On 12/14/2010 7:34 AM, dgk wrote:
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 14:14:40 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 12/13/2010 1:53 PM, dgk wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 10:23:58 -0800, "DGDevin"
wrote:

"Robert Green" wrote in message
...

I feel the invasion was justified (which is not the same thing as wise)
in
that Bin Laden was operating from there,

Would that justify invading the area of the US that Timothy McVeigh
operated
from? Of course not, and when framed that way, the invasion of
Afghanistan
makes equally little sense.

Ummmm, that's not an effective analogy, as there was no need to invade
territory to find and apprehend McVeigh.

However I see little chance of a
stable democracy being established in Afghanistan in the foreseeable
future,

So then what's the fV(I*ing point? Wars should have clearly defined
goals
and exit strategies. They've taught that at all the military schools
since
'Nam but it seems like the entire DoD developed amnesia after 9/11.

The Neocons have a huge blind spot, they think they can engineer history
with the application of military force, they don't consider that sometimes
that simply doesn't work. It is beyond their comprehension that centuries
of ethnic and religious tensions will not be overcome by their
democracy-in-a-box nation building. As you say, they don't seem to be aware
of history.


Neocons don't really care about democracy, they care about free
enterprise. If governments are elected that interfere with their
profits, then that democratic goverrnment gets overthrown.

What form of government is The United States? I know Al Gore could
never bring himself to say it. :-)

TDD

Is Al Gore your answer to everything? I pointed out that we don't give
a **** about Democracy and all you can write about is Al Gore? In
fact, we don't give a **** about Apple Pie, Mom, Our Superior
Morality, or any other stated reason for going to war. All the US
cares about is that the wealthy make a big profit because of a war.

I'll make it simpler for you Dufas. Marine Corps Major General Smedley
Butler, a true American Hero.. Look him up:

"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and
during that period I spent most of my time as a high class thug for
Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a
racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and
especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped
make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to
collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central
American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify
Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in
1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American
sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American
fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that
Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might
have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate
his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."


YOU DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION! :-)

TDD

On Dec 7, 11:30*pm, harry wrote:
On Dec 8, 12:15*am, David Nebenzahl wrote:





On 12/7/2010 10:44 AM DGDevin spake thus:

"harry" *wrote in message
....

BTW now the war in Afghanistan is coming to a close (ie another
country the USA has completely f***d up)

Afghanistan has been a pit of strife as long as it has existed, ask
Alexander the Great, or the former British Empire, or the former Soviet
Union. *To depict it as a place the USA ****ed up (we're all big kids here,
you can spell it out) is really reaching. *America is just the latest actor
on that sad stage.

I'll buy that (your response), on the grounds that the wise, prudent and
long-range thing to do would to have never set foot in that place in the
first place.

But now, of course, Obama has made it *his* war. It's no longer Bush's
folly.

--
How To Access Wikileaks

These sites are still up as of 12/3/10:

* *http://wikileaks.de
* *http://wikileaks.fi
* *http://wikileaks.nl
* *http://wikileaks.eu
* *http://wikileaks.pl

And these IP addresses can be used:

* *http://213.251.145.96/
* *http://88.80.13.160/

Well, he could hardly just walk away from it in all fairness.
Are you trying to transferr the blame for the Bush war to Obama now as
well as the Bush recession? * Short memory you Yanks have.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Many years ago I was brazing a four inch brass fitting in a two
hundred unit building that I had the water turned-off to. I finished
and when I turned the water back on I found that the fitting was still
leaking. So I turned the water back off, drained the line again and re-
brazed. I finished and when I turned the water back on I found the
fitting was still leaking. This went on about half a dozen times. I
couldn’t figure out how a solid brass fitting could simply leak; it
just didn’t make sense. I had started in the morning and now it was
close to midnight. The residents were complaining and angry. I knew I
was licked. I hung my head low in shame, gathered up my courage, went
to the building manager and told her that I had failed and to call
some other plumber. The manager called another plumbing company. The
other plumber did the same thing that I did with the same results.
Fortunately the other plumber was more experienced than I was and
found the problem. The four inch brass fitting was defective. He
explained that while it was cast it had been contaminated by sand and
had been made porous. I had to let this fitting leak, order another
fitting, cut out the defective fitting and re-do the whole job. It
wasn’t my fault after all. There was no way I could have known that
the fitting that I had used was defective but at least I had the
courage to simply give-up and admit that I had failed. Sometimes you
have to simply say you failed.

wrote in message
...

stuff snipped

As it should. If government gets in the way of liberty it's
unconstitutional.

Yet another episode in "The Constitution Never Said THAT!"

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...n/amendment05/

"No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, WITHOUT
DUE PROCESS of law."

--
Bobby G.

"The danger to America is not Barack HUSSEIN Obama, but a citizenry
capable
of
entrusting a man like him with the presidency. It will be easier to
limit and undo the follies of a Barack HUSSEIN presidency than to
restore
the necessary common sense and good judgment to an electorate willing
to
have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and
far
more serious than Imam HUSSEIN, who is a mere symptom of what
ails
us. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the
vast
confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The republic can
survive a HUSSEIN. It is less likely to survive a multitude of
fools such as those who made him their president."

-- Author Unknown





On Dec 7, 5:11*am, harry wrote:
--
"The danger to America is not George W Bush, but a citizenry capable
of
entrusting a man like him with the presidency. It will be easier to
limit and undo the follies of a George W Bush presidency than to
restore
the necessary common sense and good judgment to an electorate willing
to
have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and
far
more serious than Mr. George W Bush, who is a mere symptom of what
ails
us. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the
vast
confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The republic can
survive a George W Bush. It is less likely to survive a multitude of
fools such as those who made him their president."

-- Author Unknown

On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 08:39:15 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 12/14/2010 7:34 AM, dgk wrote:
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 14:14:40 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 12/13/2010 1:53 PM, dgk wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 10:23:58 -0800, "DGDevin"
wrote:

"Robert Green" wrote in message
...

I feel the invasion was justified (which is not the same thing as wise)
in
that Bin Laden was operating from there,

Would that justify invading the area of the US that Timothy McVeigh
operated
from? Of course not, and when framed that way, the invasion of
Afghanistan
makes equally little sense.

Ummmm, that's not an effective analogy, as there was no need to invade
territory to find and apprehend McVeigh.

However I see little chance of a
stable democracy being established in Afghanistan in the foreseeable
future,

So then what's the fV(I*ing point? Wars should have clearly defined
goals
and exit strategies. They've taught that at all the military schools
since
'Nam but it seems like the entire DoD developed amnesia after 9/11.

The Neocons have a huge blind spot, they think they can engineer history
with the application of military force, they don't consider that sometimes
that simply doesn't work. It is beyond their comprehension that centuries
of ethnic and religious tensions will not be overcome by their
democracy-in-a-box nation building. As you say, they don't seem to be aware
of history.


Neocons don't really care about democracy, they care about free
enterprise. If governments are elected that interfere with their
profits, then that democratic goverrnment gets overthrown.

What form of government is The United States? I know Al Gore could
never bring himself to say it. :-)

TDD

Is Al Gore your answer to everything? I pointed out that we don't give
a **** about Democracy and all you can write about is Al Gore? In
fact, we don't give a **** about Apple Pie, Mom, Our Superior
Morality, or any other stated reason for going to war. All the US
cares about is that the wealthy make a big profit because of a war.

I'll make it simpler for you Dufas. Marine Corps Major General Smedley
Butler, a true American Hero.. Look him up:

"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and
during that period I spent most of my time as a high class thug for
Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a
racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and
especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped
make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to
collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central
American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify
Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in
1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American
sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American
fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that
Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might
have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate
his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."


YOU DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION! :-)

TDD

Tis a Republic, tetering toward complete ownership by the
military/industrial/media cabal.

On 12/15/2010 8:39 AM, dgk wrote:
On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 08:39:15 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 12/14/2010 7:34 AM, dgk wrote:
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 14:14:40 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 12/13/2010 1:53 PM, dgk wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 10:23:58 -0800, "DGDevin"
wrote:

"Robert Green" wrote in message
...

I feel the invasion was justified (which is not the same thing as wise)
in
that Bin Laden was operating from there,

Would that justify invading the area of the US that Timothy McVeigh
operated
from? Of course not, and when framed that way, the invasion of
Afghanistan
makes equally little sense.

Ummmm, that's not an effective analogy, as there was no need to invade
territory to find and apprehend McVeigh.

However I see little chance of a
stable democracy being established in Afghanistan in the foreseeable
future,

So then what's the fV(I*ing point? Wars should have clearly defined
goals
and exit strategies. They've taught that at all the military schools
since
'Nam but it seems like the entire DoD developed amnesia after 9/11.

The Neocons have a huge blind spot, they think they can engineer history
with the application of military force, they don't consider that sometimes
that simply doesn't work. It is beyond their comprehension that centuries
of ethnic and religious tensions will not be overcome by their
democracy-in-a-box nation building. As you say, they don't seem to be aware
of history.


Neocons don't really care about democracy, they care about free
enterprise. If governments are elected that interfere with their
profits, then that democratic goverrnment gets overthrown.

What form of government is The United States? I know Al Gore could
never bring himself to say it. :-)

TDD

Is Al Gore your answer to everything? I pointed out that we don't give
a **** about Democracy and all you can write about is Al Gore? In
fact, we don't give a **** about Apple Pie, Mom, Our Superior
Morality, or any other stated reason for going to war. All the US
cares about is that the wealthy make a big profit because of a war.

I'll make it simpler for you Dufas. Marine Corps Major General Smedley
Butler, a true American Hero.. Look him up:

"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and
during that period I spent most of my time as a high class thug for
Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a
racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and
especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped
make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to
collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central
American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify
Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in
1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American
sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American
fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that
Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might
have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate
his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."


YOU DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION! :-)

TDD

Tis a Republic, tetering toward complete ownership by the
military/industrial/media cabal.

It's a Representative Republic under attack by Socialists, Leftists
and Commiecrats who will use any means to destroy it and remake it
in their own image. :-)

TDD

dgk wrote:

Tis a Republic, tetering toward complete ownership by the
military/industrial/media cabal.

???

You say that like you think it's a bad idea.

I admit that getting the media involved is less than optimal, but that can
be overcome.

On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 14:15:00 -0500, "Robert Green"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .

stuff snipped

A case stuff snipped to make the post meaningless.

As it should. If government gets in the way of liberty it's
unconstitutional.

Yet another episode in "The Constitution Never Said THAT!"

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...n/amendment05/

"No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, WITHOUT
DUE PROCESS of law."

Meaninlgess without context.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...


Especially in this context. If anything you note the
reasons for the concern. Unions can't make it any more on their own.

Not when the deck is stacked against them, no. Right-to-work states where
workers can get the benefits of a union's efforts without joining the union
and paying dues kind of makes it pointless for a union to even try to
operate. A pal of mine negotiates labor contracts for a big defense
company, he says its been quite boring for many years because the unions
know they can't push him too hard, he holds too many unbeatable cards these
days. So it's all about little stuff, picky details, but he's never faced
with big demands they won't back down from.

And when workplace accidents and fatalities turn out to be highest in RTW
states (which they are), well that's the way it goes, but they don't have to
pay union dues so the money they saved can go for Advil.

So,
they told their Dem lackeys that they must outlaw secret ballots using
the card system so that they know EXACTLY who voted against them.

Ah, no, the proposal isn't to do away with a *secret* ballot, it is to do
away with an election completely if more than 50% of workers sign union
cards, the argument being that the workers already voted when they signed
up. As it is now a vote to approve the union can be required if only 30% of
workers sign cards, so the proposed law actually raises that threshold while
eliminating the second step. I don't really care which way they do it,
either way more than half the workers have to ask for union representation.

As for the arbitration part, sure, if a company refuses to negotiate in good
faith and simply stalls the union, figuring they'll just operate without a
contract, the proposed law has a remedy for that. Companies will try that
BTW, because if they can stall for a year with a new union they can force
another election, and many companies try exactly that according to MIT Sloan
School of Management.¹ What would your solution be in that scenario (other
than never having a union in the first place)?

Of course under the corporate model (as arranged by their Republican
lackeys) if someone signs a union card, you can just fire him. The NLRB has
long been able to force an employer to accept a union with more than 50%
signup if the NLRB finds the employer's unfair practices make a fair
election unlikely, but of course if you don't think there is such a thing as
unfair practices by an employer you probably don't like that system either.

Those aren't trial lawyers, those are patent attorneys. What's
really hilarious is that you say the two are the same.

What's hilarious is that you pretend Monsanto doesn't have an ample supply
of both when they haul some poor farmer into court because Monsanto GMO seed
blew in from his neighbor's property and took root in his fields without his
knowledge. Or when they sue some guy with a seed-cleaning business because
the existence of his business supposedly encourages farmers not to buy
Monsanto seed every year, and so on.

Save your breath. Union bullying--bad; corporate bullying--just part of
the flow of commerce, nothing to see here folks, move along.

I am talking about the guys who, allegedly on my behalf, filed class
action suits where they get millions and I get nothin'.

You got what you lost, what's unfair about that? Did you expect to get a
pile of money when you didn't lose a pile of money? By what legal and moral
principles are you entitled to compensation for a loss you didn't suffer?

My favorite is
a class action against Verizon over some line in the contracts. The
attorney's got $3.4 million, Verizon promised to go forth and sin no
more,

Ditto when Sony got caught putting programming on their CDs that made their
customers' computers vulnerable to hacking. The class-action lawyers made
millions, the individual consumer who signed up got next to nothing (because
he'd lost next to nothing) and Sony got its fingers burned enough to think
twice in future, especially after the feds warned them they were risking
federal action. The benefit of class-action cases were individual losses
are tiny is to cost the company enough money that they (and others) decide
not to do that sort of thing again.

Believe it or not, but in a lot of corporate boardrooms they only thing they
care about is money, not whether people get hurt by their actions, but
whether those actions will backfire and cost them tons of cash. Remember
when Ford decided it was cheaper to let people get horribly burned by the
faulty gas tank on the Pinto than to recall the cars and fix the gas tanks?
THAT is why we have trial lawyers, although of course some folks like to
forget about cases like that and instead snivel that a class-action against
Verizon didn't mean they could buy a new car.

¹http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/... _25_2008.pdf

On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 15:11:45 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

dgk wrote:

Tis a Republic, tetering toward complete ownership by the
military/industrial/media cabal.

???

You say that like you think it's a bad idea.

I admit that getting the media involved is less than optimal, but that can
be overcome.


Eisenhower thought it was a bad idea. So do I.

dgk wrote:
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 15:11:45 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

dgk wrote:

Tis a Republic, tetering toward complete ownership by the
military/industrial/media cabal.

???

You say that like you think it's a bad idea.

I admit that getting the media involved is less than optimal, but
that can be overcome.


Eisenhower thought it was a bad idea. So do I.

Eisenhower warned against undue influence; he didn't complain of ownership
by the military-industrial complex or cabal.

Eisenhower's exact words were (inter alia) : "Only an alert and
knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial
and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so
that security and liberty may prosper together."

He seemed to be indicating that the military-industrial complex had its
place and should co-exist with the hippie segment of society (this was
before hippies).

wrote in message ...

Well, we could "absorb" another 9/11 every few months, like Obummer
suggests.
...or we can try to kill the *******s and keep them there.

Did the Taliban plan and execute 9/11? No? Then provided they aren't
hosting Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, why would them being back in power lead to
another 9/11? Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda are happily operating in Pakistan this
very day, and Pakistan is supposed to be an ally, so why all the blood being
wasted in Afghanistan?

Okay, North Korea withdrew from the
Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty in 2003 and tested its first nuke in
Oct.,
2006. Do you happen to recall who was President on both those occasions?

Does it really matter?

It would matter a whole bunch to you if a Democrat had been President,
wouldn't it.

Pray tell, what hard-nosed, no-nonsense steps did Two-Gun Tex take to make
North Korea bitterly regret they had decided to go nuclear?

None. That was part of his problem. The solution was simple (still is),
but
no one wants to go there.

Are you volunteering to lead the amphibious landing? Or do you just want to
start pitching nukes?

The obvious doesn't need a lot of words.

If it's so obvious you should be able to articulate a reasoned argument in
support; failing to do so suggests a slogan rather than a rational position.

"DGDevin" wrote in message
m...
wrote in message news

But the replacement isn't working, and is unlikely to work in the
foreseeable future. A government that can't survive without massive
military intervention for decades doesn't seem like much of a solution.
Having U.S. bases in Europe during the Cold War was expensive, but
thousands
of American troops didn't die in the process.

Irrelevant. There is little choice.

Let me get this straight: it isn't working, it isn't likely to work, but
we
have to keep on pouring in money and young Americans to be maimed and
killed
because, "there is little choice". Sure there is a choice, get the hell
out. And when the Taliban take over again and consider welcoming Al-Qaeda
back with open arms, you drop the occasional cruise missile into their hip
pocket to remind them that it would be a good idea to keep their lunatic
practices strictly domestic. Because we didn't care what they were doing
until Bin Laden set up shop there, so provided they aren't hosting any
more
international terrorists in future, it would seem a reasonable outcome for
things to go back the way they were.

Even if they *are* hosting lunatic terrorists, that's not really a good
reason to kill all their fellow countrymen who couldn't give a damn about
terrorism but are powerless to stop their terrorist brothers. We wouldn't
have been justified in declaring martial law on any states that McVeigh
lived in (had he not been stupid enough to get caught quickly). We're not
justified in taking on an entire country just because they, like us, can't
control their terrorist criminals. Would a farmer shoot his pig because the
pig watched as the fox stole his chickens and did nothing? They do nothing
so that they can save their own lives.

We couldn't control McVeigh and yet we expect others to do what we could
not. We were unable to prevent him from committing the 2nd worse terrorist
attack in our history but we DEMAND that of Afghanistan, a country barely
able to keep its head above water on a good day? We punish the entire
country for "harboring" a guy we can't even find, even when we have total
access to every square inch of Afghanistan and a little bit of Pakistan,
too? For ten YEARS? That's pretty damn dumb and it makes us look impotent
and incompetent. Why prolong the agony if it can't succeed? And even if it
did, the terrorists will just move somewhere beyond our reach. Oops. They
already did. The tribal areas of Pakistan. Now what? Declare war on a
country with nuclear weapons and people crazy enough to light one off?

--
Bobby G.

On Thu, 16 Dec 2010 10:57:13 -0800, "DGDevin" wrote:

wrote in message ...

Well, we could "absorb" another 9/11 every few months, like Obummer
suggests.
...or we can try to kill the *******s and keep them there.

Did the Taliban plan and execute 9/11? No? Then provided they aren't
hosting Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, why would them being back in power lead to
another 9/11? Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda are happily operating in Pakistan this
very day, and Pakistan is supposed to be an ally, so why all the blood being
wasted in Afghanistan?

The Taliban refused to turn over Bin Laden. They were, in fact, supporting
him. Oops. We should lay waste to that area of Pakistan, too. We should
have long ago.

Okay, North Korea withdrew from the
Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty in 2003 and tested its first nuke in
Oct.,
2006. Do you happen to recall who was President on both those occasions?

Does it really matter?

It would matter a whole bunch to you if a Democrat had been President,
wouldn't it.

Nice change of subject, but it's irrelevant.

Pray tell, what hard-nosed, no-nonsense steps did Two-Gun Tex take to make
North Korea bitterly regret they had decided to go nuclear?

None. That was part of his problem. The solution was simple (still is),
but
no one wants to go there.

Are you volunteering to lead the amphibious landing? Or do you just want to
start pitching nukes?

You really are stupid, aren't you. Simply give nukes (or technology) to
Japan. Problem over.

The obvious doesn't need a lot of words.

If it's so obvious you should be able to articulate a reasoned argument in
support; failing to do so suggests a slogan rather than a rational position.

It's clear enough that you're stupid. Not many words needed.

"Robert Green" wrote in message
...

Even if they *are* hosting lunatic terrorists, that's not really a good
reason to kill all their fellow countrymen who couldn't give a damn about
terrorism but are powerless to stop their terrorist brothers. We wouldn't
have been justified in declaring martial law on any states that McVeigh
lived in (had he not been stupid enough to get caught quickly). We're not
justified in taking on an entire country just because they, like us, can't
control their terrorist criminals.

First, McVeigh wasn't being harbored by any state governments, so the
analogy is rather shaky right there. Second, the Taliban wasn't helpless to
control Al-Qaeda, they were working hand in glove with Al-Qaeda, especially
after AQ showed how useful they could be by assassinating the Taliban's main
surviving opposition leader. AQ also provided the Taliban with training and
funding, they were on very good terms even if the Taliban originally weren't
thrilled about BL turning up in Afghanistan. This isn't a case of some
rogue band out in the hills that a weak government can't handle, the Taliban
were in control of most of the country and they were allied with AQ. The
Taliban made themselves a target by refusing to turn over BL, they didn't
think the U.S. would really come after him. Neither did BL based on his
apology to his own fighters when he was trapped at Tora Bora, they thought
they were in a death-trap. Pity the pleas of the CIA team leader to have
Army Rangers dropped in to block the escape route to Pakistan were ignored.

None of that means I think we should stay in Afghanistan, but I think there
was justification for going in. But diverting resources to Iraq has
probably made it unlikely that Afghanistan is going to be salvaged at this
late date.

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...


Perhaps you are alluding to the LaLa Land syndrome where some people
believe movies are real life and the way the world really works. Is
that it? That seems to be the belief of my friend Harry from The UK.

A recent President of the United States appeared to think he was in a Rambo
movie that would end with him standing in front of a "Mission Accomplished"
banner. Didn't quite work out that way, in fact the movie is still running,
and young men are still dying, even though he is no longer President.

On 12/17/2010 12:01 AM, DGDevin wrote:


"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...


Perhaps you are alluding to the LaLa Land syndrome where some people
believe movies are real life and the way the world really works. Is
that it? That seems to be the belief of my friend Harry from The UK.

A recent President of the United States appeared to think he was in a
Rambo movie that would end with him standing in front of a "Mission
Accomplished" banner. Didn't quite work out that way, in fact the movie
is still running, and young men are still dying, even though he is no
longer President.

Oh you poor thing. Still suffering from Bush derangement syndrome. Bush
is not The President of The United States anymore! Congress authorizes
funds for the military, Congress can stop the war anytime by cutting off
the money supply. You must know that when BeeHO became President he was
briefed by all the alphabet agencies about what was really going on in
the world and he probably soiled his pants and wondered what in the hell
he had gotten himself into. The WikiLeaks caper has given the world a
small window into what's really going on around the world but it's only
a very small glimpse. I would love to see a bunch of Leftists go to the
Middle East and offer hugs to the Islamic Fundamentalist loonies and
experience getting their heads cut off and their genitals stuffed into
their surprised open mouths. Reality really sucks doesn't it? :-)

TDD

On Thu, 16 Dec 2010 11:25:17 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

dgk wrote:
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 15:11:45 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

dgk wrote:

Tis a Republic, tetering toward complete ownership by the
military/industrial/media cabal.

???

You say that like you think it's a bad idea.

I admit that getting the media involved is less than optimal, but
that can be overcome.


Eisenhower thought it was a bad idea. So do I.

Eisenhower warned against undue influence; he didn't complain of ownership
by the military-industrial complex or cabal.

Eisenhower's exact words were (inter alia) : "Only an alert and
knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial
and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so
that security and liberty may prosper together."

He seemed to be indicating that the military-industrial complex had its
place and should co-exist with the hippie segment of society (this was
before hippies).


However it has taken over virtually complete power in the US.
Corporations dominate our government through massive donations and
advertising.

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...


You must know that when BeeHO became President he was
briefed by all the alphabet agencies about what was really going on in
the world and he probably soiled his pants and wondered what in the hell
he had gotten himself into.

Oh dear, the man has only been in office two years and already you have a
case of Obama Derangement Syndrome that qualifies for clinical study.

I would love to see a bunch of Leftists go to the Middle East and offer
hugs to the Islamic Fundamentalist loonies and
experience getting their heads cut off and their genitals stuffed into
their surprised open mouths. Reality really sucks doesn't it? :-)

You wouldn't know reality if it sank its teeth into your leg. Here's a wild
concept you could maybe get a friend or family member to explain to you: it
is entirely possible to have a negative view of the Bush Presidency without
being a "Leftist". As the late, great Wm. F. Buckley, Jr. pointed out,
whatever he is, G.W. Bush isn't a conservative. I assume Buckley was
thinking that conservatives believe in fiscal responsibility by government
(Bush doubled the federal debt), believe in the Constitutional protection of
individual rights (Bush decided he didn't need warrants to tap our phones
and open our mail), and believe in the avoidance of pointless foreign
military adventures (even Cheney finally got around to admitting there never
were any WMDs, I'm not sure if Bush knows yet).

But if it quickens your creaky old pulse to dismiss anyone who would dare to
criticize a Republican President as a "Leftist," okay, you go with that.
But keep in mind that Bill Clinton (a man I roundly criticized in and out of
office) isn't President anymore either, and I bet that doesn't stop you from
spitting when you hear his name (figuratively speaking). So try to grasp
the concept that someone pointing out the errors of past Presidents maybe
doesn't tell you everything you need to know about that person's politics.
I think Jimmy Carter was a lousy President in many respects, does that make
me a right-winger?

On 12/17/2010 11:03 AM, DGDevin wrote:


"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...


You must know that when BeeHO became President he was
briefed by all the alphabet agencies about what was really going on in
the world and he probably soiled his pants and wondered what in the hell
he had gotten himself into.

Oh dear, the man has only been in office two years and already you have
a case of Obama Derangement Syndrome that qualifies for clinical study.

I would love to see a bunch of Leftists go to the Middle East and
offer hugs to the Islamic Fundamentalist loonies and
experience getting their heads cut off and their genitals stuffed into
their surprised open mouths. Reality really sucks doesn't it? :-)

You wouldn't know reality if it sank its teeth into your leg. Here's a
wild concept you could maybe get a friend or family member to explain to
you: it is entirely possible to have a negative view of the Bush
Presidency without being a "Leftist". As the late, great Wm. F. Buckley,
Jr. pointed out, whatever he is, G.W. Bush isn't a conservative. I
assume Buckley was thinking that conservatives believe in fiscal
responsibility by government (Bush doubled the federal debt), believe in
the Constitutional protection of individual rights (Bush decided he
didn't need warrants to tap our phones and open our mail), and believe
in the avoidance of pointless foreign military adventures (even Cheney
finally got around to admitting there never were any WMDs, I'm not sure
if Bush knows yet).

But if it quickens your creaky old pulse to dismiss anyone who would
dare to criticize a Republican President as a "Leftist," okay, you go
with that. But keep in mind that Bill Clinton (a man I roundly
criticized in and out of office) isn't President anymore either, and I
bet that doesn't stop you from spitting when you hear his name
(figuratively speaking). So try to grasp the concept that someone
pointing out the errors of past Presidents maybe doesn't tell you
everything you need to know about that person's politics. I think Jimmy
Carter was a lousy President in many respects, does that make me a
right-winger?

I hate to burst your bubble Bucky but I'm not a Republican, Republicans
disgust me but Democrats are special, they horrify me. :-)

Congress makes the laws, The President, any President of any party only
signs or refuses to sign the bills into law. BeeHO can champion a bill
and perhaps coerce senators and congressmen to vote the way his party
wants but in the end it's the members of Congress who are to blame for
any cluster coitus. Perhaps that will bite your leg? You freaking
Commie! :-)

TDD

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com...
On 12/11/2010 5:08 PM Robert Green spake thus:

We should let the Taliban back in, let them build their government up
and
THEN topple it.

Why should we even plan to do that? What gives us the right to dictate
the type and composition of governance of the Afghan people? Where do we
get off playing cosmic overlord there?

I was suggesting it as an alternative to what we're doing now: spending
billions to build up a government that the Taliban will destroy as soon as
we leave, if not sooner. In reality, I don't believe we had the right to
invade either country. We might have had the right to go into Iraq to look
for nukes loosely based on the precepts of our own legal system, which
allows for such searches if the potential for harm is great enough. Saddam
opened the door to that with his threats and his uncooperative behavior.
But once we established there were no nukes, that should have been the end
of it. A search warrant in the US legal system gives the right to search,
but not the right to burn down the house being searched if nothing named in
the warrant is found.

I agree with everything you said UP to that point. Let the Taliban back
in. Leave the country. Then let an international group try to deal with
the problems we exacerbated by invading the place.

I agree. Let the blue beanies do it. Policing by an international force
makes sense for a number of reasons. Most importantly it makes us less of a
target for madmen bent on revenge. That's the common theme of many of the
recent bomb plots - revenge for the invasions. Anyone who doesn't believe
that revenge is a powerful motivator only has to look to our reaction to
9/11. We love our revenge as much as any Islamic terrorist. It's just
human nature. Look at Harry's posts. We saved England's butts in WWII but
good deeds don't seem to having much staying power. Bad deeds, however, do.
Look at the animosity that so many Southerners still have for the North
because of a war almost 150 years ago. We engage in magical thinking when
we believe the countries where we're killing by the dumptruck load will
remember us as saviors rather than invaders. Friends come and go, but
enemies accumulate.

Really, the Taliban have about zero interest in us or what we do,
provided we're thousands of miles away from their home. Remember, they
did not attack us on Sept. 11; rather, it was their guests. They may
have been sympathetic to the attack, sure, but they also have a very
strong impulse towards self-preservation.

We are pulling the same BS we did in Vietnam with body counts. The military
has been assuring us for ten years that a win is "just around the corner."
Obviously not. Much of the aid money we pour into that sinkhole actually
ends up in the Taliban's hands. There can't be anything more stupid than
handing money over to your enemies. We're backing a thug as crooked as Diem
and the Shah of Iran. Look how well those actions turned out for us.

Those who spout and pontificate about the Taliban really owe it to
themselves (and to the rest of us) to educate themselves on the subject
first. I'd recommend the book /Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil &
Fundamentalism in Central Asia/ as a very good starting point.

Right now, they're doing the same to us, blowing up whatever WE try
to build.

Yes, which is completely to be expected when WE are there trying to
wreck everything they have--homes and lives.

That's a point I've relentlessly tried to make. We are never able to put
ourselves in the shoes of the countries we've invaded. What would we do if
China, the USSR and some others invaded us? Would we roll over and
cooperate the way we expect the Iraqis and Afghanis to do? Of course not.
We would fight back. Hard and relentlessly.

I don't care much for the Taliban myself; they're essentially
anti-democratic, misogynistic and their mindset is hopelessly
12th-century or so.

If that's the sort of government they want, they should be free to choose
it. Ramming democracy down someone's throat at the end of a gun barrel
seems somewhat antithetical to the concept of freedom. But as the reaction
of Israel to the election of Hamas showed, it's not about democracy and the
freedom to choose the government the people want. It has to be the
government *we* want.

But that still gives me *zero* right to wade into their homeland and
smash everything up. Unless they attack us, which they have not (and
have shown almost no interest in doing).

Nor can they. We've spent a lot of blood and treasure fighting enemies with
almost no ability to project military power much farther than their own
backyard, AND WE'RE LOSING!!! Meanwhile, North Korea has the ability and
apparently the willingness to use nukes and we're pussyfooting around it.
Perhaps that's because NK has some very credible military forces and an ally
in China that won't allow us to run amok the way we've done in AfRaqPak. I
don't believe either invasion would have occurred if Russia was still a
superpower. They were an important "check and balance."

--
Bobby G.

On Dec 14, 2:39*pm, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 12/14/2010 7:34 AM, dgk wrote:





On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 14:14:40 -0600, The Daring Dufas
*wrote:

On 12/13/2010 1:53 PM, dgk wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 10:23:58 -0800, "DGDevin"
* wrote:

"Robert Green" *wrote in message
...

I feel the invasion was justified (which is not the same thing as wise)
in
that Bin Laden was operating from there,

Would that justify invading the area of the US that Timothy McVeigh
operated
from? *Of course not, and when framed that way, the invasion of
Afghanistan
makes equally little sense.

Ummmm, that's not an effective analogy, as there was no need to invade
territory to find and apprehend McVeigh.

However I see little chance of a
stable democracy being established in Afghanistan in the foreseeable
future,

So then what's the fV(I*ing point? *Wars should have clearly defined
goals
and exit strategies. *They've taught that at all the military schools
since
'Nam but it seems like the entire DoD developed amnesia after 9/11.

The Neocons have a huge blind spot, they think they can engineer history
with the application of military force, they don't consider that sometimes
that simply doesn't work. *It is beyond their comprehension that centuries
of ethnic and religious tensions will not be overcome by their
democracy-in-a-box nation building. *As you say, they don't seem to be aware
of history.

Neocons don't really care about democracy, they care about free
enterprise. If governments are elected that interfere with their
profits, then that democratic goverrnment gets overthrown.

What form of government is The United States? I know Al Gore could
never bring himself to say it. :-)

TDD

Is Al Gore your answer to everything? I pointed out that we don't give
a **** about Democracy and all you can write about is Al Gore? In
fact, we don't give a **** about Apple Pie, Mom, Our Superior
Morality, or any other stated reason for going to war. All the US
cares about is that the wealthy make a big profit because of a war.

I'll make it simpler for you Dufas. Marine Corps Major General Smedley
Butler, a true American Hero.. Look him up:

"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and
during that period I spent most of my time as a high class thug for
Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a
racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and
especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped
make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to
collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central
American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify
Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in
1902�1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American
sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American
fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that
Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might
have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate
his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."

YOU DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION! :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's an oligarchy Duf!

On Dec 14, 7:15*pm, "Robert Green" wrote:
wrote in message

...

stuff snipped

As it should. *If government gets in the way of liberty it's

unconstitutional.

Yet another episode in "The Constitution Never Said THAT!"

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...n/amendment05/

"No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, WITHOUT
DUE PROCESS of law."

--
Bobby G.

Now there's hypocrisy. What about all these Iraqis' killed? Oh, they
don't live in America so the law doesn't apply!
So what about Julian assange, he doesn't live in America? But Americn
law applies to him. Or does it?

On Dec 15, 5:48*pm, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 12/15/2010 8:39 AM, dgk wrote:





On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 08:39:15 -0600, The Daring Dufas
*wrote:

On 12/14/2010 7:34 AM, dgk wrote:
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 14:14:40 -0600, The Daring Dufas
* wrote:

On 12/13/2010 1:53 PM, dgk wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 10:23:58 -0800, "DGDevin"
* *wrote:

"Robert Green" *wrote in message
...

I feel the invasion was justified (which is not the same thing as wise)
in
that Bin Laden was operating from there,

Would that justify invading the area of the US that Timothy McVeigh
operated
from? *Of course not, and when framed that way, the invasion of
Afghanistan
makes equally little sense.

Ummmm, that's not an effective analogy, as there was no need to invade
territory to find and apprehend McVeigh.

However I see little chance of a
stable democracy being established in Afghanistan in the foreseeable
future,

So then what's the fV(I*ing point? *Wars should have clearly defined
goals
and exit strategies. *They've taught that at all the military schools
since
'Nam but it seems like the entire DoD developed amnesia after 9/11.

The Neocons have a huge blind spot, they think they can engineer history
with the application of military force, they don't consider that sometimes
that simply doesn't work. *It is beyond their comprehension that centuries
of ethnic and religious tensions will not be overcome by their
democracy-in-a-box nation building. *As you say, they don't seem to be aware
of history.

Neocons don't really care about democracy, they care about free
enterprise. If governments are elected that interfere with their
profits, then that democratic goverrnment gets overthrown.

What form of government is The United States? I know Al Gore could
never bring himself to say it. :-)

TDD

Is Al Gore your answer to everything? I pointed out that we don't give
a **** about Democracy and all you can write about is Al Gore? In
fact, we don't give a **** about Apple Pie, Mom, Our Superior
Morality, or any other stated reason for going to war. All the US
cares about is that the wealthy make a big profit because of a war.

I'll make it simpler for you Dufas. Marine Corps Major General Smedley
Butler, a true American Hero.. Look him up:

"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and
during that period I spent most of my time as a high class thug for
Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a
racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and
especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped
make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to
collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central
American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify
Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in
1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American
sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American
fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that
Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might
have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate
his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."

YOU DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION! :-)

TDD

Tis a Republic, tetering toward complete ownership by the
military/industrial/media cabal.

It's a Representative Republic under attack by Socialists, Leftists
and Commiecrats who will use any means to destroy it and remake it
in their own image. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No Duf.
Robin Hood robbed the rich and gave to the poor. He was a marxist.
George Bush and his friends rob the poor and give to the rich.
There never was an American dream, just propaganda fed to the American
proletariat.

On Dec 17, 12:27*am, "Robert Green"
wrote:
"DGDevin" wrote in message

m...





wrote in messagenews8qag69ru36u6vuh5fbhigtst18knph5td@4ax .com...

But the replacement isn't working, and is unlikely to work in the
foreseeable future. *A government that can't survive without massive
military intervention for decades doesn't seem like much of a solution.

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:



allows for such searches if the potential for harm is great enough. Saddam
opened the door to that with his threats and his uncooperative behavior.
But once we established there were no nukes, that should have been the end
of it. A search warrant in the US legal system gives the right to search,
but not the right to burn down the house being searched if nothing named in
the warrant is found.

Problem with that theory is that by the time the lack of nukes had
been established, the damage was done. I don't see anyway that we could
have patted SH on the head, dusted him off, and left quietly.


I agree. Let the blue beanies do it.
They have been successful over the years. About the only time when
the UN has functioned as a true peacekeeping force is when the US
(Korea) or NATO (Kosovo and the area). Other than that, their record has
to improve substantially to make it to abismal.


Policing by an international force
makes sense for a number of reasons. Most importantly it makes us less of a
target for madmen bent on revenge. That's the common theme of many of the
recent bomb plots - revenge for the invasions.

Not the ones here. Underwear and shoe as well as the Times Square
(attempted) bombers all said it was jihad.




because of a war almost 150 years ago. We engage in magical thinking when
we believe the countries where we're killing by the dumptruck load will
remember us as saviors rather than invaders. Friends come and go, but
enemies accumulate.

Especially since if you total up the score, we aren't even doing most
of the killing. Just getting credit for the bombing done by their
friends and neighbors.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

On 12/19/2010 4:06 AM, harry wrote:
On Dec 15, 5:48 pm, The Daring
wrote:
On 12/15/2010 8:39 AM, dgk wrote:





On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 08:39:15 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 12/14/2010 7:34 AM, dgk wrote:
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 14:14:40 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 12/13/2010 1:53 PM, dgk wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 10:23:58 -0800, "DGDevin"
wrote:

"Robert Green" wrote in message
...

I feel the invasion was justified (which is not the same thing as wise)
in
that Bin Laden was operating from there,

Would that justify invading the area of the US that Timothy McVeigh
operated
from? Of course not, and when framed that way, the invasion of
Afghanistan
makes equally little sense.

Ummmm, that's not an effective analogy, as there was no need to invade
territory to find and apprehend McVeigh.

However I see little chance of a
stable democracy being established in Afghanistan in the foreseeable
future,

So then what's the fV(I*ing point? Wars should have clearly defined
goals
and exit strategies. They've taught that at all the military schools
since
'Nam but it seems like the entire DoD developed amnesia after 9/11.

The Neocons have a huge blind spot, they think they can engineer history
with the application of military force, they don't consider that sometimes
that simply doesn't work. It is beyond their comprehension that centuries
of ethnic and religious tensions will not be overcome by their
democracy-in-a-box nation building. As you say, they don't seem to be aware
of history.

Neocons don't really care about democracy, they care about free
enterprise. If governments are elected that interfere with their
profits, then that democratic goverrnment gets overthrown.

What form of government is The United States? I know Al Gore could
never bring himself to say it. :-)

TDD

Is Al Gore your answer to everything? I pointed out that we don't give
a **** about Democracy and all you can write about is Al Gore? In
fact, we don't give a **** about Apple Pie, Mom, Our Superior
Morality, or any other stated reason for going to war. All the US
cares about is that the wealthy make a big profit because of a war.

I'll make it simpler for you Dufas. Marine Corps Major General Smedley
Butler, a true American Hero.. Look him up:

"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and
during that period I spent most of my time as a high class thug for
Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a
racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and
especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped
make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to
collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central
American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify
Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in
1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American
sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American
fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that
Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might
have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate
his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."

YOU DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION! :-)

TDD

Tis a Republic, tetering toward complete ownership by the
military/industrial/media cabal.

It's a Representative Republic under attack by Socialists, Leftists
and Commiecrats who will use any means to destroy it and remake it
in their own image. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No Duf.
Robin Hood robbed the rich and gave to the poor. He was a marxist.
George Bush and his friends rob the poor and give to the rich.
There never was an American dream, just propaganda fed to the American
proletariat.

Harry my friend, your Borehamwood education is showing again. :-)

TDD

On 12/19/2010 3:58 AM, harry wrote:
On Dec 14, 2:39 pm, The Daring
wrote:
On 12/14/2010 7:34 AM, dgk wrote:





On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 14:14:40 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 12/13/2010 1:53 PM, dgk wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 10:23:58 -0800, "DGDevin"
wrote:

"Robert Green" wrote in message
...

I feel the invasion was justified (which is not the same thing as wise)
in
that Bin Laden was operating from there,

Would that justify invading the area of the US that Timothy McVeigh
operated
from? Of course not, and when framed that way, the invasion of
Afghanistan
makes equally little sense.

Ummmm, that's not an effective analogy, as there was no need to invade
territory to find and apprehend McVeigh.

However I see little chance of a
stable democracy being established in Afghanistan in the foreseeable
future,

So then what's the fV(I*ing point? Wars should have clearly defined
goals
and exit strategies. They've taught that at all the military schools
since
'Nam but it seems like the entire DoD developed amnesia after 9/11.

The Neocons have a huge blind spot, they think they can engineer history
with the application of military force, they don't consider that sometimes
that simply doesn't work. It is beyond their comprehension that centuries
of ethnic and religious tensions will not be overcome by their
democracy-in-a-box nation building. As you say, they don't seem to be aware
of history.

Neocons don't really care about democracy, they care about free
enterprise. If governments are elected that interfere with their
profits, then that democratic goverrnment gets overthrown.

What form of government is The United States? I know Al Gore could
never bring himself to say it. :-)

TDD

Is Al Gore your answer to everything? I pointed out that we don't give
a **** about Democracy and all you can write about is Al Gore? In
fact, we don't give a **** about Apple Pie, Mom, Our Superior
Morality, or any other stated reason for going to war. All the US
cares about is that the wealthy make a big profit because of a war.

I'll make it simpler for you Dufas. Marine Corps Major General Smedley
Butler, a true American Hero.. Look him up:

"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and
during that period I spent most of my time as a high class thug for
Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a
racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and
especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped
make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to
collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central
American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify
Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in
1902�1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American
sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American
fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that
Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might
have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate
his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."

YOU DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION! :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's an oligarchy Duf!

Yea! And we're working on getting those Commiecrat *******s out of
there! :-)

TDD

On Dec 19, 12:00*pm, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 12/19/2010 4:06 AM, harry wrote:





On Dec 15, 5:48 pm, The Daring
wrote:
On 12/15/2010 8:39 AM, dgk wrote:

On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 08:39:15 -0600, The Daring Dufas
* *wrote:

On 12/14/2010 7:34 AM, dgk wrote:
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 14:14:40 -0600, The Daring Dufas
* * wrote:

On 12/13/2010 1:53 PM, dgk wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 10:23:58 -0800, "DGDevin"
* * *wrote:

"Robert Green" *wrote in message
...

I feel the invasion was justified (which is not the same thing as wise)
in
that Bin Laden was operating from there,

Would that justify invading the area of the US that Timothy McVeigh
operated
from? *Of course not, and when framed that way, the invasion of
Afghanistan
makes equally little sense.

Ummmm, that's not an effective analogy, as there was no need to invade
territory to find and apprehend McVeigh.

However I see little chance of a
stable democracy being established in Afghanistan in the foreseeable
future,

So then what's the fV(I*ing point? *Wars should have clearly defined
goals
and exit strategies. *They've taught that at all the military schools
since
'Nam but it seems like the entire DoD developed amnesia after 9/11.

The Neocons have a huge blind spot, they think they can engineer history
with the application of military force, they don't consider that sometimes
that simply doesn't work. *It is beyond their comprehension that centuries
of ethnic and religious tensions will not be overcome by their
democracy-in-a-box nation building. *As you say, they don't seem to be aware
of history.

Neocons don't really care about democracy, they care about free
enterprise. If governments are elected that interfere with their
profits, then that democratic goverrnment gets overthrown.

What form of government is The United States? I know Al Gore could
never bring himself to say it. :-)

TDD

Is Al Gore your answer to everything? I pointed out that we don't give
a **** about Democracy and all you can write about is Al Gore? In
fact, we don't give a **** about Apple Pie, Mom, Our Superior
Morality, or any other stated reason for going to war. All the US
cares about is that the wealthy make a big profit because of a war.

I'll make it simpler for you Dufas. Marine Corps Major General Smedley
Butler, a true American Hero.. Look him up:

"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and
during that period I spent most of my time as a high class thug for
Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a
racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and
especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped
make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to
collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central
American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify
Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in
1902�1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American
sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American
fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that
Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might
have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate
his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."

YOU DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION! :-)

TDD

Tis a Republic, tetering toward complete ownership by the
military/industrial/media cabal.

It's a Representative Republic under attack by Socialists, Leftists
and Commiecrats who will use any means to destroy it and remake it
in their own image. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No Duf.
Robin Hood robbed the rich and gave to the poor. He was a marxist.
George *Bush and his friends rob the poor and give to the rich.
There never was an American dream, just propaganda fed to the American
proletariat.

Harry my friend, your Borehamwood education is showing again. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I see you been doing some research! Which part of my statement is
incorrect?
Robin Hood was a semi-fictional figure in history but the rest is
true.

Pinewood might be nearer what you have in mind?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinewood_Studios

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...


I hate to burst your bubble Bucky but I'm not a Republican, Republicans
disgust me but Democrats are special, they horrify me. :-)

A) You've said so before, sparky, it seems to be a canned line you keep
handy, and B) what does that have to do with the point under discussion?
Since I didn't claim you're a Republican, defending yourself against the
accusation is an odd thing to do.

Congress makes the laws, The President, any President of any party only
signs or refuses to sign the bills into law. BeeHO can champion a bill
and perhaps coerce senators and congressmen to vote the way his party
wants but in the end it's the members of Congress who are to blame for
any cluster coitus. Perhaps that will bite your leg? You freaking Commie!
:-)

Hogwash, at least in the case of Bush 43, who had a rubber-stamp Congress.
Look at his use of his veto power, it took him more than five years to
finally discover a bill he disapproved of enough to veto it, prior to that
he couldn't see a single wrong thing Congress wanted to do. Are we
seriously supposed to believe the White House and Congress weren't in sync
that half decade? It is not a credible claim.

DGDevin wrote:
"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...


I hate to burst your bubble Bucky but I'm not a Republican,
Republicans disgust me but Democrats are special, they horrify me.
:-)

A) You've said so before, sparky, it seems to be a canned line you
keep handy, and B) what does that have to do with the point under
discussion? Since I didn't claim you're a Republican, defending
yourself against the accusation is an odd thing to do.

Congress makes the laws, The President, any President of any party
only signs or refuses to sign the bills into law. BeeHO can champion
a bill and perhaps coerce senators and congressmen to vote the way
his party wants but in the end it's the members of Congress who are
to blame for any cluster coitus. Perhaps that will bite your leg?
You freaking Commie! :-)

Hogwash, at least in the case of Bush 43, who had a rubber-stamp
Congress. Look at his use of his veto power, it took him more than
five years to finally discover a bill he disapproved of enough to
veto it, prior to that he couldn't see a single wrong thing Congress
wanted to do. Are we seriously supposed to believe the White House
and Congress weren't in sync that half decade? It is not a credible
claim.

Don't forget the current administration allowing the Congress to draft and
pass the health care bill that will have, in spite of its pedigree, be
forever associated with him.

I even suspect "Obamacare" will be engraved on his tombstone.

harry wrote:

Now there's hypocrisy. What about all these Iraqis' killed? Oh, they
don't live in America so the law doesn't apply!

Of course American law does not apply in foreign jurisdictions.

So what about Julian assange, he doesn't live in America? But Americn
law applies to him. Or does it?

No, it doesn't. Nor has he been charged with a crime by the U.S.

Likewise, he hasn't been charged with a crime in the UK, but the
constabulary threw him in solitary confinement, didn't they?

On Mon, 20 Dec 2010 15:00:03 -0600, "HeyBub" wrote:

harry wrote:

Now there's hypocrisy. What about all these Iraqis' killed? Oh, they
don't live in America so the law doesn't apply!

Of course American law does not apply in foreign jurisdictions.

Actually, amazingly, it does. Ref: Manuel Noriega

So what about Julian assange, he doesn't live in America? But Americn
law applies to him. Or does it?

No, it doesn't. Nor has he been charged with a crime by the U.S.

Yet. He *is* in violation of the Espianage Act, among several other crimes.
AIUI, there is a grand jury (or three) investigating.

Likewise, he hasn't been charged with a crime in the UK, but the
constabulary threw him in solitary confinement, didn't they?

On 12/20/2010 2:55 PM, HeyBub wrote:
DGDevin wrote:
"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...


I hate to burst your bubble Bucky but I'm not a Republican,
Republicans disgust me but Democrats are special, they horrify me.
:-)

A) You've said so before, sparky, it seems to be a canned line you
keep handy, and B) what does that have to do with the point under
discussion? Since I didn't claim you're a Republican, defending
yourself against the accusation is an odd thing to do.

Congress makes the laws, The President, any President of any party
only signs or refuses to sign the bills into law. BeeHO can champion
a bill and perhaps coerce senators and congressmen to vote the way
his party wants but in the end it's the members of Congress who are
to blame for any cluster coitus. Perhaps that will bite your leg?
You freaking Commie! :-)

Hogwash, at least in the case of Bush 43, who had a rubber-stamp
Congress. Look at his use of his veto power, it took him more than
five years to finally discover a bill he disapproved of enough to
veto it, prior to that he couldn't see a single wrong thing Congress
wanted to do. Are we seriously supposed to believe the White House
and Congress weren't in sync that half decade? It is not a credible
claim.

Don't forget the current administration allowing the Congress to draft and
pass the health care bill that will have, in spite of its pedigree, be
forever associated with him.

I even suspect "Obamacare" will be engraved on his tombstone.



Hey Bub, now you know you shouldn't point out his hypocrisy, he
might blow a gasket. :-)

TDD

On Dec 20, 9:00*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:

Now there's hypocrisy. What about all these Iraqis' killed? Oh, they
don't live in America so the law doesn't apply!

Of course American law does not apply in foreign jurisdictions.

So what about Julian assange, he doesn't live in America? *But Americn
law applies to him. *Or does it?

No, it doesn't. Nor has he been charged with a crime by the U.S.

Likewise, he hasn't been charged with a crime in the UK, but the
constabulary threw him in solitary confinement, didn't they?

He was being held pending deportation for alleged (trumped up) crimes
in Sweden. He's out now on bail ($300,000). We are expecting the US
to apply for deportation if'/when the Swedish one fails.
However he has a lot of public support in this country. We all know
about "justice, American style".

On 12/21/2010 4:12 AM, harry wrote:
On Dec 20, 9:00 pm, wrote:
harry wrote:

Now there's hypocrisy. What about all these Iraqis' killed? Oh, they
don't live in America so the law doesn't apply!

Of course American law does not apply in foreign jurisdictions.

So what about Julian assange, he doesn't live in America? But Americn
law applies to him. Or does it?

No, it doesn't. Nor has he been charged with a crime by the U.S.

Likewise, he hasn't been charged with a crime in the UK, but the
constabulary threw him in solitary confinement, didn't they?

He was being held pending deportation for alleged (trumped up) crimes
in Sweden. He's out now on bail ($300,000). We are expecting the US
to apply for deportation if'/when the Swedish one fails.
However he has a lot of public support in this country. We all know
about "justice, American style".

If Julian Assange were to be put on trial in The United States, there
would be a thousand lawyers falling all over themselves trying to get
to him to offer their services. And many of them would be your favorite
people, um, ...... Jewish. :-)

TDD

On Dec 21, 11:14*am, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 12/21/2010 4:12 AM, harry wrote:





On Dec 20, 9:00 pm, *wrote:
harry wrote:

Now there's hypocrisy. What about all these Iraqis' killed? Oh, they
don't live in America so the law doesn't apply!

Of course American law does not apply in foreign jurisdictions.

So what about Julian assange, he doesn't live in America? *But Americn
law applies to him. *Or does it?

No, it doesn't. Nor has he been charged with a crime by the U.S.

Likewise, he hasn't been charged with a crime in the UK, but the
constabulary threw him in solitary confinement, didn't they?

He was being held pending deportation for alleged (trumped up) crimes
in Sweden. *He's out now on bail ($300,000). We are expecting the US
to apply for deportation if'/when the Swedish one fails.
However he has a lot of public support in this country. We all know
about "justice, American style".

If Julian Assange were to be put on trial in The United States, there
would be a thousand lawyers falling all over themselves trying to get
to him to offer their services. And many of them would be your favorite
people, um, ...... Jewish. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Now that doesn't surprise me. The publicity value, not to mention if
they got him off. But I suppose he would never make it. He would be
bumped off by someone. Not a Santa Claus persona in the US!

On Dec 21, 11:14*am, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 12/21/2010 4:12 AM, harry wrote:





On Dec 20, 9:00 pm, *wrote:
harry wrote:

Now there's hypocrisy. What about all these Iraqis' killed? Oh, they
don't live in America so the law doesn't apply!

Of course American law does not apply in foreign jurisdictions.

So what about Julian assange, he doesn't live in America? *But Americn
law applies to him. *Or does it?

No, it doesn't. Nor has he been charged with a crime by the U.S.

Likewise, he hasn't been charged with a crime in the UK, but the
constabulary threw him in solitary confinement, didn't they?

He was being held pending deportation for alleged (trumped up) crimes
in Sweden. *He's out now on bail ($300,000). We are expecting the US
to apply for deportation if'/when the Swedish one fails.
However he has a lot of public support in this country. We all know
about "justice, American style".

If Julian Assange were to be put on trial in The United States, there
would be a thousand lawyers falling all over themselves trying to get
to him to offer their services. And many of them would be your favorite
people, um, ...... Jewish. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Jeeze Dud, don't you go to bed?

On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 05:14:50 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 12/21/2010 4:12 AM, harry wrote:
On Dec 20, 9:00 pm, wrote:
harry wrote:

Now there's hypocrisy. What about all these Iraqis' killed? Oh, they
don't live in America so the law doesn't apply!

Of course American law does not apply in foreign jurisdictions.

So what about Julian assange, he doesn't live in America? But Americn
law applies to him. Or does it?

No, it doesn't. Nor has he been charged with a crime by the U.S.

Likewise, he hasn't been charged with a crime in the UK, but the
constabulary threw him in solitary confinement, didn't they?

He was being held pending deportation for alleged (trumped up) crimes
in Sweden. He's out now on bail ($300,000). We are expecting the US
to apply for deportation if'/when the Swedish one fails.
However he has a lot of public support in this country. We all know
about "justice, American style".

If Julian Assange were to be put on trial in The United States, there
would be a thousand lawyers falling all over themselves trying to get
to him to offer their services. And many of them would be your favorite
people, um, ...... Jewish. :-)

TDD

I thought it was the job of lawyers to represent people accused of
crimes. Did the rules change somehow? And what does being Jewish have
to do with it? They tend to be smart since all the stupid ones were
killed *******s like yourself.

On 12/21/2010 7:19 AM, harry wrote:
On Dec 21, 11:14 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 12/21/2010 4:12 AM, harry wrote:





On Dec 20, 9:00 pm, wrote:
harry wrote:

Now there's hypocrisy. What about all these Iraqis' killed? Oh, they
don't live in America so the law doesn't apply!

Of course American law does not apply in foreign jurisdictions.

So what about Julian assange, he doesn't live in America? But Americn
law applies to him. Or does it?

No, it doesn't. Nor has he been charged with a crime by the U.S.

Likewise, he hasn't been charged with a crime in the UK, but the
constabulary threw him in solitary confinement, didn't they?

He was being held pending deportation for alleged (trumped up) crimes
in Sweden. He's out now on bail ($300,000). We are expecting the US
to apply for deportation if'/when the Swedish one fails.
However he has a lot of public support in this country. We all know
about "justice, American style".

If Julian Assange were to be put on trial in The United States, there
would be a thousand lawyers falling all over themselves trying to get
to him to offer their services. And many of them would be your favorite
people, um, ...... Jewish. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Jeeze Dud, don't you go to bed?

I had to be at a service call at 7:30am to cut over a new phone line at
an auto parts store. I actually got there at 7:00am and had to wait a
while on hold for tech support to remotely program the phone system to
use the new phone line. Next, I have to replace a thermal fuse on an
electric clothes dryer for "one" of the ex-wives of my friend G.B., I
was there 2 days ago to replace a leaking T&P valve on her water heater
and I found a split pipe due to freezing, she's getting her nephew to
crawl under the house to repair the pipe which is fine with me. I only
sleep a few hours at a time until Mr. Bladder, Mr. Itchy Butt or Mr.
Stopped Up Nose wakes me up. I have to go lay down now for a while then
get back up and head for a couple of supply houses to obtain parts for
things I have going on. ZZZZZZZZZZ

TDD