Wikileaks
 

On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 18:54:07 -0400, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"aemeijers" wrote in message
m...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

I think the point is that "royals" actually serve in the military.
Meanwhile, the Bush's kiddies did not, and neither did Chelsea
Clinton. That's what needs to change. Politicians do not consider the
consequences of their decisions, at least not to my satisfaction.
Ah, but:
George Bush the Younger served (Air National Guard)
George Bush the Elder served (U.S. Naval Reserve)*
Gerald Ford served (U.S. Naval Reserve)
Ronald Reagan served (U.S. Army & U.S. Army Air Corps)

And
Jimmy Carter served (U.S. Navy)
Lyndon Johnson served (U.S. Naval Reserve)
John F. Kennedy served (U.S. Naval Reserve)

Now which recent president(s) are missing from the list?


When you can name 50,000 more politicians' kids who served in either
Vietnam or Iraq, you'll have something. Good luck.

Get it through your head- kids have NO obligation to put themselves at
risk based on things their parent may or may not do.

When there was a draft, kids were obligated to put themselves at risk for
what total strangers did. Parents or not, kids were the property of the
government.


Originally the draft equated to equality of risk. A politician would be
less likely to rush headlong into war if it mean his kids would have an
equal chance of having to fight.

Wikileaks
 

On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 15:25:00 -0400, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...


The issue, as I recall, at the time, was not whether we could win in Viet
Nam, but why was it taking so long.

At least we didn't lose the war.


We didn't lose? It's a communist country and we buy shirts from them.

No, we lost the peace, or more accurately, the Demonicrats gave it away.

We have a funny habit of attacking countries which posed no threat to us.
The Spanish-American war was the first major example. Vietnam came next, and
now, Iraq.

Laughable.

Wikileaks
 

On Aug 25, 8:40*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

I think the point is that "royals" actually serve in the military.
Meanwhile, the Bush's kiddies did not, and neither did Chelsea
Clinton. That's what needs to change. Politicians do not consider the
consequences of their decisions, at least not to my satisfaction.

Ah, but:
George Bush the Younger served (Air National Guard)
George Bush the Elder served (U.S. Naval Reserve)*
Gerald Ford served (U.S. Naval Reserve)
Ronald Reagan served (U.S. Army & U.S. Army Air Corps)

And
Jimmy Carter served (U.S. Navy)
Lyndon Johnson served (U.S. Naval Reserve)
John F. Kennedy served (U.S. Naval Reserve)

Now which recent president(s) are missing from the list?

---
* Bush the Elder's father, Prescott Bush, served in the American
Expeditionary Forces in WWI.

I notice most kept their arses out of harm's way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tar y_service
And one got a medal for being shot at whilst a passenger in an
aircraft. Heh,Heh. Did he pin it on himself I wonder.

Our kings led the charge into battle at one time. Sadly, they no
longer do this.
In the Uk everyone of my age's father and grandfather was in the
military. So what?
The Britsh army had 350,000+ casualties in the battle of the Somme
alone in WW1 That was 3000 a day. One American was killed.

Wikileaks
 

On Aug 25, 11:54*pm, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"aemeijers" wrote in message

...





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

I think the point is that "royals" actually serve in the military.
Meanwhile, the Bush's kiddies did not, and neither did Chelsea
Clinton. That's what needs to change. Politicians do not consider the
consequences of their decisions, at least not to my satisfaction.
Ah, but:
George Bush the Younger served (Air National Guard)
George Bush the Elder served (U.S. Naval Reserve)*
Gerald Ford served (U.S. Naval Reserve)
Ronald Reagan served (U.S. Army & U.S. Army Air Corps)

And
Jimmy Carter served (U.S. Navy)
Lyndon Johnson served (U.S. Naval Reserve)
John F. Kennedy served (U.S. Naval Reserve)

Now which recent president(s) are missing from the list?

When you can name 50,000 more politicians' kids who served in either
Vietnam or Iraq, you'll have something. Good luck.

Get it through your head- kids have NO obligation to put themselves at
risk based on things their parent may or may not do.

When there was a draft, kids were obligated to put themselves at risk for
what total strangers did. Parents or not, kids were the property of the
government.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

All countries have legislation in place where they can start draft
even if there isn't one currently.

Wikileaks
 

On Aug 26, 12:32*am, "
wrote:
On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 15:25:00 -0400, "JoeSpareBedroom"

wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

The issue, as I recall, at the time, was not whether we could win in Viet
Nam, but why was it taking so long.

At least we didn't lose the war.

We didn't lose? It's a communist country and we buy shirts from them.

No, we lost the peace, or more accurately, the Demonicrats gave it away.

We have a funny habit of attacking countries which posed no threat to us..
The Spanish-American war was the first major example. Vietnam came next, and
now, Iraq.

Laughable.

Only recently.

Wikileaks
 

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 15:25:00 -0400, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...


The issue, as I recall, at the time, was not whether we could win in
Viet
Nam, but why was it taking so long.

At least we didn't lose the war.


We didn't lose? It's a communist country and we buy shirts from them.

No, we lost the peace, or more accurately, the Demonicrats gave it away.

We have a funny habit of attacking countries which posed no threat to us.
The Spanish-American war was the first major example. Vietnam came next,
and
now, Iraq.

Laughable.


Really? OK. One war at a time, explain how we were threatened. Let's begin
with the Spanish-American war. A ship blew up in Cuba. We invaded the
Phillippines. How were we threatened by the Phillippines?

Wikileaks
 

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


The issue, as I recall, at the time, was not whether we could win in
Viet Nam, but why was it taking so long.

At least we didn't lose the war.


We didn't lose? It's a communist country and we buy shirts from them.

We have a funny habit of attacking countries which posed no threat to
us. The Spanish-American war was the first major example. Vietnam
came next, and now, Iraq.

No, actually the U.S. invasion of Canada was the first example. It started
the war of 1812.

Wikileaks
 

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

No, we lost the peace, or more accurately, the Demonicrats gave it
away.
We have a funny habit of attacking countries which posed no threat
to us. The Spanish-American war was the first major example.
Vietnam came next, and
now, Iraq.

Laughable.


Really? OK. One war at a time, explain how we were threatened. Let's
begin with the Spanish-American war. A ship blew up in Cuba. We
invaded the Phillippines. How were we threatened by the Phillippines?

Uh, Cuba was a colony of Spain. So were the Philippines. That's why it was
called the Spanish-American War and not the Cuba-Phillippines-Guam-Puerto
Rico-Islands in the West Indies War.

Wikileaks
 

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


The issue, as I recall, at the time, was not whether we could win in
Viet Nam, but why was it taking so long.

At least we didn't lose the war.


We didn't lose? It's a communist country and we buy shirts from them.

We have a funny habit of attacking countries which posed no threat to
us. The Spanish-American war was the first major example. Vietnam
came next, and now, Iraq.

No, actually the U.S. invasion of Canada was the first example. It started
the war of 1812.


Thank you. So you've agreed that we DO start wars for no good reason.

How were we threatened by the Phillippines?

Wikileaks
 

harry wrote:
On Aug 25, 8:40 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

I think the point is that "royals" actually serve in the military.
Meanwhile, the Bush's kiddies did not, and neither did Chelsea
Clinton. That's what needs to change. Politicians do not consider
the consequences of their decisions, at least not to my
satisfaction.

Ah, but:
George Bush the Younger served (Air National Guard)
George Bush the Elder served (U.S. Naval Reserve)*
Gerald Ford served (U.S. Naval Reserve)
Ronald Reagan served (U.S. Army & U.S. Army Air Corps)

And
Jimmy Carter served (U.S. Navy)
Lyndon Johnson served (U.S. Naval Reserve)
John F. Kennedy served (U.S. Naval Reserve)

Now which recent president(s) are missing from the list?

---
* Bush the Elder's father, Prescott Bush, served in the American
Expeditionary Forces in WWI.

I notice most kept their arses out of harm's way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tar y_service

Uh, no.

Five of the seven served in combat. Two of the seven I mentioned did not see
action in actual combat (G.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan). Still, their lot was
not trivial. George W. Bush, for example, trained as a figher pilot in the
notoriously difficult to fly F-115. The F-115 was so prone to just giving it
up and crashing, that it was removed from service.


And one got a medal for being shot at whilst a passenger in an
aircraft. Heh,Heh. Did he pin it on himself I wonder.

That was LBJ. And it wasn't just a "medal," it was the Silver Star, our
nation's third highest award for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in
the face of enemy action.

And yes, he did pin it on himself. For many years, until the Satan took him,
he wore a miniature ribbon in his lapel.


Our kings led the charge into battle at one time. Sadly, they no
longer do this.
In the Uk everyone of my age's father and grandfather was in the
military. So what?
The Britsh army had 350,000+ casualties in the battle of the Somme
alone in WW1 That was 3000 a day. One American was killed.

We, too, lost 3,000 in one day. 11 September 2001.

Wikileaks
 

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

No, we lost the peace, or more accurately, the Demonicrats gave it
away.
We have a funny habit of attacking countries which posed no threat
to us. The Spanish-American war was the first major example.
Vietnam came next, and
now, Iraq.

Laughable.


Really? OK. One war at a time, explain how we were threatened. Let's
begin with the Spanish-American war. A ship blew up in Cuba. We
invaded the Phillippines. How were we threatened by the Phillippines?

Uh, Cuba was a colony of Spain. So were the Philippines. That's why it was
called the Spanish-American War and not the Cuba-Phillippines-Guam-Puerto
Rico-Islands in the West Indies War.


That really doesn't answer the question, unless you also think al Qaeda
should've attacked Puerto Rico instead of Manhattan on 9/11.

Wikileaks
 

"HeyBub" wrote:

harry wrote:

-snip-
The Britsh army had 350,000+ casualties in the battle of the Somme
alone in WW1 That was 3000 a day. One American was killed.

I've got the ****** killfiled- but that is just too precious. He's
gauging the strength of his army by how many soldiers they *lost*?! We
were taught that it was our duty to get the *other* guy to give his
life for his country-- not to give our own.

Lucky for you my grandfather took that ground for you in 1918 as part
of the 27th Div, AEF. And a hell of a lot more than 1 American was
killed taking it.

Jim

Wikileaks
 

On Aug 26, 11:00*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:
On Aug 25, 8:40 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

I think the point is that "royals" actually serve in the military.
Meanwhile, the Bush's kiddies did not, and neither did Chelsea
Clinton. That's what needs to change. Politicians do not consider
the consequences of their decisions, at least not to my
satisfaction.

Ah, but:
George Bush the Younger served (Air National Guard)
George Bush the Elder served (U.S. Naval Reserve)*
Gerald Ford served (U.S. Naval Reserve)
Ronald Reagan served (U.S. Army & U.S. Army Air Corps)

And
Jimmy Carter served (U.S. Navy)
Lyndon Johnson served (U.S. Naval Reserve)
John F. Kennedy served (U.S. Naval Reserve)

Now which recent president(s) are missing from the list?

---
* Bush the Elder's father, Prescott Bush, served in the American
Expeditionary Forces in WWI.

I notice most kept their arses out of harm's way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...United_States_...

Uh, no.

Five of the seven served in combat. Two of the seven I mentioned did not see
action in actual combat (G.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan). Still, their lot was
not trivial. George W. Bush, for example, trained as a figher pilot in the
notoriously difficult to fly F-115. The F-115 was so prone to just giving it
up and crashing, that it was removed from service.

I don't believe Carter was ever in combat. He served, active duty, in
the Navy from '46 to '53.

Bush flew the F-102 in an air-defense role, not F-115 (no such
animal).

Wikileaks
 

On 8/26/2010 1:24 PM, keith wrote:
On Aug 26, 11:00 am, wrote:
harry wrote:
On Aug 25, 8:40 pm, wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

I think the point is that "royals" actually serve in the military.
Meanwhile, the Bush's kiddies did not, and neither did Chelsea
Clinton. That's what needs to change. Politicians do not consider
the consequences of their decisions, at least not to my
satisfaction.

Ah, but:
George Bush the Younger served (Air National Guard)
George Bush the Elder served (U.S. Naval Reserve)*
Gerald Ford served (U.S. Naval Reserve)
Ronald Reagan served (U.S. Army& U.S. Army Air Corps)

And
Jimmy Carter served (U.S. Navy)
Lyndon Johnson served (U.S. Naval Reserve)
John F. Kennedy served (U.S. Naval Reserve)

Now which recent president(s) are missing from the list?

---
* Bush the Elder's father, Prescott Bush, served in the American
Expeditionary Forces in WWI.

I notice most kept their arses out of harm's way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...United_States_...

Uh, no.

Five of the seven served in combat. Two of the seven I mentioned did not see
action in actual combat (G.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan). Still, their lot was
not trivial. George W. Bush, for example, trained as a figher pilot in the
notoriously difficult to fly F-115. The F-115 was so prone to just giving it
up and crashing, that it was removed from service.

I don't believe Carter was ever in combat. He served, active duty, in
the Navy from '46 to '53.

Bush flew the F-102 in an air-defense role, not F-115 (no such
animal).



You mean you don't know about the super secret F-115 invisible fighter? 8-)

TDD

Wikileaks
 

On Aug 26, 5:44*pm, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:

-snip-

The Britsh army had 350,000+ casualties in the battle of the Somme
alone in WW1 That was 3000 a day. One American was killed.

I've got the ****** killfiled- but that is just too precious. * He's
gauging the strength of his army by how many soldiers they *lost*?! We
were taught that it was our duty to get the *other* guy to give his
life for his country-- not to give our own.

Lucky for you my grandfather took that ground for you in 1918 as part
of the 27th Div, AEF. * * And a hell of a lot more than 1 American was
killed taking it.

Jim

1918 Hm. That was the year the war finished. Just turned up in time
tio take some credit.

Wikileaks
 

On Aug 26, 7:24*pm, keith wrote:
On Aug 26, 11:00*am, "HeyBub" wrote:





harry wrote:
On Aug 25, 8:40 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

I think the point is that "royals" actually serve in the military.
Meanwhile, the Bush's kiddies did not, and neither did Chelsea
Clinton. That's what needs to change. Politicians do not consider
the consequences of their decisions, at least not to my
satisfaction.

Ah, but:
George Bush the Younger served (Air National Guard)
George Bush the Elder served (U.S. Naval Reserve)*
Gerald Ford served (U.S. Naval Reserve)
Ronald Reagan served (U.S. Army & U.S. Army Air Corps)

And
Jimmy Carter served (U.S. Navy)
Lyndon Johnson served (U.S. Naval Reserve)
John F. Kennedy served (U.S. Naval Reserve)

Now which recent president(s) are missing from the list?

---
* Bush the Elder's father, Prescott Bush, served in the American
Expeditionary Forces in WWI.

I notice most kept their arses out of harm's way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...United_States_....

Uh, no.

Five of the seven served in combat. Two of the seven I mentioned did not see
action in actual combat (G.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan). Still, their lot was
not trivial. George W. Bush, for example, trained as a figher pilot in the
notoriously difficult to fly F-115. The F-115 was so prone to just giving it
up and crashing, that it was removed from service.

I don't believe Carter was ever in combat. *He served, active duty, in
the Navy from '46 to '53.

Bush flew the F-102 in an air-defense role, not F-115 (no such
animal).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's perfectly normal for him to get his facts wrong. He is/was only
a dumb cop.

Wikileaks
 

On Aug 26, 7:24*pm, keith wrote:
On Aug 26, 11:00*am, "HeyBub" wrote:





harry wrote:
On Aug 25, 8:40 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

I think the point is that "royals" actually serve in the military.
Meanwhile, the Bush's kiddies did not, and neither did Chelsea
Clinton. That's what needs to change. Politicians do not consider
the consequences of their decisions, at least not to my
satisfaction.

Ah, but:
George Bush the Younger served (Air National Guard)
George Bush the Elder served (U.S. Naval Reserve)*
Gerald Ford served (U.S. Naval Reserve)
Ronald Reagan served (U.S. Army & U.S. Army Air Corps)

And
Jimmy Carter served (U.S. Navy)
Lyndon Johnson served (U.S. Naval Reserve)
John F. Kennedy served (U.S. Naval Reserve)

Now which recent president(s) are missing from the list?

---
* Bush the Elder's father, Prescott Bush, served in the American
Expeditionary Forces in WWI.

I notice most kept their arses out of harm's way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...United_States_....

Uh, no.

Five of the seven served in combat. Two of the seven I mentioned did not see
action in actual combat (G.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan). Still, their lot was
not trivial. George W. Bush, for example, trained as a figher pilot in the
notoriously difficult to fly F-115. The F-115 was so prone to just giving it
up and crashing, that it was removed from service.

I don't believe Carter was ever in combat. *He served, active duty, in
the Navy from '46 to '53.

Bush flew the F-102 in an air-defense role, not F-115 (no such
animal).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There was British F115. Maybe he means that one.

Wikileaks
 

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


Really? OK. One war at a time, explain how we were threatened. Let's
begin with the Spanish-American war. A ship blew up in Cuba. We
invaded the Phillippines. How were we threatened by the
Phillippines?

Uh, Cuba was a colony of Spain. So were the Philippines. That's why
it was called the Spanish-American War and not the
Cuba-Phillippines-Guam-Puerto Rico-Islands in the West Indies War.


That really doesn't answer the question, unless you also think al
Qaeda should've attacked Puerto Rico instead of Manhattan on 9/11.

Yes it does. We were at war with SPAIN, all of SPAIN. That included the
Phillippines, Guam, Cuba, Puerto Rico, various islands in the West Indies,
and Spanish Harlem.



OK. Now, how were we threatened by Vietnam? Try to avoid the "They were a
convenient pawn of the Chinese." That won't fly.

Wikileaks
 

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


We didn't lose? It's a communist country and we buy shirts from
them. We have a funny habit of attacking countries which posed no
threat
to us. The Spanish-American war was the first major example. Vietnam
came next, and now, Iraq.

No, actually the U.S. invasion of Canada was the first example. It
started the war of 1812.


Thank you. So you've agreed that we DO start wars for no good reason.

What do you mean "no good reason?" We had ample reason to invade Canada, a
British colony. The British were arming Indians to slaughter American
civilians, onerous trade restrictions, the British impressing American
naval personnel and ordinary citizens into their navy, and the British
calling us names.


How were we threatened by the Phillippines?

The Phillippines posed no threat to the United States. The United States
doesn't start wars over mere threats anyway. Or at least it didn't used to
do so.

And, in the case of the United States, we have never had a war in which
the reason given was "I dunno, seemed like a fun thing to do." There's
always a good reason.


The problem is that the "good reasons" are often nonsense. The domino theory
was concocted by a couple of academic suits, who became very quiet after it
became clear that impotent old men were sending young soldiers to their
death because of the theory.

Wikileaks
 

On Aug 27, 7:14*am, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message

m...





JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

We didn't lose? It's a communist country and we buy shirts from
them. We have a funny habit of attacking countries which posed no
threat
to us. The Spanish-American war was the first major example. Vietnam
came next, and now, Iraq.

No, actually the U.S. invasion of Canada was the first example. It
started the war of 1812.

Thank you. So you've agreed that we DO start wars for no good reason.

What do you mean "no good reason?" We had ample reason to invade Canada, a
British colony. The British were arming Indians to slaughter American
civilians, onerous trade restrictions, the British impressing American
naval personnel and ordinary citizens into their navy, and the British
calling us names.

How were we threatened by the Phillippines?

The Phillippines posed no threat to the United States. The United States
doesn't start wars over mere threats anyway. Or at least it didn't used to
do so.

And, in the case of the United States, we have never had a war in which
the reason given was "I dunno, seemed like a fun thing to do." There's
always a good reason.

The problem is that the "good reasons" are often nonsense. The domino theory
was concocted by a couple of academic suits, who became very quiet after it
became clear that impotent old men were sending young soldiers to their
death because of the theory.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

20-20 hindsight and knowing how the world played out 4 decades later
sure is convenient, ain't it? Had communism spread from Vietnam to
most of Asia, you'd be singing a different tune.

For a recent example, had Bush done nothing and it turned out that
WMDs produced by Sadam were used against US targets, you'd be the
first to be bitching that there was PLENTY of intelligence that
indicated Sadam had active WMD programs. Why, not only US
intelligence, but also Israel, Britain, and Russian intelligence also
believed it. Even with 300,000 troops ready to invade, Sadam refused
to simply cooperate with the UN weapons inspectors. He sure acted
like he was hiding WMDs and we know he had them in the past. Yet,
Bush failed to act. You'd be calling for his impeachement.

Wikileaks
 

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


Really? OK. One war at a time, explain how we were threatened.
Let's begin with the Spanish-American war. A ship blew up in
Cuba. We invaded the Phillippines. How were we threatened by the
Phillippines?

Uh, Cuba was a colony of Spain. So were the Philippines. That's why
it was called the Spanish-American War and not the
Cuba-Phillippines-Guam-Puerto Rico-Islands in the West Indies War.


That really doesn't answer the question, unless you also think al
Qaeda should've attacked Puerto Rico instead of Manhattan on 9/11.

Yes it does. We were at war with SPAIN, all of SPAIN. That included
the Phillippines, Guam, Cuba, Puerto Rico, various islands in the
West Indies, and Spanish Harlem.



OK. Now, how were we threatened by Vietnam? Try to avoid the "They
were a convenient pawn of the Chinese." That won't fly.

In 1964, they ATTACKED a United States warship, the U.S.S. Maddox, in
international waters! Inasmuch as we need a war every ten years or so, this
provided the necessary excuse to sharpen the spear after the Korean
contretemps.

Wikileaks
 

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:


Thank you. So you've agreed that we DO start wars for no good
reason.

What do you mean "no good reason?" We had ample reason to invade
Canada, a British colony. The British were arming Indians to
slaughter American civilians, onerous trade restrictions, the
British impressing American naval personnel and ordinary citizens
into their navy, and the British calling us names.


How were we threatened by the Phillippines?

The Phillippines posed no threat to the United States. The United
States doesn't start wars over mere threats anyway. Or at least it
didn't used to do so.

And, in the case of the United States, we have never had a war in
which the reason given was "I dunno, seemed like a fun thing to do."
There's always a good reason.


The problem is that the "good reasons" are often nonsense. The domino
theory was concocted by a couple of academic suits, who became very
quiet after it became clear that impotent old men were sending young
soldiers to their death because of the theory.

I agree that the twits in Washington continue to practice the "status quo"
methodology instead of "dynamic scoring."

The "Domino Theory" implied that other nations would fall to Communism if
North Korea prevailed. According to "static scoring," that conclusion was
the most likely outcome of doing nothing, inasmuch as Communism harkens,
like Islam, to a triumphalist dogma.

The wild-card was that Communism was on its death bed and had neither the
strength nor the will to continue with its expansionist dreams.

Wikileaks
 

wrote in message
...
On Aug 27, 7:14 am, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message

m...





JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

We didn't lose? It's a communist country and we buy shirts from
them. We have a funny habit of attacking countries which posed no
threat
to us. The Spanish-American war was the first major example. Vietnam
came next, and now, Iraq.

No, actually the U.S. invasion of Canada was the first example. It
started the war of 1812.

Thank you. So you've agreed that we DO start wars for no good reason.

What do you mean "no good reason?" We had ample reason to invade Canada,
a
British colony. The British were arming Indians to slaughter American
civilians, onerous trade restrictions, the British impressing American
naval personnel and ordinary citizens into their navy, and the British
calling us names.

How were we threatened by the Phillippines?

The Phillippines posed no threat to the United States. The United States
doesn't start wars over mere threats anyway. Or at least it didn't used
to
do so.

And, in the case of the United States, we have never had a war in which
the reason given was "I dunno, seemed like a fun thing to do." There's
always a good reason.

The problem is that the "good reasons" are often nonsense. The domino
theory
was concocted by a couple of academic suits, who became very quiet after
it
became clear that impotent old men were sending young soldiers to their
death because of the theory.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

20-20 hindsight and knowing how the world played out 4 decades later
sure is convenient, ain't it? Had communism spread from Vietnam to
most of Asia, you'd be singing a different tune.

For a recent example, had Bush done nothing and it turned out that
WMDs produced by Sadam were used against US targets, you'd be the
first to be bitching that there was PLENTY of intelligence that
indicated Sadam had active WMD programs. Why, not only US
intelligence, but also Israel, Britain, and Russian intelligence also
believed it. Even with 300,000 troops ready to invade, Sadam refused
to simply cooperate with the UN weapons inspectors. He sure acted
like he was hiding WMDs and we know he had them in the past. Yet,
Bush failed to act. You'd be calling for his impeachement.

==============

Have you read "Plan Of Attack" by Bob Woodward?

Wikileaks
 

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


Really? OK. One war at a time, explain how we were threatened.
Let's begin with the Spanish-American war. A ship blew up in
Cuba. We invaded the Phillippines. How were we threatened by the
Phillippines?

Uh, Cuba was a colony of Spain. So were the Philippines. That's why
it was called the Spanish-American War and not the
Cuba-Phillippines-Guam-Puerto Rico-Islands in the West Indies War.


That really doesn't answer the question, unless you also think al
Qaeda should've attacked Puerto Rico instead of Manhattan on 9/11.

Yes it does. We were at war with SPAIN, all of SPAIN. That included
the Phillippines, Guam, Cuba, Puerto Rico, various islands in the
West Indies, and Spanish Harlem.



OK. Now, how were we threatened by Vietnam? Try to avoid the "They
were a convenient pawn of the Chinese." That won't fly.

In 1964, they ATTACKED a United States warship, the U.S.S. Maddox, in
international waters! Inasmuch as we need a war every ten years or so,
this provided the necessary excuse to sharpen the spear after the Korean
contretemps.



You're a funny guy.

Wikileaks
 

On Aug 26, 6:01*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
keith wrote:

Uh, no.

Five of the seven served in combat. Two of the seven I mentioned did
not see action in actual combat (G.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan).
Still, their lot was not trivial. George W. Bush, for example,
trained as a figher pilot in the notoriously difficult to fly F-115.
The F-115 was so prone to just giving it up and crashing, that it
was removed from service.

I don't believe Carter was ever in combat. *He served, active duty, in
the Navy from '46 to '53.

Bush flew the F-102 in an air-defense role, not F-115 (no such
animal).

Ah, you're right about the F-102. My mistake. Carter may not have served in
combat - I don't know - but he did serve in wartime, the Korean dustup. For
that matter, I guess, Dubya also served during wartime.

Cold War, yes. He was an intercept pilot. F102s were designed
specifically to intercept Russian nuclear bombers.

Wikileaks
 

On Aug 27, 8:11*am, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message

m...





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

Really? OK. One war at a time, explain how we were threatened.
Let's begin with the Spanish-American war. A ship blew up in
Cuba. We invaded the Phillippines. How were we threatened by the
Phillippines?

Uh, Cuba was a colony of Spain. So were the Philippines. That's why
it was called the Spanish-American War and not the
Cuba-Phillippines-Guam-Puerto Rico-Islands in the West Indies War.

That really doesn't answer the question, unless you also think al
Qaeda should've attacked Puerto Rico instead of Manhattan on 9/11.

Yes it does. We were at war with SPAIN, all of SPAIN. That included
the Phillippines, Guam, Cuba, Puerto Rico, various islands in the
West Indies, and Spanish Harlem.

OK. Now, how were we threatened by Vietnam? Try to avoid the "They
were a convenient pawn of the Chinese." That won't fly.

In 1964, they ATTACKED a United States warship, the U.S.S. Maddox, *in
international waters! Inasmuch as we need a war every ten years or so,
this provided the necessary excuse to sharpen the spear after the Korean
contretemps.

You're a funny guy.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Must we be threatened to use military intervention anywhere? Is it
not valid to intervene to stop genocide, end brutal regimes, like we
did during the 90s in the Balkans?

Wikileaks
 

On 8/27/2010 6:40 AM, wrote:
On Aug 27, 7:14 am,
wrote:
wrote in message

m...





JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

We didn't lose? It's a communist country and we buy shirts from
them. We have a funny habit of attacking countries which posed no
threat
to us. The Spanish-American war was the first major example. Vietnam
came next, and now, Iraq.

No, actually the U.S. invasion of Canada was the first example. It
started the war of 1812.

Thank you. So you've agreed that we DO start wars for no good reason.

What do you mean "no good reason?" We had ample reason to invade Canada, a
British colony. The British were arming Indians to slaughter American
civilians, onerous trade restrictions, the British impressing American
naval personnel and ordinary citizens into their navy, and the British
calling us names.

How were we threatened by the Phillippines?

The Phillippines posed no threat to the United States. The United States
doesn't start wars over mere threats anyway. Or at least it didn't used to
do so.

And, in the case of the United States, we have never had a war in which
the reason given was "I dunno, seemed like a fun thing to do." There's
always a good reason.

The problem is that the "good reasons" are often nonsense. The domino theory
was concocted by a couple of academic suits, who became very quiet after it
became clear that impotent old men were sending young soldiers to their
death because of the theory.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

20-20 hindsight and knowing how the world played out 4 decades later
sure is convenient, ain't it? Had communism spread from Vietnam to
most of Asia, you'd be singing a different tune.

For a recent example, had Bush done nothing and it turned out that
WMDs produced by Sadam were used against US targets, you'd be the
first to be bitching that there was PLENTY of intelligence that
indicated Sadam had active WMD programs. Why, not only US
intelligence, but also Israel, Britain, and Russian intelligence also
believed it. Even with 300,000 troops ready to invade, Sadam refused
to simply cooperate with the UN weapons inspectors. He sure acted
like he was hiding WMDs and we know he had them in the past. Yet,
Bush failed to act. You'd be calling for his impeachement.

Wasn't there a slew of trucks and ships leaving Iraq as US troops came
in? Hell there's stuff buried in the sand all over that damn place and
if I remember correctly, MIG jets were found under the desert sand too.
Some people postulated that Saddam shipped his WMD's to Syria when the
war started.

TDD

Wikileaks
 

wrote in message
...

I'd say we have a loser. Again, what you're advocating is that every
individual has the right to decide on their own what is classified and
what is not and should be published.

Oh, really? Where exactly did I advocate that? Or in your mind is pointing
out there is a excessive document classification by the military (and the
rest of govt.) the same as saying everyone has the right to decide on their
own what should be classified? It requires quite a rhetorical leap to claim
I'm advocating something I didn't say.

There are many obvious problems
to that approach. And contrary to the other posters claim, it;s not
customary to classify mess hall hours.

You checked huh? I can recall seeing a schedule for a shuttle bus that
moved people around a large air base, it was stamped "Restricted" which of
course makes it a classified document. It was posted on a bulletin board
inside a building entrance where hundreds of people a day could read it, but
it was still a classified document. But if you say that sort of thing isn't
customary then maybe that was the only such notice on that whole base and
the guy who posted it went to prison when they realized what he'd done.

To cite some of the obvious
problems that should be apparent to anyone with a brain, let's look at
this case. You have a private and an internet buffoon deciding what
should and should not be classified.

Oh dear, one of those folks who can't make his point without insisting that
anyone who disagrees must not be very smart.

They have no access to the big
picture of what possible ramifications any of that information has to
national security.

I bet the Pentagon has you on speed-dial, right?

Let's say some pin head decided to leak info
during WWII that happened to contain some of the various equipment
being shipped to Oak Ridge, TN or Los Alamos, NM. To the private, or
the likes of Assange, it would be meaningless. But to a foreign
intelligence service that information would be priceless.

What you describe happened, some left-wing scientists figured an American
monopoly on atomic weapons would be bad for the world so they fed info to
the Soviets who began their own bomb program as early as 1942. So the
Soviets got the bomb a little faster than they would have, and the world
continued to turn and the USSR still collapsed. What was your point again?

Wikileaks
 

"aemeijers" wrote in message
...

You have excessive faith in the system and/or the PTB. I've worked for
the govt for 30 years. IMHO WAY too many people have 'initial
classification authority', which by reg is considered damn near as
sacrosanct as decrees from the pope. Military mindset- questioning the
decision another uniform made is like questioning his manhood, especially
if they are in 'command' of something.

I remember when the security droids raised a stink about the typewriter used
by the secretary in one office I worked out of. She hadn't removed the
typewriter ribbon and locked it in a safe at the end of the day, which in
theory meant some fiendish foreign agent could get the ribbon and figure out
what had been typed by looking at the impressions on the ribbon. The
secretary was not only a long-service military employee but her husband was
a big wheel for the Inspector General, so she wasn't about to take any
bull**** from some bored security twerp. She wrote up a letter that no
classified material was every typed on that machine but if anyone wanted to
make a big deal out of her not locking up the ribbon at night she'd be happy
to discuss it further up the chain of command--and left that letter in the
typewriter every night from then on. Somebody must have taken the time to
look up who she was (and who her husband was) and we didn't hear anything
more about her locking up her typewriter ribbon at night.

That's the problem with petty bureaucrats, they can't deviate from the
script no matter how little sense it makes to follow it.

Wikileaks
 

On Aug 27, 11:42*am, AZ Nomad wrote:
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 11:08:55 -0400, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
LOL, so now you want to revisit the claim that the Iraq war was to
take their oil? * I thought that silly nonsense disappeared long
ago. * Last time I checked, the oil in Iraq still belongs to the
Iraqis and is under their control, not the USA. *And if you want to
claim that we were not going to steal the oil, but just wanted it to
flow, then we could have done that by just dropping the sanctions,
without any need for war.

Of course. *I can't imagine why anybody would think the new regime would
be any friendlier in respect to letting the oil flow towards the U.S.
than Saddam's. *


Look, oil is a fungible commodity. Whether we buy a barrel of oil
from Iraq or Mexico at $80 a barrel matters not a wit. If we didn't
buy a barrel of Iraqi oil, some other country would. So, unless you
have some evidence that the US is now getting Iraqi oil at some
sweetheart deal, your comments have no merit. In fact, the only major
oil deal I'm aware of Iraq did with a British/Chinese consortium. As
far as obstacles to Iraq's oil flowing, as I said before, that could
have been done by the US simply calling for the lifting of the UN
sanctions at any time. That was what was limiting Iraqi oil output to
the world, not some embargo imposed by Sadam.

Wikileaks
 

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...

It was interesting to read about how Tenet was repeatedly asked if CIA
documents about WMD ever contain firm statements instead of being filled
with words like "probable", "likely", etc. He was asked to scrub those
words away as much as possible.

In Thomas Ricks' book Fiasco he describes planners working on the invasion
of Iraq being told not to bother sending units to suspected WMD sites, and
when they questioned that policy they were told to shut up and follow
orders. So *somebody* seemed to know it would be a waste of resources
securing those supposed WMD sites. Pity they also didn't secure all the
conventional arms dumps as well since the insurgents got to stockpile
weapons and explosives by looting those sites. But as Ricks also describes
in Fiasco, most of the Military Police units that would have secured those
sites were deleted from the invasion force at the last minute--great
planning huh?

Wikileaks
 

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

I agree there probably are "chicken hawks," but I don't know of any.
Personally, I'm too old and feeble to be of much use in today's conflicts.

Don't count yourself out, they've been sending reservists overseas long past
the age when anyone expected to go, but that's what happens when you run
short of people because recruitment falls and people bail out of the service
when their hitch is up, not wanting to be fed into a meat-grinder with no
purpose. But who knows, even you might get a little discouraged on your
fifth rotation to be IED-bait.

Come on tiger, check with your local Guard recruiter, you might have some
job skill they need.

But back when I was young and strong, I did what I could.

Lots of us did, but for some of us it didn't leave us with the impression
that people in uniform are expendable to no good cause.

Wikileaks
 

"harry" wrote in message
...

Pointless illegal wars costing the American taxpayer millions not to
mention the lives of it's citizens. All for babbling half wits like
you.
And the f***g Jews these days.
And republican arms manufacturers.

Aha, one of those. Cool, no need to waste any more time reading anything
you post.

Wikileaks
 

"DGDevin" wrote in message
m...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...

It was interesting to read about how Tenet was repeatedly asked if CIA
documents about WMD ever contain firm statements instead of being filled
with words like "probable", "likely", etc. He was asked to scrub those
words away as much as possible.

In Thomas Ricks' book Fiasco he describes planners working on the invasion
of Iraq being told not to bother sending units to suspected WMD sites, and
when they questioned that policy they were told to shut up and follow
orders. So *somebody* seemed to know it would be a waste of resources
securing those supposed WMD sites. Pity they also didn't secure all the
conventional arms dumps as well since the insurgents got to stockpile
weapons and explosives by looting those sites. But as Ricks also
describes in Fiasco, most of the Military Police units that would have
secured those sites were deleted from the invasion force at the last
minute--great planning huh?


I'm tellin' ya - waterboarding was wasted on terrorist suspects. Our own
government's loaded with better candidates for such treatment.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/25/in...?oref=login&th

"The International Atomic Energy Agency publicly warned about the danger of
these explosives before the war, and after the invasion it specifically told
United States officials about the need to keep the explosives secured,
European diplomats said in interviews last week. Administration officials
say they cannot explain why the explosives were not safeguarded, beyond the
fact that the occupation force was overwhelmed by the amount of munitions
they found throughout the country."

Wikileaks
 

"Caesar Romano" wrote in message
...

Well said. And the pay isn't too bad considering the paucity of
civilian alternatives available e.g. a married E-5, with six years of
service, stationed at San Diego, CA and deployed to Iraq would get

Base Pay: $2,205.30
Housing Allowance: $1535
Food Allowance: $267.18
Family Separation Allowance: $250
Hazardous Duty Pay: $225
Hardship Duty Pay: $100
Total: $4,582.48 per month, or $54,989.76 per year, Fed (and maybe
state) tax-free

Great, and when he comes home with no legs and one arm he can keep busy
trying to get his disabled veteran benefits despite the best efforts of a
federal bureaucracy that is only good at shuffling paper. So the ceiling of
his room in the VA hospital is falling down and the place is full of mold,
he's a warrior! Too bad about the nightmares, but his buddies *wanted* to
die for their country, HeyBub has explained all that.

Wikileaks
 

On Aug 27, 6:42*pm, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 8/27/2010 11:43 AM, harry wrote:





On Aug 27, 2:59 pm, The Daring
wrote:
On 8/27/2010 6:40 AM, wrote:

On Aug 27, 7:14 am,
wrote:
* *wrote in message

news:usydncx2mqTrbOvRnZ2dnUVZ_s8AAAAA@earthlin k.com...

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

We didn't lose? It's a communist country and we buy shirts from
them. We have a funny habit of attacking countries which posed no
threat
to us. The Spanish-American war was the first major example. Vietnam
came next, and now, Iraq.

No, actually the U.S. invasion of Canada was the first example. It
started the war of 1812.

Thank you. So you've agreed that we DO start wars for no good reason.

What do you mean "no good reason?" We had ample reason to invade Canada, a
British colony. The British were arming Indians to slaughter American
civilians, onerous trade restrictions, the British impressing American
naval personnel and ordinary citizens into their navy, and the British
calling us names.

How were we threatened by the Phillippines?

The Phillippines posed no threat to the United States. The United States
doesn't start wars over mere threats anyway. Or at least it didn't used to
do so.

And, in the case of the United States, we have never had a war in which
the reason given was "I dunno, seemed like a fun thing to do." There's
always a good reason.

The problem is that the "good reasons" are often nonsense. The domino theory
was concocted by a couple of academic suits, who became very quiet after it
became clear that impotent old men were sending young soldiers to their
death because of the theory.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

20-20 hindsight and knowing how the world played out 4 decades later
sure is convenient, ain't it? * Had communism spread from Vietnam to
most of Asia, you'd be singing a different tune.

* *For a recent example, had Bush done nothing and it turned out that
WMDs produced by Sadam were used against US targets, you'd be the
first to be bitching that there was PLENTY of intelligence that
indicated Sadam had active WMD programs. * Why, not only US
intelligence, but also Israel, Britain, and Russian intelligence also
believed it. *Even with 300,000 troops ready to invade, Sadam refused
to simply cooperate with the UN weapons inspectors. *He sure acted
like he was hiding WMDs and we know he had them in the past. * Yet,
Bush failed to act. * You'd be calling for his impeachement.

Wasn't there a slew of trucks and ships leaving Iraq as US troops came
in? Hell there's stuff buried in the sand all over that damn place and
if I remember correctly, MIG jets were found under the desert sand too..
Some people postulated that Saddam shipped his WMD's to Syria when the
war started.

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Showing your paranoia again.

Paranoia? About what? Saddam is dead.

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bogeymen under the bed. It's not your fault. They get rid of one and
then look round for another. Your gov. wants to keep you in a state of
perpetual fear and compliance. Resist it.
Saddam was never a threat to you.

Wikileaks
 

On Aug 27, 5:43*pm, "DGDevin" wrote:
wrote in message

...

I'd say we have a loser. * Again, what you're advocating is that every
individual has the right to decide on their own what is classified and
what is not and should be published.

Oh, really? *Where exactly did I advocate that? *


Maybe it was someone who hijacked your internet ID that posted this:

"That information is classified is meaningless--"



Or in your mind is pointing
out there is a excessive document classification by the military (and the
rest of govt.) the same as saying everyone has the right to decide on their
own what should be classified? *It requires quite a rhetorical leap to claim
I'm advocating something I didn't say.

That there is excessive classification sure doesn't mean that
classification is meaningless.





There are many obvious problems
to that approach. *And contrary to the other posters claim, it;s not
customary to classify mess hall hours.

You checked huh? *I can recall seeing a schedule for a shuttle bus that
moved people around a large air base, it was stamped "Restricted" which of
course makes it a classified document. *It was posted on a bulletin board
inside a building entrance where hundreds of people a day could read it, but
it was still a classified document. *But if you say that sort of thing isn't
customary then maybe that was the only such notice on that whole base and
the guy who posted it went to prison when they realized what he'd done.

And do you know for sure the reason why it was restricted? It's
likely the schedule for the shuttle between Las Vegas and Area 51 is
restricted too. And I can think of some good reasons why it should
be. Can you?




* To cite some of the obvious
problems that should be apparent to anyone with a brain, let's look at
this case. * You have a private and an internet buffoon deciding what
should and should not be classified.

Oh dear, one of those folks who can't make his point without insisting that
anyone who disagrees must not be very smart.

They have no access to the big
picture of what possible ramifications any of that information has to
national security.

I bet the Pentagon has you on speed-dial, right?

*Let's say some pin head decided to leak info
during WWII that happened to contain some of the various equipment
being shipped to Oak Ridge, TN or Los Alamos, NM. * To the private, or
the likes of Assange, it would be meaningless. *But to a foreign
intelligence service that information would be priceless.

What you describe happened, some left-wing scientists figured an American
monopoly on atomic weapons would be bad for the world so they fed info to
the Soviets who began their own bomb program as early as 1942. *So the
Soviets got the bomb a little faster than they would have, and the world
continued to turn and the USSR still collapsed. *What was your point again?

So the fact that espionage only helped an evil empire acquire the bomb
years earlier makes it a minor incident and an unworthy example?
Their having the bomb earlier just made it that much more difficult
and risky for the USA to contain their quest for world domination.
Thank God we do have some people that realize how the world works.
You actually sound like you're justifying what was done. The
Rosenbergs got the electric chair for their work. I hope the scum
Assange receives a similar fate.

Wikileaks
 

On Aug 28, 1:07*pm, wrote:
On Aug 27, 5:43*pm, "DGDevin" wrote:

wrote in message

....

I'd say we have a loser. * Again, what you're advocating is that every
individual has the right to decide on their own what is classified and
what is not and should be published.

Oh, really? *Where exactly did I advocate that? *

Maybe it was someone who hijacked your internet ID that posted this:

"That information is classified is meaningless--"

Or in your mind is pointing
out there is a excessive document classification by the military (and the
rest of govt.) the same as saying everyone has the right to decide on their
own what should be classified? *It requires quite a rhetorical leap to claim
I'm advocating something I didn't say.

That there is excessive classification sure doesn't mean that
classification is meaningless.



There are many obvious problems
to that approach. *And contrary to the other posters claim, it;s not
customary to classify mess hall hours.

You checked huh? *I can recall seeing a schedule for a shuttle bus that
moved people around a large air base, it was stamped "Restricted" which of
course makes it a classified document. *It was posted on a bulletin board
inside a building entrance where hundreds of people a day could read it, but
it was still a classified document. *But if you say that sort of thing isn't
customary then maybe that was the only such notice on that whole base and
the guy who posted it went to prison when they realized what he'd done.

And do you know for sure the reason why it was restricted? * It's
likely the schedule for the shuttle between Las Vegas and Area 51 is
restricted too. * And I can think of some good reasons why it should
be. *Can you?







* To cite some of the obvious
problems that should be apparent to anyone with a brain, let's look at
this case. * You have a private and an internet buffoon deciding what
should and should not be classified.

Oh dear, one of those folks who can't make his point without insisting that
anyone who disagrees must not be very smart.

They have no access to the big
picture of what possible ramifications any of that information has to
national security.

I bet the Pentagon has you on speed-dial, right?

*Let's say some pin head decided to leak info
during WWII that happened to contain some of the various equipment
being shipped to Oak Ridge, TN or Los Alamos, NM. * To the private, or
the likes of Assange, it would be meaningless. *But to a foreign
intelligence service that information would be priceless.

What you describe happened, some left-wing scientists figured an American
monopoly on atomic weapons would be bad for the world so they fed info to
the Soviets who began their own bomb program as early as 1942. *So the
Soviets got the bomb a little faster than they would have, and the world
continued to turn and the USSR still collapsed. *What was your point again?

So the fact that espionage only helped an evil empire acquire the bomb
years earlier makes it a minor incident and an unworthy example?
Their having the bomb earlier just made it that much more difficult
and risky for the USA to contain their quest for world domination.
Thank God we do have some people that realize how the world works.
You actually sound like you're justifying what was done. *The
Rosenbergs got the electric chair for their work. * I hope the scum
Assange receives a similar fate.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The USA is on a quest for world domination. You are no better than
the Russians.

Wikileaks
 

On 8/28/2010 1:13 AM, harry wrote:
On Aug 27, 6:42 pm, The Daring
wrote:
On 8/27/2010 11:43 AM, harry wrote:





On Aug 27, 2:59 pm, The Daring
wrote:
On 8/27/2010 6:40 AM, wrote:

On Aug 27, 7:14 am,
wrote:
wrote in message

m...

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

We didn't lose? It's a communist country and we buy shirts from
them. We have a funny habit of attacking countries which posed no
threat
to us. The Spanish-American war was the first major example. Vietnam
came next, and now, Iraq.

No, actually the U.S. invasion of Canada was the first example. It
started the war of 1812.

Thank you. So you've agreed that we DO start wars for no good reason.

What do you mean "no good reason?" We had ample reason to invade Canada, a
British colony. The British were arming Indians to slaughter American
civilians, onerous trade restrictions, the British impressing American
naval personnel and ordinary citizens into their navy, and the British
calling us names.

How were we threatened by the Phillippines?

The Phillippines posed no threat to the United States. The United States
doesn't start wars over mere threats anyway. Or at least it didn't used to
do so.

And, in the case of the United States, we have never had a war in which
the reason given was "I dunno, seemed like a fun thing to do." There's
always a good reason.

The problem is that the "good reasons" are often nonsense. The domino theory
was concocted by a couple of academic suits, who became very quiet after it
became clear that impotent old men were sending young soldiers to their
death because of the theory.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

20-20 hindsight and knowing how the world played out 4 decades later
sure is convenient, ain't it? Had communism spread from Vietnam to
most of Asia, you'd be singing a different tune.

For a recent example, had Bush done nothing and it turned out that
WMDs produced by Sadam were used against US targets, you'd be the
first to be bitching that there was PLENTY of intelligence that
indicated Sadam had active WMD programs. Why, not only US
intelligence, but also Israel, Britain, and Russian intelligence also
believed it. Even with 300,000 troops ready to invade, Sadam refused
to simply cooperate with the UN weapons inspectors. He sure acted
like he was hiding WMDs and we know he had them in the past. Yet,
Bush failed to act. You'd be calling for his impeachement.

Wasn't there a slew of trucks and ships leaving Iraq as US troops came
in? Hell there's stuff buried in the sand all over that damn place and
if I remember correctly, MIG jets were found under the desert sand too.
Some people postulated that Saddam shipped his WMD's to Syria when the
war started.

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Showing your paranoia again.

Paranoia? About what? Saddam is dead.

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bogeymen under the bed. It's not your fault. They get rid of one and
then look round for another. Your gov. wants to keep you in a state of
perpetual fear and compliance. Resist it.
Saddam was never a threat to you.

If he supplied dirty bomb materials to crazy Muslim terrorist who wished
to harm my country and its citizens he was. There is so much crap that
goes on in the shadows that the insignificant little peasants like me
and thee will never know what's really happening. We will never know
about all the intercepted radio active, explosives and hi-tech weaponry
that terrorists have tried to smuggle into our respective countries, our
esteemed governments are not going to tell us for several reasons, one
being keeping HUMINT sources safe.

Have you hugged a terrorist today?

TDD