On Dec 22, 10:17*am, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Dec 22, 10:00 am, HK wrote:
Steve wrote:
On 21-Dec-2007, "Mike" wrote:
Harry, do you honestly mean that we (the U.S.) would be better off with no
military?
What's the difference? - we have a great military and no country.
Actually, all we have is a military that can take on and defeat some
third, fourth or fifth-rate countries in the world. We do not have a
military that could take on the Red Chinese or, in a few years, the
Russians.

What we don't have is the ability to defeat *some* third, fourth, or
fifth-rate countries and then rebuild them into something we like, which
was the fantasy of the idiots in the Bush Administration.

We got our butts handed to us in Vietnam by a practically non-country
armed with little more than the determination of its leaders and
followers. We fought to no better than a draw in Korea.

The last serious, bigtime war our military won was WW II, and that only
with the help of many allies around the world.

Our most successful military activity of the last 50 years was George
H.W. Bush's repulsion of Iraq from Kuwait. He, unlike his son, was smart
enough to know what to do, how to do it, who to involve and when to get
out.

Oh, our military could win almost any war if lunatics like you would
just let them shoot back

Yeah, that's the fantasy, you got it. There was plenty of "shooting
back" in Iraq and Vietnam. Our military defeated Iraq's military. Big deal..- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Iraq is free, the surge is working, they are passing laws at least as
effectively as the current congress, oh yeah, and there has been less
individual attacks against innocent Americans during this
administration than there was in the last... 1 + 1 is still 2.

On Dec 22, 10:28*am, wrote:
On Dec 22, 10:17*am, HK wrote:





wrote:
On Dec 22, 10:00 am, HK wrote:
Steve wrote:
On 21-Dec-2007, "Mike" wrote:
Harry, do you honestly mean that we (the U.S.) would be better off with no
military?
What's the difference? - we have a great military and no country.
Actually, all we have is a military that can take on and defeat some
third, fourth or fifth-rate countries in the world. We do not have a
military that could take on the Red Chinese or, in a few years, the
Russians.

What we don't have is the ability to defeat *some* third, fourth, or
fifth-rate countries and then rebuild them into something we like, which
was the fantasy of the idiots in the Bush Administration.

We got our butts handed to us in Vietnam by a practically non-country
armed with little more than the determination of its leaders and
followers. We fought to no better than a draw in Korea.

The last serious, bigtime war our military won was WW II, and that only
with the help of many allies around the world.

Our most successful military activity of the last 50 years was George
H.W. Bush's repulsion of Iraq from Kuwait. He, unlike his son, was smart
enough to know what to do, how to do it, who to involve and when to get
out.

Oh, our military could win almost any war if lunatics like you would
just let them shoot back

Yeah, that's the fantasy, you got it. There was plenty of "shooting
back" in Iraq and Vietnam. Our military defeated Iraq's military. Big deal.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Iraq is free, the surge is working, they are passing laws at least as
effectively as the current congress, oh yeah, and there has been less
individual attacks against innocent Americans during this
administration than there was in the last... 1 + 1 is still 2.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh yeah, the Taliban did not have a predicted "surge" this summer,
they were much too busy dodging special forces to do much of anything
else, and we are addressing other threats like Iran and Korea, instead
of selling them our technology like the last admin... oh well, we all
know how that went

wrote:
On Dec 22, 10:17 am, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Dec 22, 10:00 am, HK wrote:
Steve wrote:
On 21-Dec-2007, "Mike" wrote:
Harry, do you honestly mean that we (the U.S.) would be better off with no
military?
What's the difference? - we have a great military and no country.
Actually, all we have is a military that can take on and defeat some
third, fourth or fifth-rate countries in the world. We do not have a
military that could take on the Red Chinese or, in a few years, the
Russians.
What we don't have is the ability to defeat *some* third, fourth, or
fifth-rate countries and then rebuild them into something we like, which
was the fantasy of the idiots in the Bush Administration.
We got our butts handed to us in Vietnam by a practically non-country
armed with little more than the determination of its leaders and
followers. We fought to no better than a draw in Korea.
The last serious, bigtime war our military won was WW II, and that only
with the help of many allies around the world.
Our most successful military activity of the last 50 years was George
H.W. Bush's repulsion of Iraq from Kuwait. He, unlike his son, was smart
enough to know what to do, how to do it, who to involve and when to get
out.
Oh, our military could win almost any war if lunatics like you would
just let them shoot back
Yeah, that's the fantasy, you got it. There was plenty of "shooting
back" in Iraq and Vietnam. Our military defeated Iraq's military. Big deal.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Iraq is free, the surge is working, they are passing laws at least as
effectively as the current congress, oh yeah, and there has been less
individual attacks against innocent Americans during this
administration than there was in the last... 1 + 1 is still 2.


Cripes. You sound like one of the Bush Admin apologists.

This line of yours is incredible:

" less individual attacks against innocent Americans during this
administration than there was in the last... 1 + 1 is still 2."

3000+ innocent Americans died on 9-11. That was during *this*
administration.

"HK" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:
On Dec 22, 10:17 am, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Dec 22, 10:00 am, HK wrote:
Steve wrote:
On 21-Dec-2007, "Mike" wrote:
Harry, do you honestly mean that we (the U.S.) would be better off
with no
military?
What's the difference? - we have a great military and no country.
Actually, all we have is a military that can take on and defeat some
third, fourth or fifth-rate countries in the world. We do not have a
military that could take on the Red Chinese or, in a few years, the
Russians.
What we don't have is the ability to defeat *some* third, fourth, or
fifth-rate countries and then rebuild them into something we like,
which
was the fantasy of the idiots in the Bush Administration.
We got our butts handed to us in Vietnam by a practically non-country
armed with little more than the determination of its leaders and
followers. We fought to no better than a draw in Korea.
The last serious, bigtime war our military won was WW II, and that
only
with the help of many allies around the world.
Our most successful military activity of the last 50 years was George
H.W. Bush's repulsion of Iraq from Kuwait. He, unlike his son, was
smart
enough to know what to do, how to do it, who to involve and when to
get
out.
Oh, our military could win almost any war if lunatics like you would
just let them shoot back
Yeah, that's the fantasy, you got it. There was plenty of "shooting
back" in Iraq and Vietnam. Our military defeated Iraq's military. Big
deal.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Iraq is free, the surge is working, they are passing laws at least as
effectively as the current congress, oh yeah, and there has been less
individual attacks against innocent Americans during this
administration than there was in the last... 1 + 1 is still 2.


Cripes. You sound like one of the Bush Admin apologists.

This line of yours is incredible:

" less individual attacks against innocent Americans during this
administration than there was in the last... 1 + 1 is still 2."

3000+ innocent Americans died on 9-11. That was during *this*
administration.

Lets count 9/11 as one attack. The last one had an attack on the WTC, the
USS Cole, a bunch of embassies, and probably a few others I can not recall
at the moment.

On Dec 22, 1:42*pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"HK" wrote in message

. ..





wrote:
On Dec 22, 10:17 am, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Dec 22, 10:00 am, HK wrote:
Steve wrote:
On 21-Dec-2007, "Mike" wrote:
Harry, do you honestly mean that we (the U.S.) would be better off
with no
military?
What's the difference? - we have a great military and no country.
Actually, all we have is a military that can take on and defeat some
third, fourth or fifth-rate countries in the world. We do not have a
military that could take on the Red Chinese or, in a few years, the
Russians.
What we don't have is the ability to defeat *some* third, fourth, or
fifth-rate countries and then rebuild them into something we like,
which
was the fantasy of the idiots in the Bush Administration.
We got our butts handed to us in Vietnam by a practically non-country
armed with little more than the determination of its leaders and
followers. We fought to no better than a draw in Korea.
The last serious, bigtime war our military won was WW II, and that
only
with the help of many allies around the world.
Our most successful military activity of the last 50 years was George
H.W. Bush's repulsion of Iraq from Kuwait. He, unlike his son, was
smart
enough to know what to do, how to do it, who to involve and when to
get
out.
Oh, our military could win almost any war if lunatics like you would
just let them shoot back
Yeah, that's the fantasy, you got it. There was plenty of "shooting
back" in Iraq and Vietnam. Our military defeated Iraq's military. Big
deal.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Iraq is free, the surge is working, they are passing laws at least as
effectively as the current congress, oh yeah, and there has been less
individual attacks against innocent Americans during this
administration than there was in the last... 1 + 1 is still 2.

Cripes. You sound like one of the Bush Admin apologists.

This line of yours is incredible:

" less individual attacks against innocent Americans during this
*administration than there was in the last... 1 + 1 is still 2."

3000+ innocent Americans died on 9-11. That was during *this*
administration.

Lets count 9/11 as one attack. *The last one had an attack on the WTC, the
USS Cole, a bunch of embassies, and probably a few others I can not recall
at the moment.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Harry has comprehension problems when it comes to ideology, and he
calls me simple...

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:42:39 -0800, Calif Bill wrote:


Lets count 9/11 as one attack. The last one had an attack on the WTC,
the USS Cole, a bunch of embassies, and probably a few others I can not
recall at the moment.

Well, if we are talking embassies, let's not forget the 2002 bombing in
Karachi.

Then there's:
The 2003 bombings Riyadh.

The 2004 kidnapping of Paul Johnson (an American).

Again, in 2004, the storming of the consulate in Jeddah.

In 2005, bombings of the Radisson, Grand Hyatt and the Days Inn all in
Amman.

Comparing terrorist attacks under Bush or Clinton's watch, really is
silly. We all know, or should know, Reagan holds the record.

On Dec 22, 3:51*pm, wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:42:39 -0800, Calif Bill wrote:
Lets count 9/11 as one attack. *The last one had an attack on the WTC,
the USS Cole, a bunch of embassies, and probably a few others I can not
recall at the moment.

Well, if we are talking embassies, let's not forget the 2002 bombing in
Karachi.

Then there's:
The 2003 bombings Riyadh.

The 2004 kidnapping of Paul Johnson (an American).

Again, in 2004, the storming of the consulate in Jeddah.

In 2005, bombings of the Radisson, Grand Hyatt and the Days Inn all in
Amman.

Comparing terrorist attacks under Bush or Clinton's watch, really is
silly. *We all know, or should know, Reagan holds the record.

Who do you suppose holds the record for threads based on imaginary
communications??

On Dec 22, 3:57*pm, wrote:


Who do you suppose holds the record for threads based on imaginary
communications??- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ask me, I know.

Is it the same person who lives an imaginary life in rec.boats?

On Dec 23, 7:35*am, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:
On Dec 22, 3:57*pm, wrote:



Who do you suppose holds the record for threads based on imaginary
communications??- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ask me, I know.

Is it the same person who lives an imaginary life in rec.boats?

And constantly spews insults and trolls on the level of an 8 yo. I
think the last time I misspelled someones name to insult them, I still
had recess and nap at school. I get the feeling that this is a very
scared little man...

On 22-Dec-2007, HK wrote:

Cripes. You sound like one of the Bush Admin apologists.

This line of yours is incredible:

" less individual attacks against innocent Americans during this
administration than there was in the last... 1 + 1 is still 2."

3000+ innocent Americans died on 9-11. That was during *this*
administration.

It isn't Bush's fault alone - it's the soft belly bedwetting "American"
public that demands gentle battle. You hear the same kind of crap from the
scum in congress, daily.

The Iraq war, which never should have happened, was nevertheless over in
3-1/2 weeks. What has been going on for the subsequent 4 years is
attempting to civilize the savages while ****ing hundreds of billions of
dollars down the ****ter so the enemy will have better infrastrucre when the
US leaves in 2090. By then, the average Walmart voter will not remember all
the excuses about why we went there in the first place.