JoeSpareBedroom wrote:


The real team players like me want to see Bush lose every day, in
every possible way. I love seeing him make a fool of himself when he
doesn't have a script, and then watching as his worshippers in
various newsgroups attempt to rationalize his inability to speak our
native language. I'd like to see his dog get run over by a car. I
enjoyed the recent intelligence reassessment of Iran's nuclear
activities, and Bush's subsequent attempt to say something about it
that made sense. I'd like for him to demonstrate his pretzel eating
skills one more time.

As do most other insane people. See Jane's Law.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:


The real team players like me want to see Bush lose every day, in
every possible way. I love seeing him make a fool of himself when he
doesn't have a script, and then watching as his worshippers in
various newsgroups attempt to rationalize his inability to speak our
native language. I'd like to see his dog get run over by a car. I
enjoyed the recent intelligence reassessment of Iran's nuclear
activities, and Bush's subsequent attempt to say something about it
that made sense. I'd like for him to demonstrate his pretzel eating
skills one more time.

As do most other insane people. See Jane's Law.



The guy has killed 4000+ other people's family members to satisfy his
ill-informed view of the world. Tell me about insane.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:


The real team players like me want to see Bush lose every day, in
every possible way. I love seeing him make a fool of himself when he
doesn't have a script, and then watching as his worshippers in
various newsgroups attempt to rationalize his inability to speak our
native language. I'd like to see his dog get run over by a car. I
enjoyed the recent intelligence reassessment of Iran's nuclear
activities, and Bush's subsequent attempt to say something about it
that made sense. I'd like for him to demonstrate his pretzel eating
skills one more time.

A fine example of the BDS* mindset.

-----
*BDS = Bush Derangement Syndrome

"The term BDS refers to a purported tendency by some American liberals to
blame President George Bush for virtually every ill in the world. It also
purportedly refers to opposing a position advocated by the President just
because he supports it, regardless of the position's merits."

"Dave Bugg" wrote in
:

BobR wrote:
On Jan 1, 2:40 pm, krw wrote:
In article , alt.home.repair,
says...

krw wrote:

You're an idiot. Lieberman also wants to *WIN* the war in Iraq and
is 100% behind the President in his efforts. Are you all for that
too?

Sure. Doesn't everybody?

NO!

"WIN" is so amporhous a concept, it's something that everybody can
get behind.

No, apparently it's not. The democrats are fully invested in
losing, being the losers they are.

--
Keith

Yes and No, The Democrats are fully invested in BUSH losing. A
subtle difference but an important difference that needs to be
understood.

Huh...., I didn't know Bush was running for anything. Shouldn't
someone tell all those investing Democrats?


the DemocRATs have decided that America is a "bad guy",and must surrender
to the Islamics and socialism.The Democrats are run by nutcases like Howard
Dean,Michael Moore,George Soros.DemocRATs are weak on national defense.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:


The real team players like me want to see Bush lose every day, in
every possible way. I love seeing him make a fool of himself when he
doesn't have a script, and then watching as his worshippers in
various newsgroups attempt to rationalize his inability to speak our
native language. I'd like to see his dog get run over by a car. I
enjoyed the recent intelligence reassessment of Iran's nuclear
activities, and Bush's subsequent attempt to say something about it
that made sense. I'd like for him to demonstrate his pretzel eating
skills one more time.

A fine example of the BDS* mindset.

-----
*BDS = Bush Derangement Syndrome



I don't blame Bush for all the country's problems, and you never saw me
write anything which even hints that I blame him for so much.

In all fairness, the Iraq war can't all be blamed on him. He's just the
salesman. The war was dreamt up by Cheney and Wolfowitz. However, if the
president was a grown man, he might've been able to stop the invasion. He
might've even invaded the CORRECT country.

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...
"Dave Bugg" wrote in
:

BobR wrote:
On Jan 1, 2:40 pm, krw wrote:
In article , alt.home.repair,
says...

krw wrote:

You're an idiot. Lieberman also wants to *WIN* the war in Iraq and
is 100% behind the President in his efforts. Are you all for that
too?

Sure. Doesn't everybody?

NO!

"WIN" is so amporhous a concept, it's something that everybody can
get behind.

No, apparently it's not. The democrats are fully invested in
losing, being the losers they are.

--
Keith

Yes and No, The Democrats are fully invested in BUSH losing. A
subtle difference but an important difference that needs to be
understood.

Huh...., I didn't know Bush was running for anything. Shouldn't
someone tell all those investing Democrats?


the DemocRATs have decided that America is a "bad guy",and must surrender
to the Islamics and socialism.The Democrats are run by nutcases like
Howard
Dean,Michael Moore,George Soros.DemocRATs are weak on national defense.

--
Jim Yanik


What do you mean by "weak on national defense"? Do you have proof, at least
15 kinds? Let's see your proof. Less than 15 equals nothing.

wrote in news:qGFej.281685$Fc.146239@attbi_s21:

RJ wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 07:59:44 -0600, "HeyBub" wrote:

krw wrote:
You're an idiot. Lieberman also wants to *WIN* the war in Iraq and
is 100% behind the President in his efforts. Are you all for that
too?

We need a new word for this ******* situation !

We "WON" the war 5 (?) years ago
when we defeated the Iraqui army.

What we haven't achieved is "PEACE"


rj


What we have done is succeeded in expanding the "war on terror" into
Iraq.

Uh,Saddam already supported terrorism.
He also launched missiles at Israel,for no reason,invaded Kuwait,poison
gassed his own people.

Once it is won there, we will move it to Iran.

Iran has been supporting and exporting terrorism since 1979.
Hezbollah is an Iranian proxy.

Then once it is won
there, we will move it to Saudi Arabia. Then once it is won there, we
will move it to ..............................................

You probably haven't noticed,but there have been Islamic terror acts
all over the world. Africa,Europe,Russia,SE Asia.

Geez, doesn't it sound like a draft WILL eventually be necessary?

That's the DemocRATs position.Knowledgeable people realize that today's
military doesn't want draftees,and can't use them,they can't be trained in
today's technology of warfare.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...

poison
gassed his own people.


Does that really bother you? Do you personally consider it to be one of the
valid reasons for invading Iraq?


If you say yes, what's its priority on the list of reasons. Give it a
number.

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:


I don't blame Bush for all the country's problems, and you never saw me
write anything which even hints that I blame him for so much.

In all fairness, the Iraq war can't all be blamed on him. He's just the
salesman. The war was dreamt up by Cheney and Wolfowitz. However, if the
president was a grown man, he might've been able to stop the invasion. He
might've even invaded the CORRECT country.

With the help of CIA run at the time by a Clinton holdover. Of
course that sorta is lost in the furor. Still don't know why Tenant was
still around in that job since he already provided the Intel that lead
to bombing an aspirin factory and a Chinese Embassy. Seems like a
pattern developed...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:


CJT wrote:
Since when does it say I in Texas should be paying to build a bridge
in Alaska for $250,000,000 that is unlikely ever to be used by more
than 20 people?

much discussion removed

True, but the constitution doesn't really discuss the concept of a
politician arranging for his cousin the construction guy to end up with a
windfall, with no other purpose in mind for the project.

I'm no fan of pork, but that wasn't the original question.
-- Doug

Kurt Ullman wrote in
:

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:


I don't blame Bush for all the country's problems, and you never saw
me write anything which even hints that I blame him for so much.

In all fairness, the Iraq war can't all be blamed on him. He's just
the salesman. The war was dreamt up by Cheney and Wolfowitz. However,
if the president was a grown man, he might've been able to stop the
invasion. He might've even invaded the CORRECT country.

With the help of CIA run at the time by a Clinton holdover. Of
course that sorta is lost in the furor. Still don't know why Tenant
was still around in that job since he already provided the Intel that
lead to bombing an aspirin factory and a Chinese Embassy. Seems like a
pattern developed...

From a National review article;
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...ZjFmMGQxMjVlYz
FjYzM=

Bill Clinton is the gift that keeps on giving. Exit polls identified two
issues that wounded Republicans in 2006: Iraq and corruption. He muddies
the Democratic message on both.

His false claim that he opposed the Iraq invasion only drew attention to
his support for it. In fact, his words and deeds in office supplied
President Bush with ample arguments for the war. “Regime change” was not a
neoconservative concoction. It became official policy when President
Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. Several weeks later, he
launched air strikes to “attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological
programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.” Noting that
Saddam Hussein had already used weapons of mass destruction, he stressed:
“I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these
terrible weapons again.”


It appears you folks have short memories or have BDS,Bush Derangement
Syndrome.Probably both.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

In article ,
wrote:


We should have declared victory in 1991 when we had it and come HOME.

I really don't want to use the "I" word but that is really why we
stayed. It sure wasn't "to protect the Kurds" and if we just wanted
cheap oil, Saddam would have sold it to us, even if he had Kuwait.

Heck, we had enough military on site in Kuwait to just amble up to
the honchoes, say "we be taking over", and that pretty much would have
given us the 51st state or at least another protectorate.

wrote in
:

On 2 Jan 2008 17:40:40 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

Bill Clinton is the gift that keeps on giving. Exit polls identified
two issues that wounded Republicans in 2006: Iraq and corruption. He
muddies the Democratic message on both.

His false claim that he opposed the Iraq invasion only drew attention
to his support for it. In fact, his words and deeds in office supplied
President Bush with ample arguments for the war. “Regime change” was
not a neoconservative concoction. It became official policy when
President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. Several
weeks later, he launched air strikes to “attack Iraq's nuclear,
chemical, and biological programs and its military capacity to
threaten its neighbors.” Noting that Saddam Hussein had already used
weapons of mass destruction, he stressed: “I have no doubt today, that
left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.”


It appears you folks have short memories or have BDS,Bush Derangement
Syndrome.Probably both.

You also can't ignore that he kept the war boiling on the back burner
for his entire 8 years so itt was very easy for GW to ramp it up.
This is a 17 year old war now.
We should have declared victory in 1991 when we had it and come HOME.

I really don't want to use the "I" word but that is really why we
stayed. It sure wasn't "to protect the Kurds" and if we just wanted
cheap oil, Saddam would have sold it to us, even if he had Kuwait.

except at THAT TIME,we did not have any UN mandate for invasion or regime
change.Then,after 12 yrs and additional UN Resolutions(and failure of the
corrupt UN to act decisively),Bush decided it was necessary to act
premptively. If you look at secular Iraq as a key to fostering changes in
the other ME nations,it makes more sense.
Plus,we only recently had info on Iran's hidden nuclear programs.
It HAS become much clearer that Iran is waging war(by proxy) on the
US,Israel,and Lebanon.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
wrote:


We should have declared victory in 1991 when we had it and come HOME.

I really don't want to use the "I" word but that is really why we
stayed. It sure wasn't "to protect the Kurds" and if we just wanted
cheap oil, Saddam would have sold it to us, even if he had Kuwait.

Heck, we had enough military on site in Kuwait to just amble up to
the honchoes, say "we be taking over", and that pretty much would have
given us the 51st state or at least another protectorate.

Yup. That's what's got me so ****ed off with the Bush war doctrine. Rummy
insisted that a skeleton force was all that was needed, and then Bush put
generals in charge who played into what Dumsfield and Bush wanted to hear
"yes, boss, you don't need an overwhelming force". They didn't want a
Schwarzkopf, a Grant, or a Sherman; they wanted toadies. Here's just part of
a letter I sent to the White House, taken from the middle portion of my
letter:

"The GOP, and that includes you, has failed to do what was promised.

I am disgusted by the failure of our Commander-In-Chief. A soldier's best
chance of survival during war has always been the unremitting and merciless
use of our entire arsenal to smash the enemy in so ferocious a manner that
it breaks his desire to continue the fight. I want America to win the battle
in Iraq; but I don't see any evidence that George W. Bush has the will or
the competence to do so.

My 19 year old son is in his sophomore year at Seattle Pacific University as
a 4 year ROTC scholarship recipient. He follows each generation of men in
our family back as far as the American Revolution, who have gratefully
served our Nation. My father left school when he was sixteen and a half
years old to join the Marines in WWII. He fought and distinguished himself
on Iwo Jima, and then later, after leaving the Marines and finishing High
School, he joined the Army and fought in Korea. He served 26 years in the
Army, and I grew up on military bases immersed in our military's culture and
heritage. After graduation from high school, I served during Vietnam.

There has never been the number of troops needed to take ground
once-and-for-all, and to then hold it. I see reluctance to project the might
of our power in which we take the fight to the enemy and wipe him off the
face of the earth. If the enemy is hiding in a mosque, the mosque is not
obliterated. If the enemy is hiding within a section of a town or village,
that section of town or village is not obliterated. If this is a war THAN
FIGHT IT LIKE IT REALLY IS A WAR. Don't you dare tell me that my precious
son's safety is being traded in exchange for a sensitive police action
designed to spare people or property in a piecemeal attempt to root out the
enemy.

You have failed to fight hard enough to make the President understand this
issue.

This President has failed to appoint Generals who have the proper mindset to
effectively wage a war. Worse still is the appearance that Generals are
appointed because they will cow-tow to the wishes of George Bush to only use
a minimal force in Iraq and Afghanistan. If George Bush lacks the foresight
and wisdom and competence needed to order our generals to win this conflict
by unleashing the dogs of war, then bring our sons and daughters home. If
war will be waged as a war, then I will be in continued support. But as of
now, I am fulminating with anger and bitterness toward this Republican
President and Republican Congress. Our military commanders must take a page
from the Sherman Doctrine: make war so horrible, so very hideous, that the
support for the enemy crumples and then grind that enemy to dust and
vanquish him with all due prejudice.

Again, you have failed to fight hard enough to make the President understand
this issue."


--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

In article , wrote:

You also can't ignore that he kept the war boiling on the back burner
for his entire 8 years so itt was very easy for GW to ramp it up.
This is a 17 year old war now.

Correct so far...

We should have declared victory in 1991 when we had it and come HOME.

But here I disagree. "Declaring victory and coming home" is exactly what
we *did* do in 1991. What we *should* have done was to finish the job and do
right then, in 1991, what we inexplicably waited until 2003 to do.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

clipped

Huh...., I didn't know Bush was running for anything. Shouldn't
someone tell all those investing Democrats?




the DemocRATs have decided that America is a "bad guy",and must surrender
to the Islamics and socialism.The Democrats are run by nutcases like Howard
Dean,Michael Moore,George Soros.DemocRATs are weak on national defense.



George Bush makes me wish we had Barry Goldwater in the White House.
And I'm a liberal )

Norminn wrote:
clipped

Huh...., I didn't know Bush was running for anything. Shouldn't
someone tell all those investing Democrats?




the DemocRATs have decided that America is a "bad guy",and must
surrender to the Islamics and socialism.The Democrats are run by
nutcases like Howard Dean,Michael Moore,George Soros.DemocRATs are
weak on national defense.
George Bush makes me wish we had Barry Goldwater in the White House.
And I'm a liberal )

LoL!!!

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

"Norminn" wrote in message
...
clipped

Huh...., I didn't know Bush was running for anything. Shouldn't
someone tell all those investing Democrats?



the DemocRATs have decided that America is a "bad guy",and must surrender
to the Islamics and socialism.The Democrats are run by nutcases like
Howard Dean,Michael Moore,George Soros.DemocRATs are weak on national
defense.


George Bush makes me wish we had Barry Goldwater in the White House. And
I'm a liberal )

Nixon, even!

"Dave Bugg" wrote in
:

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
wrote:


We should have declared victory in 1991 when we had it and come
HOME.

I really don't want to use the "I" word but that is really why we
stayed. It sure wasn't "to protect the Kurds" and if we just wanted
cheap oil, Saddam would have sold it to us, even if he had Kuwait.

Heck, we had enough military on site in Kuwait to just amble up to
the honchoes, say "we be taking over", and that pretty much would
have given us the 51st state or at least another protectorate.

Yup. That's what's got me so ****ed off with the Bush war doctrine.
Rummy insisted that a skeleton force was all that was needed, and then
Bush put generals in charge who played into what Dumsfield and Bush
wanted to hear "yes, boss, you don't need an overwhelming force". They
didn't want a Schwarzkopf, a Grant, or a Sherman; they wanted toadies.
Here's just part of a letter I sent to the White House, taken from the
middle portion of my letter:

"The GOP, and that includes you, has failed to do what was promised.

I am disgusted by the failure of our Commander-In-Chief. A soldier's
best chance of survival during war has always been the unremitting and
merciless use of our entire arsenal to smash the enemy in so ferocious
a manner that it breaks his desire to continue the fight. I want
America to win the battle in Iraq; but I don't see any evidence that
George W. Bush has the will or the competence to do so.

My 19 year old son is in his sophomore year at Seattle Pacific
University as a 4 year ROTC scholarship recipient. He follows each
generation of men in our family back as far as the American
Revolution, who have gratefully served our Nation. My father left
school when he was sixteen and a half years old to join the Marines in
WWII. He fought and distinguished himself on Iwo Jima, and then later,
after leaving the Marines and finishing High School, he joined the
Army and fought in Korea. He served 26 years in the Army, and I grew
up on military bases immersed in our military's culture and heritage.
After graduation from high school, I served during Vietnam.

There has never been the number of troops needed to take ground
once-and-for-all, and to then hold it. I see reluctance to project the
might of our power in which we take the fight to the enemy and wipe
him off the face of the earth. If the enemy is hiding in a mosque, the
mosque is not obliterated. If the enemy is hiding within a section of
a town or village, that section of town or village is not obliterated.
If this is a war THAN FIGHT IT LIKE IT REALLY IS A WAR. Don't you dare
tell me that my precious son's safety is being traded in exchange for
a sensitive police action designed to spare people or property in a
piecemeal attempt to root out the enemy.

You have failed to fight hard enough to make the President understand
this issue.

This President has failed to appoint Generals who have the proper
mindset to effectively wage a war. Worse still is the appearance that
Generals are appointed because they will cow-tow to the wishes of
George Bush to only use a minimal force in Iraq and Afghanistan. If
George Bush lacks the foresight and wisdom and competence needed to
order our generals to win this conflict by unleashing the dogs of war,
then bring our sons and daughters home. If war will be waged as a war,
then I will be in continued support. But as of now, I am fulminating
with anger and bitterness toward this Republican President and
Republican Congress. Our military commanders must take a page from the
Sherman Doctrine: make war so horrible, so very hideous, that the
support for the enemy crumples and then grind that enemy to dust and
vanquish him with all due prejudice.

Again, you have failed to fight hard enough to make the President
understand this issue."



Armchair Monday morning quarterbacking.

you know,after Pearl Harbor and the beginning of WW2 in Europe,things went
bad for a few years,then generals were changed,and things turned around.
And that is what has happened here in Iraq.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Dave Bugg" wrote in
:

Norminn wrote:
clipped

Huh...., I didn't know Bush was running for anything. Shouldn't
someone tell all those investing Democrats?




the DemocRATs have decided that America is a "bad guy",and must
surrender to the Islamics and socialism.The Democrats are run by
nutcases like Howard Dean,Michael Moore,George Soros.DemocRATs are
weak on national defense.
George Bush makes me wish we had Barry Goldwater in the White House.
And I'm a liberal )

LoL!!!


IMO,one problem of Bush's is that he failed to get rid of the liberals left
around from the Clinton's 8 years. The State Dept. is full of them,and they
are screwing things up.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

(Doug Miller) wrote in
et:

In article ,
wrote:

You also can't ignore that he kept the war boiling on the back burner
for his entire 8 years so itt was very easy for GW to ramp it up.
This is a 17 year old war now.

Correct so far...

We should have declared victory in 1991 when we had it and come HOME.

But here I disagree. "Declaring victory and coming home" is exactly
what we *did* do in 1991. What we *should* have done was to finish the
job and do right then, in 1991, what we inexplicably waited until 2003
to do.


except at THAT TIME(1991),we did not have any UN mandate for invasion or
regime change.Then,after 12 yrs and additional UN Resolutions(and failure
of the corrupt UN to act decisively),Bush rightly decided it was necessary
to act premptively.
If you look at secular Iraq as a key to fostering changes in
the other ME nations,it makes more sense.

Plus,we only recently had info on Iran's hidden nuclear programs.
It HAS become much clearer that Iran is waging war(by proxy) on the
US,Israel,and Lebanon.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

wrote:

On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 22:26:02 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:



George Bush makes me wish we had Barry Goldwater in the White House. And
I'm a liberal )


Nixon, even!



No Nixon was going to hold out waiting for "Peace with honor" or until
the last kid in America came home in a bag.


Barry would have nuked bin laden and there would be no war in Iraq.
Doubt Barry would have gotten
teary eyed at the thought of the Saudi rape victim being sentenced to be
whipped. Barry would have
picked up the phone and told the king what to do with his whip. There
must be another Barry G. somewhere )

On Jan 1, 10:37*am, clifto wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
CJT wrote:
No. They want you to have what they call "free medical care", which
is to say nothing usable. You could get sex change operations but
not cancer treatment.

Where do you get these fantasies? *Rush?

"[UK] A life-saving treatment will be denied to tens of thousands of
victims of Britain's most common male cancer after a U-turn by the
NHS rationing body."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...07/12/16/ncanc....

"[UK] TRANSSEXUALS won the right to have sex change operations on
the NHS yesterday after a landmark ruling by the Court of Appeal
recognised the condition as a legitimate illness."
http://www.pfc.org.uk/node/821
Sorry, I didn't realize you were in the UK. *Press on.

I'm not. Something like the UK or Canadian system is what "they" want.

I don't think they want quite that good a system. For example, I believe
one can still pick his own doctor in UK; Hillarycare had a $10,000 fine
for trying to go to a doctor other than the one you were assigned.

--
Dec. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Government officials and activists flying to Bali,
Indonesia, for the United Nations meeting on climate change will cause
as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Two types of people don't need insurance. Those that have lots of
money and those that don't have any.

I don't want one that pays for everything. Compare it to buying
automobile insurance that would replace your seats if you spilled
coffee on them. That is what the politicians seem to be promising in
the way of medical care. And of course it would not be workable.

If a system is implimented I would prefer one that covers catastrophic
care but not routine doctor visits. In those countries where
everything is covered, everyone waits. And the level of care
suffers. Patients do not get the latest (and more expensive)
treatments. The public gets the "good enough" treatment. Those that
have the finances go outside the country for better care. I expect in
the US congress (and retired politicans) would continue to be treated
by the goverment supplied medical care they now receive - Nothing but
the best for them. They voted themselves out of Social Security and
implimented their own private (outrageous cost to the public)
retirement plan.

In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:


you know,after Pearl Harbor and the beginning of WW2 in Europe,things went
bad for a few years,then generals were changed,and things turned around.
And that is what has happened here in Iraq.

"[W]e made a great mistake in the beginning of our struggle,
and I fear, in spite of all we can do, it will prove to be
a fatal mistake. We appointed all our worst generals to
command our armies, and all our best generals to edit
the newspapers."

--Robert E. Lee

In article ,
wrote:


No, we stayed there bombing them almost every day for a decade.
It was our military presence in the islamic countries bombing them
with impunity whenever we liked that got those people so ****ed off at
us ...
until Islam showed is they could give us some "death from the air" too
on 9-11. That was when we stopped seeing the bombsight photos on CNN.
Of course Iraq was hardly considered an islamic country. It was the
most secular country in the area. What generally ****es off the radical
islamist is not that we bombed Iraq but that we are NOT islamic. Al
Queda, etc., are on record as they won't be happy until the entire world
is under Islamic rule. So, if you don't want to **** off the fringe that
are making all the noise, you pretty much have to convert.
BTW: Saw bombsight photos on CNN right up to toppling of SH. They
just lost interest for awhile.


Then we would be 17 years into the same quagmire we are in now. Maybe
20,000 dead American soldiers and still nothing to show for it.
The stats show least dead this year. We are starting to turn the
corner.


I am old enough to remember Vietnam and the thing we learned there was
military power can't stop a motivated insurgency. The US never lost a
battle but they lost the war.
We just forgot.
Actually what we learned was not to try to do these things on the
cheap. We had to relearn it of course in Iaq.

Jim Yanik wrote:

Armchair Monday morning quarterbacking.

Nope. I wrote the letter nearly three years ago, after frustration upon
frustration in trying to get a response via my congressional delegate and
senators.

you know,after Pearl Harbor and the beginning of WW2 in Europe,things
went bad for a few years,then generals were changed,and things turned
around. And that is what has happened here in Iraq.

It's been happened because of the surge. That theater-wide positive
turnaround, due to the increase in troops, is ample proof that what I wrote
was right. And in my opinion, we still have far fewer boots on the ground
than we should have.

And we sure need a whole lot more boots on the ground in Afghanistan. The
Canadians and Australians won't be willing to cover our butts much longer.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Jim Yanik wrote:
"Dave Bugg" wrote in
:

Norminn wrote:
clipped

Huh...., I didn't know Bush was running for anything. Shouldn't
someone tell all those investing Democrats?




the DemocRATs have decided that America is a "bad guy",and must
surrender to the Islamics and socialism.The Democrats are run by
nutcases like Howard Dean,Michael Moore,George Soros.DemocRATs are
weak on national defense.
George Bush makes me wish we had Barry Goldwater in the White House.
And I'm a liberal )

LoL!!!


IMO,one problem of Bush's is that he failed to get rid of the
liberals left around from the Clinton's 8 years. The State Dept. is
full of them,and they are screwing things up.

That is a given. Every administration should put people in place who are
willing to be honest, frank, and yet not undermine the President. By the
same token, the President shouldn't employ 'yes' men and toadies otherwise
he won't receive the full spectrum of debate and advice needed to make good
decisions.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Jim Yanik wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in
et:

In article ,
wrote:

You also can't ignore that he kept the war boiling on the back
burner for his entire 8 years so itt was very easy for GW to ramp
it up. This is a 17 year old war now.

Correct so far...

We should have declared victory in 1991 when we had it and come
HOME.

But here I disagree. "Declaring victory and coming home" is exactly
what we *did* do in 1991. What we *should* have done was to finish
the job and do right then, in 1991, what we inexplicably waited
until 2003 to do.


except at THAT TIME(1991),we did not have any UN mandate for invasion
or regime change.

Correct. Saudi Arabia and the other middle Eastern states supported America
only because we promised NOT to regime change.


--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

In article ,
wrote:


Where are you going to get the troops to sustain the surge and expand
it to the rest of the country? A draft? Good luck with that.
Heck the Dems have been calling for a draft for years, generally
managing to find a way to insult the troops along the way. We probably
won't have to expand too much more as the Iraqis finally get around to
getting their act together.

Where will the money come from?
We have already spent so much money we don't have that the dollar is
heading the way of the Peso. They don't have to beat us in Basra, they
can beat us at the gas pump.

Dollar goes up, dollar goes down. Heck it the early part of the
Bush administration that everyone was wringing their hands over how high
the dollar was. Europeans were especially ****ed because the Euro
tanked. It is called a cycle.

"Norminn" wrote in message
...
wrote:

On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 22:26:02 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:


George Bush makes me wish we had Barry Goldwater in the White House.
And I'm a liberal )

Nixon, even!

No Nixon was going to hold out waiting for "Peace with honor" or until
the last kid in America came home in a bag.

Barry would have nuked bin laden and there would be no war in Iraq. Doubt
Barry would have gotten
teary eyed at the thought of the Saudi rape victim being sentenced to be
whipped. Barry would have
picked up the phone and told the king what to do with his whip. There
must be another Barry G. somewhere )


At one time, there might have been. But, the Saudis are very good at buying
silence from our politicians. This is done via nice financial contributions
to things like presidential libraries, and the private schools which were
attended by certain politicians. This goes back at least to the Carter
administration, and no president has been exempt from the fun.

Dave Bugg wrote:

Jim Yanik wrote:



Armchair Monday morning quarterbacking.



Nope. I wrote the letter nearly three years ago, after frustration upon
frustration in trying to get a response via my congressional delegate and
senators.



you know,after Pearl Harbor and the beginning of WW2 in Europe,things
went bad for a few years,then generals were changed,and things turned
around. And that is what has happened here in Iraq.



It's been happened because of the surge. That theater-wide positive
turnaround, due to the increase in troops, is ample proof that what I wrote
was right. And in my opinion, we still have far fewer boots on the ground
than we should have.

And we sure need a whole lot more boots on the ground in Afghanistan. The
Canadians and Australians won't be willing to cover our butts much longer.



Forget boots on the ground. Let Iraqi boots step on the IED's. There
are enough arms and explosives
in Iraq to fight 10 wars. If they don't have the will to form a unified
government, then let tribe kill tribe.
Just save the oil for us......we're addicted.

Dave Bugg wrote:
CJT wrote:

Dave Bugg wrote:


BobR wrote:


On Jan 1, 2:40 pm, krw wrote:


In article , alt.home.repair,
says...



krw wrote:

You're an idiot. Lieberman also wants to *WIN* the war in Iraq
and is 100% behind the President in his efforts. Are you all for
that too?

Sure. Doesn't everybody?

NO!



"WIN" is so amporhous a concept, it's something that everybody can
get behind.

No, apparently it's not. The democrats are fully invested in
losing, being the losers they are.

--
Keith

Yes and No, The Democrats are fully invested in BUSH losing. A
subtle difference but an important difference that needs to be
understood.


Huh...., I didn't know Bush was running for anything. Shouldn't
someone tell all those investing Democrats?


Bush is trying to salvage his legacy. His legacy is fixed. He's the
worst President the United States has ever had (and there have been
some remarkably bad ones).


So? What's the connection with your statement and Democrats wanting Bush to
lose when he isn't up for election?

He's losing any hope he might have had for a respectable legacy.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

Jim Yanik wrote:

"Dave Bugg" wrote in
:


BobR wrote:

On Jan 1, 2:40 pm, krw wrote:

In article , alt.home.repair,
says...


krw wrote:

You're an idiot. Lieberman also wants to *WIN* the war in Iraq and
is 100% behind the President in his efforts. Are you all for that
too?

Sure. Doesn't everybody?

NO!


"WIN" is so amporhous a concept, it's something that everybody can
get behind.

No, apparently it's not. The democrats are fully invested in
losing, being the losers they are.

--
Keith

Yes and No, The Democrats are fully invested in BUSH losing. A
subtle difference but an important difference that needs to be
understood.

Huh...., I didn't know Bush was running for anything. Shouldn't
someone tell all those investing Democrats?



the DemocRATs have decided that America is a "bad guy",and must surrender
to the Islamics and socialism.The Democrats are run by nutcases like Howard
Dean,Michael Moore,George Soros.DemocRATs are weak on national defense.

You write like a nutcase.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
wrote:



Where are you going to get the troops to sustain the surge and expand
it to the rest of the country? A draft? Good luck with that.

Heck the Dems have been calling for a draft for years, generally
managing to find a way to insult the troops along the way. We probably
won't have to expand too much more as the Iraqis finally get around to
getting their act together.


The reason behind talk of a draft is it's the only way to get the likes
of the Bush twins into the military. You certainly will never see them
enlist.


Where will the money come from?
We have already spent so much money we don't have that the dollar is
heading the way of the Peso. They don't have to beat us in Basra, they
can beat us at the gas pump.


Dollar goes up, dollar goes down. Heck it the early part of the
Bush administration that everyone was wringing their hands over how high
the dollar was. Europeans were especially ****ed because the Euro
tanked. It is called a cycle.

This "cycle" has been going a single direction ever since Bush took
over. It'll only reverse once he and his fellow obstructionists are
gone.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

"CJT" wrote in message
...
Jim Yanik wrote:

"Dave Bugg" wrote in
:
BobR wrote:

On Jan 1, 2:40 pm, krw wrote:

In article , alt.home.repair,
says...


krw wrote:

You're an idiot. Lieberman also wants to *WIN* the war in Iraq and
is 100% behind the President in his efforts. Are you all for that
too?

Sure. Doesn't everybody?

NO!


"WIN" is so amporhous a concept, it's something that everybody can
get behind.

No, apparently it's not. The democrats are fully invested in
losing, being the losers they are.

--
Keith

Yes and No, The Democrats are fully invested in BUSH losing. A
subtle difference but an important difference that needs to be
understood.

Huh...., I didn't know Bush was running for anything. Shouldn't
someone tell all those investing Democrats?



the DemocRATs have decided that America is a "bad guy",and must surrender
to the Islamics and socialism.The Democrats are run by nutcases like
Howard Dean,Michael Moore,George Soros.DemocRATs are weak on national
defense.


You write like a nutcase.


He's saying exactly what he was told to say. He'll never speak the name of
his master, but it's no secret.

In article , CJT
wrote:


The reason behind talk of a draft is it's the only way to get the likes
of the Bush twins into the military. You certainly will never see them
enlist.
Yep. And the draft worked REAL well with Bill Clinton. At least the
Twins did nor lie to the draft board.

CJT wrote:
Dave Bugg wrote:
CJT wrote:

Dave Bugg wrote:


BobR wrote:


On Jan 1, 2:40 pm, krw wrote:


In article , alt.home.repair,
says...



krw wrote:

You're an idiot. Lieberman also wants to *WIN* the war in Iraq
and is 100% behind the President in his efforts. Are you all
for that too?

Sure. Doesn't everybody?

NO!



"WIN" is so amporhous a concept, it's something that everybody
can get behind.

No, apparently it's not. The democrats are fully invested in
losing, being the losers they are.

--
Keith

Yes and No, The Democrats are fully invested in BUSH losing. A
subtle difference but an important difference that needs to be
understood.


Huh...., I didn't know Bush was running for anything. Shouldn't
someone tell all those investing Democrats?


Bush is trying to salvage his legacy. His legacy is fixed. He's
the worst President the United States has ever had (and there have
been some remarkably bad ones).


So? What's the connection with your statement and Democrats wanting
Bush to lose when he isn't up for election?

He's losing any hope he might have had for a respectable legacy.

Somehow I don't think that's what was meant.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...

poison
gassed his own people.


Does that really bother you? Do you personally consider it to be one of the
valid reasons for invading Iraq?


If you say yes, what's its priority on the list of reasons. Give it a
number.

Should be number one on your list. He used weapons of mass destruction.

--
Dec. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Government officials and activists flying to Bali,
Indonesia, for the United Nations meeting on climate change will cause
as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year.

Kurt Ullman wrote:
BobR wrote:

Yes and No, The Democrats are fully invested in BUSH losing. A subtle
difference but an important difference that needs to be understood.

Of course since Bush isn't running this time, the subtle difference
could make the race lots more interesting than it might have been
otherwise.

They hope that inculcating enough hatred of Bush will make people avoid
voting for any other Republican. It was their strategy in every single
election since 1976. It's the only hope the Democrat party has for getting
one of their own elected.

--
Dec. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Government officials and activists flying to Bali,
Indonesia, for the United Nations meeting on climate change will cause
as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...
"Dave Bugg" wrote in
:

BobR wrote:
On Jan 1, 2:40 pm, krw wrote:
In article , alt.home.repair,
says...

krw wrote:

You're an idiot. Lieberman also wants to *WIN* the war in Iraq and
is 100% behind the President in his efforts. Are you all for that
too?

Sure. Doesn't everybody?

NO!

"WIN" is so amporhous a concept, it's something that everybody can
get behind.

No, apparently it's not. The democrats are fully invested in
losing, being the losers they are.

--
Keith

Yes and No, The Democrats are fully invested in BUSH losing. A
subtle difference but an important difference that needs to be
understood.

Huh...., I didn't know Bush was running for anything. Shouldn't
someone tell all those investing Democrats?


the DemocRATs have decided that America is a "bad guy",and must surrender
to the Islamics and socialism.The Democrats are run by nutcases like
Howard
Dean,Michael Moore,George Soros.DemocRATs are weak on national defense.

--
Jim Yanik


What do you mean by "weak on national defense"? Do you have proof, at least
15 kinds? Let's see your proof. Less than 15 equals nothing.

Democrats don't believe in national defense at all. They believe that
large amounts of money given to enemies of the USA will prevent those
enemies from opposing us.

--
Dec. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Government officials and activists flying to Bali,
Indonesia, for the United Nations meeting on climate change will cause
as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year.