"John H." wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:21:09 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:51:17 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
om...
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ
escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind.

Just like the Crusade we are on now,
That war was not going to be won.


Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different
administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either
place.

I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can
the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain
ambushes.

This is a war of necessity.

It is necessary that we *win* this war.

So saith the messiah.

What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*?


This is the messiah of change and he has demonstrated it is easy to
change his mind on things. A couple CNN polls seems to do the trick.
I think we are going to declare victory, cut and run ... at least I
hope so.

So, if 'Bama says, "We've won!", then we won the war, yes?

If that's the case, couldn't he say, "We won in Vietnam too"?

Gosh, we'd be big time winners everywhere!

[Note: Unless you want to royally **** off a few liberals here (not
Loogy), you should use an upper-case 'M' in messiah when referring to
'Bama.]


Nice distortion. This is a typical non-rational attack. You don't like
someone, call him names or make fun of his name. Newsflash: It didn't work
in the last election.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:38:18 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
om...
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ
escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind.

Just like the Crusade we are on now,
That war was not going to be won.


Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different
administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either
place.

I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can
the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain
ambushes.

This is a war of necessity.

It is necessary that we *win* this war.

So saith the messiah.

What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*?


Possibly, unless the local gov't has/gets some credibility and takes
action.
Who used the word "crusade" about fighting over there? I don't think it
was
Obama.

I've no idea who said 'crusade'. This is the first I've seen it used
in this context.

George W. Bush did.

'Bama said this was a war of necessity. I would think that means we
should win it, not cut and run like we did in Vietnam. If we do that,
then you liberals will say, "We lost".

And, please show how or when we've "cut and run" if you're able. Keep trying
the attack "you liberals" if you think that'll give your argument merit.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:19:58 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:07:01 -0400, John H. wrote:


I've no idea who said 'crusade'. This is the first I've seen it used in
this context.

Selective, or defective memory? It was, of course, GWB that used the
word "crusade".

"This is a new kind of, a new kind of evil. And the American people are
beginning to understand. This crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to
take a while. And American people must be patient." George W. Bush, Sept.
16, 2001.

Hence the close association with Eric Prince. There was lots done in
the name of Jesus. That's how Bush got Blair on his side.


Blackwater was by far the worst book I've read (worst in the sense of
identifying horrors) since Fiasco.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:19:58 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:07:01 -0400, John H. wrote:


I've no idea who said 'crusade'. This is the first I've seen it used in
this context.

Selective, or defective memory? It was, of course, GWB that used the
word "crusade".

"This is a new kind of, a new kind of evil. And the American people are
beginning to understand. This crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to
take a while. And American people must be patient." George W. Bush, Sept.
16, 2001.

Sorry. I thought the post was referring to Afghanistan. I do remember
the above, and I do find it applicable - to the worldwide war on
terrorism. Of course, we are no longer at war with terrorists because
they don't exist.

It's hard to keep up.


No doubt about that... keep trying. It's good for the soul.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ
escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind.

Just like the Crusade we are on now,
That war was not going to be won.


Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different
administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either
place.

I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can
the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain
ambushes.


I don't think most GIs think it's a crusade. Certainly, the
Iraqis/Afghanis
do.

Did you just make that up or did you get it from MoveOn.org?


Please show where the regular GI thinks it's a crusade.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:36:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
m...
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ
escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind.

Just like the Crusade we are on now,
That war was not going to be won.


Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different
administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either
place.

I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can
the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain
ambushes.


I don't think most GIs think it's a crusade. Certainly, the
Iraqis/Afghanis
do.


To GIs it is just a mission, Yes sir and take the fkn hill. That is
what they do for a living.
That is one reason why I don't pay much attention to generals telling
is what we should do. They are the nation's hammer and to them
everything looks like a nail.

Somebody has to stand back away from the fight and ask, what are our
objectives and can they be achieved with military force.
In Afghanistan the answer to that has always been no.



I agree. I think that assessment is going on now. Latest I heard was the
go/no go decision will be made after the runoff. According to the generals,
that's still in the timeframe of doable if Obama decides to escalate.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:40:29 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

But, the VN war was considered a loss



And your point?

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:32:57 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:40:29 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

But, the VN war was considered a loss


And your point?

Be patient. He'll think of something.

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:27:21 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:21:09 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:51:17 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
news:4brsd59fogd9kvvfkee3793an2p21bcaib@4ax. com...
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ
escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind.

Just like the Crusade we are on now,
That war was not going to be won.


Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different
administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either
place.

I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can
the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain
ambushes.

This is a war of necessity.

It is necessary that we *win* this war.

So saith the messiah.

What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*?


This is the messiah of change and he has demonstrated it is easy to
change his mind on things. A couple CNN polls seems to do the trick.
I think we are going to declare victory, cut and run ... at least I
hope so.

So, if 'Bama says, "We've won!", then we won the war, yes?

If that's the case, couldn't he say, "We won in Vietnam too"?

Gosh, we'd be big time winners everywhere!

[Note: Unless you want to royally **** off a few liberals here (not
Loogy), you should use an upper-case 'M' in messiah when referring to
'Bama.]


Nice distortion. This is a typical non-rational attack. You don't like
someone, call him names or make fun of his name. Newsflash: It didn't work
in the last election.

According to Herring, he *never* calls people names. Lying asshole,
to himself.

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:30:59 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ
escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind.

Just like the Crusade we are on now,
That war was not going to be won.


Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different
administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either
place.

I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can
the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain
ambushes.


I don't think most GIs think it's a crusade. Certainly, the
Iraqis/Afghanis
do.

Did you just make that up or did you get it from MoveOn.org?


Please show where the regular GI thinks it's a crusade.

Notice how he didn't call you a name but disparaged your ability to
synthesize information for yourself. Projecting that you must have
gotten it from a website since that's where he gets his thoughts.

Herring was probably good at taking instructions and respecting his
commanding officers. From the drivel he posts, I'm guessing his
commanding officer now works for Worldnet Daily.