddam was, in fact, hiding something very important before we
invaded. He was concealing how little he had, in terms of WMDs. Why did
he do this? Two reasons: First, he had to keep Iran wondering, in case
they decided to pull any stunts during what they perceived to be a time
of Iraqi weakness. Second, to keep his own people wondering, because
internal support was slowly but surely unraveling.

4) "He didn't conform to U.N. blah blah....": Wilson's comment on this
was twofold. It took us 50 years to win the Cold War. We were patient
enough to work for that long, with a threat that was real, and horrific.
The only reason Bush pulled the trigger is that the plan was in the works
long before 9/11.


Interesting, but I noticed an apparent contradiction:

1) Before the invasion, the region was as stable as anyone could have
possibly made it. We blew it.

3) ..... Second, to keep his own people wondering, because internal
support was
slowly but surely unraveling.

Eisboch

Not necessarily a contradiction. Causing his support to unravel MAY have
been our doing, through covert means. It's the coolest, most manly-man way
of dealing with such a situation. We won't really know until the history
books are written.


At least, that's what Brian Williams would have said. He's also a great
believer in the use of the word 'may'.

John Kerry strikes again..
 

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 15:23:14 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Eisboch" wrote in message
om...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 15:13:03 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

A holy war, but still a war was declared on the US many years ago .

I believe the holy war really started when we didn't go home after the
100 hour war in Kuwait like we said we would. THREE presidents had the
chance, none did.

I heard an interesting talk show last night, with Joseph Wilson (the
ambassador) as the guest. His ideas will enrage the faithful, but
that's
to be expected. But, I was pleased to hear one of my own ideas (#1)
backed up by someone who had more information than I do.

1) Before the invasion, the region was as stable as anyone could have
possibly made it. We blew it.

2) Although our focus was the no-fly zone, there was virtually NO part
of
Iraq where ANY aircraft could've taken off without our knowing about
it.

3) Saddam was, in fact, hiding something very important before we
invaded. He was concealing how little he had, in terms of WMDs. Why did
he do this? Two reasons: First, he had to keep Iran wondering, in case
they decided to pull any stunts during what they perceived to be a time
of Iraqi weakness. Second, to keep his own people wondering, because
internal support was slowly but surely unraveling.

4) "He didn't conform to U.N. blah blah....": Wilson's comment on this
was twofold. It took us 50 years to win the Cold War. We were patient
enough to work for that long, with a threat that was real, and
horrific.
The only reason Bush pulled the trigger is that the plan was in the
works
long before 9/11.


Interesting, but I noticed an apparent contradiction:

1) Before the invasion, the region was as stable as anyone could have
possibly made it. We blew it.

3) ..... Second, to keep his own people wondering, because internal
support was
slowly but surely unraveling.

Eisboch

Not necessarily a contradiction. Causing his support to unravel MAY have
been our doing, through covert means. It's the coolest, most manly-man way
of dealing with such a situation. We won't really know until the history
books are written.


At least, that's what Brian Williams would have said. He's also a great
believer in the use of the word 'may'.

Why does it matter? First of all, it's the job of the covert agencies to
maintain an endless web of doubt about their work. If they did otherwise,
you would not like it, and neither would I. And second, does it matter why
Saddam's support was beginning to fall apart? It's what we wanted. It all
would've revolved around dollars in the right places. Doesn't matter where
the dollars come from.

John Kerry strikes again..
 

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 09:22:16 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 15:13:03 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

A holy war, but still a war was declared on the US many years ago .

I believe the holy war really started when we didn't go home after the
100 hour war in Kuwait like we said we would. THREE presidents had the
chance, none did.

I heard an interesting talk show last night, with Joseph Wilson (the
ambassador) as the guest. His ideas will enrage the faithful, but that's
to be expected. But, I was pleased to hear one of my own ideas (#1)
backed
up by someone who had more information than I do.

1) Before the invasion, the region was as stable as anyone could have
possibly made it. We blew it.

2) Although our focus was the no-fly zone, there was virtually NO part
of
Iraq where ANY aircraft could've taken off without our knowing about it.

3) Saddam was, in fact, hiding something very important before we
invaded.
He was concealing how little he had, in terms of WMDs. Why did he do
this?
Two reasons: First, he had to keep Iran wondering, in case they decided
to
pull any stunts during what they perceived to be a time of Iraqi
weakness.
Second, to keep his own people wondering, because internal support was
slowly but surely unraveling.

4) "He didn't conform to U.N. blah blah....": Wilson's comment on this
was
twofold. It took us 50 years to win the Cold War. We were patient enough
to work for that long, with a threat that was real, and horrific. The
only
reason Bush pulled the trigger is that the plan was in the works long
before 9/11.


Interesting, but I noticed an apparent contradiction:

1) Before the invasion, the region was as stable as anyone could have
possibly made it. We blew it.

3) ..... Second, to keep his own people wondering, because internal
support
was
slowly but surely unraveling.

Eisboch


Quit being realistic!

Nobody really expected you to understand this, John. This is why you were
never recruited into the diplomatic service. Much too complex.

John Kerry strikes again..
 

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 03:24:38 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

I am curious. How did you get "snagged" by the Navy? To my knowledge the
Army was the only service that was drafting anybody.

I was in the recruiters office trying to join the Coast Guard. The
Navy grabbed me after I took all the tests and made me an offer. It
ended up really being a convoluted deal before it was over



Ah ... I misunderstood your use of the word "snagged".

I was young, in college and bored out of my mind. I finally quit and got a
job working for Boston Whaler. Shortly thereafter I received my
"Greetings" letter and immediately headed for the Navy recruitment center.

Eisboch

John Kerry strikes again..
 

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 13:40:20 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 15:13:03 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

A holy war, but still a war was declared on the US many years ago .

I believe the holy war really started when we didn't go home after the
100 hour war in Kuwait like we said we would. THREE presidents had the
chance, none did.

I heard an interesting talk show last night, with Joseph Wilson (the
ambassador) as the guest. His ideas will enrage the faithful, but that's
to
be expected. But, I was pleased to hear one of my own ideas (#1) backed up
by someone who had more information than I do.

1) Before the invasion, the region was as stable as anyone could have
possibly made it. We blew it.

2) Although our focus was the no-fly zone, there was virtually NO part of
Iraq where ANY aircraft could've taken off without our knowing about it.

3) Saddam was, in fact, hiding something very important before we invaded.
He was concealing how little he had, in terms of WMDs. Why did he do this?
Two reasons: First, he had to keep Iran wondering, in case they decided to
pull any stunts during what they perceived to be a time of Iraqi weakness.
Second, to keep his own people wondering, because internal support was
slowly but surely unraveling.

4) "He didn't conform to U.N. blah blah....": Wilson's comment on this was
twofold. It took us 50 years to win the Cold War. We were patient enough
to
work for that long, with a threat that was real, and horrific. The only
reason Bush pulled the trigger is that the plan was in the works long
before
9/11.



You have to remember the "no fly zones" were already a war. We bombed
Iraq virtually every day and were racking up a pretty good civillian
death toll. Most of the west had abandoned us long before we invaded.
Our occupation of arab land and killing people was the main
justification for the terrorism throughout the 90s.


What I recall hearing is about our bombing lots of anti-aircraft radar
installations when they turned them on and tried to target our aircraft. If
there were civilians working in those places, they knew the risks, just as
our civilians know the risks of working in such places. And, during the time
of enforcement, I seem to recall our losing something less than a dozen
personnel.

What's your point?

John Kerry strikes again..
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 03:24:38 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

I am curious. How did you get "snagged" by the Navy? To my knowledge
the
Army was the only service that was drafting anybody.

I was in the recruiters office trying to join the Coast Guard. The
Navy grabbed me after I took all the tests and made me an offer. It
ended up really being a convoluted deal before it was over



Ah ... I misunderstood your use of the word "snagged".

I was young, in college and bored out of my mind. I finally quit and got
a job working for Boston Whaler. Shortly thereafter I received my
"Greetings" letter and immediately headed for the Navy recruitment center.

Eisboch


I was working my way through college doing 1/2 time. So not enough units to
get a deferment. Draft notice went to the wrong address as mom had
remarried. Decided the AF was a better deal late 1964 early 1965.

John Kerry strikes again..
 

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 18:23:39 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

What I recall hearing is about our bombing lots of anti-aircraft radar
installations when they turned them on and tried to target our aircraft.
If
there were civilians working in those places, they knew the risks, just as
our civilians know the risks of working in such places. And, during the
time
of enforcement, I seem to recall our losing something less than a dozen
personnel.

Saddam put these installations in civillian aras. We blew the **** out
of them anyway.
Go look at some of the old stories coming out of the German, Italian
and French press during the 90s.
"What you recall hearing" is not what most of the world was saying. We
had better spin control in the 90s than we have today. For some reason
the American media and the liberal establishment was ignoring the
European press when they criticised our bombing war.

So....what's your point? It still wasn't a total free-for-all as it is now.
Even our military contractors loved it - the perfect situation for testing
anything they came up with, and stay ahead of whatever Saddam's people aimed
at us.

John Kerry strikes again..
 

On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 18:00:09 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .


Kerry should have said, "I apologize to the troops in Iraq for making a
statement which implied their education was lacking. I meant to say Bush
was lacking in his."

Amen, case closed, nothing more need be said. He didn't need to say all
the
crap he did, just as you don't need to defend his crap.

John? Is that you?


Good guess.

John Kerry strikes again..
 

On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 18:21:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 09:22:16 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 15:13:03 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

A holy war, but still a war was declared on the US many years ago .

I believe the holy war really started when we didn't go home after the
100 hour war in Kuwait like we said we would. THREE presidents had the
chance, none did.

I heard an interesting talk show last night, with Joseph Wilson (the
ambassador) as the guest. His ideas will enrage the faithful, but that's
to be expected. But, I was pleased to hear one of my own ideas (#1)
backed
up by someone who had more information than I do.

1) Before the invasion, the region was as stable as anyone could have
possibly made it. We blew it.

2) Although our focus was the no-fly zone, there was virtually NO part
of
Iraq where ANY aircraft could've taken off without our knowing about it.

3) Saddam was, in fact, hiding something very important before we
invaded.
He was concealing how little he had, in terms of WMDs. Why did he do
this?
Two reasons: First, he had to keep Iran wondering, in case they decided
to
pull any stunts during what they perceived to be a time of Iraqi
weakness.
Second, to keep his own people wondering, because internal support was
slowly but surely unraveling.

4) "He didn't conform to U.N. blah blah....": Wilson's comment on this
was
twofold. It took us 50 years to win the Cold War. We were patient enough
to work for that long, with a threat that was real, and horrific. The
only
reason Bush pulled the trigger is that the plan was in the works long
before 9/11.


Interesting, but I noticed an apparent contradiction:

1) Before the invasion, the region was as stable as anyone could have
possibly made it. We blew it.

3) ..... Second, to keep his own people wondering, because internal
support
was
slowly but surely unraveling.

Eisboch


Quit being realistic!

Nobody really expected you to understand this, John. This is why you were
never recruited into the diplomatic service. Much too complex.


Turn the recorder on so we can hear the music to which you're tap dancing!

John Kerry strikes again..
 

On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 18:20:23 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 15:23:14 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Eisboch" wrote in message
news:heWdnSCQAZKDYtTYnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@giganews. com...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 15:13:03 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

A holy war, but still a war was declared on the US many years ago .

I believe the holy war really started when we didn't go home after the
100 hour war in Kuwait like we said we would. THREE presidents had the
chance, none did.

I heard an interesting talk show last night, with Joseph Wilson (the
ambassador) as the guest. His ideas will enrage the faithful, but
that's
to be expected. But, I was pleased to hear one of my own ideas (#1)
backed up by someone who had more information than I do.

1) Before the invasion, the region was as stable as anyone could have
possibly made it. We blew it.

2) Although our focus was the no-fly zone, there was virtually NO part
of
Iraq where ANY aircraft could've taken off without our knowing about
it.

3) Saddam was, in fact, hiding something very important before we
invaded. He was concealing how little he had, in terms of WMDs. Why did
he do this? Two reasons: First, he had to keep Iran wondering, in case
they decided to pull any stunts during what they perceived to be a time
of Iraqi weakness. Second, to keep his own people wondering, because
internal support was slowly but surely unraveling.

4) "He didn't conform to U.N. blah blah....": Wilson's comment on this
was twofold. It took us 50 years to win the Cold War. We were patient
enough to work for that long, with a threat that was real, and
horrific.
The only reason Bush pulled the trigger is that the plan was in the
works
long before 9/11.


Interesting, but I noticed an apparent contradiction:

1) Before the invasion, the region was as stable as anyone could have
possibly made it. We blew it.

3) ..... Second, to keep his own people wondering, because internal
support was
slowly but surely unraveling.

Eisboch

Not necessarily a contradiction. Causing his support to unravel MAY have
been our doing, through covert means. It's the coolest, most manly-man way
of dealing with such a situation. We won't really know until the history
books are written.


At least, that's what Brian Williams would have said. He's also a great
believer in the use of the word 'may'.

Why does it matter? First of all, it's the job of the covert agencies to
maintain an endless web of doubt about their work. If they did otherwise,
you would not like it, and neither would I. And second, does it matter why
Saddam's support was beginning to fall apart? It's what we wanted. It all
would've revolved around dollars in the right places. Doesn't matter where
the dollars come from.


Tippity tappity, tippity tappity...

John Kerry strikes again..
 

On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 14:19:50 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 18:23:39 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

What I recall hearing is about our bombing lots of anti-aircraft radar
installations when they turned them on and tried to target our aircraft. If
there were civilians working in those places, they knew the risks, just as
our civilians know the risks of working in such places. And, during the time
of enforcement, I seem to recall our losing something less than a dozen
personnel.

Saddam put these installations in civillian aras. We blew the **** out
of them anyway.
Go look at some of the old stories coming out of the German, Italian
and French press during the 90s.
"What you recall hearing" is not what most of the world was saying. We
had better spin control in the 90s than we have today. For some reason
the American media and the liberal establishment was ignoring the
European press when they criticised our bombing war.

Not to be disagreeable, but I find it extremely hard to believe the
American (major) media and the liberal establishment would ignore articles
which were derogatory of the United States.

John Kerry strikes again..
 

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 18:20:23 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 15:23:14 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Eisboch" wrote in message
news:heWdnSCQAZKDYtTYnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@giganews .com...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 15:13:03 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

A holy war, but still a war was declared on the US many years ago .

I believe the holy war really started when we didn't go home after
the
100 hour war in Kuwait like we said we would. THREE presidents had
the
chance, none did.

I heard an interesting talk show last night, with Joseph Wilson (the
ambassador) as the guest. His ideas will enrage the faithful, but
that's
to be expected. But, I was pleased to hear one of my own ideas (#1)
backed up by someone who had more information than I do.

1) Before the invasion, the region was as stable as anyone could have
possibly made it. We blew it.

2) Although our focus was the no-fly zone, there was virtually NO
part
of
Iraq where ANY aircraft could've taken off without our knowing about
it.

3) Saddam was, in fact, hiding something very important before we
invaded. He was concealing how little he had, in terms of WMDs. Why
did
he do this? Two reasons: First, he had to keep Iran wondering, in
case
they decided to pull any stunts during what they perceived to be a
time
of Iraqi weakness. Second, to keep his own people wondering, because
internal support was slowly but surely unraveling.

4) "He didn't conform to U.N. blah blah....": Wilson's comment on
this
was twofold. It took us 50 years to win the Cold War. We were patient
enough to work for that long, with a threat that was real, and
horrific.
The only reason Bush pulled the trigger is that the plan was in the
works
long before 9/11.


Interesting, but I noticed an apparent contradiction:

1) Before the invasion, the region was as stable as anyone could have
possibly made it. We blew it.

3) ..... Second, to keep his own people wondering, because internal
support was
slowly but surely unraveling.

Eisboch

Not necessarily a contradiction. Causing his support to unravel MAY have
been our doing, through covert means. It's the coolest, most manly-man
way
of dealing with such a situation. We won't really know until the history
books are written.


At least, that's what Brian Williams would have said. He's also a great
believer in the use of the word 'may'.

Why does it matter? First of all, it's the job of the covert agencies to
maintain an endless web of doubt about their work. If they did otherwise,
you would not like it, and neither would I. And second, does it matter why
Saddam's support was beginning to fall apart? It's what we wanted. It all
would've revolved around dollars in the right places. Doesn't matter where
the dollars come from.


Tippity tappity, tippity tappity...

Address the issue, expert.

John Kerry strikes again..
 

On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 19:45:11 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 18:20:23 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 15:23:14 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Eisboch" wrote in message
news:heWdnSCQAZKDYtTYnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@giganew s.com...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 15:13:03 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

A holy war, but still a war was declared on the US many years ago .

I believe the holy war really started when we didn't go home after
the
100 hour war in Kuwait like we said we would. THREE presidents had
the
chance, none did.

I heard an interesting talk show last night, with Joseph Wilson (the
ambassador) as the guest. His ideas will enrage the faithful, but
that's
to be expected. But, I was pleased to hear one of my own ideas (#1)
backed up by someone who had more information than I do.

1) Before the invasion, the region was as stable as anyone could have
possibly made it. We blew it.

2) Although our focus was the no-fly zone, there was virtually NO
part
of
Iraq where ANY aircraft could've taken off without our knowing about
it.

3) Saddam was, in fact, hiding something very important before we
invaded. He was concealing how little he had, in terms of WMDs. Why
did
he do this? Two reasons: First, he had to keep Iran wondering, in
case
they decided to pull any stunts during what they perceived to be a
time
of Iraqi weakness. Second, to keep his own people wondering, because
internal support was slowly but surely unraveling.

4) "He didn't conform to U.N. blah blah....": Wilson's comment on
this
was twofold. It took us 50 years to win the Cold War. We were patient
enough to work for that long, with a threat that was real, and
horrific.
The only reason Bush pulled the trigger is that the plan was in the
works
long before 9/11.


Interesting, but I noticed an apparent contradiction:

1) Before the invasion, the region was as stable as anyone could have
possibly made it. We blew it.

3) ..... Second, to keep his own people wondering, because internal
support was
slowly but surely unraveling.

Eisboch

Not necessarily a contradiction. Causing his support to unravel MAY have
been our doing, through covert means. It's the coolest, most manly-man
way
of dealing with such a situation. We won't really know until the history
books are written.


At least, that's what Brian Williams would have said. He's also a great
believer in the use of the word 'may'.

Why does it matter? First of all, it's the job of the covert agencies to
maintain an endless web of doubt about their work. If they did otherwise,
you would not like it, and neither would I. And second, does it matter why
Saddam's support was beginning to fall apart? It's what we wanted. It all
would've revolved around dollars in the right places. Doesn't matter where
the dollars come from.


Tippity tappity, tippity tappity...

Address the issue, expert.


Which issue!!

You're like a blob of mercury. Every time you get backed in a corner you
squish out in a new direction!

It *is* fun to watch though.

John Kerry strikes again..
 

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 19:45:11 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 18:20:23 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
m...
On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 15:23:14 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Eisboch" wrote in message
news:heWdnSCQAZKDYtTYnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@gigane ws.com...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 15:13:03 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

A holy war, but still a war was declared on the US many years ago
.

I believe the holy war really started when we didn't go home after
the
100 hour war in Kuwait like we said we would. THREE presidents had
the
chance, none did.

I heard an interesting talk show last night, with Joseph Wilson
(the
ambassador) as the guest. His ideas will enrage the faithful, but
that's
to be expected. But, I was pleased to hear one of my own ideas (#1)
backed up by someone who had more information than I do.

1) Before the invasion, the region was as stable as anyone could
have
possibly made it. We blew it.

2) Although our focus was the no-fly zone, there was virtually NO
part
of
Iraq where ANY aircraft could've taken off without our knowing
about
it.

3) Saddam was, in fact, hiding something very important before we
invaded. He was concealing how little he had, in terms of WMDs. Why
did
he do this? Two reasons: First, he had to keep Iran wondering, in
case
they decided to pull any stunts during what they perceived to be a
time
of Iraqi weakness. Second, to keep his own people wondering,
because
internal support was slowly but surely unraveling.

4) "He didn't conform to U.N. blah blah....": Wilson's comment on
this
was twofold. It took us 50 years to win the Cold War. We were
patient
enough to work for that long, with a threat that was real, and
horrific.
The only reason Bush pulled the trigger is that the plan was in the
works
long before 9/11.


Interesting, but I noticed an apparent contradiction:

1) Before the invasion, the region was as stable as anyone could
have
possibly made it. We blew it.

3) ..... Second, to keep his own people wondering, because internal
support was
slowly but surely unraveling.

Eisboch

Not necessarily a contradiction. Causing his support to unravel MAY
have
been our doing, through covert means. It's the coolest, most manly-man
way
of dealing with such a situation. We won't really know until the
history
books are written.


At least, that's what Brian Williams would have said. He's also a
great
believer in the use of the word 'may'.

Why does it matter? First of all, it's the job of the covert agencies to
maintain an endless web of doubt about their work. If they did
otherwise,
you would not like it, and neither would I. And second, does it matter
why
Saddam's support was beginning to fall apart? It's what we wanted. It
all
would've revolved around dollars in the right places. Doesn't matter
where
the dollars come from.


Tippity tappity, tippity tappity...

Address the issue, expert.


Which issue!!

You're like a blob of mercury. Every time you get backed in a corner you
squish out in a new direction!

It *is* fun to watch though.

Since you responded with "tippity", I'll ask you first what that was a
response to. Look at the paragraph beginning with "Why does it matter?", and
be EXTREMELY specific about what you didn't grasp.

John Kerry strikes again..
 

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 19:25:37 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

Saddam put these installations in civillian aras. We blew the **** out
of them anyway.
Go look at some of the old stories coming out of the German, Italian
and French press during the 90s.
"What you recall hearing" is not what most of the world was saying. We
had better spin control in the 90s than we have today. For some reason
the American media and the liberal establishment was ignoring the
European press when they criticised our bombing war.

So....what's your point? It still wasn't a total free-for-all as it is
now.
Even our military contractors loved it - the perfect situation for testing
anything they came up with, and stay ahead of whatever Saddam's people
aimed
at us.


When the bomb hits your house it is the same.
I wasn't in favor of this war ... ever. I didn't lie to myself and say
the 1991-2001 part was any less of a war just because we were only
killing them..The tables really turned on 9/11/01 when they
demonstrated we were not untouchable.

I wasn't in favor of it, either. But here's the thing: Some say we ended the
"no fly" phase of the "war" because of U.N. pressure, kids were starving in
Iraq because they couldn't sell their oil blah blah blah. You remember that.
But then, we go to war and ignore what the U.N. and most of the world thinks
about it. Uh oh. Sounds like the U.N. excuse is only useful when convenient.