"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...



This conflict will require a much smarter approach. Unfortunately, much of
it must be hidden. And, what does NOT need to be hidden makes for lousy TV
footage, for those among us who need to see weapons in action in order to
think something is being accomplished. Or, in order to get a rush or an
erection, and then base their voting decisions on these sensations. War
for the sake of war is the result of a mind that never passed the age of
16.

My prediction is that the methods we tried in Iraq will be obsolete in the
near future.


I agree ... except for the 16 year old mindset thing. The inertia of our
defense structure will take years to modify and change ... step by step. In
the meantime, big guns is all we have and are structured for.

We are going to have to accept actions that we never tolerated publicly
before. Assassinations without obvious, justifiable cause and other covert
actions that have disturbed the public in the past.

I hope I am wrong in my personal assessment. I'd like nothing better to be
remembered as a concerned nut that was wrong.

Eisboch

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...



This conflict will require a much smarter approach. Unfortunately, much
of it must be hidden. And, what does NOT need to be hidden makes for
lousy TV footage, for those among us who need to see weapons in action in
order to think something is being accomplished. Or, in order to get a
rush or an erection, and then base their voting decisions on these
sensations. War for the sake of war is the result of a mind that never
passed the age of 16.

My prediction is that the methods we tried in Iraq will be obsolete in
the near future.


I agree ... except for the 16 year old mindset thing. The inertia of our
defense structure will take years to modify and change ... step by step.
In the meantime, big guns is all we have and are structured for.

I've heard a few interviews with military people who've been in Iraq. Some
of these guys sounded like they really would rather we had never gone to
Iraq. I don't think the overall strategy came from the military. It came
from people like Paul Wolfowitz, who none of us ever voted for. The real
problem is that people behind the scenes are able to get to the president
with insane ideas. Consider the stupidity of the domino theory, for example.
Its authors later recanted that nonsense.



We are going to have to accept actions that we never tolerated publicly
before. Assassinations without obvious, justifiable cause and other
covert actions that have disturbed the public in the past.

I've never had issues with such methods, as long as they're not used to
eliminate people who simply have a label we don't like, like "leftists" in
South America. There are people in our government who know the difference
between an annoyance and a threat. If only we had a manager who knew how to
act upon threats, we'd be in much better shape.

On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 15:47:44 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...



This conflict will require a much smarter approach. Unfortunately, much of
it must be hidden. And, what does NOT need to be hidden makes for lousy TV
footage, for those among us who need to see weapons in action in order to
think something is being accomplished. Or, in order to get a rush or an
erection, and then base their voting decisions on these sensations. War
for the sake of war is the result of a mind that never passed the age of
16.

My prediction is that the methods we tried in Iraq will be obsolete in the
near future.


I agree ... except for the 16 year old mindset thing. The inertia of our
defense structure will take years to modify and change ... step by step. In
the meantime, big guns is all we have and are structured for.

We are going to have to accept actions that we never tolerated publicly
before. Assassinations without obvious, justifiable cause and other covert
actions that have disturbed the public in the past.

I hope I am wrong in my personal assessment. I'd like nothing better to be
remembered as a concerned nut that was wrong.

I wrote a pretty long reply to your post that got you called "nut
job." It was in vehement disagreement, and addressed the "fear
factor" aspect, noting in some detail how backward muslims compare
to a few thousand Soviet nukes waiting to launch at us.
Included some notes on globalism, etc.
But I tossed it because it might be a bit incendiary, and I want
to get all the advice I can suck out of this group before I start
antagonizing the advice-givers.
Seeing how level-headed the banter is here compared to some other
groups, I'm glad I tossed it. But I toss most of my "political" posts
now unless I'm really bored. It's fun writing them, though. Might
be compared to posting in a boat group, but not having a boat.

--Vic

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 15:47:44 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...



This conflict will require a much smarter approach. Unfortunately, much
of
it must be hidden. And, what does NOT need to be hidden makes for lousy
TV
footage, for those among us who need to see weapons in action in order
to
think something is being accomplished. Or, in order to get a rush or an
erection, and then base their voting decisions on these sensations. War
for the sake of war is the result of a mind that never passed the age of
16.

My prediction is that the methods we tried in Iraq will be obsolete in
the
near future.


I agree ... except for the 16 year old mindset thing. The inertia of our
defense structure will take years to modify and change ... step by step.
In
the meantime, big guns is all we have and are structured for.

We are going to have to accept actions that we never tolerated publicly
before. Assassinations without obvious, justifiable cause and other
covert
actions that have disturbed the public in the past.

I hope I am wrong in my personal assessment. I'd like nothing better to
be
remembered as a concerned nut that was wrong.

I wrote a pretty long reply to your post that got you called "nut
job." It was in vehement disagreement, and addressed the "fear
factor" aspect, noting in some detail how backward muslims compare
to a few thousand Soviet nukes waiting to launch at us.
Included some notes on globalism, etc.
But I tossed it because it might be a bit incendiary, and I want
to get all the advice I can suck out of this group before I start
antagonizing the advice-givers.
Seeing how level-headed the banter is here compared to some other
groups, I'm glad I tossed it. But I toss most of my "political" posts
now unless I'm really bored. It's fun writing them, though. Might
be compared to posting in a boat group, but not having a boat.

--Vic

:-) Not having a boat....where have I heard THAT before? I'm emailing youse
3 beers.

On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 22:39:40 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
It's fun writing them, though. Might
be compared to posting in a boat group, but not having a boat.

--Vic

:-) Not having a boat....where have I heard THAT before? I'm emailing youse
3 beers.

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

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 22:39:40 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
It's fun writing them, though. Might
be compared to posting in a boat group, but not having a boat.

--Vic

:-) Not having a boat....where have I heard THAT before? I'm emailing
youse
3 beers.

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.

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 22:39:40 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
It's fun writing them, though. Might
be compared to posting in a boat group, but not having a boat.

--Vic

:-) Not having a boat....where have I heard THAT before? I'm emailing
youse
3 beers.

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

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

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...

Seeing how level-headed the banter is here compared to some other
groups, I'm glad I tossed it. But I toss most of my "political" posts
now unless I'm really bored. It's fun writing them, though. Might
be compared to posting in a boat group, but not having a boat.

--Vic

Like most NG's this stuff peaks around election time for some reason.
Most of the time though, it's somewhat civil here and there is a wealth of
experience, boating and otherwise. I try to maintain a sense of humor, but
sometimes I find my limit.

Welcome to rec.boats. Hope you stick around and tell us of your boating
adventures in Florida.

Eisboch

On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 17:58:50 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


Welcome to rec.boats. Hope you stick around and tell us of your boating
adventures in Florida.

Thanks. Hope I get those adventures!

--Vic