Re: What no comments on Bush's new iraq Plan?

Re: What no comments on Bush's new iraq Plan?

" dbu," <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected].
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Cathy F." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>> >
>> > "ToMh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > news:[email protected]
>> >> I'm supporting the Pres this time. First time I felt that they are
>> >> being upfront about things and are finally willing to admit mistakes
>> >> and change the course. We can't let Iraq slip into Iranian and Syrian
>> >> control.
>> >> Having Iran control the 2nd largest oil reserve would be devastating.
>> >> Even though I feel they probably screwed it up beyond repair, we
>> >> should
>> >> support this last effort.
>> >>
>> >> They need to have more troops to be able to actually keep the
>> >> insurgents out. The way it's been is just like VietNam. They chase the
>> >> enemy away, then move on, only to have them come right back. The other
>> >> thing they need to do is to actually build back up the infrustructure,
>> >> so that people can have services, safety and not feel the need to join
>> >> these millitias for protection.
>> >>
>> >
>> > The irony is that we had even more troops in Iraq, and the Dems were so
>> > annoyed with this that we had to bring some of the troops home. NOW,
>> > the
>> > Dems bitch that we can't do the job correctly,
>>
>> That remains to be seen. Doubtful, unfortunately.
>>
>> but when the Prez wants to
>> > remedy this by upping the troop count, the Dems bitch even louder, and
>> > threaten a move to cut off funds.
>>
>> A bunch of Republicans are none too pleased, either.
>>
>> Cathy
>
> Just political posturing.

<splork!> O-kay....

They are acutely aware that Bush will not be
> running again.

In which case one could take your comment above to mean that they've thought
all along that his handling of the whole thing's been nuts.

Cathy

> --
>

Re: What no comments on Bush's new iraq Plan?

In article <[email protected]>,
"Cathy F." <[email protected]> wrote:

> " dbu," <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news[email protected].
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Cathy F." <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]
> >> >
> >> > "ToMh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> > news:[email protected]
> >> >> I'm supporting the Pres this time. First time I felt that they are
> >> >> being upfront about things and are finally willing to admit mistakes
> >> >> and change the course. We can't let Iraq slip into Iranian and Syrian
> >> >> control.
> >> >> Having Iran control the 2nd largest oil reserve would be devastating.
> >> >> Even though I feel they probably screwed it up beyond repair, we
> >> >> should
> >> >> support this last effort.
> >> >>
> >> >> They need to have more troops to be able to actually keep the
> >> >> insurgents out. The way it's been is just like VietNam. They chase the
> >> >> enemy away, then move on, only to have them come right back. The other
> >> >> thing they need to do is to actually build back up the infrustructure,
> >> >> so that people can have services, safety and not feel the need to join
> >> >> these millitias for protection.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > The irony is that we had even more troops in Iraq, and the Dems were so
> >> > annoyed with this that we had to bring some of the troops home. NOW,
> >> > the
> >> > Dems bitch that we can't do the job correctly,
> >>
> >> That remains to be seen. Doubtful, unfortunately.
> >>
> >> but when the Prez wants to
> >> > remedy this by upping the troop count, the Dems bitch even louder, and
> >> > threaten a move to cut off funds.
> >>
> >> A bunch of Republicans are none too pleased, either.
> >>
> >> Cathy
> >
> > Just political posturing.
>
> <splork!> O-kay....
>
> They are acutely aware that Bush will not be
> > running again.
>
> In which case one could take your comment above to mean that they've thought
> all along that his handling of the whole thing's been nuts.
>
> Cathy
>
> > --
> >

Nothing is perfect. I am pleased we are fighting terrorism. Clinton
was happy to be happy. Didn't stick his neck out and relied on others
to stick their neck out and so the tough jobs didn't get done under
clinton.
--

Re: What no comments on Bush's new iraq Plan?

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 19:20:26 -0500, "Cathy F." <[email protected]>
wrote:

>A bunch of Republicans are none too pleased, either.
>
>Cathy

A bunch of Republicans are not really Republicans.

They have become Dims.....

Happens....


--

Scott in Florida

Re: What no comments on Bush's new iraq Plan?

"Scott in Florida" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 19:20:26 -0500, "Cathy F." <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>A bunch of Republicans are none too pleased, either.
>>
>>Cathy
>
> A bunch of Republicans are not really Republicans.
>
> They have become Dims.....
>
> Happens....

You're rationalizing as much as dbu is!

Cathy

>
>
> --
>
> Scott in Florida
>

Re: What no comments on Bush's new iraq Plan?

" dbu," <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected].


> Nothing is perfect. I am pleased we are fighting terrorism. Clinton
> was happy to be happy. Didn't stick his neck out and relied on others
> to stick their neck out and so the tough jobs didn't get done under
> clinton.
> --
>


The only fight against terrorism that's working is one that you cannot see.
It's not in the news.

Re: {OT} What no comments on Bush's new iraq Plan?

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

> " dbu," <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news[email protected]
> .
>
>
> > Nothing is perfect. I am pleased we are fighting terrorism.
> > Clinton was happy to be happy. Didn't stick his neck out and
> > relied on others to stick their neck out and so the tough jobs
> > didn't get done under clinton.
> > --
>
>
> The only fight against terrorism that's working is one that you
> cannot see. It's not in the news.

This may be true. I'm glad you recognize how invaluable the Patriot
Act is.

--

Re: What no comments on Bush's new iraq Plan?

dbu, wrote:

> I am pleased we are fighting terrorism.

We're not fighting terrorism so much as helping it breed.

> Clinton was happy to be happy. Didn't stick his neck out and
> relied on others to stick their neck out and so the tough jobs
> didn't get done under clinton.

Which tough jobs?

Re: {OT} What no comments on Bush's new iraq Plan?

larry moe 'n curly, 1/12/2007,12:12:07 AM, wrote:

>
> badgolferman wrote:
>
> > JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
> >
> > > " dbu," <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news[email protected]
> > > om..
> > >
> > > > Nothing is perfect. I am pleased we are fighting terrorism.
>
> > > The only fight against terrorism that's working is one that you
> > > cannot see. It's not in the news.
>
> > This may be true. I'm glad you recognize how invaluable the Patriot
> > Act is.
>
> I don't think the Patriot Act has been very effective. We've been
> kept safe mostly because Airline cockpit doors are armored and kept
> locked, there's widespread suspicion of anybody who looks Middle
> Eastern, and the war in Afghanistan has disrupted al Quada quite a
> bit (Why did al Quada bomb a train in Spain? Because they couldn't
> bomb anything in the US).

This statement infers President Bush's plan to keep the terrorists at
bay from attacking America is working. I'm glad you recognize he has
protected America much better than President Clinton ever did.

> Unfortunately we're still not doing nearly enough about providing
> secular education in Afghanistan and Pakistan and countering the money
> the radical Saudis (the royal family) have been sending there for
> extremist religous schools.

Unfortunately there will never be a change in attitude amongst those
people unless entire generations are wiped out. Maybe education will
help but it will be a long process taking decades (as President Bush
warned us) that Americans don't have the stomach for. If it doesn't
fit into a thirty or sixty minute episode we lose interest and reach
for the clicker to change the channel.

Re: {OT} What no comments on Bush's new iraq Plan?

"larry moe 'n curly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1168578727.417081.2963[email protected]
>
> badgolferman wrote:
>
>> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>>
>> > " dbu," <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > news[email protected]
>> >
>> > > Nothing is perfect. I am pleased we are fighting terrorism.
>
>> > The only fight against terrorism that's working is one that you
>> > cannot see. It's not in the news.
>
>> This may be true. I'm glad you recognize how invaluable the Patriot
>> Act is.
>
> I don't think the Patriot Act has been very effective. We've been kept
> safe mostly because Airline cockpit doors are armored and kept locked,
> there's widespread suspicion of anybody who looks Middle Eastern, and
> the war in Afghanistan has disrupted al Quada quite a bit (Why did al
> Quada bomb a train in Spain? Because they couldn't bomb anything in
> the US).
>
> Unfortunately we're still not doing nearly enough about providing
> secular education in Afghanistan and Pakistan and countering the money
> the radical Saudis (the royal family) have been sending there for
> extremist religous schools.
>


I'd like to see a modern equivalent of the WWII victory garden effort, but
with gasoline. If Americans (theoretically) approve of a pointless war to
"git them nasty terrorists", you'd think we could manage to direct some of
that (theoretical) anger toward each of us driving 20% less each week. Too
bad the last 5 presidents have been so happy to blow the Saudis, rather than
spank them for their part in this mess. Otherwise, one of them might have
the balls to say "Look - money talks, but the Saudis don't believe we have
the gumption to hit them in the pocket book. What do YOU all think?"

For golf boy:
google world war II victory garden

Re: {OT} What no comments on Bush's new iraq Plan?

JoeSpareBedroom, 1/12/2007, 7:21:51 AM,
<[email protected]> wrote:

> I'd like to see a modern equivalent of the WWII victory garden
> effort, but with gasoline. If Americans (theoretically) approve of a
> pointless war to "git them nasty terrorists", you'd think we could
> manage to direct some of that (theoretical) anger toward each of us
> driving 20% less each week. Too bad the last 5 presidents have been
> so happy to blow the Saudis, rather than spank them for their part in
> this mess. Otherwise, one of them might have the balls to say "Look -
> money talks, but the Saudis don't believe we have the gumption to hit
> them in the pocket book. What do YOU all think?

I think the average American who has no family in the military has not
experienced any difficulty or change of lifestyle, no sacrifices
whatsoever, in this war. It may be a good idea to enforce rationing to
give people a taste of what will happen if we lose in Iraq. Supporting
the troops requires much more than putting a sticker on your back
bumper.

Re: {OT} What no comments on Bush's new iraq Plan?

"badgolferman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> JoeSpareBedroom, 1/12/2007, 7:21:51 AM,
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I'd like to see a modern equivalent of the WWII victory garden
>> effort, but with gasoline. If Americans (theoretically) approve of a
>> pointless war to "git them nasty terrorists", you'd think we could
>> manage to direct some of that (theoretical) anger toward each of us
>> driving 20% less each week. Too bad the last 5 presidents have been
>> so happy to blow the Saudis, rather than spank them for their part in
>> this mess. Otherwise, one of them might have the balls to say "Look -
>> money talks, but the Saudis don't believe we have the gumption to hit
>> them in the pocket book. What do YOU all think?
>
> I think the average American who has no family in the military has not
> experienced any difficulty or change of lifestyle, no sacrifices
> whatsoever, in this war. It may be a good idea to enforce rationing to
> give people a taste of what will happen if we lose in Iraq. Supporting
> the troops requires much more than putting a sticker on your back
> bumper.


Are you on some sort of medication? What kind of rationing will be likely if
we lose in Iraq?

Re: {OT} What no comments on Bush's new iraq Plan?

JoeSpareBedroom, 1/12/2007, 8:17:25 AM,
<[email protected]> wrote:

> "badgolferman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> > JoeSpareBedroom, 1/12/2007, 7:21:51 AM,
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > I'd like to see a modern equivalent of the WWII victory garden
> > > effort, but with gasoline. If Americans (theoretically) approve
> > > of a pointless war to "git them nasty terrorists", you'd think we
> > > could manage to direct some of that (theoretical) anger toward
> > > each of us driving 20% less each week. Too bad the last 5
> > > presidents have been so happy to blow the Saudis, rather than
> > > spank them for their part in this mess. Otherwise, one of them
> > > might have the balls to say "Look - money talks, but the Saudis
> > > don't believe we have the gumption to hit them in the pocket
> > > book. What do YOU all think?
> >
> > I think the average American who has no family in the military has
> > not experienced any difficulty or change of lifestyle, no sacrifices
> > whatsoever, in this war. It may be a good idea to enforce
> > rationing to give people a taste of what will happen if we lose in
> > Iraq. Supporting the troops requires much more than putting a
> > sticker on your back bumper.
>
>
> Are you on some sort of medication? What kind of rationing will be
> likely if we lose in Iraq?

Petroleum products. Iran will own some 20% of the world's oil
reserves, they will manipulate all the European countries into giving
them technology. They will also have created nuclear weapons and
finally they will be training and supplying terrorists with impunity
since no one will be able do anything about it.

--
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile hoping it will eat him last."
~ Winston Churchill

Re: {OT} What no comments on Bush's new iraq Plan?

"badgolferman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> JoeSpareBedroom, 1/12/2007, 8:17:25 AM,
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "badgolferman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>> > JoeSpareBedroom, 1/12/2007, 7:21:51 AM,
>> ><[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > I'd like to see a modern equivalent of the WWII victory garden
>> > > effort, but with gasoline. If Americans (theoretically) approve
>> > > of a pointless war to "git them nasty terrorists", you'd think we
>> > > could manage to direct some of that (theoretical) anger toward
>> > > each of us driving 20% less each week. Too bad the last 5
>> > > presidents have been so happy to blow the Saudis, rather than
>> > > spank them for their part in this mess. Otherwise, one of them
>> > > might have the balls to say "Look - money talks, but the Saudis
>> > > don't believe we have the gumption to hit them in the pocket
>> > > book. What do YOU all think?
>> >
>> > I think the average American who has no family in the military has
>> > not experienced any difficulty or change of lifestyle, no sacrifices
>> > whatsoever, in this war. It may be a good idea to enforce
>> > rationing to give people a taste of what will happen if we lose in
>> > Iraq. Supporting the troops requires much more than putting a
>> > sticker on your back bumper.
>>
>>
>> Are you on some sort of medication? What kind of rationing will be
>> likely if we lose in Iraq?
>
> Petroleum products. Iran will own some 20% of the world's oil
> reserves, they will manipulate all the European countries into giving
> them technology. They will also have created nuclear weapons and
> finally they will be training and supplying terrorists with impunity
> since no one will be able do anything about it.


Interesting that you mention all this at this particular time.

Re: {OT} What no comments on Bush's new iraq Plan?

JoeSpareBedroom, 1/12/2007, 8:59:03 AM,
<[email protected]> wrote:

> "badgolferman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> > JoeSpareBedroom, 1/12/2007, 8:17:25 AM,
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>"badgolferman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]
> >>> JoeSpareBedroom, 1/12/2007, 7:21:51 AM,
> >>><[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> >>> > I'd like to see a modern equivalent of the WWII victory garden
> >>> > effort, but with gasoline. If Americans (theoretically) approve
> >>> > of a pointless war to "git them nasty terrorists", you'd think
> we >>> > could manage to direct some of that (theoretical) anger
> toward >>> > each of us driving 20% less each week. Too bad the last 5
> >>> > presidents have been so happy to blow the Saudis, rather than
> >>> > spank them for their part in this mess. Otherwise, one of them
> >>> > might have the balls to say "Look - money talks, but the Saudis
> >>> > don't believe we have the gumption to hit them in the pocket
> >>> > book. What do YOU all think?
> > > >
> >>> I think the average American who has no family in the military has
> >>> not experienced any difficulty or change of lifestyle, no
> sacrifices >>> whatsoever, in this war. It may be a good idea to
> enforce >>> rationing to give people a taste of what will happen if
> we lose in >>> Iraq. Supporting the troops requires much more than
> putting a >>> sticker on your back bumper.
> > >
> > >
> > > Are you on some sort of medication? What kind of rationing will be
> > > likely if we lose in Iraq?
> >
> > Petroleum products. Iran will own some 20% of the world's oil
> > reserves, they will manipulate all the European countries into
> > giving them technology. They will also have created nuclear
> > weapons and finally they will be training and supplying terrorists
> > with impunity since no one will be able do anything about it.
>
>
> Interesting that you mention all this at this particular time.

I have mentioned all this before in my conversations with DH. It's
really not that difficult to see what will happen if we leave Iraq.

Are you starting to see the reality of the bigger picture now?

Re: {OT} What no comments on Bush's new iraq Plan?

"badgolferman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> JoeSpareBedroom, 1/12/2007, 8:59:03 AM,
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "badgolferman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>> > JoeSpareBedroom, 1/12/2007, 8:17:25 AM,
>> ><[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >>"badgolferman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > > news:[email protected]
>> >>> JoeSpareBedroom, 1/12/2007, 7:21:51 AM,
>> >>><[email protected]> wrote:
>> > > >
>> >>> > I'd like to see a modern equivalent of the WWII victory garden
>> >>> > effort, but with gasoline. If Americans (theoretically) approve
>> >>> > of a pointless war to "git them nasty terrorists", you'd think
>> we >>> > could manage to direct some of that (theoretical) anger
>> toward >>> > each of us driving 20% less each week. Too bad the last 5
>> >>> > presidents have been so happy to blow the Saudis, rather than
>> >>> > spank them for their part in this mess. Otherwise, one of them
>> >>> > might have the balls to say "Look - money talks, but the Saudis
>> >>> > don't believe we have the gumption to hit them in the pocket
>> >>> > book. What do YOU all think?
>> > > >
>> >>> I think the average American who has no family in the military has
>> >>> not experienced any difficulty or change of lifestyle, no
>> sacrifices >>> whatsoever, in this war. It may be a good idea to
>> enforce >>> rationing to give people a taste of what will happen if
>> we lose in >>> Iraq. Supporting the troops requires much more than
>> putting a >>> sticker on your back bumper.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Are you on some sort of medication? What kind of rationing will be
>> > > likely if we lose in Iraq?
>> >
>> > Petroleum products. Iran will own some 20% of the world's oil
>> > reserves, they will manipulate all the European countries into
>> > giving them technology. They will also have created nuclear
>> > weapons and finally they will be training and supplying terrorists
>> > with impunity since no one will be able do anything about it.
>>
>>
>> Interesting that you mention all this at this particular time.
>
> I have mentioned all this before in my conversations with DH. It's
> really not that difficult to see what will happen if we leave Iraq.
>
> Are you starting to see the reality of the bigger picture now?


Bush said that when there is "success" in Iraq (whatever that means), we
would leave. Therefore, he believes that at some point, we will leave. When
that happens, the result will be the same as if we left now, since the Iraqi
army apparently has no interest in defending the country.

Their soldiers get one week of leave per month to bring their pay home to
their families. Many never return. You call that an army?

Re: {OT} What no comments on Bush's new iraq Plan?

On 11 Jan 2007 21:12:07 -0800, "larry moe 'n curly"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Why did al
>Quada bomb a train in Spain? Because they couldn't bomb anything in
>the US

Because they knew they could turn the election....

The Spanish left is as gutless as the American left....





--

Scott in Florida

Re: {OT} What no comments on Bush's new iraq Plan?

In article <[email protected]>,
"JoeSpareBedroom" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "larry moe 'n curly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> >
> > badgolferman wrote:
> >
> >> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
> >>
> >> > " dbu," <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> > news[email protected]
> >> >
> >> > > Nothing is perfect. I am pleased we are fighting terrorism.
> >
> >> > The only fight against terrorism that's working is one that you
> >> > cannot see. It's not in the news.
> >
> >> This may be true. I'm glad you recognize how invaluable the Patriot
> >> Act is.
> >
> > I don't think the Patriot Act has been very effective. We've been kept
> > safe mostly because Airline cockpit doors are armored and kept locked,
> > there's widespread suspicion of anybody who looks Middle Eastern, and
> > the war in Afghanistan has disrupted al Quada quite a bit (Why did al
> > Quada bomb a train in Spain? Because they couldn't bomb anything in
> > the US).
> >
> > Unfortunately we're still not doing nearly enough about providing
> > secular education in Afghanistan and Pakistan and countering the money
> > the radical Saudis (the royal family) have been sending there for
> > extremist religous schools.
> >
>
>
> I'd like to see a modern equivalent of the WWII victory garden effort, but
> with gasoline. If Americans (theoretically) approve of a pointless war to
> "git them nasty terrorists", you'd think we could manage to direct some of
> that (theoretical) anger toward each of us driving 20% less each week. Too
> bad the last 5 presidents have been so happy to blow the Saudis, rather than
> spank them for their part in this mess. Otherwise, one of them might have
> the balls to say "Look - money talks, but the Saudis don't believe we have
> the gumption to hit them in the pocket book. What do YOU all think?"
>
> For golf boy:
> google world war II victory garden

Your cavalier attitude regarding terrorists. "git them nasty
terrorists", is appalling. It is apparent your innocent family members
weren't on one of the 9/11 planes or in either WTC building on 9/11, nor
do you show any compassion for the ones that were caught by the
terrorists that fateful day.
--

Re: {OT} What no comments on Bush's new iraq Plan?

" dbu," <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected].
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "JoeSpareBedroom" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "larry moe 'n curly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>> >
>> > badgolferman wrote:
>> >
>> >> JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > " dbu," <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> > news[email protected]
>> >> >
>> >> > > Nothing is perfect. I am pleased we are fighting terrorism.
>> >
>> >> > The only fight against terrorism that's working is one that you
>> >> > cannot see. It's not in the news.
>> >
>> >> This may be true. I'm glad you recognize how invaluable the Patriot
>> >> Act is.
>> >
>> > I don't think the Patriot Act has been very effective. We've been kept
>> > safe mostly because Airline cockpit doors are armored and kept locked,
>> > there's widespread suspicion of anybody who looks Middle Eastern, and
>> > the war in Afghanistan has disrupted al Quada quite a bit (Why did al
>> > Quada bomb a train in Spain? Because they couldn't bomb anything in
>> > the US).
>> >
>> > Unfortunately we're still not doing nearly enough about providing
>> > secular education in Afghanistan and Pakistan and countering the money
>> > the radical Saudis (the royal family) have been sending there for
>> > extremist religous schools.
>> >
>>
>>
>> I'd like to see a modern equivalent of the WWII victory garden effort,
>> but
>> with gasoline. If Americans (theoretically) approve of a pointless war to
>> "git them nasty terrorists", you'd think we could manage to direct some
>> of
>> that (theoretical) anger toward each of us driving 20% less each week.
>> Too
>> bad the last 5 presidents have been so happy to blow the Saudis, rather
>> than
>> spank them for their part in this mess. Otherwise, one of them might have
>> the balls to say "Look - money talks, but the Saudis don't believe we
>> have
>> the gumption to hit them in the pocket book. What do YOU all think?"
>>
>> For golf boy:
>> google world war II victory garden
>
> Your cavalier attitude regarding terrorists. "git them nasty
> terrorists", is appalling. It is apparent your innocent family members
> weren't on one of the 9/11 planes or in either WTC building on 9/11, nor
> do you show any compassion for the ones that were caught by the
> terrorists that fateful day.


I don't see YOU making any sacrifices to combat terrorism. I'd bet a year's
pay that if Bush said everyone needed to use 20% less petroleum products
starting tomorrow, you'd cheat.