The word is that John "Swift Boat" Kerry is going to be tapped for the
next Secretary of Defense. That in spite of the fact that he'd rather
be Secretary of State.

For that position, the rumor is that it will be offered to Susan Rice
(current US ambassador to the UN).

Which has me asking - what is it with the US and always appointing a
women as Secretary of State?

Why do you people have this insane penchant to put a person without
balls up against an increasingly hostile, militant, MUSLIM world?

In article , Home Guy wrote:

The word is that John "Swift Boat" Kerry is going to be tapped for the
next Secretary of Defense. That in spite of the fact that he'd rather
be Secretary of State.

For that position, the rumor is that it will be offered to Susan Rice
(current US ambassador to the UN).

Which has me asking - what is it with the US and always appointing a
women as Secretary of State?

Why do you people have this insane penchant to put a person without
balls up against an increasingly hostile, militant, MUSLIM world?

well, romney would have been a good choice but none of the males in his
household has ever been in the military so it's possible they have less balls
than Hillary

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 00:47:55 -0500, wrote:

Why do you people have this insane penchant to put a person without
balls up against an increasingly hostile, militant, MUSLIM world?

Blame Bill Clinton. He started it.

Canada worships some females (idolatry). Look on their paper money.
Some females even have control of some military commands. (Princess /
Duchess)

Don't blame Slick Willie for what Candia does.

Oren wrote:

Why do you people have this insane penchant to put a person without
balls up against an increasingly hostile, militant, MUSLIM world?

And now Oren writes the lamest comeback I've ever read in this
newsgroup:

Canada worships some females (idolatry). Look on their paper money.
Some females even have control of some military commands. (Princess
/ Duchess)

Canada has never appointed a female as Minister of Foreign Affairs.

The feminization and castration of the United States continues with the
appointment of the next FEMALE Secretary of State and the continuation
of Janet Napolitano as the head of Fatherland Security.

Why do you people have this insane penchant to put a person without
balls up against an increasingly hostile, militant, MUSLIM world?


So far as the Muslim world is concerned, I would imagine you could
have certain advantages or disadvantages by having a male or female
Secretary of State.

They are probably choosing the best option no?

I've seen some men "shake in their boots" when their wife is mad at
them. These women can resort all sorts of terrible punishments
if they are ticked at someone, the worst being the dreaded
"silent treatment". Best to have these weapons used
to our advantage!

"Home Guy" wrote in message ...
The word is that John "Swift Boat" Kerry is going to be tapped for the
next Secretary of Defense. That in spite of the fact that he'd rather
be Secretary of State.

For that position, the rumor is that it will be offered to Susan Rice
(current US ambassador to the UN).

Which has me asking - what is it with the US and always appointing a
women as Secretary of State?

Why do you people have this insane penchant to put a person without
balls up against an increasingly hostile, militant, MUSLIM world?

We'd rather have someone who thinks with their brain?

Bob F wrote:

Which has me asking - what is it with the US and always
appointing a women as Secretary of State?

Why do you people have this insane penchant to put a person
without balls up against an increasingly hostile, militant,
MUSLIM world?

We'd rather have someone who thinks with their brain?

So tell me.

Besides being on an extended vacation and collecting frequent-flyer
miles for the past 4 years, what exactly has Hillary accomplished?

Having Egypt slide into hard-core islamic control is going to be the
biggest foreign-policy failure of her tenure as Secretary of State -
something that you people will look back on and realize a few years from
now.

On 11/13/2012 10:26 PM, Home Guy wrote:
Bob F wrote:

Which has me asking - what is it with the US and always
appointing a women as Secretary of State?

Why do you people have this insane penchant to put a person
without balls up against an increasingly hostile, militant,
MUSLIM world?

We'd rather have someone who thinks with their brain?

So tell me.

Besides being on an extended vacation and collecting frequent-flyer
miles for the past 4 years, what exactly has Hillary accomplished?

Having Egypt slide into hard-core islamic control is going to be the
biggest foreign-policy failure of her tenure as Secretary of State -
something that you people will look back on and realize a few years from
now.


What makes you think the US should dictate to Egyptians how they run
their government? The more the US meddles, the more trouble they get in.

You can't fight an ideology. You only make it stronger.

gonjah wrote:

We'd rather have someone who thinks with their brain?

So tell me.

Besides being on an extended vacation and collecting frequent-flyer
miles for the past 4 years, what exactly has Hillary accomplished?

Having Egypt slide into hard-core islamic control is going to be the
biggest foreign-policy failure of her tenure as Secretary of State -
something that you people will look back on and realize a few years
from now.

What makes you think the US should dictate to Egyptians how they
run their government? The more the US meddles, the more trouble
they get in.

You can't fight an ideology. You only make it stronger.

Mubarak lost control of Egypt because of a food crisis (high prices).
People did not want the islamo-facist gov't that is creeping upon them,
but that's what is happening and will continue to happen in any
muslim/arab country when you take the Strong Man out of the picture.

All those billions of dollars in aid you send to Egypt every year, and
you were too ****ing stupid to see it used wisely in such a way that
would have kept Mubarak in power.

And worse - Egypt's military powerbase has also crumbled and is being
reconstructed islamic-style.

Iran apparently has no problems re-engineering Egypt to their liking.
And other arab states as well. That is your failing. That's what you
get when you put women in charge of your foreign policy for the past 12+
years.

On 11/13/2012 10:45 PM, Home Guy wrote:
gonjah wrote:

We'd rather have someone who thinks with their brain?

So tell me.

Besides being on an extended vacation and collecting frequent-flyer
miles for the past 4 years, what exactly has Hillary accomplished?

Having Egypt slide into hard-core islamic control is going to be the
biggest foreign-policy failure of her tenure as Secretary of State -
something that you people will look back on and realize a few years
from now.

What makes you think the US should dictate to Egyptians how they
run their government? The more the US meddles, the more trouble
they get in.

You can't fight an ideology. You only make it stronger.

Mubarak lost control of Egypt because of a food crisis (high prices).
People did not want the islamo-facist gov't that is creeping upon them,
but that's what is happening and will continue to happen in any
muslim/arab country when you take the Strong Man out of the picture.

All those billions of dollars in aid you send to Egypt every year, and
you were too ****ing stupid to see it used wisely in such a way that
would have kept Mubarak in power.

And worse - Egypt's military powerbase has also crumbled and is being
reconstructed islamic-style.

Iran apparently has no problems re-engineering Egypt to their liking.
And other arab states as well. That is your failing. That's what you
get when you put women in charge of your foreign policy for the past 12+
years.


You do know what happened in Iran?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi

This is what happens when you meddle.

gonjah wrote:

Iran apparently has no problems re-engineering Egypt to their
liking. And other arab states as well. That is your failing.
That's what you get when you put women in charge of your foreign
policy for the past 12+ years.

You do know what happened in Iran?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi

This is what happens when you meddle.

That is old news.

But even so - it was good (for you - and the rest of the world) while it
lasted.

Just watch your other bum-buddy in middle-east - Saudi Arabia.

There's another country that's going to go full-tilt into islamic hell
when the current king dies and there's no clear successor amongst his
dozens of ******* offspring.

Who is Bush going to hold hands with when that happens?

On 11/13/2012 11:02 PM, Home Guy wrote:
gonjah wrote:

Iran apparently has no problems re-engineering Egypt to their
liking. And other arab states as well. That is your failing.
That's what you get when you put women in charge of your foreign
policy for the past 12+ years.

You do know what happened in Iran?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi

This is what happens when you meddle.

That is old news.



Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

gonjah wrote:

You do know what happened in Iran?

That is old news.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

You're missing the point.

While the Sha of Iran was the StrongMan in power, Iran was under
control.

You need a strong-man in charge of islamic / arab countries because they
are incapable of governing themselves without islamo-facists eventually
taking control.

If you did not install the Sha when you did, if instead you (and the UK)
kept out of the affairs of Iran, then 9/11 would probably have happened
in 10 or 20 years earlier than it did.

On 11/14/2012 12:37 AM, Home Guy wrote:
gonjah wrote:

You do know what happened in Iran?

That is old news.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

I'm missing the point.


FTFY

I'm not at all well versed in foreign affairs.
But, my guess is that we're doing a bit too
much meddling. And that we're not well
liked, overseas.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"gonjah" wrote in message
...

Having Egypt slide into hard-core islamic control is going to be the
biggest foreign-policy failure of her tenure as Secretary of State -
something that you people will look back on and realize a few years from
now.


What makes you think the US should dictate to Egyptians how they run
their government? The more the US meddles, the more trouble they get in.

You can't fight an ideology. You only make it stronger.

"gonjah" wrote in message
...
On 11/13/2012 10:26 PM, Home Guy wrote:
Bob F wrote:

Which has me asking - what is it with the US and always
appointing a women as Secretary of State?

Why do you people have this insane penchant to put a person
without balls up against an increasingly hostile, militant,
MUSLIM world?

We'd rather have someone who thinks with their brain?

So tell me.

Besides being on an extended vacation and collecting frequent-flyer
miles for the past 4 years, what exactly has Hillary accomplished?

Having Egypt slide into hard-core islamic control is going to be the
biggest foreign-policy failure of her tenure as Secretary of State -
something that you people will look back on and realize a few years from
now.


What makes you think the US should dictate to Egyptians how they run their
government? The more the US meddles, the more trouble they get in.

You can't fight an ideology. You only make it stronger.

"Home Guy" wrote in message ...
gonjah wrote:

We'd rather have someone who thinks with their brain?

So tell me.

Besides being on an extended vacation and collecting frequent-flyer
miles for the past 4 years, what exactly has Hillary accomplished?

Having Egypt slide into hard-core islamic control is going to be the
biggest foreign-policy failure of her tenure as Secretary of State -
something that you people will look back on and realize a few years
from now.

What makes you think the US should dictate to Egyptians how they
run their government? The more the US meddles, the more trouble
they get in.

You can't fight an ideology. You only make it stronger.

Mubarak lost control of Egypt because of a food crisis (high prices).
People did not want the islamo-facist gov't that is creeping upon them,
but that's what is happening and will continue to happen in any
muslim/arab country when you take the Strong Man out of the picture.

All those billions of dollars in aid you send to Egypt every year, and
you were too ****ing stupid to see it used wisely in such a way that
would have kept Mubarak in power.

And worse - Egypt's military powerbase has also crumbled and is being
reconstructed islamic-style.

Iran apparently has no problems re-engineering Egypt to their liking.
And other arab states as well. That is your failing. That's what you
get when you put women in charge of your foreign policy for the past 12+
years.

And why didn't your country solve all these problems? What exactly did it do?

On 11/14/2012 12:27 PM, Bob F wrote:
"Home Guy" wrote in message ...
gonjah wrote:

We'd rather have someone who thinks with their brain?

So tell me.

Besides being on an extended vacation and collecting frequent-flyer
miles for the past 4 years, what exactly has Hillary accomplished?

Having Egypt slide into hard-core islamic control is going to be the
biggest foreign-policy failure of her tenure as Secretary of State -
something that you people will look back on and realize a few years
from now.

What makes you think the US should dictate to Egyptians how they
run their government? The more the US meddles, the more trouble
they get in.

You can't fight an ideology. You only make it stronger.

Mubarak lost control of Egypt because of a food crisis (high prices).
People did not want the islamo-facist gov't that is creeping upon them,
but that's what is happening and will continue to happen in any
muslim/arab country when you take the Strong Man out of the picture.

All those billions of dollars in aid you send to Egypt every year, and
you were too ****ing stupid to see it used wisely in such a way that
would have kept Mubarak in power.

And worse - Egypt's military powerbase has also crumbled and is being
reconstructed islamic-style.

Iran apparently has no problems re-engineering Egypt to their liking.
And other arab states as well. That is your failing. That's what you
get when you put women in charge of your foreign policy for the past 12+
years.

And why didn't your country solve all these problems? What exactly did it do?




It's always amusing when someone thinks the USA has to solve all of the
world's ills.

Welcome to the Brave New World Home guy.

gonjah wrote:
On 11/14/2012 12:27 PM, Bob F wrote:
"Home Guy" wrote in message
...
gonjah wrote:

We'd rather have someone who thinks with their brain?

So tell me.

Besides being on an extended vacation and collecting
frequent-flyer miles for the past 4 years, what
exactly has
Hillary accomplished? Having Egypt slide into
hard-core islamic control is going to be
the biggest foreign-policy failure of her tenure as
Secretary of
State - something that you people will look back on
and realize a
few years from now.

What makes you think the US should dictate to Egyptians
how they
run their government? The more the US meddles, the more
trouble
they get in.

You can't fight an ideology. You only make it stronger.

Mubarak lost control of Egypt because of a food crisis
(high
prices). People did not want the islamo-facist gov't
that is
creeping upon them, but that's what is happening and
will continue
to happen in any muslim/arab country when you take the
Strong Man
out of the picture. All those billions of dollars in aid
you send to Egypt every year,
and you were too ****ing stupid to see it used wisely in
such a way
that would have kept Mubarak in power.

And worse - Egypt's military powerbase has also crumbled
and is
being reconstructed islamic-style.

Iran apparently has no problems re-engineering Egypt to
their
liking. And other arab states as well. That is your
failing. That's what you get when you put women in
charge of your foreign
policy for the past 12+ years.

And why didn't your country solve all these problems?
What exactly
did it do?

It's always amusing when someone thinks the USA has to
solve all of
the world's ills.

Welcome to the Brave New World Home guy.

whats even more ironic is he whines like a little girl about
how the US gets involved in **** it shouldn't, then
criticizes when we don't

Bob F wrote:

Iran apparently has no problems re-engineering Egypt to their
liking. And other arab states as well. That is your failing.
That's what you get when you put women in charge of your foreign
policy for the past 12+ years.

And why didn't your country solve all these problems? What exactly
did it do?

For one thing, we *didn't* join your "coalition of the co-opted" in
Iraq.

We did join you and spill our blood in futility in Afghanistan for 10
years.

But we didn't supply all sorts of military equipment to Egypt for years
and years. You (and Israel) will be facing those weapons soon enough.
Good luck with that.

gonjah wrote:

It's always amusing when someone thinks the USA has to solve all
of the world's ills.

Assassinating strongmen like Hussein and Kadaffi was the furthest thing
from a solution imaginable.

Welcome to the Brave New World Home guy.

You mean a world getting increasingly ****ed up courtesy of the USA.

ChairMan wrote:

whats even more ironic is he whines like a little girl about
how the US gets involved in **** it shouldn't, then
criticizes when we don't

No.

What's ironic (or in your case - moronic) is how you fail to see that
you are ALWAYS involved. And (like Churchill said) the world can count
on you to do the right thing, after first doing all the wrong things.

On 11/14/2012 5:06 PM, ChairMan wrote:
gonjah wrote:
On 11/14/2012 12:27 PM, Bob F wrote:
"Home Guy" wrote in message
...
gonjah wrote:

We'd rather have someone who thinks with their brain?

So tell me.

Besides being on an extended vacation and collecting
frequent-flyer miles for the past 4 years, what
exactly has
Hillary accomplished? Having Egypt slide into
hard-core islamic control is going to be
the biggest foreign-policy failure of her tenure as
Secretary of
State - something that you people will look back on
and realize a
few years from now.

What makes you think the US should dictate to Egyptians
how they
run their government? The more the US meddles, the more
trouble
they get in.

You can't fight an ideology. You only make it stronger.

Mubarak lost control of Egypt because of a food crisis
(high
prices). People did not want the islamo-facist gov't
that is
creeping upon them, but that's what is happening and
will continue
to happen in any muslim/arab country when you take the
Strong Man
out of the picture. All those billions of dollars in aid
you send to Egypt every year,
and you were too ****ing stupid to see it used wisely in
such a way
that would have kept Mubarak in power.

And worse - Egypt's military powerbase has also crumbled
and is
being reconstructed islamic-style.

Iran apparently has no problems re-engineering Egypt to
their
liking. And other arab states as well. That is your
failing. That's what you get when you put women in
charge of your foreign
policy for the past 12+ years.

And why didn't your country solve all these problems?
What exactly
did it do?

It's always amusing when someone thinks the USA has to
solve all of
the world's ills.

Welcome to the Brave New World Home guy.

whats even more ironic is he whines like a little girl about
how the US gets involved in **** it shouldn't, then
criticizes when we don't



Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

The US is going to be much less involved in the Middle East in the future.

The US is getting less and less oil from there. By 2016 we will be
producing most of our oil and getting the rest from North and South
American sources.

The Carter Doctrine is almost dead.

gonjah wrote:

Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

But you never "don't". You are always doing. Doing the wrong thing,
that is.

The US is going to be much less involved in the Middle East in the
future.

Wrong. For one thing, think Israel.

The US is getting less and less oil from there. By 2016 we will be
producing most of our oil and getting the rest from North and South
American sources.

As long as you are part of a global trade network for oil, you will have
a vested interest that ALL OIL, EVERYWHERE can flow freely (the spice
must flow).

Because even if you don't import a drop of oil from the middle east, you
will still pay a price for oil that reflects it's supply/demand rules.
If Iran blocks the straight of hormuz, the WTI and Brent price for crude
will shoot up, and you will pay more for oil and gasoline domestically
as a result - even if none of your oil comes from there.

The only way you can totally divorce yourself from political turmoil and
oil supply issues of the middle east is if you set up a closed /
isolated oil market within your own country. Your gov't sets the price
and your imports and (more importantly - your exports) are regulated by
the gov't. Something tells me that your real masters (the oil
companies) wouldn't like that very much. We tried that in the 1980's
and there was considerable blow-back (look up the NEC - Canada's attempt
at a National Energy Policy).

On 11/14/2012 7:38 PM, Home Guy wrote:
gonjah wrote:

Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

But you never "don't". You are always doing. Doing the wrong thing,
that is.

The US is going to be much less involved in the Middle East in the
future.

Wrong. For one thing, think Israel.


Do you know what the Carter Doctrine is?

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 22:57:51 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article , Home Guy wrote:

The word is that John "Swift Boat" Kerry is going to be tapped for the
next Secretary of Defense. That in spite of the fact that he'd rather
be Secretary of State.

For that position, the rumor is that it will be offered to Susan Rice
(current US ambassador to the UN).

Which has me asking - what is it with the US and always appointing a
women as Secretary of State?

Why do you people have this insane penchant to put a person without
balls up against an increasingly hostile, militant, MUSLIM world?

well, romney would have been a good choice but none of the males in his
household has ever been in the military so it's possible they have less balls
than Hillary

Now that you're finally recovering from BDS, you gotta work on that
RDS, Malformed. It'll drive you crazy (the evidence is obvious).

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:27:40 -0800, Bill
wrote:


Why do you people have this insane penchant to put a person without
balls up against an increasingly hostile, militant, MUSLIM world?


So far as the Muslim world is concerned, I would imagine you could
have certain advantages or disadvantages by having a male or female
Secretary of State.

They are probably choosing the best option no?

I've seen some men "shake in their boots" when their wife is mad at
them. These women can resort all sorts of terrible punishments
if they are ticked at someone, the worst being the dreaded
"silent treatment". Best to have these weapons used
to our advantage!

Others just use "honor killing". Say...

On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 17:06:31 -0600, "ChairMan"
wrote:

gonjah wrote:

It's always amusing when someone thinks the USA has to
solve all of
the world's ills.

Welcome to the Brave New World Home guy.

whats even more ironic is he whines like a little girl about
how the US gets involved in **** it shouldn't, then
criticizes when we don't

Homogay just likes to whine. No reason needed.

On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 19:44:06 -0500, z wrote:

I've seen some men "shake in their boots" when their wife is mad at
them. These women can resort all sorts of terrible punishments
if they are ticked at someone, the worst being the dreaded
"silent treatment". Best to have these weapons used
to our advantage!

Others just use "honor killing". Say...

Your Honor, I don't hate this woman. I just can't stand the Bitch...

On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 17:06:07 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 19:44:06 -0500, z wrote:

I've seen some men "shake in their boots" when their wife is mad at
them. These women can resort all sorts of terrible punishments
if they are ticked at someone, the worst being the dreaded
"silent treatment". Best to have these weapons used
to our advantage!

Others just use "honor killing". Say...

Your Honor, I don't hate this woman. I just can't stand the Bitch...

....and we were talking about? Oh, yeah. That's the idea!

On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 5:47:39 AM UTC-7, HeyBub wrote:
"gonjah" wrote in message

...

On 11/13/2012 10:26 PM, Home Guy wrote:

Bob F wrote:



Which has me asking - what is it with the US and always

appointing a women as Secretary of State?



Why do you people have this insane penchant to put a person

without balls up against an increasingly hostile, militant,

MUSLIM world?



We'd rather have someone who thinks with their brain?



So tell me.



Besides being on an extended vacation and collecting frequent-flyer

miles for the past 4 years, what exactly has Hillary accomplished?



Having Egypt slide into hard-core islamic control is going to be the

biggest foreign-policy failure of her tenure as Secretary of State -

something that you people will look back on and realize a few years from

now.





What makes you think the US should dictate to Egyptians how they run their

government? The more the US meddles, the more trouble they get in.



You can't fight an ideology. You only make it stronger.

Hillary has that lovely expressionless face and that lovely monotone voice
designed to put people to sleep. I believe she is ill and should be seeing a doctor. Gawd, I've seen more life in roadkill. She is only going through the
motions until Jan. or Feb. when she can retire from her responsibilities.
I feel sorry for her as I don't think she really wanted the job...she wanted
to be President but that was a no-go.