|
2008 Pres
Norminn wrote:
George Bush makes me wish we had Barry Goldwater in the White House. And I'm a liberal :o) Certainly Lyndon Johnson made millions wish for the same. -- 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. |
2008 Pres
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article , CJT wrote: Kurt Ullman wrote: snip while the strident liberals can't see any possible solutions that don't require taking over the entire system. It seems you haven't been paying attention. So enlighten me. As I said the most strident liberals can't see solutions other than that. I guess you agree with the other half of that statement. He's one of the strident liberals. -- 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. |
2008 Pres
"clifto" wrote in message
... 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. It's a good strategy. You voted for a man who falls flat on his face without a script. We can't let that happen again. |
2008 Pres
"clifto" wrote in message
... 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. Fortunately, you can't back that up. Who told you to say it? |
2008 Pres
"clifto" wrote in message
... 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. You didn't answer the questions. Does Saddam's use of chem weapons really bother you? Yes or no? |
2008 Pres
clifto wrote:
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. Republicans are birds of a feather, and they flock together. :-) -- The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to minimize spam. Our true address is of the form . |
2008 Pres
clifto wrote:
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. You've seen that picture of Rumsfeld and Saddam shaking hands, right? -- The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to minimize spam. Our true address is of the form . |
2008 Pres
clifto wrote:
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. You are SO full of baloney! -- The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to minimize spam. Our true address is of the form . |
2008 Pres
"Dave Bugg" wrote in
: 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. not just because of more troops,but also the manner in which they are deployed,and how they act towards the Iraqi people. And we sure need a whole lot more boots on the ground in Afghanistan. Why? OBL and his organization are in Pakistan's Waziristan area. The Canadians and Australians won't be willing to cover our butts much longer. we've been covering their butts for a long time. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
2008 Pres
In article , wrote:
Right now Cambodia and Vietnam are at peace and some of our closest trading partners. snort Not even close. In 2006, the U.S. did a total of about $12B in trade with Cambodia and Vietnam combined. We do that much business with Canada in just over a WEEK. http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/index.html Compared to Cambodia, we do more business with: Canada Chile China Columbia Congo Costa Rica Czech Republic ... and those are just the ones that start with 'C'. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
2008 Pres
In article , wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 16:55:53 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote: Right now Cambodia and Vietnam are at peace and some of our closest trading partners. snort Not even close. In 2006, the U.S. did a total of about $12B in trade with Cambodia and Vietnam combined. I didn't say "biggest". Look at the percentage of trade they do with us. That makes *us* one of *their* best partners. The amount of *our* trade we do with *them* is insignificant. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
2008 Pres
Type your message here.
|
2008 Pres
Type your message here.
|
2008 Pres
(Doug Miller) wrote in
. net: In article , wrote: On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 16:55:53 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote: Right now Cambodia and Vietnam are at peace and some of our closest trading partners. snort Not even close. In 2006, the U.S. did a total of about $12B in trade with Cambodia and Vietnam combined. I didn't say "biggest". Look at the percentage of trade they do with us. That makes *us* one of *their* best partners. The amount of *our* trade we do with *them* is insignificant. that still doesn't excuse our abandoning our promises and leaving the SVN to suffer the abuses of the Commmunists,the millions killed by them. THAT is the legacy of the Leftists retreat and surrender policies. Nixon may have been the one who "pulled out our troops",but the DemocRATS were the ones who reneged on funding our promises to the SVN. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
2008 Pres
add your own photo
2.2 % for those geezers to by food.medicine.and fuel. next they will all want notebook computers. the large increase will let them party at the senior centers . stop the enron loophole give away??????????????? vote for the repugs. they fight the socialist commie give always. |
2008 Pres
Jim Yanik wrote:
"Dave Bugg" wrote in : 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. not just because of more troops,but also the manner in which they are deployed,and how they act towards the Iraqi people. And they couldn't be deployed in the new tactical strategy unless there had been the increase of troops, ie The Surge. I have no idea what you mean by 'how they act toward the Iraqi people'. The Iraqi people believed that America would do a Somalia-type bug-out, leaving them to hold the bag. They didn't want to risk their lives by whole-heartedly supporting our troops, having us leave, and then be subject to an Al Queda led cleansing of American supporters. As soon as the Iraqis began to believe that we weren't going to leave, as evidenced by The Surge, the various factional leaders turned on Al-Queda; they decided to risk an irrevocable move based on faith in America's commitment to Iraq. I sure as hell hope we don't renege and bug-out yet again. The result would be worse then the aftermath we left behind in Vietnam and Cambodia. Do you remember what happened to our promises to the Montenyard in Vietnam? They became our most fierce allies. Then we left them high and dry; we deserted them and left them to the mercies of the NVA. We had promised to either defend them or take them home with us, and we left them to die. My own guide and his family were among those that I believe were slaughtered. He would not leave his village with me because his family was not allowed to accompany him. And we sure need a whole lot more boots on the ground in Afghanistan. Why? OBL and his organization are in Pakistan's Waziristan area. And they cross back and forth into Afghanistan with near impunity. The Taliban is regaining lost ground and Al-queda is re-grouping its lost leadership because we don't have the troops that we need. And if we ever decide to follow the Taliban and Al Queda into Pakistan, we don't have the current troop levels in-country to do it. The Bush and Dumsfield war doctrine is the best friend the anti-war activists have. The morale of the American people during war is terribly affected by the perception of our ability to win on the battlefield. The Bush/Dumsfield doctrine was a failure before our toes ever touched Iraqi sand. I only hope that the success of the Surge is getting through to Bush, and showing him how utterly wrong he was in his approach to this war. The Canadians and Australians won't be willing to cover our butts much longer. we've been covering their butts for a long time. Not in this case. If the Canadians and Aussies decide to pull out, we'll be in a world of hurt at current American troop levels. -- Dave www.davebbq.com |
2008 Pres
wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 11:50:35 -0800, "Dave Bugg" wrote: And they couldn't be deployed in the new tactical strategy unless there had been the increase of troops, ie The Surge The surge is effective in the small areas where we are doing it but I don't think you are going to be able to draft a half million troops to blanket the whole country. 1. The surge has been effective in all areas. And it has been effective because of the turn of support by the Iraqi factions toward America.There is no where for Al Queda to hide anymore. The Iraqi's have had enough of Al Queda's violence and have decided that they can risk working with the Americans whole-heartedly. 2. Don't confuse the Bush policy of sending only a small portion of our total military with an inability to commit large scale forces if we wanted to. We have them already. Part of the problem is the continues cycle of rotation of the same small groups of divisions and battalions, which finds our warriors having to serve numbers of tours. That's part of the failed Bush/Dumbfield doctrine. The violence would be in our streets then. I don't think so. Violence has been promised since the war began. Ho hum. If the Democrats try to nominate Hillary you might see 1968 style demonstrations at their convention. Good. A draft isn't needed, only the decision to fight a war the way a war should be fought. If we had commited to total war from the beginning, this battle would have ended much sooner. -- Dave www.davebbq.com |
2008 Pres
"Dave Bugg" wrote in
: Jim Yanik wrote: "Dave Bugg" wrote in : 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. not just because of more troops,but also the manner in which they are deployed,and how they act towards the Iraqi people. And they couldn't be deployed in the new tactical strategy unless there had been the increase of troops, ie The Surge. I have no idea what you mean by 'how they act toward the Iraqi people'. Petraeus stationed the US surge troops AMONG the Iraqis,in their cities,not at a heavily guarded "forward" base. The US troops are instructed to treat the Iraqis with respect,not treat them ALL as enemies or "ragheads".They got to KNOW the Iraqis,on a daily basis.That is what convinced the Iraqis that the US troops were the lesser of 2 evils,and that they were far better off helping the US troops against Al-Qaida. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
2008 Pres
|
2008 Pres
|
2008 Pres
Jim Yanik wrote:
"Dave Bugg" wrote in : Jim Yanik wrote: "Dave Bugg" wrote in : 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. not just because of more troops,but also the manner in which they are deployed,and how they act towards the Iraqi people. And they couldn't be deployed in the new tactical strategy unless there had been the increase of troops, ie The Surge. I have no idea what you mean by 'how they act toward the Iraqi people'. Petraeus stationed the US surge troops AMONG the Iraqis,in their cities,not at a heavily guarded "forward" base. So what? The issue is that there was never the number of troops to take and hold territory. The Surge changed that. Prior to the surge, our troops were holed up in regional compounds, now they've expanded their presence and make far-flung sweeping patrols. The US troops are instructed to treat the Iraqis with respect,not treat them ALL as enemies or "ragheads". That was the case from day one. That wasn't a Surge induced doctrine. They got to KNOW the Iraqis,on a daily basis.That is what convinced the Iraqis that the US troops were the lesser of 2 evils,and that they were far better off helping the US troops against Al-Qaida. I disagree. The troops were getting to know the Iraqis in their patrol areas since day one. That had nothing to do with the Iraqi turnaround. It was the belief that they were now secure because of the Surge that did it. -- Dave www.davebbq.com |
2008 Pres
"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
... Jim Yanik wrote: "Dave Bugg" wrote in : Jim Yanik wrote: "Dave Bugg" wrote in : 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. not just because of more troops,but also the manner in which they are deployed,and how they act towards the Iraqi people. And they couldn't be deployed in the new tactical strategy unless there had been the increase of troops, ie The Surge. I have no idea what you mean by 'how they act toward the Iraqi people'. Petraeus stationed the US surge troops AMONG the Iraqis,in their cities,not at a heavily guarded "forward" base. So what? The issue is that there was never the number of troops to take and hold territory. The Surge changed that. Prior to the surge, our troops were holed up in regional compounds, now they've expanded their presence and make far-flung sweeping patrols. The US troops are instructed to treat the Iraqis with respect,not treat them ALL as enemies or "ragheads". That was the case from day one. That wasn't a Surge induced doctrine. They got to KNOW the Iraqis,on a daily basis.That is what convinced the Iraqis that the US troops were the lesser of 2 evils,and that they were far better off helping the US troops against Al-Qaida. I disagree. The troops were getting to know the Iraqis in their patrol areas since day one. That had nothing to do with the Iraqi turnaround. It was the belief that they were now secure because of the Surge that did it. -- Dave www.davebbq.com I'm not taking sides here one way or the other, but you capitalized the word "surge", which I think means you've been indoctrinated to the point where you think it's a proper noun. Luckily, the moron on the White House was instructed to stop saying "this young democracy" before he wore out the phrase. |
2008 Pres
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Dave Bugg" wrote in message ... Jim Yanik wrote: "Dave Bugg" wrote in : Jim Yanik wrote: "Dave Bugg" wrote in : 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. not just because of more troops,but also the manner in which they are deployed,and how they act towards the Iraqi people. And they couldn't be deployed in the new tactical strategy unless there had been the increase of troops, ie The Surge. I have no idea what you mean by 'how they act toward the Iraqi people'. Petraeus stationed the US surge troops AMONG the Iraqis,in their cities,not at a heavily guarded "forward" base. So what? The issue is that there was never the number of troops to take and hold territory. The Surge changed that. Prior to the surge, our troops were holed up in regional compounds, now they've expanded their presence and make far-flung sweeping patrols. The US troops are instructed to treat the Iraqis with respect,not treat them ALL as enemies or "ragheads". That was the case from day one. That wasn't a Surge induced doctrine. They got to KNOW the Iraqis,on a daily basis.That is what convinced the Iraqis that the US troops were the lesser of 2 evils,and that they were far better off helping the US troops against Al-Qaida. I disagree. The troops were getting to know the Iraqis in their patrol areas since day one. That had nothing to do with the Iraqi turnaround. It was the belief that they were now secure because of the Surge that did it. -- Dave www.davebbq.com I'm not taking sides here one way or the other, but you capitalized the word "surge", which I think means you've been indoctrinated to the point where you think it's a proper noun. Not at all. I'm just trying to make it distinctive. I would prefer to call the surge by what it is, additional troop deployments. I haven't been brainwashed yet :-0 Luckily, the moron on the White House was instructed to stop saying "this young democracy" before he wore out the phrase. Yeah, the tread was begining to wear out on that wheel. -- Dave www.davebbq.com |
2008 Pres
|
2008 Pres
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"clifto" wrote... 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. You didn't answer the questions. Does Saddam's use of chem weapons really bother you? Yes or no? Yes. Unlike liberals, I am diminished when people are murdered, even when it doesn't suit my political ends. And it should still be number one on your list, because Saddam used WMD to kill those people. -- 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. |
2008 Pres
CJT wrote:
clifto wrote: 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. You've seen that picture of Rumsfeld and Saddam shaking hands, right? So you're cutting him down for trying diplomacy? -- 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. |
2008 Pres
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"clifto" wrote in message ... 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. Fortunately, you can't back that up. Who told you to say it? I can back it up with actual defense spending numbers for Democrat party presidents, and I told me to say it. Who told you to ask, comrade? -- 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. |
2008 Pres
"clifto" wrote in message
... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "clifto" wrote in message ... 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. Fortunately, you can't back that up. Who told you to say it? I can back it up with actual defense spending numbers for Democrat party presidents, and I told me to say it. Who told you to ask, comrade? You've been listening to too much Hush Bimbo on the radio. Back up your claim NOW. I want numbers all the way back to the beginning of JFK's administration, and I want them broken down by branch of service. That last thing is very important. |
2008 Pres
"clifto" wrote in message
... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "clifto" wrote... 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. You didn't answer the questions. Does Saddam's use of chem weapons really bother you? Yes or no? Yes. Unlike liberals, I am diminished when people are murdered, even when it doesn't suit my political ends. And it should still be number one on your list, because Saddam used WMD to kill those people. I'll bet you didn't blink when you heard about millions being killed in Africa. We didn't lift a finger to help, though, because those countries had nothing we needed, unless you think we were on the brink of a sorghum shortage at the time. The humanitarian reasons for invading Iraq were pure bull****. |
2008 Pres
"clifto" wrote in message
... CJT wrote: clifto wrote: 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. You've seen that picture of Rumsfeld and Saddam shaking hands, right? So you're cutting him down for trying diplomacy? At the time of the handshake, what was the purpose of Rumsfeld's diplomacy? |
2008 Pres
wrote in message
... On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 02:37:21 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: You've seen that picture of Rumsfeld and Saddam shaking hands, right? So you're cutting him down for trying diplomacy? At the time of the handshake, what was the purpose of Rumsfeld's diplomacy? I am not familiar with the picture but if Rummy has dark hair he was arranging supplying arms to saddam for the upcoming Iran/Iraq war and delivering gifts from Reagan (Dec 1983). Let's see what clifto the great historian thinks. |
2008 Pres
clifto wrote:
CJT wrote: clifto wrote: 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. You've seen that picture of Rumsfeld and Saddam shaking hands, right? So you're cutting him down for trying diplomacy? ROTFL! Diplomacy? Think again. -- The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to minimize spam. Our true address is of the form . |
2008 Pres
CJT wrote:
clifto wrote: CJT wrote: clifto wrote: 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. You've seen that picture of Rumsfeld and Saddam shaking hands, right? So you're cutting him down for trying diplomacy? ROTFL! Diplomacy? Think again. Supporting Saddam as he used the chemical weapons about which outrage is now feigned by Republicans. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm -- The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to minimize spam. Our true address is of the form . |
2008 Pres
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: Back up your claim NOW. I want numbers all the way back to the beginning of JFK's administration, and I want them broken down by branch of service. That last thing is very important. If you are really interested in the former, those are easily available on the web at the Statistical Abstract of the US. The latter, also but you will probably have to go to a Government Printing Office depository library. |
2008 Pres
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
... In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: Back up your claim NOW. I want numbers all the way back to the beginning of JFK's administration, and I want them broken down by branch of service. That last thing is very important. If you are really interested in the former, those are easily available on the web at the Statistical Abstract of the US. The latter, also but you will probably have to go to a Government Printing Office depository library. clifto the great historian made the claim, so he can dig up the info and present it here, if he's serious. |
2008 Pres
"CJT" wrote in message
... CJT wrote: clifto wrote: CJT wrote: clifto wrote: 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. You've seen that picture of Rumsfeld and Saddam shaking hands, right? So you're cutting him down for trying diplomacy? ROTFL! Diplomacy? Think again. Supporting Saddam as he used the chemical weapons about which outrage is now feigned by Republicans. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm Purpose of meeting: Fear of Iraq collapse and access to oil. That's interesting. hahahahahahaha |
2008 Pres
|
2008 Pres
In article , alt.home.repair,
says... "krw" wrote in message t... 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 Define "win", in your own terms. No web links, no cut & paste jobs. Depends on the battle, but for Iraq it's pretty simple; Iraq pacified. As far as the war goes, it's harder; perhaps every last islamist dead? -- Keith |
2008 Pres
In article , alt.home.repair,
says... 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. Nonsense. No, it's not. It is obvious if you look at the nutcases leading your party. -- Keith |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:12 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter