On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 10:19:51 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Sunday, August 11, 2019 at 11:56:08 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 05:38:10 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
wrote:

On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 10:11:50 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 17:32:54 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 5:51:58 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 12:15:57 -0600, rbowman
wrote:

On 08/10/2019 11:06 AM, wrote:
Remember if it wasn't for that new england sea faring culture and the
desire for cheap cotton to feed their mills, we would not have had
slaves here in the first place. Maybe we should march through new
england tearing down all of those sailor memorials.

The first slaves predated the cotton industry. Many were used in tobacco
production. Because of the labor intensiveness of separating cotton seed
from the bolls it wasn't until Whitney, another Yankee, invented the
cotton gin that cotton farming became profitable and slave owning given
a boost.

The industrial revolution created many slaves; most of them were wage
slaves. Why go to the expense of owning a slave where you can hire them
by the day and discard them when you don't need them anymore?

This is why I say they could have ended slavery in a couple years in
the south without the war. They just needed the coal company guys to
explain to plantation owners how you can keep your cheap labor without
****ing off the abolitionists. Free the slaves, then hire them back
at a wage that barely covers their living expenses at the "plantation"
(AKA company) store. Most of them would stay, as they did. It would be
100 years until the government got around to looking at how we treated
coal miners or the "freed" slaves.

Too bad we don't have a time machine so we could transport you, Capt Monday
Morning Quaterback, back in time and let you fix everything.

The question is whether it was the right thing to do to have a war
that destroyed half the country and killed 3% of the population when
there may have been a peaceful solution.
It is clear the war didn't really solve anything. The freed slaves
became lower paid than the coal miners I referenced as an example.
Most ended back at the same basic jobs, certainly making a wage but
not a wage they could live on. !00 years of Jim Crow was not really
freedom anyway.
As for the war itself...
I understand that, to neocons like you, there was never a war you
didn't like but it is not always the answer.
You are still defending Afghanistan and it really looks like, after
decades of war there, we are going to give it back to the Taliban. It
will happen faster if the democrats take over than Trump would do it.

It's the graveyard of empires. Ultimately everybody who gets involved
there withdraws.

Cindy Hamilton

The whole debacle from GHWB's war on was stupid and we should have
never been involved in any of it.

Yes, we should have just accepted 3000 dead, taken it, turned our
tails, run away and renounced our status as a superpower, or even
a world power.

Sacrificing another 3000 in a no win war really showed them didn't it?
War is not always the answer.
If you were just talking about the place where most of the 9-11
training took place, maybe we should have bombed Germany and 8-10
flight schools in the US that gave them the critical skills they
needed.





Without the 10 year war in Iraq from
1991 to 2001 there would not have been a 9-11.

So says you, but of course no one has any way of knowing. It could
have happened anyway. And it wasn't a ten year war, the first Gulf War
lasted just hours.



At a certain point maybe we should listen to the people who are
attacking us and believe them. 9-11 was promoted to the mostly Saudi
hijackers as a response to our bombing muslims in Iraq from Saudi
bases (although I doubt we were actually using Saudi bases for it).
It is absolutely true that we did have highly visible US military
personnel in Saudil Arabia at the time for no particularly good
reason..


It might have been worth it to kick Saddam out of Kuwait as long as
the whole world supported us but after that we should have put our
victory in our pocket and came home.

And watch as Saddam committed genocide against the Kurds? As he
gave the US and the coalition the finger? And of course had we done
that and then something else went wrong, why then of course as the
resident Monday morning quarterback, you'd be telling us how letting
Saddam kill the Kurds and flip us off was all wrong.


**** the Kurds. We don't seem to give a **** about genocide all over
the world, why single out Iraq? Are you ready to commit troops to
Darfur? Somalia? Congo? Yemen?Tibet?
No?
Me either.




I did say at the time, (pre Gulf
war) once we get in we will never get out and damn near 30 years
later, we are still there. Same with Afghanistan.

Just like Vietnam, pretty soon we are going to have to decide enough
is enough and get out. The sooner the better.

And then when it turns to crap, you'll be back complaining that was
a mistake too.

No I won't.
If we would stop meddling in middle eastern affairs and stay the hell
out of South Asia, they will quickly forget about us and find someone
else to hate.

"Cindy Hamilton" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 10:11:50 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 17:32:54 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 5:51:58 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 12:15:57 -0600, rbowman
wrote:

On 08/10/2019 11:06 AM, wrote:
Remember if it wasn't for that new england sea faring culture and
the
desire for cheap cotton to feed their mills, we would not have had
slaves here in the first place. Maybe we should march through new
england tearing down all of those sailor memorials.

The first slaves predated the cotton industry. Many were used in
tobacco
production. Because of the labor intensiveness of separating cotton
seed
from the bolls it wasn't until Whitney, another Yankee, invented the
cotton gin that cotton farming became profitable and slave owning
given
a boost.

The industrial revolution created many slaves; most of them were wage
slaves. Why go to the expense of owning a slave where you can hire
them
by the day and discard them when you don't need them anymore?

This is why I say they could have ended slavery in a couple years in
the south without the war. They just needed the coal company guys to
explain to plantation owners how you can keep your cheap labor without
****ing off the abolitionists. Free the slaves, then hire them back
at a wage that barely covers their living expenses at the "plantation"
(AKA company) store. Most of them would stay, as they did. It would be
100 years until the government got around to looking at how we treated
coal miners or the "freed" slaves.

Too bad we don't have a time machine so we could transport you, Capt
Monday
Morning Quaterback, back in time and let you fix everything.

The question is whether it was the right thing to do to have a war
that destroyed half the country and killed 3% of the population when
there may have been a peaceful solution.
It is clear the war didn't really solve anything. The freed slaves
became lower paid than the coal miners I referenced as an example.
Most ended back at the same basic jobs, certainly making a wage but
not a wage they could live on. !00 years of Jim Crow was not really
freedom anyway.
As for the war itself...
I understand that, to neocons like you, there was never a war you
didn't like but it is not always the answer.
You are still defending Afghanistan and it really looks like, after
decades of war there, we are going to give it back to the Taliban. It
will happen faster if the democrats take over than Trump would do it.

It's the graveyard of empires.

Nope, not empire that got involved there died there.

Ultimately everybody who gets involved there withdraws.

Bet the Talibums dont.

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 04:09:50 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:



Bet the Talibums don¢t.

Oh, ****! And this thread was Rodent-free, so far! tsk

--
about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID:

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 04:06:45 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

That¢s very arguable

What is NOT "arguable" for you, you clinically insane, auto-contradicting,
"argumentative asshole"?

--
Sqwertz to Rot Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID:

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 04:20:36 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH another load of the senile asshole's troll****

....and much better air in here, again!

--
dennis@home to know-it-all Rot Speed:
"You really should stop commenting on things you know nothing about."
Message-ID:

On Sunday, August 11, 2019 at 2:01:58 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 10:19:51 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Sunday, August 11, 2019 at 11:56:08 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 05:38:10 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
wrote:

On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 10:11:50 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 17:32:54 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 5:51:58 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 12:15:57 -0600, rbowman
wrote:

On 08/10/2019 11:06 AM, wrote:
Remember if it wasn't for that new england sea faring culture and the
desire for cheap cotton to feed their mills, we would not have had
slaves here in the first place. Maybe we should march through new
england tearing down all of those sailor memorials.

The first slaves predated the cotton industry. Many were used in tobacco
production. Because of the labor intensiveness of separating cotton seed
from the bolls it wasn't until Whitney, another Yankee, invented the
cotton gin that cotton farming became profitable and slave owning given
a boost.

The industrial revolution created many slaves; most of them were wage
slaves. Why go to the expense of owning a slave where you can hire them
by the day and discard them when you don't need them anymore?

This is why I say they could have ended slavery in a couple years in
the south without the war. They just needed the coal company guys to
explain to plantation owners how you can keep your cheap labor without
****ing off the abolitionists. Free the slaves, then hire them back
at a wage that barely covers their living expenses at the "plantation"
(AKA company) store. Most of them would stay, as they did. It would be
100 years until the government got around to looking at how we treated
coal miners or the "freed" slaves.

Too bad we don't have a time machine so we could transport you, Capt Monday
Morning Quaterback, back in time and let you fix everything.

The question is whether it was the right thing to do to have a war
that destroyed half the country and killed 3% of the population when
there may have been a peaceful solution.
It is clear the war didn't really solve anything. The freed slaves
became lower paid than the coal miners I referenced as an example.
Most ended back at the same basic jobs, certainly making a wage but
not a wage they could live on. !00 years of Jim Crow was not really
freedom anyway.
As for the war itself...
I understand that, to neocons like you, there was never a war you
didn't like but it is not always the answer.
You are still defending Afghanistan and it really looks like, after
decades of war there, we are going to give it back to the Taliban. It
will happen faster if the democrats take over than Trump would do it.

It's the graveyard of empires. Ultimately everybody who gets involved
there withdraws.

Cindy Hamilton

The whole debacle from GHWB's war on was stupid and we should have
never been involved in any of it.

Yes, we should have just accepted 3000 dead, taken it, turned our
tails, run away and renounced our status as a superpower, or even
a world power.

Sacrificing another 3000 in a no win war really showed them didn't it?

Yes, it did. The Taliban is no longer the govt of Afghanistan, the
terrorist training camps are gone, Al Qaeda is pretty much gone,
Bin Laden is dead, his son is dead, top leadership is in Gitmo.
You would have sent a cake and sued for peace. That's not what great
countries do. And had we looked the other way, why then there could
be many thousands more Americans dead and of course you'd be bitching
about that.




War is not always the answer.

No, but when you have 3000 dead, buildings in rubble and some ****ants
refuse to turn over Bin Laden, close his camps and instead are giving
the US the finger, it sure is the answer.


If you were just talking about the place where most of the 9-11
training took place, maybe we should have bombed Germany and 8-10
flight schools in the US that gave them the critical skills they
needed.

Nonsense. Many of them were trained in Afghanistan, the plan was
conceived of and ordered from Afghanistan, as were so many other
attacks against the US.









Without the 10 year war in Iraq from
1991 to 2001 there would not have been a 9-11.

So says you, but of course no one has any way of knowing. It could
have happened anyway. And it wasn't a ten year war, the first Gulf War
lasted just hours.



At a certain point maybe we should listen to the people who are
attacking us and believe them. 9-11 was promoted to the mostly Saudi
hijackers as a response to our bombing muslims in Iraq from Saudi
bases

That's another lie. We were not bombing muslims, we were enforcing
a no-fly zone, to prevent Saddam's genocide against the Kurds.
Our ops there were targeted at anti-aircraft installations that
targeted coalition aircraft and were limited. And Bin Laden gave
all kinds of reasons for attacking the USA. The main, obvious
reason staring you in the face is that they hate us because to them
we are infidels and deserve to die. And if you're concerned about
killing muslims, then look no further than Al Qaeda. They killed
more muslims than anyone else, we did muslims a favor by putting
them and ISIS out of business.




(although I doubt we were actually using Saudi bases for it).
It is absolutely true that we did have highly visible US military
personnel in Saudil Arabia at the time for no particularly good
reason..


It might have been worth it to kick Saddam out of Kuwait as long as
the whole world supported us but after that we should have put our
victory in our pocket and came home.

And watch as Saddam committed genocide against the Kurds? As he
gave the US and the coalition the finger? And of course had we done
that and then something else went wrong, why then of course as the
resident Monday morning quarterback, you'd be telling us how letting
Saddam kill the Kurds and flip us off was all wrong.


**** the Kurds.

Yes, spoken like a trumpet and the new spirit of Trump's GOP.




We don't seem to give a **** about genocide all over
the world, why single out Iraq?

We have had operations over the years to stop some genocide, where
we thought we could and the risk/reward ratio was right. The
Balkans, for example. We're trying to stop it in Syria right now.
With Iraq we had the additional very good reason that Saddams killing
Kurds was directly a result of the Gulf War, which we were involved in.
We reached a truce, Saddam then decided to stick his finger in our
eye, in the eyes of the world, and proceed to killing Kurds.
I know, send him a cake and sue for peace.





Are you ready to commit troops to
Darfur? Somalia? Congo? Yemen?Tibet?
No?
Me either.

Just because we can't or won't solve them all, does not mean that
some others are not worthy.








I did say at the time, (pre Gulf
war) once we get in we will never get out and damn near 30 years
later, we are still there. Same with Afghanistan.

Just like Vietnam, pretty soon we are going to have to decide enough
is enough and get out. The sooner the better.

And then when it turns to crap, you'll be back complaining that was
a mistake too.

No I won't.
If we would stop meddling in middle eastern affairs and stay the hell
out of South Asia, they will quickly forget about us and find someone
else to hate.

Yes, that worked splendidly in the 1930s.

posted for all of us...



On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 11:59:41 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 1:06:41 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 06:37:58 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 12:17:31 AM UTC-4, Home Guy wrote:
trader_4 wrote:

It's not a lie, it's pretty much what Trump said. Speaking about what
went on with the protests and riots in Charlottesville, Trump said
that there were "very fine people on both sides".


The following (below) is from he

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...id=8 94934372

===============
I think the problem here is that the positioning of the "very fine
people on both sides" quote implies that Trump considered the Nazis and
white supremacists to be "very fine people", which is not what he was
saying. I think any reasonable reading of the above RSs and the
transcript will show that the point Trump was making was as follows:
tl;dr Trump says: Very not fine people, to blame, should be condemned:
White nationalists/neo-Nazis, violent alt-left. Very fine people, not to
blame: People on the right there to peacefully protest the taking down
of the statue, people on the left there to peacefully protest.

I think this can be clarified even without adding new content; just
reordering the existing text could do a lot. -- Ununseti (talk) 00:39,
21 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment - the sudden increase in editors attempting to "correct" this
quote is likely related to Joel Pollock's segment on Breitbart News
Tonight this past Monday, 18 March 2019 ([5]). EvergreenFir (talk)
05:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
It has also been discussed recently in Scott Adams' podcast. From the
transcript of Trump's statement, it is clear the "very fine people"
referred explicitly to the opposing sides of the monument debate. The
full quote is "But you also had people that were very fine people on
both sides. You had people in that group ? excuse me, excuse me. I saw
the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were
there to protest the taking down, of to them, a very, very important
statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name."
Trump clarifies it a few sentences later when he says "I'm not talking
about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be
condemned totally." The article, at present, does not do a good job of
clarifying this point, and in fact somewhat misleads the reader. Mr
Ernie (talk) 09:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
===============

That section (above) is from an archive of the talk page of the
Wikipedia "Unite the Right rally".

Trump's exact comment appears to be this:

"But you also had people that were very fine people on both
sides. You had people in that group ? excuse me, excuse me.
I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that
group that were there to protest the taking down, of to
them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a
park from Robert E. Lee to another name."

What many people don't seem to realize is that a big part of what was
going on back then was statue-removal, and the "fine people on both
sides" was referring to the debate surrounding the removal (or keeping)
those statues.

No, what YOU and people like you don't realize is that this is pure BS.
Actually, you probably do realize it, but you admitted the other day that
you are a racist, so your motive here is obvious. Did you even bother to
read the article I provided? Were those anti-Semitic chants about a
statute? Were those heil Hitler salutes about Robert E Lee? Did these
scum stand bearing rifles outside a synagogue because of a statute?
Just how stupid do you think people are? The KKK, neo-Nazis, David Duke,
Richard Spencer, David Kessler, are not very fine people. And no decent,
fine people would ever join their white supremacist rally. It really is
that simple. So, stop with the Trump and trumptard lies that this was
about a rally with very fine people about a statute.

You have the same problem as most north easterners. You assume anyone
who wants to preserve any hint of southern culture must be a skin head
nazi racist.

That is one outrageous lie, but not unexpected. I never said anything like
that, I never made any assumptions. All I did was look at the FACTS.
AGain, this was not a protest
about a statute. It wasn't organized by locals, wasn't organized by the
some Confederate history group. It was organized by two despicable white
nationalists. It wasn't called the Robert E Lee statute rally, it was
called "Unite the Right". And the right representing was KKK, neo-Nazis,
David Duke, and similar ilk. Again, they were standing outside a SYNAGOGUE
brandishing arms, on a Sat as Jews were inside worshiping. What's next?
Are you going to tell us they were just confused and thought Robert E Lee
was in there? They were carrying torches and chanting anti-Semitic slogans
as they marched across the U of VA campus. Those are the "very fine people".



The only "Facts" you know was shot through a lens of a TV station with
an agenda, to pump ratings. Nobody wants to see peaceful protesters.


Remember if it wasn't for that new england sea faring culture and the
desire for cheap cotton to feed their mills, we would not have had
slaves here in the first place. Maybe we should march through new
england tearing down all of those sailor memorials.

You also need to remember Robert E Lee

You need to learn what this rally really was and that it was not about
Robert E Lee. Like I said, I suppose if in Nazi Germany there was a
march that was supposed to be about some new national holiday issue
and it was organized by Herman Goering and Eichmann, attended by Nazis
giving Hitler salutes and chanting about Jews, that would just be a march
of very fine people concerned about a holiday.

See above. Nobody would tune in if they just showed the other people
there. It is better to incite division. Conflict sells beer on TV

... or maybe you think everything on TV is real.

If it bleeds, it leads.

--
Tekkie

On Sunday, August 11, 2019 at 3:31:21 PM UTC-4, Tekkie® wrote:
posted for all of us...



On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 11:59:41 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 1:06:41 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 06:37:58 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 12:17:31 AM UTC-4, Home Guy wrote:
trader_4 wrote:

It's not a lie, it's pretty much what Trump said. Speaking about what
went on with the protests and riots in Charlottesville, Trump said
that there were "very fine people on both sides".


The following (below) is from he

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...id=8 94934372

===============
I think the problem here is that the positioning of the "very fine
people on both sides" quote implies that Trump considered the Nazis and
white supremacists to be "very fine people", which is not what he was
saying. I think any reasonable reading of the above RSs and the
transcript will show that the point Trump was making was as follows:
tl;dr Trump says: Very not fine people, to blame, should be condemned:
White nationalists/neo-Nazis, violent alt-left. Very fine people, not to
blame: People on the right there to peacefully protest the taking down
of the statue, people on the left there to peacefully protest.

I think this can be clarified even without adding new content; just
reordering the existing text could do a lot. -- Ununseti (talk) 00:39,
21 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment - the sudden increase in editors attempting to "correct" this
quote is likely related to Joel Pollock's segment on Breitbart News
Tonight this past Monday, 18 March 2019 ([5]). EvergreenFir (talk)
05:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
It has also been discussed recently in Scott Adams' podcast. From the
transcript of Trump's statement, it is clear the "very fine people"
referred explicitly to the opposing sides of the monument debate. The
full quote is "But you also had people that were very fine people on
both sides. You had people in that group ? excuse me, excuse me. I saw
the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were
there to protest the taking down, of to them, a very, very important
statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name."
Trump clarifies it a few sentences later when he says "I'm not talking
about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be
condemned totally." The article, at present, does not do a good job of
clarifying this point, and in fact somewhat misleads the reader. Mr
Ernie (talk) 09:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
===============

That section (above) is from an archive of the talk page of the
Wikipedia "Unite the Right rally".

Trump's exact comment appears to be this:

"But you also had people that were very fine people on both
sides. You had people in that group ? excuse me, excuse me.
I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that
group that were there to protest the taking down, of to
them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a
park from Robert E. Lee to another name."

What many people don't seem to realize is that a big part of what was
going on back then was statue-removal, and the "fine people on both
sides" was referring to the debate surrounding the removal (or keeping)
those statues.

No, what YOU and people like you don't realize is that this is pure BS.
Actually, you probably do realize it, but you admitted the other day that
you are a racist, so your motive here is obvious. Did you even bother to
read the article I provided? Were those anti-Semitic chants about a
statute? Were those heil Hitler salutes about Robert E Lee? Did these
scum stand bearing rifles outside a synagogue because of a statute?
Just how stupid do you think people are? The KKK, neo-Nazis, David Duke,
Richard Spencer, David Kessler, are not very fine people. And no decent,
fine people would ever join their white supremacist rally. It really is
that simple. So, stop with the Trump and trumptard lies that this was
about a rally with very fine people about a statute.

You have the same problem as most north easterners. You assume anyone
who wants to preserve any hint of southern culture must be a skin head
nazi racist.

That is one outrageous lie, but not unexpected. I never said anything like
that, I never made any assumptions. All I did was look at the FACTS.
AGain, this was not a protest
about a statute. It wasn't organized by locals, wasn't organized by the
some Confederate history group. It was organized by two despicable white
nationalists. It wasn't called the Robert E Lee statute rally, it was
called "Unite the Right". And the right representing was KKK, neo-Nazis,
David Duke, and similar ilk. Again, they were standing outside a SYNAGOGUE
brandishing arms, on a Sat as Jews were inside worshiping. What's next?
Are you going to tell us they were just confused and thought Robert E Lee
was in there? They were carrying torches and chanting anti-Semitic slogans
as they marched across the U of VA campus. Those are the "very fine people".



The only "Facts" you know was shot through a lens of a TV station with
an agenda, to pump ratings. Nobody wants to see peaceful protesters.


Remember if it wasn't for that new england sea faring culture and the
desire for cheap cotton to feed their mills, we would not have had
slaves here in the first place. Maybe we should march through new
england tearing down all of those sailor memorials.

You also need to remember Robert E Lee

You need to learn what this rally really was and that it was not about
Robert E Lee. Like I said, I suppose if in Nazi Germany there was a
march that was supposed to be about some new national holiday issue
and it was organized by Herman Goering and Eichmann, attended by Nazis
giving Hitler salutes and chanting about Jews, that would just be a march
of very fine people concerned about a holiday.

See above. Nobody would tune in if they just showed the other people
there. It is better to incite division. Conflict sells beer on TV

... or maybe you think everything on TV is real.

If it bleeds, it leads.

--
Tekkie

Sure, always has. And in this case, there was plenty of bleeding in evidence
before anyone even showed up, plenty for the media to report. Like that
it was not a "Save the Statue" rally. It was billed as a Unite the Right
rally. Organized by two white supremacists, with neo-Nazis, the KKK and
David Duke. The locals, the state, did not want it, they did everything
they could to block it, they were sued in court and the white supremacists
won. Plenty to report there. Then you had torch carrying Nazis marching
across the U of VA campus, shouting anti-Semitic slogans. You had these
pond scum armed with rifles, intimidating Jews inside a synagogue. You
sure don't see that every day, so plenty to report there. The only thing
that wasn't reported were the "very fine people" marching there with them.
Not because of the reporters, but because there were no very fine people,
no decent people would ever be a part of that in any way, shape or form.

Thank you for another Donald Trump teaching moment.

On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 11:45:45 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Sunday, August 11, 2019 at 2:01:58 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 10:19:51 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Sunday, August 11, 2019 at 11:56:08 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 05:38:10 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
wrote:

On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 10:11:50 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 17:32:54 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 5:51:58 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 12:15:57 -0600, rbowman
wrote:

On 08/10/2019 11:06 AM, wrote:
Remember if it wasn't for that new england sea faring culture and the
desire for cheap cotton to feed their mills, we would not have had
slaves here in the first place. Maybe we should march through new
england tearing down all of those sailor memorials.

The first slaves predated the cotton industry. Many were used in tobacco
production. Because of the labor intensiveness of separating cotton seed
from the bolls it wasn't until Whitney, another Yankee, invented the
cotton gin that cotton farming became profitable and slave owning given
a boost.

The industrial revolution created many slaves; most of them were wage
slaves. Why go to the expense of owning a slave where you can hire them
by the day and discard them when you don't need them anymore?

This is why I say they could have ended slavery in a couple years in
the south without the war. They just needed the coal company guys to
explain to plantation owners how you can keep your cheap labor without
****ing off the abolitionists. Free the slaves, then hire them back
at a wage that barely covers their living expenses at the "plantation"
(AKA company) store. Most of them would stay, as they did. It would be
100 years until the government got around to looking at how we treated
coal miners or the "freed" slaves.

Too bad we don't have a time machine so we could transport you, Capt Monday
Morning Quaterback, back in time and let you fix everything.

The question is whether it was the right thing to do to have a war
that destroyed half the country and killed 3% of the population when
there may have been a peaceful solution.
It is clear the war didn't really solve anything. The freed slaves
became lower paid than the coal miners I referenced as an example.
Most ended back at the same basic jobs, certainly making a wage but
not a wage they could live on. !00 years of Jim Crow was not really
freedom anyway.
As for the war itself...
I understand that, to neocons like you, there was never a war you
didn't like but it is not always the answer.
You are still defending Afghanistan and it really looks like, after
decades of war there, we are going to give it back to the Taliban. It
will happen faster if the democrats take over than Trump would do it.

It's the graveyard of empires. Ultimately everybody who gets involved
there withdraws.

Cindy Hamilton

The whole debacle from GHWB's war on was stupid and we should have
never been involved in any of it.

Yes, we should have just accepted 3000 dead, taken it, turned our
tails, run away and renounced our status as a superpower, or even
a world power.

Sacrificing another 3000 in a no win war really showed them didn't it?

Yes, it did. The Taliban is no longer the govt of Afghanistan, the
terrorist training camps are gone, Al Qaeda is pretty much gone,
Bin Laden is dead, his son is dead, top leadership is in Gitmo.
You would have sent a cake and sued for peace. That's not what great
countries do. And had we looked the other way, why then there could
be many thousands more Americans dead and of course you'd be bitching
about that.

Most of that is either going to be reversed as soon as we leave or had
nothing to do with the war. OBL was in Pakistan the whole time
watching the war on TV and laughing.
The people on Afghanistan who suffered from the war had nothing to do
with 9-11. OBL just happened to live there, out in the ****ing boonies
that we have never really controlled for more than a day or two at a
time. And how do you know what the Taliban is doing in the 45% of the
country they control? What you call a training camp just looks like a
camp on satellite and they are everywhere. You really did drink that
Kool Ade..




War is not always the answer.

No, but when you have 3000 dead, buildings in rubble and some ****ants
refuse to turn over Bin Laden, close his camps and instead are giving
the US the finger, it sure is the answer.


If you were just talking about the place where most of the 9-11
training took place, maybe we should have bombed Germany and 8-10
flight schools in the US that gave them the critical skills they
needed.

Nonsense. Many of them were trained in Afghanistan, the plan was
conceived of and ordered from Afghanistan, as were so many other
attacks against the US.

What did they learn in Afghanistan, how to stab someone with a box
knife? I bet they already figured that out. The critical skill was
flying the planes and they didn't learn that in a cave in Afghanistan.
That Kool Ade is really yummy isn't it. I bet you think Saddam was
really throwing babies out of incubators, tanks were massing on the
Saudi border, the mobile WND factories, the yellow cake lie and the
aluminum tube lie were all true too. Anything to start a war seems OK
with you.





Without the 10 year war in Iraq from
1991 to 2001 there would not have been a 9-11.

So says you, but of course no one has any way of knowing. It could
have happened anyway. And it wasn't a ten year war, the first Gulf War
lasted just hours.



At a certain point maybe we should listen to the people who are
attacking us and believe them. 9-11 was promoted to the mostly Saudi
hijackers as a response to our bombing muslims in Iraq from Saudi
bases

That's another lie. We were not bombing muslims, we were enforcing
a no-fly zone, to prevent Saddam's genocide against the Kurds.
Our ops there were targeted at anti-aircraft installations that
targeted coalition aircraft and were limited.

That was certainly the propaganda we tried to spread but most of our
allies didn't even believe it. They dropped ordnance almost every day
and all of it did not land on AA Radar sites. We were warned in 1991
not to attack Baghdad, it has special significance to muslims but we
didn't understand how much until 2 years later in Lower Manhattan and
on the bank of the Potomac.

(although I doubt we were actually using Saudi bases for it).
It is absolutely true that we did have highly visible US military
personnel in Saudil Arabia at the time for no particularly good
reason..


It might have been worth it to kick Saddam out of Kuwait as long as
the whole world supported us but after that we should have put our
victory in our pocket and came home.

And watch as Saddam committed genocide against the Kurds? As he
gave the US and the coalition the finger? And of course had we done
that and then something else went wrong, why then of course as the
resident Monday morning quarterback, you'd be telling us how letting
Saddam kill the Kurds and flip us off was all wrong.


**** the Kurds.

Yes, spoken like a trumpet and the new spirit of Trump's GOP.




We don't seem to give a **** about genocide all over
the world, why single out Iraq?

We have had operations over the years to stop some genocide, where
we thought we could and the risk/reward ratio was right. The
Balkans, for example. We're trying to stop it in Syria right now.
With Iraq we had the additional very good reason that Saddams killing
Kurds was directly a result of the Gulf War, which we were involved in.
We reached a truce, Saddam then decided to stick his finger in our
eye, in the eyes of the world, and proceed to killing Kurds.
I know, send him a cake and sue for peace.

We are very selective about who we save, mostly white Europeans. The
Kurds just happened to be a handy excuse to ramp up a war Bush and
Cheney were trying to get going from day one and that never actually
stopped since 1991.
It actually turns out the "kurds" may have actually been the ISIS
people we are fighting now.
No I don't trust anything they tell us about that war, nor most wars
we have fought in my lifetime. They have all been based on lies.

Are you ready to commit troops to
Darfur? Somalia? Congo? Yemen?Tibet?
No?
Me either.

Just because we can't or won't solve them all, does not mean that
some others are not worthy.








I did say at the time, (pre Gulf
war) once we get in we will never get out and damn near 30 years
later, we are still there. Same with Afghanistan.

Just like Vietnam, pretty soon we are going to have to decide enough
is enough and get out. The sooner the better.

And then when it turns to crap, you'll be back complaining that was
a mistake too.

No I won't.
If we would stop meddling in middle eastern affairs and stay the hell
out of South Asia, they will quickly forget about us and find someone
else to hate.

Yes, that worked splendidly in the 1930s.

Oops you brought up the nazis, you lose. Nothing we have seen since is
like the nazis or the empire of Japan.

On 2019-08-11 2:11 p.m., wrote:
On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 11:45:45 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Sunday, August 11, 2019 at 2:01:58 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 10:19:51 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Sunday, August 11, 2019 at 11:56:08 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 05:38:10 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
wrote:

On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 10:11:50 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 17:32:54 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 5:51:58 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 12:15:57 -0600, rbowman
wrote:

On 08/10/2019 11:06 AM, wrote:
Remember if it wasn't for that new england sea faring culture and the
desire for cheap cotton to feed their mills, we would not have had
slaves here in the first place. Maybe we should march through new
england tearing down all of those sailor memorials.

The first slaves predated the cotton industry. Many were used in tobacco
production. Because of the labor intensiveness of separating cotton seed
from the bolls it wasn't until Whitney, another Yankee, invented the
cotton gin that cotton farming became profitable and slave owning given
a boost.

The industrial revolution created many slaves; most of them were wage
slaves. Why go to the expense of owning a slave where you can hire them
by the day and discard them when you don't need them anymore?

This is why I say they could have ended slavery in a couple years in
the south without the war. They just needed the coal company guys to
explain to plantation owners how you can keep your cheap labor without
****ing off the abolitionists. Free the slaves, then hire them back
at a wage that barely covers their living expenses at the "plantation"
(AKA company) store. Most of them would stay, as they did. It would be
100 years until the government got around to looking at how we treated
coal miners or the "freed" slaves.

Too bad we don't have a time machine so we could transport you, Capt Monday
Morning Quaterback, back in time and let you fix everything.

The question is whether it was the right thing to do to have a war
that destroyed half the country and killed 3% of the population when
there may have been a peaceful solution.
It is clear the war didn't really solve anything. The freed slaves
became lower paid than the coal miners I referenced as an example.
Most ended back at the same basic jobs, certainly making a wage but
not a wage they could live on. !00 years of Jim Crow was not really
freedom anyway.
As for the war itself...
I understand that, to neocons like you, there was never a war you
didn't like but it is not always the answer.
You are still defending Afghanistan and it really looks like, after
decades of war there, we are going to give it back to the Taliban. It
will happen faster if the democrats take over than Trump would do it.

It's the graveyard of empires. Ultimately everybody who gets involved
there withdraws.

Cindy Hamilton

The whole debacle from GHWB's war on was stupid and we should have
never been involved in any of it.

Yes, we should have just accepted 3000 dead, taken it, turned our
tails, run away and renounced our status as a superpower, or even
a world power.

Sacrificing another 3000 in a no win war really showed them didn't it?

Yes, it did. The Taliban is no longer the govt of Afghanistan, the
terrorist training camps are gone, Al Qaeda is pretty much gone,
Bin Laden is dead, his son is dead, top leadership is in Gitmo.
You would have sent a cake and sued for peace. That's not what great
countries do. And had we looked the other way, why then there could
be many thousands more Americans dead and of course you'd be bitching
about that.

Most of that is either going to be reversed as soon as we leave or had
nothing to do with the war. OBL was in Pakistan the whole time
watching the war on TV and laughing.
The people on Afghanistan who suffered from the war had nothing to do
with 9-11. OBL just happened to live there, out in the ****ing boonies
that we have never really controlled for more than a day or two at a
time. And how do you know what the Taliban is doing in the 45% of the
country they control? What you call a training camp just looks like a
camp on satellite and they are everywhere. You really did drink that
Kool Ade..




War is not always the answer.

No, but when you have 3000 dead, buildings in rubble and some ****ants
refuse to turn over Bin Laden, close his camps and instead are giving
the US the finger, it sure is the answer.


If you were just talking about the place where most of the 9-11
training took place, maybe we should have bombed Germany and 8-10
flight schools in the US that gave them the critical skills they
needed.

Nonsense. Many of them were trained in Afghanistan, the plan was
conceived of and ordered from Afghanistan, as were so many other
attacks against the US.

What did they learn in Afghanistan, how to stab someone with a box
knife? I bet they already figured that out. The critical skill was
flying the planes and they didn't learn that in a cave in Afghanistan.
That Kool Ade is really yummy isn't it. I bet you think Saddam was
really throwing babies out of incubators, tanks were massing on the
Saudi border, the mobile WND factories, the yellow cake lie and the
aluminum tube lie were all true too. Anything to start a war seems OK
with you.





Without the 10 year war in Iraq from
1991 to 2001 there would not have been a 9-11.

So says you, but of course no one has any way of knowing. It could
have happened anyway. And it wasn't a ten year war, the first Gulf War
lasted just hours.



At a certain point maybe we should listen to the people who are
attacking us and believe them. 9-11 was promoted to the mostly Saudi
hijackers as a response to our bombing muslims in Iraq from Saudi
bases

That's another lie. We were not bombing muslims, we were enforcing
a no-fly zone, to prevent Saddam's genocide against the Kurds.
Our ops there were targeted at anti-aircraft installations that
targeted coalition aircraft and were limited.

That was certainly the propaganda we tried to spread but most of our
allies didn't even believe it. They dropped ordnance almost every day
and all of it did not land on AA Radar sites. We were warned in 1991
not to attack Baghdad, it has special significance to muslims but we
didn't understand how much until 2 years later in Lower Manhattan and
on the bank of the Potomac.

(although I doubt we were actually using Saudi bases for it).
It is absolutely true that we did have highly visible US military
personnel in Saudil Arabia at the time for no particularly good
reason..


It might have been worth it to kick Saddam out of Kuwait as long as
the whole world supported us but after that we should have put our
victory in our pocket and came home.

And watch as Saddam committed genocide against the Kurds? As he
gave the US and the coalition the finger? And of course had we done
that and then something else went wrong, why then of course as the
resident Monday morning quarterback, you'd be telling us how letting
Saddam kill the Kurds and flip us off was all wrong.


**** the Kurds.

Yes, spoken like a trumpet and the new spirit of Trump's GOP.




We don't seem to give a **** about genocide all over
the world, why single out Iraq?

We have had operations over the years to stop some genocide, where
we thought we could and the risk/reward ratio was right. The
Balkans, for example. We're trying to stop it in Syria right now.
With Iraq we had the additional very good reason that Saddams killing
Kurds was directly a result of the Gulf War, which we were involved in.
We reached a truce, Saddam then decided to stick his finger in our
eye, in the eyes of the world, and proceed to killing Kurds.
I know, send him a cake and sue for peace.

We are very selective about who we save, mostly white Europeans. The
Kurds just happened to be a handy excuse to ramp up a war Bush and
Cheney were trying to get going from day one and that never actually
stopped since 1991.
It actually turns out the "kurds" may have actually been the ISIS
people we are fighting now.
No I don't trust anything they tell us about that war, nor most wars
we have fought in my lifetime. They have all been based on lies.

Are you ready to commit troops to
Darfur? Somalia? Congo? Yemen?Tibet?
No?
Me either.

Just because we can't or won't solve them all, does not mean that
some others are not worthy.








I did say at the time, (pre Gulf
war) once we get in we will never get out and damn near 30 years
later, we are still there. Same with Afghanistan.

Just like Vietnam, pretty soon we are going to have to decide enough
is enough and get out. The sooner the better.

And then when it turns to crap, you'll be back complaining that was
a mistake too.

No I won't.
If we would stop meddling in middle eastern affairs and stay the hell
out of South Asia, they will quickly forget about us and find someone
else to hate.

Yes, that worked splendidly in the 1930s.

Oops you brought up the nazis, you lose. Nothing we have seen since is
like the nazis or the empire of Japan.

no one else has bothered to invade you and ,
now that you have nothing , no one cares about you

On Sunday, August 11, 2019 at 5:11:47 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 11:45:45 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Sunday, August 11, 2019 at 2:01:58 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 10:19:51 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Sunday, August 11, 2019 at 11:56:08 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 05:38:10 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
wrote:

On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 10:11:50 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 17:32:54 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 5:51:58 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 12:15:57 -0600, rbowman
wrote:

On 08/10/2019 11:06 AM, wrote:
Remember if it wasn't for that new england sea faring culture and the
desire for cheap cotton to feed their mills, we would not have had
slaves here in the first place. Maybe we should march through new
england tearing down all of those sailor memorials.

The first slaves predated the cotton industry. Many were used in tobacco
production. Because of the labor intensiveness of separating cotton seed
from the bolls it wasn't until Whitney, another Yankee, invented the
cotton gin that cotton farming became profitable and slave owning given
a boost.

The industrial revolution created many slaves; most of them were wage
slaves. Why go to the expense of owning a slave where you can hire them
by the day and discard them when you don't need them anymore?

This is why I say they could have ended slavery in a couple years in
the south without the war. They just needed the coal company guys to
explain to plantation owners how you can keep your cheap labor without
****ing off the abolitionists. Free the slaves, then hire them back
at a wage that barely covers their living expenses at the "plantation"
(AKA company) store. Most of them would stay, as they did. It would be
100 years until the government got around to looking at how we treated
coal miners or the "freed" slaves.

Too bad we don't have a time machine so we could transport you, Capt Monday
Morning Quaterback, back in time and let you fix everything.

The question is whether it was the right thing to do to have a war
that destroyed half the country and killed 3% of the population when
there may have been a peaceful solution.
It is clear the war didn't really solve anything. The freed slaves
became lower paid than the coal miners I referenced as an example.
Most ended back at the same basic jobs, certainly making a wage but
not a wage they could live on. !00 years of Jim Crow was not really
freedom anyway.
As for the war itself...
I understand that, to neocons like you, there was never a war you
didn't like but it is not always the answer.
You are still defending Afghanistan and it really looks like, after
decades of war there, we are going to give it back to the Taliban. It
will happen faster if the democrats take over than Trump would do it.

It's the graveyard of empires. Ultimately everybody who gets involved
there withdraws.

Cindy Hamilton

The whole debacle from GHWB's war on was stupid and we should have
never been involved in any of it.

Yes, we should have just accepted 3000 dead, taken it, turned our
tails, run away and renounced our status as a superpower, or even
a world power.

Sacrificing another 3000 in a no win war really showed them didn't it?

Yes, it did. The Taliban is no longer the govt of Afghanistan, the
terrorist training camps are gone, Al Qaeda is pretty much gone,
Bin Laden is dead, his son is dead, top leadership is in Gitmo.
You would have sent a cake and sued for peace. That's not what great
countries do. And had we looked the other way, why then there could
be many thousands more Americans dead and of course you'd be bitching
about that.

Most of that is either going to be reversed as soon as we leave or had
nothing to do with the war. OBL was in Pakistan the whole time
watching the war on TV and laughing.


How do you know? Were you there? Is Bin Laden laughing now?



The people on Afghanistan who suffered from the war had nothing to do
with 9-11.

They were already suffering under the Taliban. And sometimes innocent
civilians suffer. Like in Japan, where the average citizen wasn't
endorsing genocide in China or bombing Pearl Harbor. Suppose we
should have sent them a cake too, and let it go, eh?


OBL just happened to live there,

Sure, it could just as easily been Detroit or Paris, right?
He was there because the Taliban protected him and allowed him
to conduct his terrorist operations from there, allowed him to
operate terrorist training camps. But no more.



out in the ****ing boonies
that we have never really controlled for more than a day or two at a
time. And how do you know what the Taliban is doing in the 45% of the
country they control? What you call a training camp just looks like a
camp on satellite and they are everywhere. You really did drink that
Kool Ade..

You're the one who appears to be drinking something. We knew with
intel that those camps were in Afghanistan before 9/11, we had a
pretty good idea that they were training terrorists and up to no
good. We even had Bin Laden in the sights of a predator drone,
but Clinton wouldn't give the OK to fire and take him out. He was
worried about collateral damage, so Bin Laden went on to 9/11.
Of course if Clinton had done his job and ordered that shot and we
took Bin Laden out and there was some Al Qaeda attack on the US,
why then you'd be saying we caused it, that killing Bin Laden was
a mistake, etc, etc, etc.








War is not always the answer.

No, but when you have 3000 dead, buildings in rubble and some ****ants
refuse to turn over Bin Laden, close his camps and instead are giving
the US the finger, it sure is the answer.


If you were just talking about the place where most of the 9-11
training took place, maybe we should have bombed Germany and 8-10
flight schools in the US that gave them the critical skills they
needed.

Nonsense. Many of them were trained in Afghanistan, the plan was
conceived of and ordered from Afghanistan, as were so many other
attacks against the US.

What did they learn in Afghanistan, how to stab someone with a box
knife?

What do Marines, Navy Seals learn in their training? Why do we have
to train them to kill effectively? Why don't we just give them a
one hour seminar and send them on their way?



I bet they already figured that out. The critical skill was
flying the planes and they didn't learn that in a cave in Afghanistan.
That Kool Ade is really yummy isn't it. I bet you think Saddam was
really throwing babies out of incubators, tanks were massing on the
Saudi border,

Well we know he was doing similar. He gassed the Kurds, then after
the Gulf War he started in with trying to kill them again. You just
said, who cares. That was your response. Now are you denying it?
And Saddam did mass tanks on the border of Kuwait and then he invaded
and raped that country.



the mobile WND factories, the yellow cake lie and the
aluminum tube lie were all true too. Anything to start a war seems OK
with you.

Funny you're here bitching about decades ago, but you're remarkably
silent as Trump effectively has started acts of war against Iran.
Always the past, always. Is intelligence perfect? No. Was it up
to the US or the world to figure out what Saddam had? No, per the
cease fire agreement ending the Gulf War, it was up to Iraq to
fully cooperate with the UN weapons inspectors and they never did.
So, intel got it mostly wrong. So did the UK and Israel. And if
Bush had not acted and it turned out the intel was right, why then
as a Monday morning quarterback, that would have been awful, all
Bush's fault, etc., etc, etc.










Without the 10 year war in Iraq from
1991 to 2001 there would not have been a 9-11.

So says you, but of course no one has any way of knowing. It could
have happened anyway. And it wasn't a ten year war, the first Gulf War
lasted just hours.



At a certain point maybe we should listen to the people who are
attacking us and believe them. 9-11 was promoted to the mostly Saudi
hijackers as a response to our bombing muslims in Iraq from Saudi
bases

That's another lie. We were not bombing muslims, we were enforcing
a no-fly zone, to prevent Saddam's genocide against the Kurds.
Our ops there were targeted at anti-aircraft installations that
targeted coalition aircraft and were limited.

That was certainly the propaganda we tried to spread but most of our
allies didn't even believe it. They dropped ordnance almost every day
and all of it did not land on AA Radar sites. We were warned in 1991
not to attack Baghdad, it has special significance to muslims but we
didn't understand how much until 2 years later in Lower Manhattan and
on the bank of the Potomac.

Oh, BS and more BS. Al Qaeda has attacked all over Europe,
they've attacked all over Africa, all over the MidEast and in
parts of Asia. Were they all bombing radar sites too?




(although I doubt we were actually using Saudi bases for it).
It is absolutely true that we did have highly visible US military
personnel in Saudil Arabia at the time for no particularly good
reason..


It might have been worth it to kick Saddam out of Kuwait as long as
the whole world supported us but after that we should have put our
victory in our pocket and came home.

And watch as Saddam committed genocide against the Kurds? As he
gave the US and the coalition the finger? And of course had we done
that and then something else went wrong, why then of course as the
resident Monday morning quarterback, you'd be telling us how letting
Saddam kill the Kurds and flip us off was all wrong.


**** the Kurds.

Yes, spoken like a trumpet and the new spirit of Trump's GOP.




We don't seem to give a **** about genocide all over
the world, why single out Iraq?

We have had operations over the years to stop some genocide, where
we thought we could and the risk/reward ratio was right. The
Balkans, for example. We're trying to stop it in Syria right now.
With Iraq we had the additional very good reason that Saddams killing
Kurds was directly a result of the Gulf War, which we were involved in.
We reached a truce, Saddam then decided to stick his finger in our
eye, in the eyes of the world, and proceed to killing Kurds.
I know, send him a cake and sue for peace.

We are very selective about who we save, mostly white Europeans. The
Kurds just happened to be a handy excuse to ramp up a war Bush and
Cheney were trying to get going from day one and that never actually
stopped since 1991.

More BS. There was no ramping up. The no-fly worked, we had zero
losses, it saved the Kurds.



It actually turns out the "kurds" may have actually been the ISIS
people we are fighting now.

That's more BS.



No I don't trust anything they tell us about that war, nor most wars
we have fought in my lifetime. They have all been based on lies.

Sure, according to you, of course.




Are you ready to commit troops to
Darfur? Somalia? Congo? Yemen?Tibet?
No?
Me either.

Just because we can't or won't solve them all, does not mean that
some others are not worthy.








I did say at the time, (pre Gulf
war) once we get in we will never get out and damn near 30 years
later, we are still there. Same with Afghanistan.

Just like Vietnam, pretty soon we are going to have to decide enough
is enough and get out. The sooner the better.

And then when it turns to crap, you'll be back complaining that was
a mistake too.

No I won't.
If we would stop meddling in middle eastern affairs and stay the hell
out of South Asia, they will quickly forget about us and find someone
else to hate.

Yes, that worked splendidly in the 1930s.

Oops you brought up the nazis, you lose. Nothing we have seen since is
like the nazis or the empire of Japan.

That's all you've got on that? We ignored what was happening in
Germany, we mostly ignored what was happening in Asia, until it was
too late. Most people learned from that. You and our current
president are exceptions.

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 09:12:06 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


That¢s very arguable given that 44% of the US pay no income tax

Everyone who works "legal" pays the payroll taxes tho

Plenty who do casual work for cash don¢t.

Of course they do, except they are moonlighting, you "all-knowing" senile
asshole troll from Oz! Just HOW senile are you?

--
Richard addressing Rot Speed:
"**** you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID:

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 12:44:22 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


Corse you have to include those and there are plenty of others
who do casual work for cash and don¢t pay payroll tax.

Even they have to be careful not to show much cash, like
cars and houses, or the IRS will come looking for them.

Clearly doesn¢t work with drug dealers.

Teaching the Yanks again how things REALLY are in the US, you clinically
insane senile asshole?

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 12:48:06 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

Everyone who works "legal" pays the payroll taxes tho

Plenty who do casual work for cash don¢t. And payroll
taxes isnt the source of most welfare payments.

and for the bottom 95% that is usually more than the income
tax.(~14% from the first dollar when you include the half the
employer takes out of your pay before you see it.)

Not with those who do casual work for cash.

I don't actually know anyone who does that.

Then you need get out more, particularly with hookers, drug dealers, those
who clean houses, mow lawns, babysit, lots of handymen etc etc etc.

So you mean if they work ILLEGALLY, senile asshole troll from Oz! gfretard
above EXPLICITELY stated "everyone who works 'legal' "!

--
Richard addressing Rot Speed:
"**** you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID:

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 04:20:44 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


That is getting far harder to do.

Bull****.

That one word would make the perfect nym for you, senile bull**** artist!

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 09:25:39 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


BULL****

That one word would make the perfect nym for you, you senile bull****
artist!

--
about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID: