In article ,
Nate Nagel wrote:


I doubt it, but likely their general, low-level hatred of people that
don't share their beliefs suddenly have a focus due to Bush's actions.
And that focus takes a long time to blur, so we'll be dealing wit hthe
aftermath for a while.
So there was no focus for WTC I, the Cole, the African Embassies,
etc.? Heck if you want to go international you can trace the lack of
compunction back past the Munich Olympics.


Had we actually cleaned up the neighborhood in Iraq (and Afghanistan for
that matter) quickly after the initial invasion (e.g. MASSIVE commitment
of police-type forces) things might have been different. Unfortunately
our leaders were too short sighted to not lose the war after winning the
battle.

I would say won the war, did not do so well on the peace.

retired54 wrote:
"Clot" wrote in message
...
olddog wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
retired54 wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article
,
"retired54" wrote:
we lost the war in iraq the day it started.

We won the war, what we are having problems with is winning the
peace. If you look at past history, this is not an unusual
occurrence is US history.

What did *you* win other than a huge national debt?

## We got to kill lots and lots of goblins. Priceless.


I've never been concerned with winning "freedom" for people just
because they happen to be sitting on a huge oil reserve.

## Germany invaded Russia for oil. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor so
the country could have uninterrupted access to oil in the Dutch
East Indies. Access to oil is a time-tested excuse for going to
war.

I'd rather win the war on "oil addiction". Your war just
perpetuates the life style of excess that our planet can't
sustain.

## Every time I hear someone long for a simpler time, a less
complicated life, a revel in the serenity of nature's basics, I
have one word: Dentistry.


Yeah you won.


Not yet. We don't have ALL the oil.

You really need to watch the Frontline episode "Heat". Dude...were
all screwed!

Keep hiding your head in the sand but it's going to catch up with
you or your kids. The earth can only support so many American life
styles. China, India and Micro Indonesia are taking over. Right now
they are going through the same growing pains America is still
growing through. Manhattan, Florida, parts of Texas, New Jersey
etc...are going to be under water. For Christ sake it's already
happening. Something is happening and if we don't wake up and
address it we're doomed. Personally, I hold little hope for the
future of mankind. Call me a kook but the evidence is here now.
Some people say technology holds the answer. I think we all need to
curb our expectations and learn how to live with less. Conserve,
recycle, move close to work or quit, walk to the store, ride your
bike. We're too damn fat anyway. Keep your appliances turn off or
down. Quit having so many damn babies. We don't have to rely on
technology for the answer when it's our over indulgent life styles
that is the problem.
I've drastically cut back on my gasoline, electrical and natural gas
usage by keeping lights off and the thermostat up high in the summer
and cooler in the winter. I'm always turning things off and
unplugging things. I walk to the store when possible. But I don't
see anybody else doing a god damn thing. They drive around in their
SUVs like nothings happening. They just don't get it and I don't
expect anything to change

I agree whole heartedly that we cannot go on consuming at the rate we
currently do in the west. I've used CFL lighting for more than 25
years and ensured that my home is well insulated, (UK and mostly
cold!). I switched to diesel powered motors more than 20 years ago,
walk and use a bicycle.

We have to limit our impact and set examples. China set an excellent
example with their one child policy and despite their growing
environmental impact, we have to recognise that their country is
presently the factory for the planet, i.e. we are exporting our
footprint to them.
The USA is not setting a good example. Europe is taking the lead in
reduction of green house gasses according to Frontline (pbs TV show)
because Europe historically has paid much higher prices for fuel.

Yes, I think you right about that. It's rather strange after CA took the
lead in the 70s. Having watched the programme, I now appreciate why.
The tax on road fuel in Europe is indeed much higher than in the US which I
think is a good thing. We have much more efficient and smaller vehicles as a
result. Sadly though, there has been (note the past tense) a growing trend
here for SUVs. Ignoring Land Rover that has always produced large off
roaders formerly for a practical purpose, Volvo (GM), VW, BMWand Merc are
now producing the things as well as an incredible amount of imported
Japanese pick-ups that do little to the gallon.

What I fail to understand is why US vehicle manufacturers wish to kill
themselves. Ford being the prime example producing massive large engined
trucks that no one wants and going down the tube as a result. In Europe they
have produced smaller much more efficient vehicles successfully for many
years. Similarly, GM. Why do they seem to have a death wish allowing
overseas competitors to steal the market? I understand that there is a
waiting list for diesel powered VW Jettas in the US market. Ford produce
Mondeos for the European market that are just as good.

Good for you guys. Don't wait for us because we still have that
Cowboy, throw-the-beer-can-out-the-window attitude going here. It's
actually encouraged. Read some of our colleagues posts and you'll see
what I mean.

Appreciated, but I hope (and suspect) you exaggerate a little.

I just shake my head and go about my business.

I wouldn't be too enthused about the Chinese. China and India are
building coal-fired power plants literally as fast as they can. China
overtook the United States in 2006 as the world's biggest emitter of
carbon dioxide.

I do appreciate you comments re China and India and recognise the issue
regarding coal fired power plants. They are just trying to catch up with us,
though obviously more aware of the impact than we were at the time.I worked
in Beijing for a short period in 2003 providing advice on infrastructure
prior to the Olympics. Interestingly, buses and trucks were running on LPG.
I suggested that their principal sewage works, being next to a coal fired
power station should send its sludge there but they were concerned about the
emissions. Whilst at an International Environment Conference in China in
2006, I as well as some local folk were surprised at the concern that some
of their politicians were expressing re environmental issues. I was most
pleased to find that the Beijing Municipal government had picked up on some
of my recommendations, appointing a US based consultancy to address their
sewage sludge issues. The intention was to use the material for cement
manufacture which is just right at present with their development of
infrastructure.

Watch " Heat".

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/heat/

What a rotten fellow you are. You hijacked my Friday night, for which I
thank you. That was a highly objective programme with key players being
prepared to be interviewed. Brilliant, well done PBS. Reminded me of what
the BBC could do in former days.

Nate Nagel wrote in
:

Jim Yanik wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote in
:

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"Bob F" wrote:


Really? No foreigners hate Bush? At all? Especially not ones
with weapons and no moral compunctions about killing those that
they feel are deserving of same?

You h ave any indication that they hate BUSH or just the person
who
is in the office. You think those with weapons and no compunction
to

no compunction -against- killing,I believe you mean...

kill are suddenly going to put down their weapons and participate
in mass sing alongs of "Kumbaya" suddenly in mid- January?
I doubt it, but likely their general, low-level hatred of people
that don't share their beliefs suddenly have a focus due to Bush's
actions.

That had that focus since Jimmy Carter's time.
Hezbollah(an Iranian creation) has been around a long time.

And that focus takes a long time to blur, so we'll be dealing wit
hthe aftermath for a while.

Had we actually cleaned up the neighborhood in Iraq (and Afghanistan
for that matter) quickly after the initial invasion (e.g. MASSIVE
commitment of police-type forces) things might have been different.
Unfortunately our leaders were too short sighted to not lose the war
after winning the battle.

nate


Well,Nate,similar mistakes and setbacks were made in just about every
war the US has been in,but we adjusted. (see Victor Davis Hanson's
articles..) One MAJOR thing different this time is that we no longer
had the support of the media.


Of course. Those who do not learn from history, et cetera. This is
why Bush et. cie. are failures. Do *you* support someone who keeps
doing the same thing over and over and expects a different outcome?
Isn't that a clinical definition of insanity?

nate


Major misconception;
Bush is NOT "doing the same thing over and over".
Bush made a strategic move for the ME with the Iraq war.
IMO,it was/is a good idea.

It WOULD have helped greatly if the DemocRATs had given true support
instead of being divisive and thus giving moral support to the enemy.
But they would rather appease the enemies of the US,thinking that will buy
them respect and good will.How naive.

DemocRATs,leftists,and socialists would rather see the US fail than Bush
succeed.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Jim Yanik wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote in
:

Jim Yanik wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote in
:

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"Bob F" wrote:


Really? No foreigners hate Bush? At all? Especially not ones
with weapons and no moral compunctions about killing those that
they feel are deserving of same?

You h ave any indication that they hate BUSH or just the person
who
is in the office. You think those with weapons and no compunction
to
no compunction -against- killing,I believe you mean...

kill are suddenly going to put down their weapons and participate
in mass sing alongs of "Kumbaya" suddenly in mid- January?
I doubt it, but likely their general, low-level hatred of people
that don't share their beliefs suddenly have a focus due to Bush's
actions.
That had that focus since Jimmy Carter's time.
Hezbollah(an Iranian creation) has been around a long time.

And that focus takes a long time to blur, so we'll be dealing wit
hthe aftermath for a while.

Had we actually cleaned up the neighborhood in Iraq (and Afghanistan
for that matter) quickly after the initial invasion (e.g. MASSIVE
commitment of police-type forces) things might have been different.
Unfortunately our leaders were too short sighted to not lose the war
after winning the battle.

nate

Well,Nate,similar mistakes and setbacks were made in just about every
war the US has been in,but we adjusted. (see Victor Davis Hanson's
articles..) One MAJOR thing different this time is that we no longer
had the support of the media.

Of course. Those who do not learn from history, et cetera. This is
why Bush et. cie. are failures. Do *you* support someone who keeps
doing the same thing over and over and expects a different outcome?
Isn't that a clinical definition of insanity?

nate


Major misconception;
Bush is NOT "doing the same thing over and over".

Sure he is. After all the lessons of Vietnam, he again invaded a
foreign country with insufficient resources to get the job done.

Bush made a strategic move for the ME with the Iraq war.
IMO,it was/is a good idea.

No it wasn't.


It WOULD have helped greatly if the DemocRATs had given true support
instead of being divisive and thus giving moral support to the enemy.

Iraq wasn't our enemy (at least not actively) until we invaded it.

But they would rather appease the enemies of the US,thinking that will buy
them respect and good will.How naive.

see above.

DemocRATs,leftists,and socialists would rather see the US fail than Bush
succeed.

You don't get it. WE *HAVE* FAILED. We could have either a) not
invaded Iraq at all or b) invaded, but after taking over the country
militarily have sent in forces sufficient to maintain peace and keep
things under control. We didn't do either. Now the people of Iraq just
want us gone; to them we're yet another Saddam.

I have yet to hear an explanation of a reasonable objective that has
been accomplished by invading Iraq.

BTW, I am neither a Democrat, leftist, nor socialist. Just someone who
is unimaginably furious at Bush for being such a total and complete
failure after having the complete support of nearly the entire world
(immediately post-9/11)

nate



--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Nate Nagel wrote in
:

HeyBub wrote:
Bob F wrote:
Sure. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Feith. Actually, anybody who
claims to be a neoconservative.

I guess it depends on your definition of success. In my definition,
foreigners don't get a vote and success depends entirely on what's
in the best interests of the United States. I am indifferent in the
extreme whether the French have their feelings hurt or the Minoans
are miffed. I measure success by how many enemies of this great
republic, their wives, children, and goats die a horrible death
(preceded, if possible, by piteous lamentations), not the readings
on some imaginary "Love Meter." To paraphrase Admiral Halsey: "Kill
terrorists. Kill terrorists.
Kill more terrorists!"

But, being fair, I can see how to those who value - nay, depend - on
the approbation of others will have a different metric (to use a
Rumsfeld word) in measuring "success."

Unfortunately, we are creating way more terrorists than we are
killing by our actions.
People get mad when the are invaded, occupied, and killed by the
hundreds of thousands.

except the ones killing them by the "100's of thousands" were their so-
called Islamic "friends".
Many Iraqi's have now realized that and have switched sides.
Too bad the hateful DemocRATs will not recognize it.

Iraqis celebrated when Saddam was deposed.Maybe you missed the video on TV
news? Then there was the "purple ink" showing that Iraqis risked their
lives to vote in a new government.But the willfully blind ignores that
stuff.

They'll get over it.

As for creating more terrorists than we've killed, where are they?

Please let us know so we can go kill them.


You are no better than they.

nate



More "moral equivalence". Pure garbage.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Kurt Ullman wrote in
:

In article ,
Nate Nagel wrote:


I doubt it, but likely their general, low-level hatred of people that
don't share their beliefs suddenly have a focus due to Bush's
actions. And that focus takes a long time to blur, so we'll be
dealing wit hthe aftermath for a while.
So there was no focus for WTC I, the Cole, the African Embassies,
etc.? Heck if you want to go international you can trace the lack of
compunction back past the Munich Olympics.


Had we actually cleaned up the neighborhood in Iraq (and Afghanistan
for that matter) quickly after the initial invasion (e.g. MASSIVE
commitment of police-type forces) things might have been different.
Unfortunately our leaders were too short sighted to not lose the war
after winning the battle.

I would say won the war, did not do so well on the peace.


well,that would be a RATIONAL viewpoint,based on actual facts and
conditions.DemocRATs don't have those.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Jim Yanik wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote in
:

HeyBub wrote:
Bob F wrote:
Sure. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Feith. Actually, anybody who
claims to be a neoconservative.

I guess it depends on your definition of success. In my definition,
foreigners don't get a vote and success depends entirely on what's
in the best interests of the United States. I am indifferent in the
extreme whether the French have their feelings hurt or the Minoans
are miffed. I measure success by how many enemies of this great
republic, their wives, children, and goats die a horrible death
(preceded, if possible, by piteous lamentations), not the readings
on some imaginary "Love Meter." To paraphrase Admiral Halsey: "Kill
terrorists. Kill terrorists.
Kill more terrorists!"

But, being fair, I can see how to those who value - nay, depend - on
the approbation of others will have a different metric (to use a
Rumsfeld word) in measuring "success."

Unfortunately, we are creating way more terrorists than we are
killing by our actions.
People get mad when the are invaded, occupied, and killed by the
hundreds of thousands.

except the ones killing them by the "100's of thousands" were their so-
called Islamic "friends".
Many Iraqi's have now realized that and have switched sides.
Too bad the hateful DemocRATs will not recognize it.

Iraqis celebrated when Saddam was deposed.Maybe you missed the video on TV
news? Then there was the "purple ink" showing that Iraqis risked their
lives to vote in a new government.But the willfully blind ignores that
stuff.

They still hate *us* in case you haven't noticed. They want us gone.

They'll get over it.

As for creating more terrorists than we've killed, where are they?

Please let us know so we can go kill them.

You are no better than they.

nate



More "moral equivalence". Pure garbage.


One extremist advotating genocide is equivalent to another.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

"HeyBub" wrote:

Bob F wrote:

************************************************** ************

But you have really enjoyed the give-away-to-the-rich actions of the
republicans since Reagan? Why shouldn't the people who benefit far
more from our system pay their part?
Without the working class, they'd have nothing.

I agree that those who USE more government services should pay more.

I prefer that those who benefit the most pay more taxes. But to
follow along with your reasoning.

The
rich don't send their kids to public schools,

But they most certainly benefit from a good public education. Better
to have smart folks working their widget factory.

use food stamps,

I'll give you that- but I wonder which my bleeding heart liberal state
pays more for- food stamps, or a state owned ski slope. . . or a
canal so those rich folks can go from the Atlantic Ocean to the great
lakes in their multimillion dollar yachts.

appear at the county hospital,

We don't have a 'county hospital' - but the local hospital, subsidized
by the county, state & feds, has a few VIP rooms that are reserved for
those rich folks. And they are 5 star accommodations. not that
'regular people' don't have decent rooms there, but the hospital makes
a huge fuss over 'rich folks'.

end up in jail (as a rule),

They don't end up in jail 'as a rule' because the cost so much more to
prosecute. Ask OJ how great it is to be able to afford a better
legal team than they can mount against you. And when they do - for
their 'white collar' crimes- they cost a lot more to maintain than
their counterparts in gen-pop.

and so on.

The rich DO drive on public roads (or their driver does) and a few other
things, so they should pay SOME taxes.


The class warfare game is an old one. IMO the most prosperous time
in the 20th century was the 1950's. To a large extent that was
post-war euphoria- but the top tax bracket was 73-90%- and you could
make an equivalent of over $100,000 before you paid a penny in tax.

Trickle down doesn't work. Somebody has to have enough money to buy
your widgets or services.

Jim

Now the people of Iraq just
want us gone; to them we're yet another Saddam.

They want us gone? That's news to me.

They still hate *us* in case you haven't noticed. They want us gone.

They may hate us but they,the majority, do not want us gone.
At least not yet.

wrote:
Now the people of Iraq just
want us gone; to them we're yet another Saddam.

They want us gone? That's news to me.

Then you aren't paying attention. The Iraqi government has specifically
requested that we start setting up firm timetables for withdrawal.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

wrote:
They still hate *us* in case you haven't noticed. They want us gone.

They may hate us but they,the majority, do not want us gone.
At least not yet.

Are you then saying that the democratically elected government of Iraq
does not reflect the will of the people? If so then we have failed even
more than I knew.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Nate Nagel wrote:
wrote:
Now the people of Iraq just want us gone; to them we're yet another
Saddam.

They want us gone? That's news to me.

Then you aren't paying attention. The Iraqi government has specifically
requested that we start setting up firm timetables for withdrawal.

nate


http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...851981,00.html

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 10:45:31 -0400, Nate Nagel
wrote:

wrote:
They still hate *us* in case you haven't noticed. They want us gone.

They may hate us but they,the majority, do not want us gone.
At least not yet.

Are you then saying that the democratically elected government of Iraq
does not reflect the will of the people? If so then we have failed even
more than I knew.

nate

I am saying that they don't want us gone. Gone as you have implied
means now. If left to your reasoning we would of already been gone.

Of course the Iraqi people want an autonomous country, and that would
require that we leave, but they realize that they are not ready for us
"to be gone".

Nate Nagel wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote:
wrote:
Now the people of Iraq just want us gone; to them we're yet another
Saddam.

They want us gone? That's news to me.

Then you aren't paying attention. The Iraqi government has
specifically requested that we start setting up firm timetables for
withdrawal.

nate


http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...851981,00.html

nate


I wish more people, regardless of their political
leanings, would understand that soldiers are not
policemen. The sooner the Iraqi government gets
it's police forces together, the sooner American
troops can leave the area. Right now, The Iraqi
Police are not quite up to the task of securing
the country. I wish they would hurry up. Our
troops are leaving more areas of Iraq right now
but it's not an overnight job.

TDD

In article ,
The Daring Dufas wrote:


I wish more people, regardless of their political
leanings, would understand that soldiers are not
policemen. The sooner the Iraqi government gets
it's police forces together, the sooner American
troops can leave the area. Right now, The Iraqi
Police are not quite up to the task of securing
the country. I wish they would hurry up. Our
troops are leaving more areas of Iraq right now
but it's not an overnight job.

TDD

The person I think should be Sec of Defense in ANY upcoming
administration, but won't be, suggests that that is not necessarily true.
I commend to you the writings of Thomas P.M. Barnett, especially his
book The Pentagon's New Map.
He suggests that the US Armed Forces should essentially morph into
two separate groups. The Leviathan that has the current military goal of
killing people and breaking things and the "Sys_Admin" part that is
heavily on the Civil to work to put the things the Leviathan is forced
break back together again.
Iraq suggests that we are probably among the best in the world on
Leviathan side, but the Sys-Admin parts need substantial work.
A Cliff Notes version of Dr. Barnett's thesis, and the thinking behind
it can be found at:
http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/peo...nett-con0.html

The Daring Dufas wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote:
wrote:
Now the people of Iraq just want us gone; to them we're yet another
Saddam.

They want us gone? That's news to me.

Then you aren't paying attention. The Iraqi government has
specifically requested that we start setting up firm timetables for
withdrawal.

nate


http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...851981,00.html

nate


I wish more people, regardless of their political
leanings, would understand that soldiers are not
policemen. The sooner the Iraqi government gets
it's police forces together, the sooner American
troops can leave the area. Right now, The Iraqi
Police are not quite up to the task of securing
the country. I wish they would hurry up. Our
troops are leaving more areas of Iraq right now
but it's not an overnight job.

TDD

OOPS! I made a mistake. I should have written
"its police forces" rather than "it's". Silly
me.

TDD

Nate Nagel wrote in
:

Jim Yanik wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote in
:

Jim Yanik wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote in
:

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"Bob F" wrote:


Really? No foreigners hate Bush? At all? Especially not ones
with weapons and no moral compunctions about killing those that
they feel are deserving of same?

You h ave any indication that they hate BUSH or just the
person who
is in the office. You think those with weapons and no compunction
to
no compunction -against- killing,I believe you mean...

kill are suddenly going to put down their weapons and participate
in mass sing alongs of "Kumbaya" suddenly in mid- January?
I doubt it, but likely their general, low-level hatred of people
that don't share their beliefs suddenly have a focus due to Bush's
actions.
That had that focus since Jimmy Carter's time.
Hezbollah(an Iranian creation) has been around a long time.

And that focus takes a long time to blur, so we'll be dealing wit
hthe aftermath for a while.

Had we actually cleaned up the neighborhood in Iraq (and
Afghanistan for that matter) quickly after the initial invasion
(e.g. MASSIVE commitment of police-type forces) things might have
been different. Unfortunately our leaders were too short sighted
to not lose the war after winning the battle.

nate

Well,Nate,similar mistakes and setbacks were made in just about
every war the US has been in,but we adjusted. (see Victor Davis
Hanson's articles..) One MAJOR thing different this time is that we
no longer had the support of the media.

Of course. Those who do not learn from history, et cetera. This is
why Bush et. cie. are failures. Do *you* support someone who keeps
doing the same thing over and over and expects a different outcome?
Isn't that a clinical definition of insanity?

nate


Major misconception;
Bush is NOT "doing the same thing over and over".

Sure he is. After all the lessons of Vietnam, he again invaded a
foreign country with insufficient resources to get the job done.

you obviously don't knwo anything about the Vietnam War;it was lost due to
anti-war hysteria and lack of a liberal Congress to support the
S.Vietnamese. We had plenty of resources.
Even NV's Gereral Giap admitted the great help the US anti-war people were.

Bush made a strategic move for the ME with the Iraq war.
IMO,it was/is a good idea.

No it wasn't.

As if you would recognize any such thing...


It WOULD have helped greatly if the DemocRATs had given true support
instead of being divisive and thus giving moral support to the enemy.

Iraq wasn't our enemy (at least not actively) until we invaded it.

Of course you have forgotten the first Iraq War where we kicked them out of
Kuwait,destroyed much of their armor,and established a No-Fly Zone,which
Iraq would violate,fire missiles at US aircraft in violation of the truce
they signed.You seem to be lacking in historical knowledge.


But they would rather appease the enemies of the US,thinking that
will buy them respect and good will.How naive.

see above.

meaningless comment.

DemocRATs,leftists,and socialists would rather see the US fail than
Bush succeed.

You don't get it. WE *HAVE* FAILED.

Only in the Leftist DemocRAT mindset.Surrender monkeys.

We could have either a) not
invaded Iraq at all or b) invaded, but after taking over the country
militarily have sent in forces sufficient to maintain peace and keep
things under control. We didn't do either. Now the people of Iraq
just want us gone; to them we're yet another Saddam.

As if you would have any knowledge of that....

I have yet to hear an explanation of a reasonable objective that has
been accomplished by invading Iraq.

Only becaus eyou don't listen;you filter out what you will not accept.

BTW, I am neither a Democrat, leftist, nor socialist. Just someone
who is unimaginably furious at Bush for being such a total and
complete failure after having the complete support of nearly the
entire world (immediately post-9/11)

Bush Derangement Syndrome,as your position is not supported by the facts.

nate


If you support Obama,you are a socialist[communist],a "useful idiot",or
been in a hole for the last several years.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Nate Nagel wrote in
:

Jim Yanik wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote in
:

HeyBub wrote:
Bob F wrote:
Sure. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Feith. Actually, anybody who
claims to be a neoconservative.

I guess it depends on your definition of success. In my
definition, foreigners don't get a vote and success depends
entirely on what's in the best interests of the United States. I
am indifferent in the extreme whether the French have their
feelings hurt or the Minoans are miffed. I measure success by how
many enemies of this great republic, their wives, children, and
goats die a horrible death (preceded, if possible, by piteous
lamentations), not the readings on some imaginary "Love Meter."
To paraphrase Admiral Halsey: "Kill terrorists. Kill terrorists.
Kill more terrorists!"

But, being fair, I can see how to those who value - nay, depend -
on the approbation of others will have a different metric (to use
a Rumsfeld word) in measuring "success."

Unfortunately, we are creating way more terrorists than we are
killing by our actions.
People get mad when the are invaded, occupied, and killed by the
hundreds of thousands.

except the ones killing them by the "100's of thousands" were their
so- called Islamic "friends".
Many Iraqi's have now realized that and have switched sides.
Too bad the hateful DemocRATs will not recognize it.

Iraqis celebrated when Saddam was deposed.Maybe you missed the video
on TV news? Then there was the "purple ink" showing that Iraqis
risked their lives to vote in a new government.But the willfully
blind ignores that stuff.

They still hate *us* in case you haven't noticed. They want us gone.

They'll get over it.

As for creating more terrorists than we've killed, where are they?

Please let us know so we can go kill them.

You are no better than they.

nate



More "moral equivalence". Pure garbage.


One extremist advotating genocide is equivalent to another.

nate


you obviously don't know what "genocide" means.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Nate Nagel wrote in
:

wrote:
Now the people of Iraq just
want us gone; to them we're yet another Saddam.

They want us gone? That's news to me.

Then you aren't paying attention. The Iraqi government has specifically
requested that we start setting up firm timetables for withdrawal.

nate


That was always a goal of the US;to withdraw.
"firm timetables" are just a gift to the terrorists.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Nate Nagel wrote in
:

wrote:
Now the people of Iraq just
want us gone; to them we're yet another Saddam.

They want us gone? That's news to me.

Then you aren't paying attention. The Iraqi government has specifically
requested that we start setting up firm timetables for withdrawal.

nate


Oh,BTW,Obama violated the Logan Act when he suggested to the Iraqi
officials that they WAIT until the next administration to agree on the SOF
agreement.
(endangering more US soldiers lives.)
He worked against the direct interests of the United States.

That makes Obama a traitor and he violated his oath of office.
(Congress is not exempt from that law.)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Nate Nagel wrote in
:

wrote:
They still hate *us* in case you haven't noticed. They want us gone.

They may hate us but they,the majority, do not want us gone.
At least not yet.

Are you then saying that the democratically elected government of Iraq
does not reflect the will of the people? If so then we have failed even
more than I knew.

nate


you simply have "failure" etched into your brain.
But liberals/leftists want the US to fail.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Clot wrote:

What I fail to understand is why US vehicle manufacturers wish to kill
themselves. Ford being the prime example producing massive large
engined trucks that no one wants and going down the tube as a result.
In Europe they have produced smaller much more efficient vehicles
successfully for many years. Similarly, GM. Why do they seem to have
a death wish allowing overseas competitors to steal the market? I
understand that there is a waiting list for diesel powered VW Jettas
in the US market. Ford produce Mondeos for the European market that
are just as good.

Heh. Back when, cheap, small imports from Japan were ruining the domestic
car industry in the States. The Congress, in its infinite wisdom, passed a
law limiting the NUMBER of foreign automobiles that could be imported.

Since Nissan, Honda, (et al) could not import five $10,000 automobiles, they
decided to make luxury cars and import ONE $50,000 car (this was back when
$50,000 was a lot of money). Enter Accura, Lexus, Infinity and others.

Jim Yanik wrote:

Nate Nagel wrote in
:

wrote:
They still hate *us* in case you haven't noticed. They want us gone.

They may hate us but they,the majority, do not want us gone.
At least not yet.

Are you then saying that the democratically elected government of Iraq
does not reflect the will of the people? If so then we have failed even
more than I knew.

nate


you simply have "failure" etched into your brain.
But liberals/leftists want the US to fail.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

And it's flagwaving assholes like you who get good men killed for no
good reason.

Nate Nagel wrote:

More "moral equivalence". Pure garbage.


One extremist advotating genocide is equivalent to another.


Genocide? Who? Where?

No one is advocating "genocide." Nor is anyone a racist, fascist, Nazi,
cracker, red-neck, hillbilly, fat-cat, or any of the other names opponents
throw about in an attempt to discredit righteous people.

Most Democrats are, however, socialists.

retired54 wrote:

I guess it depends on your definition of success. In my definition,
foreigners don't get a vote and success depends entirely on what's
in the best interests of the United States. I am indifferent in the
extreme whether the French have their feelings hurt or the Minoans
are miffed. I measure success by how many enemies of this great
republic, their wives, children, and goats die a horrible death
(preceded, if possible, by piteous lamentations), not the readings
on some imaginary "Love Meter." To paraphrase Admiral Halsey: "Kill
terrorists. Kill terrorists.
Kill more terrorists!"

But, being fair, I can see how to those who value - nay, depend -
on the approbation of others will have a different metric (to use a
Rumsfeld word) in measuring "success."


Unfortunately, we are creating way more terrorists than we are
killing by our actions.
People get mad when the are invaded, occupied, and killed by the
hundreds of thousands.

They'll get over it.

As for creating more terrorists than we've killed, where are they?

Please let us know so we can go kill them.


Well Pakistan has a bunch of them. Why don't you pack up the
Winnebago?
Good Riddance.


Somebody said we created more terrorists than we've killed. We've killed
thousands - maybe even scores of thousands. There are, as you suggest, some
known to be in Pakistan. But only a piddly few hundred.

Where's the thousands? The tens of thousands? Unless someone can provide
some census, I'll have to conclude the statement that "we've created more
terrorists than we've killed" is some throw-away line designed to end the
discussion without a scintilla of proof.

Jim Yanik wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote in
:

wrote:
Now the people of Iraq just
want us gone; to them we're yet another Saddam.
They want us gone? That's news to me.
Then you aren't paying attention. The Iraqi government has specifically
requested that we start setting up firm timetables for withdrawal.

nate


That was always a goal of the US;to withdraw.
"firm timetables" are just a gift to the terrorists.


So when are we going to withdraw? It's been going on six years, what
have we accomplished since the initial invasion and the capture of
Saddam? Are we significantly closer to being able to execute a graceful
withdrawal than we were five years ago? Why did we even invade in the
first place and take our eye off the ball in Afghanistan? How would
*you* feel if a foreign military had been occupying your country for
that long? (especially absent any previous aggression)

(crickets)

face it, your hero is a FAILURE and the sooner he is out of the White
House the sooner we can get back to rebuilding our own country.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z...s/image002.jpg

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
retired54 wrote:

I guess it depends on your definition of success. In my definition,
foreigners don't get a vote and success depends entirely on what's
in the best interests of the United States. I am indifferent in the
extreme whether the French have their feelings hurt or the Minoans
are miffed. I measure success by how many enemies of this great
republic, their wives, children, and goats die a horrible death
(preceded, if possible, by piteous lamentations), not the readings
on some imaginary "Love Meter." To paraphrase Admiral Halsey: "Kill
terrorists. Kill terrorists.
Kill more terrorists!"

But, being fair, I can see how to those who value - nay, depend -
on the approbation of others will have a different metric (to use a
Rumsfeld word) in measuring "success."


Unfortunately, we are creating way more terrorists than we are
killing by our actions.
People get mad when the are invaded, occupied, and killed by the
hundreds of thousands.

They'll get over it.

As for creating more terrorists than we've killed, where are they?

Please let us know so we can go kill them.


Well Pakistan has a bunch of them. Why don't you pack up the
Winnebago?
Good Riddance.


Somebody said we created more terrorists than we've killed. We've killed
thousands - maybe even scores of thousands. There are, as you suggest,
some known to be in Pakistan. But only a piddly few hundred.

Where's the thousands? The tens of thousands? Unless someone can provide
some census, I'll have to conclude the statement that "we've created more
terrorists than we've killed" is some throw-away line designed to end the
discussion without a scintilla of proof.

you're not gone yet cowboy?

On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 21:40:39 GMT, Erma1ina
wrote:

Jim Yanik wrote:

Nate Nagel wrote in
:

wrote:
They still hate *us* in case you haven't noticed. They want us gone.

They may hate us but they,the majority, do not want us gone.
At least not yet.

Are you then saying that the democratically elected government of Iraq
does not reflect the will of the people? If so then we have failed even
more than I knew.

nate


you simply have "failure" etched into your brain.
But liberals/leftists want the US to fail.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

And it's flagwaving assholes like you who get good men killed for no
good reason.

Amen.

"Erma1ina" wrote in message
...
Jim Yanik wrote:

Nate Nagel wrote in
:

wrote:
They still hate *us* in case you haven't noticed. They want us gone.

They may hate us but they,the majority, do not want us gone.
At least not yet.

Are you then saying that the democratically elected government of Iraq
does not reflect the will of the people? If so then we have failed
even
more than I knew.

nate


you simply have "failure" etched into your brain.
But liberals/leftists want the US to fail.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

And it's flagwaving assholes like you who get good men killed for no
good reason.

It's good to know the whole world has not gone mad. :-)

olddog

Nate Nagel wrote in
:



face it, your hero is a FAILURE and the sooner he is out of the White
House the sooner we can get back to rebuilding our own country.

nate


you simply have "failure" etched into your brain.
But liberals/leftists want the US to fail.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Erma1ina wrote in
:

Jim Yanik wrote:

Nate Nagel wrote in
:

wrote:
They still hate *us* in case you haven't noticed. They want us
gone.

They may hate us but they,the majority, do not want us gone.
At least not yet.

Are you then saying that the democratically elected government of
Iraq does not reflect the will of the people? If so then we have
failed even more than I knew.

nate


you simply have "failure" etched into your brain.
But liberals/leftists want the US to fail.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

And it's flagwaving assholes like you who get good men killed for no
good reason.

Interesting that the actual soldiers in Iraq feel that they are doing the
right thing.(a "good reason")

at least some folks are willing to stand up and fight for principles.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...
Erma1ina wrote in
:

Jim Yanik wrote:

Nate Nagel wrote in
:

wrote:
They still hate *us* in case you haven't noticed. They want us
gone.

They may hate us but they,the majority, do not want us gone.
At least not yet.

Are you then saying that the democratically elected government of
Iraq does not reflect the will of the people? If so then we have
failed even more than I knew.

nate


you simply have "failure" etched into your brain.
But liberals/leftists want the US to fail.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

And it's flagwaving assholes like you who get good men killed for no
good reason.

Interesting that the actual soldiers in Iraq feel that they are doing the
right thing.(a "good reason")

at least some folks are willing to stand up and fight for principles.


And what would that be? The United States of Exxon. Salute the flag fool.

Man they got you....Drive an SUV?

olddog

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Bob F" wrote:


Really? No foreigners hate Bush? At all? Especially not ones with
weapons and no moral compunctions about killing those that they feel
are deserving of same?

You h ave any indication that they hate BUSH or just the person who
is in the office. You think those with weapons and no compunction to
kill are suddenly going to put down their weapons and participate in
mass sing alongs of "Kumbaya" suddenly in mid- January?



************************************************** **************8

Everyone I know who's been overseas in the last several years has indicated
that
the people they've talked to are appalled by the actions of the Bush
administration.
The ephemeral "everyone I know". This is less useful than n=1
studies.

That includes a lot of media reports. I have yet to see a reasonable report that
the people in the world are supporting the actions of the last few years.

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...



Major misconception;
Bush is NOT "doing the same thing over and over".
Bush made a strategic move for the ME with the Iraq war.
IMO,it was/is a good idea.

It WOULD have helped greatly if the DemocRATs had given true support
instead of being divisive and thus giving moral support to the enemy.
But they would rather appease the enemies of the US,thinking that will buy
them respect and good will.How naive.


This has been claimed by the Republicans continuously and has never been true.
The democrats were not devisive. They were realistic. Going into Iraq was
stupid, uncalled for, persued with lies and distortions, and totally
missplanned. So why should they support it. "Morale support to the ememy"????
This is laughable.

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...
Nate Nagel wrote in
:



face it, your hero is a FAILURE and the sooner he is out of the White
House the sooner we can get back to rebuilding our own country.

nate


you simply have "failure" etched into your brain.
But liberals/leftists want the US to fail.


LOL!!

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 10:45:31 -0400, Nate Nagel
wrote:

wrote:
They still hate *us* in case you haven't noticed. They want us gone.

They may hate us but they,the majority, do not want us gone.
At least not yet.

Are you then saying that the democratically elected government of Iraq
does not reflect the will of the people? If so then we have failed even
more than I knew.

nate

I am saying that they don't want us gone. Gone as you have implied
means now. If left to your reasoning we would of already been gone.

Of course the Iraqi people want an autonomous country, and that would
require that we leave, but they realize that they are not ready for us
"to be gone".

I've read otherwise.

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...
Erma1ina wrote in
:

Jim Yanik wrote:

Nate Nagel wrote in
:

wrote:
They still hate *us* in case you haven't noticed. They want us
gone.

They may hate us but they,the majority, do not want us gone.
At least not yet.

Are you then saying that the democratically elected government of
Iraq does not reflect the will of the people? If so then we have
failed even more than I knew.

nate


you simply have "failure" etched into your brain.
But liberals/leftists want the US to fail.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

And it's flagwaving assholes like you who get good men killed for no
good reason.

Interesting that the actual soldiers in Iraq feel that they are doing the
right thing.(a "good reason")

at least some folks are willing to stand up and fight for principles.

You would probably be unhappy to see how they will vote.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
Nate Nagel wrote:

More "moral equivalence". Pure garbage.


One extremist advotating genocide is equivalent to another.


Genocide? Who? Where?

No one is advocating "genocide." Nor is anyone a racist, fascist, Nazi,
cracker, red-neck, hillbilly, fat-cat, or any of the other names opponents
throw about in an attempt to discredit righteous people.

Most Democrats are, however, socialists.


Ooooo! Dirty words!!