| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#61
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
What was that?
"SteveB" wrote in message
... wrote in message ... On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 21:52:52 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news 
On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 20:19:15 -0400, H the Kwrote: Bush killed at least 100,000 people. He also allowed 3000+ U.S. civilians to be killed. Let's hope Obama doesn't break that record but the worst days of the "good war" are on Obama's watch. I still am not sure why we are there. http://icasualties.org/oef/ I don't have a good feeling about increasing troop strength at this point. As Obama said (paraphrasing), the generals are thinking about the war, the president needs to think about the world. The interesting thing to me was said on Anderson Cooper the other night from Afghanistan. It turns out we don't even think Bin Laden is there anymore and that the Taliban has absolutely no global aspirations. Their connection to Al Queda is tenuous at best. But you have to admit that a dozen crazies can do a lot of damage..................... You're talking about the neocons, right? lol -- Nom=de=Plume |
|
#62
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
What was that?
"SteveB" wrote in message
... wrote in message news On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 20:19:15 -0400, H the K wrote: Bush killed at least 100,000 people. He also allowed 3000+ U.S. civilians to be killed. Let's hope Obama doesn't break that record but the worst days of the "good war" are on Obama's watch. I still am not sure why we are there. http://icasualties.org/oef/ A bad day in LA or NYC could kill about 7,000,000. Steve Which, unfortunately, is what at least one Fox pundit would like to see happen... -- Nom=de=Plume |
|
#63
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
What was that?
wrote in message
... On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 23:28:03 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 21:50:06 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Just continuing in the footsteps of his predecessor. Clinton murdered 1000s of people in Iraq? Maybe you mean Bosnia? -- Nom=de=Plume Saddam said about 20,000 died in the "no fly zone" bombings. We denied it but we really didn't have any way to prove him wrong. We were shooting missiles into residential areas to suppress Iraqi radar sites on a pretty regular basis. I have to believe some people died, even if it was just radar operators. I understand Saddam put his people at risk by locating these sites in residential areas but we still shot at them. At a certain point you have to admit these were still acts of war. That is why I say Iraq is an 18 year war, spanning 4 presidents now. That is the kind of record you expects out of 14th century European monarchies I wouldn't believe Saddam on most anything. He actually lied about the WMDs, I guess mostly to keep the Iranians at bay. You also have to believe they were killing someone with the thousand or so HARMs they fired over that 10 year silent war. I do, but not thousands of innocent people. -- Nom=de=Plume |
|
#64
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
What was that?
wrote in message ... On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 21:51:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: And Clinton was killing people in Irag, Bosnia, and allowed Ben Ladin to walk, so he could plan and train the pilots on his watch. They both suck. They suck as much as you suck and that is a whole bunch of suck. Allowed bin Laden to walk? How's that? He tried to get him several times. I think that when two guys are talking about sucking, it's time to try a different thread. He is talking about when Sudan offered up Bin Laden and Clinton didn't know what we could charge him with so he didn't act. Personally I think we should have just sent a team of Africans (with plausible deniability to the US) in there to shoot him in the head but I may be too pragmatic. I would have sent Delta Force unit. No real prohibition against shooting him. The Executive order against assassinations is against leaders of a country. |
|
#65
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
What was that?
On Sep 13, 3:02*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"JustWait" wrote in message ... In article , says... JustWait wrote: In article , says... 9/11 came and went without much fanfare. *I wonder why that is. *Far less people were killed at Pearl Harbor, but the outrage was much more. *I thought it was sad that so many have forgotten so soon, so many think it was a conspiracy from within, and that we don't have to worry about future terrorism. *We are all so safe now that terrorism has been removed from the vocabulary. Steve Forgetting is politically expedient for nearly half of the country.... Obama is keeping us safe from the evil terrorists, just like the right claimed Bush was doing because there wasn't an attack after 9/11 I think the Bush Admin. already took care of the heavy lifting... Using your analogy, my Doctor has kept me safe from bubonic plague.. -- Wafa free since 2009 Yeah, like starting a war to inflame the Islamic world. A war of choice, a war where 1000s of our men and women died for no reason. Your doctor didn't keep you safe. It was institutions such as the CDC.. gov't run agencies. -- Nom=de=Plume Your doctor didn't keep you safe. It was institutions such as the CDC.. gov't run agencies. Justhate is on Welfare...THAT kept him from the plague...... |
|
#66
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
What was that?
Scott Dickson wrote:
On Sep 13, 3:02 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "JustWait" wrote in message ... In article , says... JustWait wrote: In article , says... 9/11 came and went without much fanfare. I wonder why that is. Far less people were killed at Pearl Harbor, but the outrage was much more. I thought it was sad that so many have forgotten so soon, so many think it was a conspiracy from within, and that we don't have to worry about future terrorism. We are all so safe now that terrorism has been removed from the vocabulary. Steve Forgetting is politically expedient for nearly half of the country... Obama is keeping us safe from the evil terrorists, just like the right claimed Bush was doing because there wasn't an attack after 9/11 I think the Bush Admin. already took care of the heavy lifting... Using your analogy, my Doctor has kept me safe from bubonic plague.. -- Wafa free since 2009 Yeah, like starting a war to inflame the Islamic world. A war of choice, a war where 1000s of our men and women died for no reason. Your doctor didn't keep you safe. It was institutions such as the CDC.. gov't run agencies. -- Nom=de=Plume Your doctor didn't keep you safe. It was institutions such as the CDC.. gov't run agencies. Justhate is on Welfare...THAT kept him from the plague...... JustHate doesn't work, and hasn't worked a real job in years and years. And he's getting taxpayer help for his medical problems. But he's against meaningful health care reform. Go figure. -- Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger: Idiots All |
|
#67
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
What was that?
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
m... wrote in message ... On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 21:51:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: And Clinton was killing people in Irag, Bosnia, and allowed Ben Ladin to walk, so he could plan and train the pilots on his watch. They both suck. They suck as much as you suck and that is a whole bunch of suck. Allowed bin Laden to walk? How's that? He tried to get him several times. I think that when two guys are talking about sucking, it's time to try a different thread. He is talking about when Sudan offered up Bin Laden and Clinton didn't know what we could charge him with so he didn't act. Personally I think we should have just sent a team of Africans (with plausible deniability to the US) in there to shoot him in the head but I may be too pragmatic. I would have sent Delta Force unit. No real prohibition against shooting him. The Executive order against assassinations is against leaders of a country. Why wasn't this done? We certainly knew where he was in Tora Bora. Instead of using US personnel, we relied on local militia, who let him go. -- Nom=de=Plume |
|
#68
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
What was that?
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Calif Bill" wrote in message m... wrote in message ... On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 21:51:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: And Clinton was killing people in Irag, Bosnia, and allowed Ben Ladin to walk, so he could plan and train the pilots on his watch. They both suck. They suck as much as you suck and that is a whole bunch of suck. Allowed bin Laden to walk? How's that? He tried to get him several times. I think that when two guys are talking about sucking, it's time to try a different thread. He is talking about when Sudan offered up Bin Laden and Clinton didn't know what we could charge him with so he didn't act. Personally I think we should have just sent a team of Africans (with plausible deniability to the US) in there to shoot him in the head but I may be too pragmatic. I would have sent Delta Force unit. No real prohibition against shooting him. The Executive order against assassinations is against leaders of a country. Why wasn't this done? We certainly knew where he was in Tora Bora. Instead of using US personnel, we relied on local militia, who let him go. -- Nom=de=Plume Because we screwed the pooch. |
|
#69
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
What was that?
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:35:13 -0700, nom=de=plume wrote:
I would have sent Delta Force unit. No real prohibition against shooting him. The Executive order against assassinations is against leaders of a country. Why wasn't this done? We certainly knew where he was in Tora Bora. Instead of using US personnel, we relied on local militia, who let him go. It was done in Tora Bora. According to "Dalton Fury", a pen name for a Delta Force commander, it didn't work for three reasons. 1. we trusted Pakistan to have their border sealed. 2. The NATO allies didn't want to use "GATOR" mines. 3. And most importantly, we used our Afghan allies as the major attacking force. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
