John H. wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 00:08:49 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
news
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 23:36:35 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
We once sold weapons to Iran to help "protect" us. We gave weapons to
the
Taliban. We sell weapons to Pakistan. It's all very stupid when viewed
in
the context of history, which our current president seems to know
nothing
about.

Lots of things seem "stupid" in the Monday morning quarterbacking of
history. You have to remember that previous policies and actions were
based on the conditions at that time and the inertia of foreign
relationships don't change overnight.

Eisboch


Right now is not Monday morning. Conditions do not warrant selling more
weapons to Saudi Arabia, many of whose citizens are as crazy and ****ed
off
as OBL, and are just aching for a shot at the royal family.

If I'm not mistaken, Congress has to approve the sale. Surely the Democrat
controlled Congress will have the same smarts you do.
--
John H

Apparently, they don't. It would be interesting to take a look at their
corporate contributors.


"The arms sale, which Congress has 30 days to review, would amount to $20
billion worth of weapons, including precision-guided bombs. It is "a pretty
big package, lots of pieces," national security adviser Stephen Hadley told
reporters on Air Force One." http://tinyurl.com/2gjepn

Would it be better if they bought the weapons from the Russians or the
Chinese? Then you'd be bitching about outsourcing more weapons building
jobs.

Those items are built in a couple of somebody's home districts.

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 00:27:51 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 00:08:49 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
news On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 23:36:35 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Eisboch" wrote in message
news:6tSdnbkgeP4fDhPanZ2dnUVZ_gSdnZ2d@gigane ws.com...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...

We once sold weapons to Iran to help "protect" us. We gave weapons
to
the
Taliban. We sell weapons to Pakistan. It's all very stupid when
viewed
in
the context of history, which our current president seems to know
nothing
about.


Lots of things seem "stupid" in the Monday morning quarterbacking of
history. You have to remember that previous policies and actions
were
based on the conditions at that time and the inertia of foreign
relationships don't change overnight.

Eisboch



Right now is not Monday morning. Conditions do not warrant selling
more
weapons to Saudi Arabia, many of whose citizens are as crazy and
****ed
off
as OBL, and are just aching for a shot at the royal family.


If I'm not mistaken, Congress has to approve the sale. Surely the
Democrat
controlled Congress will have the same smarts you do.
--
John H


Apparently, they don't. It would be interesting to take a look at their
corporate contributors.


"The arms sale, which Congress has 30 days to review, would amount to
$20
billion worth of weapons, including precision-guided bombs. It is "a
pretty
big package, lots of pieces," national security adviser Stephen Hadley
told
reporters on Air Force One." http://tinyurl.com/2gjepn

Would it be better if they bought the weapons from the Russians or the
Chinese? Then you'd be bitching about outsourcing more weapons building
jobs.


Loss of jobs does not justify selling weapons to the country we know is
our
primary enemy in the war on Islamic terrorists. Go back to sleep, John.


Would it be better if they bought the weapons from the Russians or the
Chinese? Are you too much a pansy to answer the question you skipped?
--
John H

Yes, it would be better. Then, we would have yet another reason to place
their country under totally new management, permanently, including their oil
wells, and execute every member of the royal family. On television.

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 13:34:53 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Jan 16, 4:32*pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"D.Duck" wrote in message

news


"Joe" is Doug, a fairly typical upstate New Yorker.

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...

"John H." wrote in message
Yes, it would be better. Then, we would have yet another reason to place
their country under totally new management, permanently, including their
oil wells, and execute every member of the royal family. On television.


A re-run of Iraq, huh?

Eisboch

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...

"John H." wrote in message
Yes, it would be better. Then, we would have yet another reason to place
their country under totally new management, permanently, including their
oil wells, and execute every member of the royal family. On television.


A re-run of Iraq, huh?

Eisboch


Sorry. Screwed up the cut. Attribute to John H. is in error.

Eisboch

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 00:57:58 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 00:27:51 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 00:08:49 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
news On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 23:36:35 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Eisboch" wrote in message
news:6tSdnbkgeP4fDhPanZ2dnUVZ_gSdnZ2d@gigan ews.com...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...

We once sold weapons to Iran to help "protect" us. We gave weapons
to
the
Taliban. We sell weapons to Pakistan. It's all very stupid when
viewed
in
the context of history, which our current president seems to know
nothing
about.


Lots of things seem "stupid" in the Monday morning quarterbacking of
history. You have to remember that previous policies and actions
were
based on the conditions at that time and the inertia of foreign
relationships don't change overnight.

Eisboch



Right now is not Monday morning. Conditions do not warrant selling
more
weapons to Saudi Arabia, many of whose citizens are as crazy and
****ed
off
as OBL, and are just aching for a shot at the royal family.


If I'm not mistaken, Congress has to approve the sale. Surely the
Democrat
controlled Congress will have the same smarts you do.
--
John H


Apparently, they don't. It would be interesting to take a look at their
corporate contributors.


"The arms sale, which Congress has 30 days to review, would amount to
$20
billion worth of weapons, including precision-guided bombs. It is "a
pretty
big package, lots of pieces," national security adviser Stephen Hadley
told
reporters on Air Force One." http://tinyurl.com/2gjepn

Would it be better if they bought the weapons from the Russians or the
Chinese? Then you'd be bitching about outsourcing more weapons building
jobs.


Loss of jobs does not justify selling weapons to the country we know is
our
primary enemy in the war on Islamic terrorists. Go back to sleep, John.


Would it be better if they bought the weapons from the Russians or the
Chinese? Are you too much a pansy to answer the question you skipped?
--
John H

Yes, it would be better. Then, we would have yet another reason to place
their country under totally new management, permanently, including their oil
wells, and execute every member of the royal family. On television.


With the Russians or Chinese backing them? Did you put your head in the
sand there?
--
John H

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 20:12:38 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...

"John H." wrote in message
Yes, it would be better. Then, we would have yet another reason to place
their country under totally new management, permanently, including their
oil wells, and execute every member of the royal family. On television.


A re-run of Iraq, huh?

Eisboch


Sorry. Screwed up the cut. Attribute to John H. is in error.

Eisboch


No sweat.
--
John H

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:32:42 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

To participate here you need to be unbalanced.

Heh.

The basic problem on this group is too many northern boaters with
nothing to do for 6 months of the year (with apologies to those doing
January sea trials in New England).

Posted at anchor near Big Pine Key, FL

Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:32:42 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

To participate here you need to be unbalanced.

Heh.

The basic problem on this group is too many northern boaters with
nothing to do for 6 months of the year (with apologies to those doing
January sea trials in New England).

Posted at anchor near Big Pine Key, FL






Perhaps you can wade ashore and pick up a pie at Key West Key Lime Pie.

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 21:05:10 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

The basic problem on this group is too many northern boaters with
nothing to do for 6 months of the year

Damn Yankees.