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

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.

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.

"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.

"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?

"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?

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 .

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 .

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 .

"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

Kurt Ullman wrote in news:kurtullman-
:

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.

"fringe"?? much of the Islamics that have moved to Western nations support
those "fringe" elements.Even in the US.Osama has become a very popular name
for newborn Islamic boys,IIRC,only 2nd to Mohammed.It's a basic tenet of
Islam that infidels must convert,submit and pay the "jizya" tax,or be
killed.

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.

No,the liberals undermined the war effort and we GAVE UP,just retreated(and
withdrew promised support to the SVN) like they want us to do now.And the
result was the boat people,the kiling fields of Cambodia,many millions of
peoples deaths and misery.And that will be the result if we give up
now,probably on a larger scale.

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
jyanik
at
kua.net

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.

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.

Type your message here.

Type your message here.

(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

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 .

google
stop the enron loophole give away???????????????

vote for the repugs.

they fight the socialist commie give always.

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

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

"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

wrote in
:

On 3 Jan 2008 18:01:10 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

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.

The real question is how many would be dead if we were still having a
war over there?

You wrongly assume we would still be fighting.

Capitalism defeated communism, not the army.

Except that even the NV generals admit that the US had beaten them,only to
be defeated by ourselves.(meaning guys like YOU)
We also fought under ridiculous restrictions about invading the North and
not bombing/blockading NV ports.And STILL did well.

The South Vietnamese are doing as well now as would be expected if we
"won" (whatever that means).


Yeah,just forget about all those millions of Vietnamese folks like you
abandoned to the Communists. I haven't.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

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. The violence would be in our streets then.
If the Democrats try to nominate Hillary you might see 1968 style
demonstrations at their convention.


That's one of the goofiest statements I've seen in a while. Do you
REMEMBER 1968, or did
you see just one or two news photos?

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

"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.

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

wrote:

On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 18:22:19 -0500, Norminn
wrote:



If the Democrats try to nominate Hillary you might see 1968 style
demonstrations at their convention.




That's one of the goofiest statements I've seen in a while. Do you
REMEMBER 1968, or did
you see just one or two news photos?



I am plenty old enough to remember 68 and I was watching TV rooting
for the cops. Now I understand I was wrong. Itr is good to evolve.
What was our objective in Vietnam? To push the commies back to the DMZ
and have a "free" South Vietnam?


We had to bring democracy to South Vietnam.......oh, but that has a
familiar ring.

If so we would still have 30,000-40,000 troops on the border like we
do in Korea and have had for over a half a century. They are also
talking about that for Iraq. How many of these DMZs do you think we
can man? Where does that money come from?


Hey, I didn't suggest I was in favor of staying in Iraq. GB is a phony
boozer/loser. Would have
made a great bartender. He is a freeking coward, sliming everyone as
non-patriotic if they even
had second thoughts about going in. No pol will ever admit that they
were intimidated by that
tactic, but it is the cowardly way Bush has behaved all of his life.

The bad guys don't need to beat us in a war, they can just wait
another 15 or 20 years and watch us go broke. China may just call in
our debt and buy us cheap at the forclosure sale.


We aren't fighting a war in Iraq, we are feeding troops to IED's.....so
"Viet Namish".

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.

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.

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.

"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.

"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****.

"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?

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.

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 .

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 .

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.

"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.

"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

In article , alt.home.repair,
says...
Norminn wrote:
George Bush makes me wish we had Barry Goldwater in the White House.
And I'm a liberal )

Certainly Lyndon Johnson made millions wish for the same.

Very powerful that wish was too! ...still wishing Barry was
president, after forty something years.

--
Keith

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

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