"Tom Gardner" wrote:

I know that you may think I'd be the LAST person to say this, but...The war
should have been a pay-as-you-go expense. The American people would have been
directly involved via their pocketbooks and it would have changed the way the
war was fought. They would have demanded overwhelming force bordering on
unrestrained terror to make a quick end.


Yes, there should have been a sense of shared struggle but I wonder if the
Bush administration correctly figured we don't have the charactor to give up
a big screen purchase in order to free nations.

Rip Pat Tillman, a man that did have charactor.

Wes

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Tom Gardner" wrote:

I know that you may think I'd be the LAST person to say this, but...The
war
should have been a pay-as-you-go expense. The American people would have
been
directly involved via their pocketbooks and it would have changed the way
the
war was fought. They would have demanded overwhelming force bordering on
unrestrained terror to make a quick end.


Yes, there should have been a sense of shared struggle but I wonder if the
Bush administration correctly figured we don't have the charactor to give
up
a big screen purchase in order to free nations.

Rip Pat Tillman, a man that did have charactor.

Wes


Did you know him? Or are you basing the assertion that he had character
simply because he joined the military? I didn't know that being in the
military meant a person had any more character or better morals than anyone
else. I do know that some people make the mistake of believing that being in
the armed forces somehow imbues a man with attributes the rest of us lack.
That is an incorrect assumption, by the way. It's like assuming that police
officers are better than the rest of us. They're not, neither are soldiers.
In my view Tillman was a fool. He got himself killed for nothing, and by our
own troops to boot.

Hawke

In article ,
"Hawke" wrote:

Rip Pat Tillman, a man that did have charactor.

Wes


Did you know him? Or are you basing the assertion that he had character
simply because he joined the military? I didn't know that being in the
military meant a person had any more character or better morals than anyone
else. I do know that some people make the mistake of believing that being in
the armed forces somehow imbues a man with attributes the rest of us lack.
That is an incorrect assumption, by the way. It's like assuming that police
officers are better than the rest of us. They're not, neither are soldiers.
In my view Tillman was a fool. He got himself killed for nothing, and by our
own troops to boot.

He may have been a fool, but he didn't die for nothing. He taught a lot
of kids to not volunteer

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/

On Feb 29, 6:54*am, nick hull wrote:
In article ,

*"Hawke" wrote:
Rip Pat Tillman, a man that did have charactor.

Wes

Did you know him? Or are you basing the assertion that he had character
simply because he joined the military? I didn't know that being in the
military meant a person had any more character or better morals than anyone
else. I do know that some people make the mistake of believing that being in
the armed forces somehow imbues a man with attributes the rest of us lack.
That is an incorrect assumption, by the way. It's like assuming that police
officers are better than the rest of us. They're not, neither are soldiers.
In my view Tillman was a fool. He got himself killed for nothing, and by our
own troops to boot.

He may have been a fool, but he didn't die for nothing. *He taught a lot
of kids to not volunteer

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/

Good point.

TMT

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 21:26:52 -0800, "Hawke"
wrote:
snip
Rip Pat Tillman, a man that did have charactor.

Wes


Did you know him? Or are you basing the assertion that he had character
simply because he joined the military? I didn't know that being in the
military meant a person had any more character or better morals than anyone
else. I do know that some people make the mistake of believing that being in
the armed forces somehow imbues a man with attributes the rest of us lack.
That is an incorrect assumption, by the way. It's like assuming that police
officers are better than the rest of us. They're not, neither are soldiers.
In my view Tillman was a fool. He got himself killed for nothing, and by our
own troops to boot.

Hawke
==========
How every thin we slice the baloney, Pat Tillman was an
increasingly rare bird in that he not only put his money where
his mouth was, he also put his ass on the line. The correctness
of his assumptions about the world may be open to question, but
his actions are not.

IMNSHO the critical danger is that when an actual crisis arises
[and they always do] that requires people to step forward, there
will be no one to do so. This is yet another example of the
wisdom contained in the ancient cautionary tale about the little
boy that cried "wolf."

The United States is also well on its way to destroying its
National Guard and Reserve forces, from not only a
manpower/morale viewpoint but also from a material standpoint,
from rifles to trucks to uniforms and boots, to comm gear.

The regular armed forces are scarcely in better shape, and the
their families are paying much of the price. Indeed, in many
cases the choice resolves to a career in the military or a
family.

Indeed, the armed forces are now stretched so thin that very
expensive mercenary forces such as Blackwater [at 200-400k$ per
merc per year] are now required for many duties such as convoy
escort and body-guards.

Before you use an emergency fund, be it money or other assets,
first be sure its an emergency and then have a plan to restore it
ASAP. Dissipation of assets as a "cost saving measure" is not a
long-term strategy, it is having your head up your a**.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).