John Kerry strikes again..
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..

On 10/31/2006 11:54 AM, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
I know it's off topic and I apologize, but apparently he believes that
those who serve are dumbasses.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLuMWiQ6r2o




I think he was referring to Dumbya...getting stuck in Iraq.

He may of been, but it doesn't matter. The fact is that many took it as an
insult to those serving in the military ... correctly or not.

If he had any class or brains he would have immediately called a press
conference. clarified his statement and apologized for the misunderstanding.
He has not. In fact he refuses to. Instead, he is blaming the opposition
for using his screw-up to their political advantage.

Regardless of the interpretation of his statement, it was still not
something worthy of a sitting, senior United States senator. It was more
like something you and a few others would post in rec.boats.

I am absolutely disgusted with the behavior of many of our elected "leaders"
.... republicans and democrats.

Do you still have your information on Costa Rica? I might be interested.

Eisboch

John Kerry strikes again..
 

You can put whatever political spin on it you like but the reality is
that if you have a technical skill or a higher education you are much
more likely to avoid being a grunt on the front lines. Even if you do
end up in a branch of the military. Certainly there are those
exceptions that volunteer to serve even though they have the
credentials to avoid being cannon fodder. And hats off to them by all
means. But if you have a computer science degree you are very likely
to work in an operations center, not a patrol unit. And your chances
of taking enemy fire are far less. This issue came up repeatedly in
the vietnam era.

Eisboch wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..

On 10/31/2006 11:54 AM, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
I know it's off topic and I apologize, but apparently he believes that
those who serve are dumbasses.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLuMWiQ6r2o




I think he was referring to Dumbya...getting stuck in Iraq.

He may of been, but it doesn't matter. The fact is that many took it as an
insult to those serving in the military ... correctly or not.

If he had any class or brains he would have immediately called a press
conference. clarified his statement and apologized for the misunderstanding.
He has not. In fact he refuses to. Instead, he is blaming the opposition
for using his screw-up to their political advantage.

Regardless of the interpretation of his statement, it was still not
something worthy of a sitting, senior United States senator. It was more
like something you and a few others would post in rec.boats.

I am absolutely disgusted with the behavior of many of our elected "leaders"
... republicans and democrats.

Do you still have your information on Costa Rica? I might be interested.

Eisboch

John Kerry strikes again..
 

Making sense has no place in this discussion. Cut it out.


"jamesgangnc" wrote in message
ups.com...
You can put whatever political spin on it you like but the reality is
that if you have a technical skill or a higher education you are much
more likely to avoid being a grunt on the front lines. Even if you do
end up in a branch of the military. Certainly there are those
exceptions that volunteer to serve even though they have the
credentials to avoid being cannon fodder. And hats off to them by all
means. But if you have a computer science degree you are very likely
to work in an operations center, not a patrol unit. And your chances
of taking enemy fire are far less. This issue came up repeatedly in
the vietnam era.

Eisboch wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..

On 10/31/2006 11:54 AM, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
I know it's off topic and I apologize, but apparently he believes that
those who serve are dumbasses.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLuMWiQ6r2o




I think he was referring to Dumbya...getting stuck in Iraq.

He may of been, but it doesn't matter. The fact is that many took it as
an
insult to those serving in the military ... correctly or not.

If he had any class or brains he would have immediately called a press
conference. clarified his statement and apologized for the
misunderstanding.
He has not. In fact he refuses to. Instead, he is blaming the opposition
for using his screw-up to their political advantage.

Regardless of the interpretation of his statement, it was still not
something worthy of a sitting, senior United States senator. It was more
like something you and a few others would post in rec.boats.

I am absolutely disgusted with the behavior of many of our elected
"leaders"
... republicans and democrats.

Do you still have your information on Costa Rica? I might be interested.

Eisboch

John Kerry strikes again..
 

wrote in message
...
On 1 Nov 2006 06:37:49 -0800, "jamesgangnc"
wrote:

You can put whatever political spin on it you like but the reality is
that if you have a technical skill or a higher education you are much
more likely to avoid being a grunt on the front lines. ... This issue
came up repeatedly in
the vietnam era.


That is not true at all. College guys were more likely to get a
commission and the average lifespan of a 2d lT in Vietnam was measured
in hours.

Due to heavier dependence on technology, it may not be possible or sensible
to compare the two wars.

John Kerry strikes again..
 

Eisboch wrote:


If he had any class or brains he would have immediately called a press
conference. clarified his statement and apologized for the misunderstanding.
He has not. In fact he refuses to. Instead, he is blaming the opposition
for using his screw-up to their political advantage.

You missed the coverage of the press conference? Kerry was in Seattle
for at least part of yesterday, and the press conference may have been
held at the Westin- but in any event portions of it were shown on CNN.
Bush has very cleverly painted Kerry into a corner in this game of
political chess. If Kerry apologizes for the "misunderstanding", that
will be spun as an "apology for his insult to the troops- see, he knows
how wrong it was to insult the troops and furthermore he is
flip-flopping again!". Kerry should have read from his prepared text
and not tried to wing the original joke. He's not really a statesman,
and he's even less a comedian. (Prepared text of the original speech is
available in this morning's papers. This text is often handed out in
advance to the press covering speeches, so the original cameraman may
well have known that his clip was an attempt to capitalize on a
misstatement and did not represent Kerry's theme of the speech or his
intended remark).

Not to say that Kerry has brains or class, but the point I have been
trying to make throughout has been validated by additional revelation:
Any time somebody comes forward with a few seconds of a long speech,
snipped out of context, and proclaims "look what
so and so said" the evidence is dubious at best. The remark was part of
a series of "shots" Kerry was taking at Bush. It is George Bush, not
the troops, that finds himself and his administration "stuck in Iraq"
(due, in part, to poor pre-war intelligence as well as a disregard for
history and further disregard for expert advice). The reason for the
brevity of the clip is *exactly* as I theorized, the material on either
side of it would refute the spin that the administration is trying to
put on that 10 second extract of the speech.

Kerry isn't running for office this year, but the R's know for a fact
that a lot of voters will hear their spin on Kerry's remark and
conclude: "I'm a-gonna vote fer them thar Republicans thisa year.
Lookie here, them thar Democrats *all* think the troops is stupid!"
It's why the game of politics, as played today by both sides, is such
bull****. Everybody is pandering to people who vote emotionally rather
than thoughtfully evaluating individual candidates and issues. It's a
time when Republicans running for office against Democratic incumbents
are saddled with undeserved baggage over the Iraq war, when in some
cases the Democratic incumbents have supported the war until the last
year or so and of course the Republican challengers *never* voted on it
at all. The intellectually lazy will get sucked in by the rhetoric.
(See McGovern Vs Cantwell in WA State). Democrats running against
Republican incumbents are saddled with the Republican "trigger" issues;
gay marriage, abortion, etc- so there is plenty of dirt on both sides.

GWB has flubbed a few lines as well, and like every president I can
remember and almost certainly ever president before that he has been
subject to vicious criticism while in office. Politics is not for the
thin skinned.

John Kerry strikes again..
 

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
ups.com...

Eisboch wrote:


If he had any class or brains he would have immediately called a press
conference. clarified his statement and apologized for the
misunderstanding.
He has not. In fact he refuses to. Instead, he is blaming the opposition
for using his screw-up to their political advantage.

You missed the coverage of the press conference?

snipped a bunch for brevity, but *had* to leave this zinger:

Kerry isn't running for office this year, but the R's know for a fact
that a lot of voters will hear their spin on Kerry's remark and
conclude: "I'm a-gonna vote fer them thar Republicans thisa year.
Lookie here, them thar Democrats *all* think the troops is stupid!"


Even you, who loves to scold, lecture and preach on this NG about political
posts is playing damage control.

Eisboch

John Kerry strikes again..
 

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 15:35:32 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

That is not true at all. College guys were more likely to get a
commission and the average lifespan of a 2d lT in Vietnam was measured
in hours.

Due to heavier dependence on technology, it may not be possible or
sensible
to compare the two wars.

Both wars had one thing in common. A low tech car bomb or other
improvised explosive device will still kill you.

Yeah, but I was talking about what kinds of skills would land you in certain
jobs.

John Kerry strikes again..
 

It was pretty much just the generic 4 year ba's with no particular
usefulness that ended up as butter bars leading packs of 11 boom booms.
A decent engineering degree got you off the hook for that snafu.

The two wars had something else in common too, they are both about us
trying to force people we do not even understand to behave the way we
think they should.

wrote:
On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 15:35:32 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

That is not true at all. College guys were more likely to get a
commission and the average lifespan of a 2d lT in Vietnam was measured
in hours.

Due to heavier dependence on technology, it may not be possible or sensible
to compare the two wars.

Both wars had one thing in common. A low tech car bomb or other
improvised explosive device will still kill you.

John Kerry strikes again..
 

"jamesgangnc" wrote in message
ups.com...

The two wars had something else in common too, they are both about us
trying to force people we do not even understand to behave the way we
think they should.


Not even close to the same thing.

The war we are fighting today is much bigger, global and much more of a
direct threat to the citizens of this country. Iraq happens to be a staging
ground right now because there is no unified enemy in a central location.
Being in Iraq happens to draw them into sight and within range because we
can't be everywhere at once. The enemy is spread out throughout the world
and functions as an extremist religious sect. As time wears on we may see
some radical changes in the organization of our defense and military ....
smaller groups deployed in many areas. But that type of change is
monumental in scope and will take many years to accomplish.

A holy war, but still a war was declared on the US many years ago . The
"soldiers" are taught from birth that there is no such thing as negotiation,
diplomacy or compromise. Non-believers that will not convert are to die,
period, until there are none left, all in the service of Allah.

I am somewhat amazed and concerned that many treat this war as a remotely
controlled issue that really does not threaten or otherwise concern us,
other than being newsworthy and a subject of political debate. 9/11 was far
from being the first attack and Bin Laden is only one of many who lead their
crusade. When old men in wheelchairs are pushed overboard on a cruise ship
or innocent civilians have their heads loped off while begging for mercy
(video at 11) it is hard for me to not support the actions taken, errors
and all, by our government. What other choice is there? Negotiations?
With whom? Surrender and convert?

This day has been coming for 20 years. Now it's here.

One of the long standing policies of this nation was recently changed; that
being the use of pre-emptive action to avoid loss of lives. In view of this
kind of enemy, I couldn't agree more.

The threat to our nation and to our future generations is very real and
serious I am afraid. It is our responsibility to do something about it, as
painful as it may be. And, as has been said, it is not going to be easy.

Eisboch

John Kerry strikes again..
 

I had no idea you had this total nut job streak in you. Impressive.

Eisboch wrote:
"jamesgangnc" wrote in message
ups.com...

The two wars had something else in common too, they are both about us
trying to force people we do not even understand to behave the way we
think they should.


Not even close to the same thing.

The war we are fighting today is much bigger, global and much more of a
direct threat to the citizens of this country. Iraq happens to be a staging
ground right now because there is no unified enemy in a central location.
Being in Iraq happens to draw them into sight and within range because we
can't be everywhere at once. The enemy is spread out throughout the world
and functions as an extremist religious sect. As time wears on we may see
some radical changes in the organization of our defense and military ....
smaller groups deployed in many areas. But that type of change is
monumental in scope and will take many years to accomplish.

A holy war, but still a war was declared on the US many years ago . The
"soldiers" are taught from birth that there is no such thing as negotiation,
diplomacy or compromise. Non-believers that will not convert are to die,
period, until there are none left, all in the service of Allah.

I am somewhat amazed and concerned that many treat this war as a remotely
controlled issue that really does not threaten or otherwise concern us,
other than being newsworthy and a subject of political debate. 9/11 was far
from being the first attack and Bin Laden is only one of many who lead their
crusade. When old men in wheelchairs are pushed overboard on a cruise ship
or innocent civilians have their heads loped off while begging for mercy
(video at 11) it is hard for me to not support the actions taken, errors
and all, by our government. What other choice is there? Negotiations?
With whom? Surrender and convert?

This day has been coming for 20 years. Now it's here.

One of the long standing policies of this nation was recently changed; that
being the use of pre-emptive action to avoid loss of lives. In view of this
kind of enemy, I couldn't agree more.

The threat to our nation and to our future generations is very real and
serious I am afraid. It is our responsibility to do something about it, as
painful as it may be. And, as has been said, it is not going to be easy.

Eisboch

John Kerry strikes again..
 

"jamesgangnc" wrote in message
oups.com...

I had no idea you had this total nut job streak in you. Impressive.


Thanks. I try.

Eisboch

John Kerry strikes again..
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
The war we are fighting today is much bigger, global and much more of a
direct threat to the citizens of this country. Iraq happens to be a
staging ground right now because there is no unified enemy in a central
location. Being in Iraq happens to draw them into sight and within range
because we can't be everywhere at once. The enemy is spread out
throughout the world and functions as an extremist religious sect. As
time wears on we may see some radical changes in the organization of our
defense and military .... smaller groups deployed in many areas. But that
type of change is monumental in scope and will take many years to
accomplish.


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.

John Kerry strikes again..
 

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

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

I hope so, because they certainly were idiotic for the most part!

John Kerry strikes again..
 

"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

John Kerry strikes again..
 

"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.

John Kerry strikes again..
 

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message

GWB has flubbed a few lines as well, and like every president I can
remember and almost certainly ever president before that he has been
subject to vicious criticism while in office. Politics is not for the
thin skinned.


The punchline was **supposed** to read kinda like....

"study poorly and you might still grow up to be president, but you'll be
stuck in Iraq without the smarts to find a way out."

Any decent joke writer would have inserted a phrase to directly target Bush
as the butt of that joke.

I don't know who did worse.. the joke writer or Kerrys delivery. But the
GOP gets to have a lot of fun with it now.... and they ARE.

-W

John Kerry strikes again..
 

"Clams Canino" wrote in message
.net...

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message

GWB has flubbed a few lines as well, and like every president I can
remember and almost certainly ever president before that he has been
subject to vicious criticism while in office. Politics is not for the
thin skinned.


The punchline was **supposed** to read kinda like....

"study poorly and you might still grow up to be president, but you'll be
stuck in Iraq without the smarts to find a way out."

Any decent joke writer would have inserted a phrase to directly target
Bush
as the butt of that joke.

Why complicate it? My father used to say "Study hard, or you'll end up
pumping gas all your life". Replace this with "..or you could end up like
Bush".

John Kerry strikes again..
 

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message news:t782h.4581

Why complicate it? My father used to say "Study hard, or you'll end up
pumping gas all your life". Replace this with "..or you could end up like
Bush".


Either way.... he really screwed the pootch on his delivery.

-W

John Kerry strikes again..
 

On 1 Nov 2006 06:37:49 -0800, "jamesgangnc"
wrote:

You can put whatever political spin on it you like but the reality is
that if you have a technical skill or a higher education you are much
more likely to avoid being a grunt on the front lines. Even if you do
end up in a branch of the military. Certainly there are those
exceptions that volunteer to serve even though they have the
credentials to avoid being cannon fodder. And hats off to them by all
means. But if you have a computer science degree you are very likely
to work in an operations center, not a patrol unit. And your chances
of taking enemy fire are far less. This issue came up repeatedly in
the vietnam era.

He put no 'front line', 'grunt', 'Infantry', or other limits on his
proclamation. He put no limits on his proclamation calling us 'baby
killers' and 'rapists' when he returned from Vietnam.

He spoke his feelings.

John Kerry strikes again..
 

On 1 Nov 2006 11:01:00 -0800, "jamesgangnc"
wrote:

It was pretty much just the generic 4 year ba's with no particular
usefulness that ended up as butter bars leading packs of 11 boom booms.
A decent engineering degree got you off the hook for that snafu.

The two wars had something else in common too, they are both about us
trying to force people we do not even understand to behave the way we
think they should.

wrote:
On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 15:35:32 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

That is not true at all. College guys were more likely to get a
commission and the average lifespan of a 2d lT in Vietnam was measured
in hours.

Due to heavier dependence on technology, it may not be possible or sensible
to compare the two wars.

Both wars had one thing in common. A low tech car bomb or other
improvised explosive device will still kill you.

A decent engineering degree got you 'First In, Last Out'. For some reason
the Engineers usually got called on for the land clearing, mine clearing,
and booby trap clearing operations. Of course, we had Infantry security
right behind us!

John Kerry strikes again..
 

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


"jamesgangnc" wrote in message
oups.com...

The two wars had something else in common too, they are both about us
trying to force people we do not even understand to behave the way we
think they should.


Not even close to the same thing.

The war we are fighting today is much bigger, global and much more of a
direct threat to the citizens of this country. Iraq happens to be a staging
ground right now because there is no unified enemy in a central location.
Being in Iraq happens to draw them into sight and within range because we
can't be everywhere at once. The enemy is spread out throughout the world
and functions as an extremist religious sect. As time wears on we may see
some radical changes in the organization of our defense and military ....
smaller groups deployed in many areas. But that type of change is
monumental in scope and will take many years to accomplish.

A holy war, but still a war was declared on the US many years ago . The
"soldiers" are taught from birth that there is no such thing as negotiation,
diplomacy or compromise. Non-believers that will not convert are to die,
period, until there are none left, all in the service of Allah.

I am somewhat amazed and concerned that many treat this war as a remotely
controlled issue that really does not threaten or otherwise concern us,
other than being newsworthy and a subject of political debate. 9/11 was far
from being the first attack and Bin Laden is only one of many who lead their
crusade. When old men in wheelchairs are pushed overboard on a cruise ship
or innocent civilians have their heads loped off while begging for mercy
(video at 11) it is hard for me to not support the actions taken, errors
and all, by our government. What other choice is there? Negotiations?
With whom? Surrender and convert?

This day has been coming for 20 years. Now it's here.

One of the long standing policies of this nation was recently changed; that
being the use of pre-emptive action to avoid loss of lives. In view of this
kind of enemy, I couldn't agree more.

The threat to our nation and to our future generations is very real and
serious I am afraid. It is our responsibility to do something about it, as
painful as it may be. And, as has been said, it is not going to be easy.

Eisboch



The problem is that you seem to feel their is a threat to our security out
there, and it's not a threat that will go away if we just sit down, be
nice, give away some land, and play patty cake with the other side.

John Kerry strikes again..
 

On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 20:39:11 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Eisboch" wrote in message
m...
The war we are fighting today is much bigger, global and much more of a
direct threat to the citizens of this country. Iraq happens to be a
staging ground right now because there is no unified enemy in a central
location. Being in Iraq happens to draw them into sight and within range
because we can't be everywhere at once. The enemy is spread out
throughout the world and functions as an extremist religious sect. As
time wears on we may see some radical changes in the organization of our
defense and military .... smaller groups deployed in many areas. But that
type of change is monumental in scope and will take many years to
accomplish.


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.


You seem to forget that the NYTimes, the major media, and the ACLU don't
believe in 'hidden'.

At least you seem to believe that a threat *does* exist. That's a step in
the right direction.

John Kerry strikes again..
 

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 20:39:11 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Eisboch" wrote in message
om...
The war we are fighting today is much bigger, global and much more of a
direct threat to the citizens of this country. Iraq happens to be a
staging ground right now because there is no unified enemy in a central
location. Being in Iraq happens to draw them into sight and within range
because we can't be everywhere at once. The enemy is spread out
throughout the world and functions as an extremist religious sect. As
time wears on we may see some radical changes in the organization of our
defense and military .... smaller groups deployed in many areas. But
that
type of change is monumental in scope and will take many years to
accomplish.


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.


You seem to forget that the NYTimes, the major media, and the ACLU don't
believe in 'hidden'.

At least you seem to believe that a threat *does* exist. That's a step in
the right direction.

Contrary to what some believe, the NYT doesn't run the government. And, the
NYT gives more positive press to the covert services than you notice.

John Kerry strikes again..
 

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


"jamesgangnc" wrote in message
roups.com...

The two wars had something else in common too, they are both about us
trying to force people we do not even understand to behave the way we
think they should.


Not even close to the same thing.

The war we are fighting today is much bigger, global and much more of a
direct threat to the citizens of this country. Iraq happens to be a
staging
ground right now because there is no unified enemy in a central location.
Being in Iraq happens to draw them into sight and within range because we
can't be everywhere at once. The enemy is spread out throughout the world
and functions as an extremist religious sect. As time wears on we may see
some radical changes in the organization of our defense and military ....
smaller groups deployed in many areas. But that type of change is
monumental in scope and will take many years to accomplish.

A holy war, but still a war was declared on the US many years ago . The
"soldiers" are taught from birth that there is no such thing as
negotiation,
diplomacy or compromise. Non-believers that will not convert are to die,
period, until there are none left, all in the service of Allah.

I am somewhat amazed and concerned that many treat this war as a remotely
controlled issue that really does not threaten or otherwise concern us,
other than being newsworthy and a subject of political debate. 9/11 was
far
from being the first attack and Bin Laden is only one of many who lead
their
crusade. When old men in wheelchairs are pushed overboard on a cruise
ship
or innocent civilians have their heads loped off while begging for mercy
(video at 11) it is hard for me to not support the actions taken, errors
and all, by our government. What other choice is there? Negotiations?
With whom? Surrender and convert?

This day has been coming for 20 years. Now it's here.

One of the long standing policies of this nation was recently changed;
that
being the use of pre-emptive action to avoid loss of lives. In view of
this
kind of enemy, I couldn't agree more.

The threat to our nation and to our future generations is very real and
serious I am afraid. It is our responsibility to do something about it,
as
painful as it may be. And, as has been said, it is not going to be easy.

Eisboch



The problem is that you seem to feel their is a threat to our security out
there, and it's not a threat that will go away if we just sit down, be
nice, give away some land, and play patty cake with the other side.

Nobody believes that, John. But, you need to think that way, or you'd have
nothing to say.

John Kerry strikes again..
 

On 1 Nov 2006 08:31:44 -0800, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:


Eisboch wrote:


If he had any class or brains he would have immediately called a press
conference. clarified his statement and apologized for the misunderstanding.
He has not. In fact he refuses to. Instead, he is blaming the opposition
for using his screw-up to their political advantage.

You missed the coverage of the press conference? Kerry was in Seattle
for at least part of yesterday, and the press conference may have been
held at the Westin- but in any event portions of it were shown on CNN.
Bush has very cleverly painted Kerry into a corner in this game of
political chess. If Kerry apologizes for the "misunderstanding", that
will be spun as an "apology for his insult to the troops- see, he knows
how wrong it was to insult the troops and furthermore he is
flip-flopping again!". Kerry should have read from his prepared text
and not tried to wing the original joke. He's not really a statesman,
and he's even less a comedian. (Prepared text of the original speech is
available in this morning's papers. This text is often handed out in
advance to the press covering speeches, so the original cameraman may
well have known that his clip was an attempt to capitalize on a
misstatement and did not represent Kerry's theme of the speech or his
intended remark).

Not to say that Kerry has brains or class, but the point I have been
trying to make throughout has been validated by additional revelation:
Any time somebody comes forward with a few seconds of a long speech,
snipped out of context, and proclaims "look what
so and so said" the evidence is dubious at best. The remark was part of
a series of "shots" Kerry was taking at Bush. It is George Bush, not
the troops, that finds himself and his administration "stuck in Iraq"
(due, in part, to poor pre-war intelligence as well as a disregard for
history and further disregard for expert advice). The reason for the
brevity of the clip is *exactly* as I theorized, the material on either
side of it would refute the spin that the administration is trying to
put on that 10 second extract of the speech.

Kerry isn't running for office this year, but the R's know for a fact
that a lot of voters will hear their spin on Kerry's remark and
conclude: "I'm a-gonna vote fer them thar Republicans thisa year.
Lookie here, them thar Democrats *all* think the troops is stupid!"
It's why the game of politics, as played today by both sides, is such
bull****. Everybody is pandering to people who vote emotionally rather
than thoughtfully evaluating individual candidates and issues. It's a
time when Republicans running for office against Democratic incumbents
are saddled with undeserved baggage over the Iraq war, when in some
cases the Democratic incumbents have supported the war until the last
year or so and of course the Republican challengers *never* voted on it
at all. The intellectually lazy will get sucked in by the rhetoric.
(See McGovern Vs Cantwell in WA State). Democrats running against
Republican incumbents are saddled with the Republican "trigger" issues;
gay marriage, abortion, etc- so there is plenty of dirt on both sides.

GWB has flubbed a few lines as well, and like every president I can
remember and almost certainly ever president before that he has been
subject to vicious criticism while in office. Politics is not for the
thin skinned.

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.

John Kerry strikes again..
 

JohnH wrote:
On 1 Nov 2006 06:37:49 -0800, "jamesgangnc"
wrote:

You can put whatever political spin on it you like but the reality is
that if you have a technical skill or a higher education you are much
more likely to avoid being a grunt on the front lines. Even if you do
end up in a branch of the military. Certainly there are those
exceptions that volunteer to serve even though they have the
credentials to avoid being cannon fodder. And hats off to them by all
means. But if you have a computer science degree you are very likely
to work in an operations center, not a patrol unit. And your chances
of taking enemy fire are far less. This issue came up repeatedly in
the vietnam era.

He put no 'front line', 'grunt', 'Infantry', or other limits on his
proclamation. He put no limits on his proclamation calling us 'baby
killers' and 'rapists' when he returned from Vietnam.

Are you denying that those things didn't happen in Vietnam??
And for what it's worth, he didn't ever call any and everybody in
military uniform in Vietnam "baby killers and rapists".

John Kerry strikes again..
 

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

John Kerry strikes again..
 

"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.

John Kerry strikes again..
 

"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

John Kerry strikes again..
 

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

John Kerry strikes again..
 

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

John Kerry strikes again..
 

JohnH wrote:
On 1 Nov 2006 08:31:44 -0800, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:


Eisboch wrote:


If he had any class or brains he would have immediately called a press
conference. clarified his statement and apologized for the misunderstanding.
He has not. In fact he refuses to. Instead, he is blaming the opposition
for using his screw-up to their political advantage.

You missed the coverage of the press conference? Kerry was in Seattle
for at least part of yesterday, and the press conference may have been
held at the Westin- but in any event portions of it were shown on CNN.
Bush has very cleverly painted Kerry into a corner in this game of
political chess. If Kerry apologizes for the "misunderstanding", that
will be spun as an "apology for his insult to the troops- see, he knows
how wrong it was to insult the troops and furthermore he is
flip-flopping again!". Kerry should have read from his prepared text
and not tried to wing the original joke. He's not really a statesman,
and he's even less a comedian. (Prepared text of the original speech is
available in this morning's papers. This text is often handed out in
advance to the press covering speeches, so the original cameraman may
well have known that his clip was an attempt to capitalize on a
misstatement and did not represent Kerry's theme of the speech or his
intended remark).

Not to say that Kerry has brains or class, but the point I have been
trying to make throughout has been validated by additional revelation:
Any time somebody comes forward with a few seconds of a long speech,
snipped out of context, and proclaims "look what
so and so said" the evidence is dubious at best. The remark was part of
a series of "shots" Kerry was taking at Bush. It is George Bush, not
the troops, that finds himself and his administration "stuck in Iraq"
(due, in part, to poor pre-war intelligence as well as a disregard for
history and further disregard for expert advice). The reason for the
brevity of the clip is *exactly* as I theorized, the material on either
side of it would refute the spin that the administration is trying to
put on that 10 second extract of the speech.

Kerry isn't running for office this year, but the R's know for a fact
that a lot of voters will hear their spin on Kerry's remark and
conclude: "I'm a-gonna vote fer them thar Republicans thisa year.
Lookie here, them thar Democrats *all* think the troops is stupid!"
It's why the game of politics, as played today by both sides, is such
bull****. Everybody is pandering to people who vote emotionally rather
than thoughtfully evaluating individual candidates and issues. It's a
time when Republicans running for office against Democratic incumbents
are saddled with undeserved baggage over the Iraq war, when in some
cases the Democratic incumbents have supported the war until the last
year or so and of course the Republican challengers *never* voted on it
at all. The intellectually lazy will get sucked in by the rhetoric.
(See McGovern Vs Cantwell in WA State). Democrats running against
Republican incumbents are saddled with the Republican "trigger" issues;
gay marriage, abortion, etc- so there is plenty of dirt on both sides.

GWB has flubbed a few lines as well, and like every president I can
remember and almost certainly ever president before that he has been
subject to vicious criticism while in office. Politics is not for the
thin skinned.

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.

John Kerry strikes again..
 

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.

John Kerry strikes again..
 

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
ups.com...

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.

No he didn't. He was forced to apologize by his own party. If he really
meant it he would have done so immediately following his statement or
yesterday at the latest. He did neither.

He belongs in a hole.

John Kerry strikes again..
 

"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.

John Kerry strikes again..
 

"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

John Kerry strikes again..
 

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

John Kerry strikes again..
 

"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. ;-)

John Kerry strikes again..
 

wrote in message
...


I am not sure what skill would really ensure your safety. College
education certainly wouldn't help much. That is where those second
louies came from. I had an electronic education and I got snagged by
the Navy and later the Coast Guard... pretty safe.
If I got snagged by the air force or army ... not so much. I could
have just as easily been in a B-52 over Hanoi or carrying a backpack
radio in the tall grass.

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

Eisboch

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.

The Islam initiated Jihad originated about 14 centuries ago and was based on
the complete eradication, by force, of "non believers" throughout the world.
In modern times followers of Islam became more acceptant of other religions,
but a resurgence of the original fundamentalists beliefs of non-tolerance
has been growing in recent years led by religious fanatics like Ruhollah
Musavi Khomeini (the Ayatollah) in Iran. He completely surprised the rest
of the world in 1979 when he successfully regained control of Iran with
mostly full support by Iran's population.

Eisboch