On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 11:25:00 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


Clinton's only action, other than parroting the above in speeches, was
to lob a bunch of cruise missiles that accomplished nothing. (Many
believe it was a "wag the dog" effort to distract media attention from
his personal problems with "that woman".) Who knows for sure?

Yup, Clinton lobs a few cruise missiles and he is accused of "wag the
dog". Imagine, if he had done what GWB did. What would you be saying
then? Probably, quite similar things to what are being said about GWB.
You don't preemptively invade a country on faulty intelligence. This is
Bush's war, he deserves all the lambasting he gets.

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:06:56 -0000, wrote:

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 11:25:00 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


Clinton's only action, other than parroting the above in speeches, was
to lob a bunch of cruise missiles that accomplished nothing. (Many
believe it was a "wag the dog" effort to distract media attention from
his personal problems with "that woman".) Who knows for sure?

Yup, Clinton lobs a few cruise missiles and he is accused of "wag the
dog". Imagine, if he had done what GWB did. What would you be saying
then? Probably, quite similar things to what are being said about GWB.
You don't preemptively invade a country on faulty intelligence. This is
Bush's war, he deserves all the lambasting he gets.

When *do* you invade?
--
John H

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 11:25:00 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


Clinton's only action, other than parroting the above in speeches, was
to lob a bunch of cruise missiles that accomplished nothing. (Many
believe it was a "wag the dog" effort to distract media attention from
his personal problems with "that woman".) Who knows for sure?

Yup, Clinton lobs a few cruise missiles and he is accused of "wag the
dog". Imagine, if he had done what GWB did. What would you be saying
then? Probably, quite similar things to what are being said about GWB.
You don't preemptively invade a country on faulty intelligence. This is
Bush's war, he deserves all the lambasting he gets.


If he had done what GWB did, but did it back in 1998, there very well have
never been a 9/11.
Now don't go blowing smoke about Iraq having nothing to do with 9/11. It's
the engagement and weakening of al Qaeda and it's many terrorist
organizations/factions across the globe that has, so far, been effective in
preventing another attack. There are no "good" terrorists and that included
Saddam.

Another thing Bush warned us of, which is now often forgotten, especially
around the election cycles.
He warned us that it's going to be a long, long fight.


Eisboch

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 11:25:00 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


Clinton's only action, other than parroting the above in speeches, was
to lob a bunch of cruise missiles that accomplished nothing. (Many
believe it was a "wag the dog" effort to distract media attention from
his personal problems with "that woman".) Who knows for sure?

Yup, Clinton lobs a few cruise missiles and he is accused of "wag the
dog". Imagine, if he had done what GWB did. What would you be saying
then? Probably, quite similar things to what are being said about GWB.
You don't preemptively invade a country on faulty intelligence. This is
Bush's war, he deserves all the lambasting he gets.


If he had done what GWB did, but did it back in 1998, there very well have
never been a 9/11.
Now don't go blowing smoke about Iraq having nothing to do with 9/11.
It's the engagement and weakening of al Qaeda and it's many terrorist
organizations/factions across the globe that has, so far, been effective
in preventing another attack.


Here we go again.

Which measures do you feel have been most effective in preventing another
attack?

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...


Which measures do you feel have been most effective in preventing another
attack?


You and I have no clue. If we did, they wouldn't be effective.
But, tying up resources and attention of terrorists in Iraq helps.

It also, (and here's where you will flip out) assures our access to oil
(although we are not currently taking advantage of it.) We still get the
bulk from other sources.

You can be as idealistic as you want about it but the security of this
nation is dependent on oil. Until that changes, it's a chess game and our
Achilles's heel.

You are good at asking questions. Let me ask one of you that's probably
uncomfortable for many to answer.
If suddenly the US supply of oil dried up .... Saudi Arabia said "Screw
you".... and the rest of our sources of oil withdrew from the market ....
would you support military action to secure oil for the US?

Eisboch

Eisboch

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...


Which measures do you feel have been most effective in preventing another
attack?


You and I have no clue. If we did, they wouldn't be effective.
But, tying up resources and attention of terrorists in Iraq helps.

If they're so effective, then why have there been attacks in England, Spain,
and Bali?



It also, (and here's where you will flip out) assures our access to oil
(although we are not currently taking advantage of it.) We still get the
bulk from other sources.

Obviously, we need access to oil. This is why Truman went to great lengths
to make sure our diplomats, and representatives of our oil companies were
all over the Saudis like cats on mice at the end of the war. We built that
country, and edged out our biggest competitor: The British.



You can be as idealistic as you want about it but the security of this
nation is dependent on oil. Until that changes, it's a chess game and our
Achilles's heel.

You are good at asking questions. Let me ask one of you that's probably
uncomfortable for many to answer.
If suddenly the US supply of oil dried up .... Saudi Arabia said "Screw
you".... and the rest of our sources of oil withdrew from the market ....
would you support military action to secure oil for the US?

Eisboch


Sure. Why not? But, I'd pick the country which also posed the biggest
security risk in other ways.

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 13:03:55 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


You can be as idealistic as you want about it but the security of this
nation is dependent on oil. Until that changes, it's a chess game and
our Achilles's heel.


30 years ago, Jimmy Carter promoted an energy initiative to be energy
independent by the year 2000. What happened? Ronald Reagan was elected
and dismantled it, stating market forces would keep the oil flowing. It
seems to me, market forces are keeping the blood flowing. We should have
listened to Carter.

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:49:51 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:



Here we go again.

Which measures do you feel have been most effective in preventing another
attack?

You keep asking this question, but I haven't seen anybody answer it.
The answer is simple, but since you like to go in circles, I won't
tell you until you put your view out here first.
To assure you I'm not afraid of taking a position, my answer on the
measures are below, in modified tap code, but "encrypted" by a simple
number substitution.
Easy enough to break if were important, but it's not.
The tap table is below.
When you provide your answer, I will provide the number key.
The measures are listed in order of increasing importance as I see it.


1. 13 11 41 24 34 41 31 32 33 12 44 41 11 31 42
2.
3.
4.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 E A N D W V ?
2 T I R M B .
3 O H U P Z
4 S C Y Q
5 L G X
6 F J
7 K

Okay, I only did the first measure. Tap code is a bitch.
You'll have to trust me on measures 2-4, which I pasted into notepad,
and will reveal if you come through with anything meaningful.

--Vic

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:49:51 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:



Here we go again.

Which measures do you feel have been most effective in preventing another
attack?

You keep asking this question, but I haven't seen anybody answer it.
The answer is simple, but since you like to go in circles, I won't
tell you until you put your view out here first.
To assure you I'm not afraid of taking a position, my answer on the
measures are below, in modified tap code, but "encrypted" by a simple
number substitution.
Easy enough to break if were important, but it's not.
The tap table is below.
When you provide your answer, I will provide the number key.
The measures are listed in order of increasing importance as I see it.


1. 13 11 41 24 34 41 31 32 33 12 44 41 11 31 42
2.
3.
4.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 E A N D W V ?
2 T I R M B .
3 O H U P Z
4 S C Y Q
5 L G X
6 F J
7 K

Okay, I only did the first measure. Tap code is a bitch.
You'll have to trust me on measures 2-4, which I pasted into notepad,
and will reveal if you come through with anything meaningful.

--Vic


Holy ****. If this is what the military is doing to veterans, we need to
divert the entire budget to mental health care for those veterans.

On Feb 7, 7:00*pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Vic Smith" wrote in message

...





On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:49:51 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

Here we go again.

Which measures do you feel have been most effective in preventing another
attack?

You keep asking this question, but I haven't seen anybody answer it.
The answer is simple, but since you like to go in circles, I won't
tell you until you put your view out here first.
To assure you I'm not afraid of taking a position, my answer on the
measures are below, in modified tap code, but "encrypted" by a simple
number substitution.
Easy enough to break if were important, but it's not.
The tap table is below.
When you provide your answer, I will provide the number key.
The measures are listed in order of increasing importance as I see it.

1. *13 *11 *41 *24 *34 *41 31 * *32 33 12 44 41 11 31 42
2.
3.
4.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 E A N D W V *?
2 T I R M B .
3 O H U P Z
4 S C Y Q
5 L G X
6 F J
7 K

Okay, I only did the first measure. *Tap code is a bitch.
You'll have to trust me on measures 2-4, which I pasted into notepad,
and will reveal if you come through with anything meaningful.

--Vic

Holy ****. If this is what the military is doing to veterans, we need to
divert the entire budget to mental health care for those veterans.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No, this is what the veteran is doing to you.