wrote:
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.

The holy war started about 1000 years ago.

Islam has a patient following.

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

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
news
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?

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.

"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

"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.

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.

"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?

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!

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'.

"JohnH" wrote in message
news
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.