No blood for oil
 

wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 22:26:13 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:30:52 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:54:53 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In ,
says...
That begs the question, how stupid were the Democrats?
Why would they listen to a guy they were calling an idiot?
Well, I guess when the President/VP and CIA gin up a bunch of
nonsense, even those dumb Democrats get fooled.

http://usliberals.about.com/od/liber...raqNayVote.htm

Far more non-sucker Dems than Reps.
Iraq War Resolution Act.
House against - 126 Dems, 6 Reps.
Senate against - 21 Dems, 1 Rep.
That is about the same as the vote on Afghanistan and a Libya vote
would not come out that well.

BTW you didn't say how many voted FOR.

But enough total suckers to carry the bill in a Rep Congress.
Too many suckers.
Here's one guy who wasn't buying it.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/feingold1.html

Hey, why is Greg talking about Iraq?
I thought this was about Afghanistan.
I am trying to talk about Libya but Plume can let Iraq go.
Every time I say anything she responds with Iraq.

What point are you trying to make about Libya? Are you contemplating
that Obama is going to try to order in significant numbers of ground
troups? I don't see that happening.

Some wag suggested we arm both sides in these fundamentalist, backwards
countries to the teeth, let them fight it out, and then shoot all the
members of whichever side emerges, and then shoot whoever wants to take
over until there is no one left who wants to rule. At that point,
sometime in the future, it is possible a reasonable form of democracy
might arise.

That's a *bit* too cynical for me.
I just want to hear our exit strategy. It really does not look like
air power is going to displace Qdaffy and we will soon find ourselves
in a similar position to what we were in with Iraq.

If you listened to any news outlet (no Fox doesn't count), you'd know
that we'll be handing off more of the air bombing to others.

I still remember the early talk about the NFZ there when it was
"humanitarian" to save the Kurds with the bonus that they would topple
Saddam if we could just give them a chance.

I don't think Obama would go in but who knows what the next yahoo
might do if he has it all teed up.

I agree. Let's try and keep Jeb out of the White House.

And every other Republican.

No blood for oil
 

On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 06:18:02 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 22:26:13 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:30:52 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:54:53 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In ,
says...
That begs the question, how stupid were the Democrats?
Why would they listen to a guy they were calling an idiot?
Well, I guess when the President/VP and CIA gin up a bunch of
nonsense, even those dumb Democrats get fooled.

http://usliberals.about.com/od/liber...raqNayVote.htm

Far more non-sucker Dems than Reps.
Iraq War Resolution Act.
House against - 126 Dems, 6 Reps.
Senate against - 21 Dems, 1 Rep.
That is about the same as the vote on Afghanistan and a Libya vote
would not come out that well.

BTW you didn't say how many voted FOR.

But enough total suckers to carry the bill in a Rep Congress.
Too many suckers.
Here's one guy who wasn't buying it.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/feingold1.html

Hey, why is Greg talking about Iraq?
I thought this was about Afghanistan.
I am trying to talk about Libya but Plume can let Iraq go.
Every time I say anything she responds with Iraq.

What point are you trying to make about Libya? Are you contemplating
that Obama is going to try to order in significant numbers of ground
troups? I don't see that happening.

Some wag suggested we arm both sides in these fundamentalist, backwards
countries to the teeth, let them fight it out, and then shoot all the
members of whichever side emerges, and then shoot whoever wants to take
over until there is no one left who wants to rule. At that point,
sometime in the future, it is possible a reasonable form of democracy
might arise.

That's a *bit* too cynical for me.
I just want to hear our exit strategy. It really does not look like
air power is going to displace Qdaffy and we will soon find ourselves
in a similar position to what we were in with Iraq.

If you listened to any news outlet (no Fox doesn't count), you'd know
that we'll be handing off more of the air bombing to others.

I still remember the early talk about the NFZ there when it was
"humanitarian" to save the Kurds with the bonus that they would topple
Saddam if we could just give them a chance.

I don't think Obama would go in but who knows what the next yahoo
might do if he has it all teed up.

I agree. Let's try and keep Jeb out of the White House.

And every other Republican.

For now, I agree with you. None of them are worth much. Perhaps
someday regain their moral footing, but until then...

No blood for oil
 

wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 06:18:02 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 22:26:13 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:30:52 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:54:53 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In ,
says...
That begs the question, how stupid were the Democrats?
Why would they listen to a guy they were calling an idiot?
Well, I guess when the President/VP and CIA gin up a bunch of
nonsense, even those dumb Democrats get fooled.

http://usliberals.about.com/od/liber...raqNayVote.htm

Far more non-sucker Dems than Reps.
Iraq War Resolution Act.
House against - 126 Dems, 6 Reps.
Senate against - 21 Dems, 1 Rep.
That is about the same as the vote on Afghanistan and a Libya vote
would not come out that well.

BTW you didn't say how many voted FOR.

But enough total suckers to carry the bill in a Rep Congress.
Too many suckers.
Here's one guy who wasn't buying it.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/feingold1.html

Hey, why is Greg talking about Iraq?
I thought this was about Afghanistan.
I am trying to talk about Libya but Plume can let Iraq go.
Every time I say anything she responds with Iraq.
What point are you trying to make about Libya? Are you contemplating
that Obama is going to try to order in significant numbers of ground
troups? I don't see that happening.

Some wag suggested we arm both sides in these fundamentalist, backwards
countries to the teeth, let them fight it out, and then shoot all the
members of whichever side emerges, and then shoot whoever wants to take
over until there is no one left who wants to rule. At that point,
sometime in the future, it is possible a reasonable form of democracy
might arise.

That's a *bit* too cynical for me.
I just want to hear our exit strategy. It really does not look like
air power is going to displace Qdaffy and we will soon find ourselves
in a similar position to what we were in with Iraq.
If you listened to any news outlet (no Fox doesn't count), you'd know
that we'll be handing off more of the air bombing to others.

I still remember the early talk about the NFZ there when it was
"humanitarian" to save the Kurds with the bonus that they would topple
Saddam if we could just give them a chance.

I don't think Obama would go in but who knows what the next yahoo
might do if he has it all teed up.
I agree. Let's try and keep Jeb out of the White House.
And every other Republican.

For now, I agree with you. None of them are worth much. Perhaps
someday regain their moral footing, but until then...

The GOP is going to have to push the teahadist nutcases, birthers, women
haters and Latino haters out the door before it attracts many reasonable
national candidates. Even Romney, who is at least mostly rationale, is
kissing the ass of the nutcases.

No blood for oil
 

On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:11:10 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 23:23:21 -0700, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 22:43:18 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:40:28 -0700, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:43:12 -0400, wrote:


You are not that stupid. How can you possibly say a program that
spends moire than it takes in is not in deficit?

Medicare has been upside down for several years and SS went upside
down 2 years ago.

And, it is not contributing one penny to the current deficit problem.
It "may" at some point if it isn't fixed.


WHAT? We are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar of the short fall and
Obama chopping 2% off of the FICA tax rate only makes it worse.

WHAT? Not because of SS/MC. I don't agree with any tax cut for the
wealthy.

The income taxes have nothing to do with the short fall in FICA.


Were do you get the notion that I think FICA and income tax are the
same things?

... because you linked the shortfall in SS/MC with the Obama tax cut
(It stopped being the Bush tax cut when Obama renewed the bill)

I did no such thing.


As I said the wealthy need to be taxed more not less.

OK, it still won't fix this problem.

Which problem is "this"? You keep changing the subject, so it's hard
to tell what you're talking about.


Before that, they were trying to say a recovery would put SS back into
the black for a year, maybe two. Now they can't even make that claim.

Medicare is just spiraling down the black hole of debt with no end in
sight.

Go hide under your blankey.

Denial is not the answer.

Ok, so don't hide and face the facts. One fact is that there is no
short-term crisis for either program. Another is that lowering taxes
on wealthy people will do little or nothing to help job creation.

The plane has already hit the mountain. We are borrowing money to pay
out SS/.MC benefits now and the big outlays are still ahead of us.
When do you think this will be a problem? When the bonds demand 3% or
5% to sell? At around 7% and our current rate of borrowing, the
interest alone will be bigger that the whole budget is now, within a
decade.

According to you, Mr. Expert. In fact, it's just a fear-based rant
that is getting old and worn out. Why don't you go back to the birth
certificate rant, at least that's entertaining on some level.

No blood for oil
 

On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:13:21 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 23:24:41 -0700, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 22:52:53 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 19:35:05 -0700, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 22:26:13 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:30:52 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:54:53 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In ,
says...
That begs the question, how stupid were the Democrats?
Why would they listen to a guy they were calling an idiot?
Well, I guess when the President/VP and CIA gin up a bunch of
nonsense, even those dumb Democrats get fooled.

http://usliberals.about.com/od/liber...raqNayVote.htm

Far more non-sucker Dems than Reps.
Iraq War Resolution Act.
House against - 126 Dems, 6 Reps.
Senate against - 21 Dems, 1 Rep.

That is about the same as the vote on Afghanistan and a Libya vote
would not come out that well.

BTW you didn't say how many voted FOR.

But enough total suckers to carry the bill in a Rep Congress.
Too many suckers.
Here's one guy who wasn't buying it.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/feingold1.html

Hey, why is Greg talking about Iraq?
I thought this was about Afghanistan.

I am trying to talk about Libya but Plume can let Iraq go.
Every time I say anything she responds with Iraq.


What point are you trying to make about Libya? Are you contemplating
that Obama is going to try to order in significant numbers of ground
troups? I don't see that happening.

Some wag suggested we arm both sides in these fundamentalist, backwards
countries to the teeth, let them fight it out, and then shoot all the
members of whichever side emerges, and then shoot whoever wants to take
over until there is no one left who wants to rule. At that point,
sometime in the future, it is possible a reasonable form of democracy
might arise.

That's a *bit* too cynical for me.

I just want to hear our exit strategy. It really does not look like
air power is going to displace Qdaffy and we will soon find ourselves
in a similar position to what we were in with Iraq.

If you listened to any news outlet (no Fox doesn't count), you'd know
that we'll be handing off more of the air bombing to others.

I will feel better when it happens.

So what? Do you think anyone really wants us to be in another war?

Yet we are

Yet that has nothing to do with your "endless" war paranoia.


Your feelings are irrelevant.

As are yours, nobody really cares what we think.


I still remember the early talk about the NFZ there when it was
"humanitarian" to save the Kurds with the bonus that they would topple
Saddam if we could just give them a chance.

I don't think Obama would go in but who knows what the next yahoo
might do if he has it all teed up.

I agree. Let's try and keep Jeb out of the White House.

There won't be another Bush in there anytime soon.
Huckabee could be scary.
I don't really see a viable republican I like.

I guess you'll be voting for Obama then. Good for you!

I am not sure who I will vote for. Obama is not standing out as being
much more than the 5th Bush brother.

Feel free to vote for Palin.

No blood for oil
 

On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 13:16:03 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 06:18:02 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 22:26:13 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:30:52 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:54:53 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In ,
says...
That begs the question, how stupid were the Democrats?
Why would they listen to a guy they were calling an idiot?
Well, I guess when the President/VP and CIA gin up a bunch of
nonsense, even those dumb Democrats get fooled.

http://usliberals.about.com/od/liber...raqNayVote.htm

Far more non-sucker Dems than Reps.
Iraq War Resolution Act.
House against - 126 Dems, 6 Reps.
Senate against - 21 Dems, 1 Rep.
That is about the same as the vote on Afghanistan and a Libya vote
would not come out that well.

BTW you didn't say how many voted FOR.

But enough total suckers to carry the bill in a Rep Congress.
Too many suckers.
Here's one guy who wasn't buying it.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/feingold1.html

Hey, why is Greg talking about Iraq?
I thought this was about Afghanistan.
I am trying to talk about Libya but Plume can let Iraq go.
Every time I say anything she responds with Iraq.
What point are you trying to make about Libya? Are you contemplating
that Obama is going to try to order in significant numbers of ground
troups? I don't see that happening.

Some wag suggested we arm both sides in these fundamentalist, backwards
countries to the teeth, let them fight it out, and then shoot all the
members of whichever side emerges, and then shoot whoever wants to take
over until there is no one left who wants to rule. At that point,
sometime in the future, it is possible a reasonable form of democracy
might arise.

That's a *bit* too cynical for me.
I just want to hear our exit strategy. It really does not look like
air power is going to displace Qdaffy and we will soon find ourselves
in a similar position to what we were in with Iraq.
If you listened to any news outlet (no Fox doesn't count), you'd know
that we'll be handing off more of the air bombing to others.

I still remember the early talk about the NFZ there when it was
"humanitarian" to save the Kurds with the bonus that they would topple
Saddam if we could just give them a chance.

I don't think Obama would go in but who knows what the next yahoo
might do if he has it all teed up.
I agree. Let's try and keep Jeb out of the White House.
And every other Republican.

For now, I agree with you. None of them are worth much. Perhaps
someday regain their moral footing, but until then...

The GOP is going to have to push the teahadist nutcases, birthers, women
haters and Latino haters out the door before it attracts many reasonable
national candidates. Even Romney, who is at least mostly rationale, is
kissing the ass of the nutcases.

Same with Pawlenty.

No blood for oil
 

On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:23:29 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 06:18:02 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 22:26:13 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:30:52 -0400,
wrote:


I still remember the early talk about the NFZ there when it was
"humanitarian" to save the Kurds with the bonus that they would topple
Saddam if we could just give them a chance.

I don't think Obama would go in but who knows what the next yahoo
might do if he has it all teed up.

I agree. Let's try and keep Jeb out of the White House.

And every other Republican.

When we have Democrats like Clinton and Obama, who needs republicans?
When they come in, they keep all the same people the GOP had.

Vote for Nader or Paul then. See if that makes a difference.


They have become redundant. That is why they were taken over by
religious fundamentalists.

Obama has? Really? That's a new one.

No blood for oil
 

On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:20:25 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 23:26:26 -0700, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 22:40:33 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:46:42 -0700, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:11:37 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 10:33:53 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:51:33 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:08:23 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:31:33 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:31:48 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


They are now saying the main source, a British asset who never talked
to the US, was a fraud. It is interesting that Blair is not getting
more of the blame.
All of the things Powell was saying at the UN (mobile weapons labs and
WMD accidents that killed a number of workers) came from the Brits.


The main "source" for mobile weapons labs "intelligence" was Curveball.
Curveball was a German "asset."
An embezzler, possibly alcoholic, looking for a green card.
He was discredited totally by UN weapons inspectors before the war was
launched.

The Brits were still parroting his stories and fed the information to
Powell.

We can't let facts get in the way of blaming Bush for everything tho.

This is some of the most hilarious bull**** I've see in a long time.
Bush/Cheney/Tenet/Powell had nothing to do with it.
It's all Tony Blairs's fault!

I never said Bush et al were not at fault. That is the part you all
miss. I think the whole ****up in Iraq was unnecessary.
We should have left in 1991. Every president since then shares some of
the blame.
Obama said he would stop both wars yet he clings to the same schedule
"the idiot" came up with. It makes you wonder who the idiot (or the
liar) really is.


Completely untrue. He's implemented a complete withdrawal of combat
troops as per the agreement with the Iraqi gov't. The remaining forces
are winding down. It's clear who the idiot was... Bush. It's clear who
told him what to do.. Cheney, the other war criminal.


"Combat troops" is a cute euphemism. It is like when you said we
didn't have any combat troops in Vietnam after the cease fire, yet
another 362 GIs were killed in combat.
Since the biggest cause of death in both of the current wars is from
IEDs, not "combat" the term is meaningless.

According to you, the expert. I guess you don't care that we're
involvement is winding down and it takes some time.

... according, literally "to the writing on the wall". Go to DC and
look at it sometime.


VN is old news. Get a new argument.

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

Since there's no correlation between VN and our present situation,
there's nothing that is going to be repeated.


Why not? They are all undeclared wars where we have injected ourselves
into another country's civil war. The outcome is likely to be the
same.

According to Mr. Expert.

It may have been worthwhile to send a hit squad team into Afghanistan
to kill Bin Laden but when that mission failed, trying to conquer and
nation build was stupid.

It failed due to the incompetence of Bush and Rumsfeld. There's no
"conquering" going on.

We all agree Iraq was stupid although, in the end, we will probably be
more successful creating something like democracy there. I still don't
think that is our job.

It's our job now to at least try to complete some sort of
stabilization. Seems like things are slowly moving in that direction.

No blood for oil
 

On 23/03/2011 3:48 PM, wrote:

It failed due to the incompetence of Bush and Rumsfeld. There's no
"conquering" going on.

Ya, so far it is just an assassination attempt and blowing things up for
the al_Qaeda allies.

No blood for oil
 

On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 21:53:42 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 23/03/2011 3:48 PM, wrote:

It failed due to the incompetence of Bush and Rumsfeld. There's no
"conquering" going on.

Ya, so far it is just an assassination attempt and blowing things up for
the al_Qaeda allies.

Ya, so far you're still an idiot.