On 10/21/2011 9:44 AM, Drifter wrote:
On 10/21/2011 9:00 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,
says...

On 10/20/2011 9:33 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/20/11 9:26 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 19:12:03 -0400, X `
wrote:

In March, you Republicans said Obama didn't act quickly enough and
with
enough force in going after Gaddafi.

Then when Obama acted, you said Obama acted too hastily, acted
unconstitutionally and needed to be impeached.

Today, you say Obama didn't act soon enough.

Pobrecitos. You can't handle the fact that **** gets done
nowadays. In 6
months, Libya went from status quo to Gaddafi dead, something at
which
Saint Ronny Raegan tried and failed. Osama bin Laden is dead,
something
Dubya couldn't do in 8 years. Now, with US and NATO assistance, the
Libyan government has changed hands and Gaddafi is dead.

The open question will be whether we are actually better off with him
gone. As the Clinton people used to say about Saddam, we had Qdaffy
"contained". (a lot more than Saddam)

This whole Arab Spring thing can still blow up in our face if these
guys don't turn out to be the peace loving people we hope they will
be. I can remember people talking about what a great guy Castro was
because he defeated that evil dictator Batista and how he was going to
bring freedom to the island.. That lasted about 6 weeks until Castro
said, "Oh wait. Maybe I am really a communist" (after denying it for
years) and started nationalizing the whole island. Two years later we
damned near had WWIII over Cuba.

This time it might be WWIII over Israel.

Fortunately, we didn't have an absolute dummy in the white house during
the cuban missle crisis. We did have an absolute dummy in the white
house from 2001 to January 2009. You know, the guy who started two wars
with countries not at war with us. That dummy.

You mean the dummy who is running around assassinating citizens without
a trial, killing foreign leaders, shooting at uniformed soldiers, they
shooting back, but we are not at war, that dummy. Yeah, he is a traitor
and has blown the constitution all to hell...

No, Bush isn't president now.

He wasn't talking about Bush.

I have given up on that one, she can't read...

On 10/21/11 9:45 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"X ` Man" wrote in message
m...

On 10/21/11 9:29 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"X ` Man" wrote in message
m...


I was in my first year of college when the Cuban missile crisis took
place. Kennedy was smart enough to go for the blockade instead of
bombing the missile sites, which would have resulted in the deaths of a
lot of Russian personnel.

--------------------------------------------------

Harry, your comment above is sorta the point I am trying to make about
Monday morning quarterbacks.

If JFK had instead opted for some of his advisor's recommendations to
bomb the missile sites (which according
to historians he seriously considered) and:

the operation had been successful and:
Khrushchev had ordered the delivery ships home with their tails between
their legs,
he (JFK) would now be credited with making "the right decision".

Eisboch


The right decision, which Kennedy made, was to not get into a shooting
war with the Russians.

----------------------------------------------------------

Ah, come on. Kennedy threatened a shooting war by imposing the blockade.
There's no purpose in a blockade if you don't intend to enforce it.

It was a roll of the dice. Credit also has to be given to Khrushchev
because he
actually benefited more in the end with regard to our missile sites in
Europe.



Threatening a way without starting one...
*Brinkmanship*

From wiki:

Brinkmanship (or brinksmanship) is the practice of pushing dangerous
events to the verge of disaster in order to achieve the most
advantageous outcome. It occurs in international politics, foreign
policy, labour relations, and (in contemporary settings) military
strategy involving the threatened use of nuclear weapons.

This maneuver of pushing a situation with the opponent to the brink
succeeds by forcing the opponent to back down and make concessions. This
might be achieved through diplomatic maneuvers by creating the
impression that one is willing to use extreme methods rather than
concede. During the Cold War, the threat of nuclear force was often used
as such an escalating measure.

On 10/21/2011 9:41 AM, Drifter wrote:
On 10/21/2011 8:56 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"X ` Man" wrote in message
m...


Fortunately, we didn't have an absolute dummy in the white house during
the cuban missle crisis. We did have an absolute dummy in the white
house from 2001 to January 2009. You know, the guy who started two wars
with countries not at war with us. That dummy.

------------------------------------------------------------------

I am old enough to remember well the Cuban missile crisis and watching
JFK on television announcing the blockade.
It turns out he made the right choice of his options but most historians
agree that we were never closer to WWIII.
It could have gone another way. Khrushchev also got much of what he
wanted in under reported, secret negotiations.

I think many are too quick to condemn Bush for some of his decisions and
seem to forget that forcing Saddam Hussein
from power was not without at least 6 months of international discussion
and debate in the UN. Hussein was becoming increasingly more
defiant of the resolutions imposed by the international community (UN)
following his invasion of Kuwait, firing on
aircraft patrolling the "no fly" zone, etc. I am sure there was some
pressure from other nations as well to keep him in check.

We can only speculate on what actions Hussein would have taken if he was
not confronted. If Bush had done nothing and
Hussein had become more aggressive again, internally and with neighbors,
Bush would be regarded as a dummy for not doing anything rather than
being a dummy for the action he took. Tough job, being POTUS. I surely
would never want it.

President Obama rightly deserves some credit for helping rid the world
of Gaddafi. Hussein was also a war mongering
dictator who ruled by imposing terror on Iraqi citizens who didn't
pledge their allegiance to him. So why is Bush a dummy
and Obama a hero?

The argument that Obama took a "back seat" role versus a major military
action doesn't hold up. Different situations, different
difficulties and challenges.





O/bama seems to be implying he deserves credit for Gaddafi's killing.
Covert operations generally go un credited but Obama is changing all
that. Makes the secret services job a little tougher.

Funny, and if the attempt had failed, he would have blamed it on Bush!

On 10/21/11 10:01 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/21/2011 9:41 AM, Drifter wrote:
On 10/21/2011 8:56 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"X ` Man" wrote in message
m...


Fortunately, we didn't have an absolute dummy in the white house during
the cuban missle crisis. We did have an absolute dummy in the white
house from 2001 to January 2009. You know, the guy who started two wars
with countries not at war with us. That dummy.

------------------------------------------------------------------

I am old enough to remember well the Cuban missile crisis and watching
JFK on television announcing the blockade.
It turns out he made the right choice of his options but most historians
agree that we were never closer to WWIII.
It could have gone another way. Khrushchev also got much of what he
wanted in under reported, secret negotiations.

I think many are too quick to condemn Bush for some of his decisions and
seem to forget that forcing Saddam Hussein
from power was not without at least 6 months of international discussion
and debate in the UN. Hussein was becoming increasingly more
defiant of the resolutions imposed by the international community (UN)
following his invasion of Kuwait, firing on
aircraft patrolling the "no fly" zone, etc. I am sure there was some
pressure from other nations as well to keep him in check.

We can only speculate on what actions Hussein would have taken if he was
not confronted. If Bush had done nothing and
Hussein had become more aggressive again, internally and with neighbors,
Bush would be regarded as a dummy for not doing anything rather than
being a dummy for the action he took. Tough job, being POTUS. I surely
would never want it.

President Obama rightly deserves some credit for helping rid the world
of Gaddafi. Hussein was also a war mongering
dictator who ruled by imposing terror on Iraqi citizens who didn't
pledge their allegiance to him. So why is Bush a dummy
and Obama a hero?

The argument that Obama took a "back seat" role versus a major military
action doesn't hold up. Different situations, different
difficulties and challenges.





O/bama seems to be implying he deserves credit for Gaddafi's killing.
Covert operations generally go un credited but Obama is changing all
that. Makes the secret services job a little tougher.

Funny, and if the attempt had failed, he would have blamed it on Bush!


Which fox news moron is saying Obama is implying *he* deserves credit
for the death of Gaddafi? I watched Obama's announcement yesterday, and
he gave credit to the United States and NATO and their coordinated
efforts and the people of Libya.

On 10/21/2011 10:09 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/21/11 10:01 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/21/2011 9:41 AM, Drifter wrote:
On 10/21/2011 8:56 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"X ` Man" wrote in message
m...


Fortunately, we didn't have an absolute dummy in the white house during
the cuban missle crisis. We did have an absolute dummy in the white
house from 2001 to January 2009. You know, the guy who started two wars
with countries not at war with us. That dummy.

------------------------------------------------------------------

I am old enough to remember well the Cuban missile crisis and watching
JFK on television announcing the blockade.
It turns out he made the right choice of his options but most
historians
agree that we were never closer to WWIII.
It could have gone another way. Khrushchev also got much of what he
wanted in under reported, secret negotiations.

I think many are too quick to condemn Bush for some of his decisions
and
seem to forget that forcing Saddam Hussein
from power was not without at least 6 months of international
discussion
and debate in the UN. Hussein was becoming increasingly more
defiant of the resolutions imposed by the international community (UN)
following his invasion of Kuwait, firing on
aircraft patrolling the "no fly" zone, etc. I am sure there was some
pressure from other nations as well to keep him in check.

We can only speculate on what actions Hussein would have taken if he
was
not confronted. If Bush had done nothing and
Hussein had become more aggressive again, internally and with
neighbors,
Bush would be regarded as a dummy for not doing anything rather than
being a dummy for the action he took. Tough job, being POTUS. I surely
would never want it.

President Obama rightly deserves some credit for helping rid the world
of Gaddafi. Hussein was also a war mongering
dictator who ruled by imposing terror on Iraqi citizens who didn't
pledge their allegiance to him. So why is Bush a dummy
and Obama a hero?

The argument that Obama took a "back seat" role versus a major military
action doesn't hold up. Different situations, different
difficulties and challenges.





O/bama seems to be implying he deserves credit for Gaddafi's killing.
Covert operations generally go un credited but Obama is changing all
that. Makes the secret services job a little tougher.

Funny, and if the attempt had failed, he would have blamed it on Bush!


Which fox news moron is saying Obama is implying *he* deserves credit
for the death of Gaddafi? I watched Obama's announcement yesterday, and
he gave credit to the United States and NATO and their coordinated
efforts and the people of Libya.

O/bama is definitely not a "Fox news moron". He stands on his own
moronicity.

In article m,
says...

On 10/21/2011 8:56 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"X ` Man" wrote in message
m...


Fortunately, we didn't have an absolute dummy in the white house during
the cuban missle crisis. We did have an absolute dummy in the white
house from 2001 to January 2009. You know, the guy who started two wars
with countries not at war with us. That dummy.

------------------------------------------------------------------

I am old enough to remember well the Cuban missile crisis and watching
JFK on television announcing the blockade.
It turns out he made the right choice of his options but most historians
agree that we were never closer to WWIII.
It could have gone another way. Khrushchev also got much of what he
wanted in under reported, secret negotiations.

I think many are too quick to condemn Bush for some of his decisions and
seem to forget that forcing Saddam Hussein
from power was not without at least 6 months of international discussion
and debate in the UN. Hussein was becoming increasingly more
defiant of the resolutions imposed by the international community (UN)
following his invasion of Kuwait, firing on
aircraft patrolling the "no fly" zone, etc. I am sure there was some
pressure from other nations as well to keep him in check.

We can only speculate on what actions Hussein would have taken if he was
not confronted. If Bush had done nothing and
Hussein had become more aggressive again, internally and with neighbors,
Bush would be regarded as a dummy for not doing anything rather than
being a dummy for the action he took. Tough job, being POTUS. I surely
would never want it.

President Obama rightly deserves some credit for helping rid the world
of Gaddafi. Hussein was also a war mongering
dictator who ruled by imposing terror on Iraqi citizens who didn't
pledge their allegiance to him. So why is Bush a dummy
and Obama a hero?

The argument that Obama took a "back seat" role versus a major military
action doesn't hold up. Different situations, different
difficulties and challenges.





O/bama seems to be implying he deserves credit for Gaddafi's killing.
Covert operations generally go un credited but Obama is changing all
that. Makes the secret services job a little tougher.

Do you mean like Bush "getting" Saddam?

In article ,
says...

On 10/21/2011 9:41 AM, Drifter wrote:
On 10/21/2011 8:56 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"X ` Man" wrote in message
m...


Fortunately, we didn't have an absolute dummy in the white house during
the cuban missle crisis. We did have an absolute dummy in the white
house from 2001 to January 2009. You know, the guy who started two wars
with countries not at war with us. That dummy.

------------------------------------------------------------------

I am old enough to remember well the Cuban missile crisis and watching
JFK on television announcing the blockade.
It turns out he made the right choice of his options but most historians
agree that we were never closer to WWIII.
It could have gone another way. Khrushchev also got much of what he
wanted in under reported, secret negotiations.

I think many are too quick to condemn Bush for some of his decisions and
seem to forget that forcing Saddam Hussein
from power was not without at least 6 months of international discussion
and debate in the UN. Hussein was becoming increasingly more
defiant of the resolutions imposed by the international community (UN)
following his invasion of Kuwait, firing on
aircraft patrolling the "no fly" zone, etc. I am sure there was some
pressure from other nations as well to keep him in check.

We can only speculate on what actions Hussein would have taken if he was
not confronted. If Bush had done nothing and
Hussein had become more aggressive again, internally and with neighbors,
Bush would be regarded as a dummy for not doing anything rather than
being a dummy for the action he took. Tough job, being POTUS. I surely
would never want it.

President Obama rightly deserves some credit for helping rid the world
of Gaddafi. Hussein was also a war mongering
dictator who ruled by imposing terror on Iraqi citizens who didn't
pledge their allegiance to him. So why is Bush a dummy
and Obama a hero?

The argument that Obama took a "back seat" role versus a major military
action doesn't hold up. Different situations, different
difficulties and challenges.





O/bama seems to be implying he deserves credit for Gaddafi's killing.
Covert operations generally go un credited but Obama is changing all
that. Makes the secret services job a little tougher.

Funny, and if the attempt had failed, he would have blamed it on Bush!

Is that anything like Bush "getting" Saddam?

In article m,
says...

On 10/21/2011 9:00 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,
says...

On 10/20/2011 9:33 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/20/11 9:26 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 19:12:03 -0400, X `
wrote:

In March, you Republicans said Obama didn't act quickly enough and with
enough force in going after Gaddafi.

Then when Obama acted, you said Obama acted too hastily, acted
unconstitutionally and needed to be impeached.

Today, you say Obama didn't act soon enough.

Pobrecitos. You can't handle the fact that **** gets done nowadays. In 6
months, Libya went from status quo to Gaddafi dead, something at which
Saint Ronny Raegan tried and failed. Osama bin Laden is dead, something
Dubya couldn't do in 8 years. Now, with US and NATO assistance, the
Libyan government has changed hands and Gaddafi is dead.

The open question will be whether we are actually better off with him
gone. As the Clinton people used to say about Saddam, we had Qdaffy
"contained". (a lot more than Saddam)

This whole Arab Spring thing can still blow up in our face if these
guys don't turn out to be the peace loving people we hope they will
be. I can remember people talking about what a great guy Castro was
because he defeated that evil dictator Batista and how he was going to
bring freedom to the island.. That lasted about 6 weeks until Castro
said, "Oh wait. Maybe I am really a communist" (after denying it for
years) and started nationalizing the whole island. Two years later we
damned near had WWIII over Cuba.

This time it might be WWIII over Israel.

Fortunately, we didn't have an absolute dummy in the white house during
the cuban missle crisis. We did have an absolute dummy in the white
house from 2001 to January 2009. You know, the guy who started two wars
with countries not at war with us. That dummy.

You mean the dummy who is running around assassinating citizens without
a trial, killing foreign leaders, shooting at uniformed soldiers, they
shooting back, but we are not at war, that dummy. Yeah, he is a traitor
and has blown the constitution all to hell...

No, Bush isn't president now.

He wasn't talking about Bush.

Sure fooled me!

In article ,
says...

On 10/21/2011 9:44 AM, Drifter wrote:
On 10/21/2011 9:00 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In ,
says...

On 10/20/2011 9:33 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/20/11 9:26 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 19:12:03 -0400, X `
wrote:

In March, you Republicans said Obama didn't act quickly enough and
with
enough force in going after Gaddafi.

Then when Obama acted, you said Obama acted too hastily, acted
unconstitutionally and needed to be impeached.

Today, you say Obama didn't act soon enough.

Pobrecitos. You can't handle the fact that **** gets done
nowadays. In 6
months, Libya went from status quo to Gaddafi dead, something at
which
Saint Ronny Raegan tried and failed. Osama bin Laden is dead,
something
Dubya couldn't do in 8 years. Now, with US and NATO assistance, the
Libyan government has changed hands and Gaddafi is dead.

The open question will be whether we are actually better off with him
gone. As the Clinton people used to say about Saddam, we had Qdaffy
"contained". (a lot more than Saddam)

This whole Arab Spring thing can still blow up in our face if these
guys don't turn out to be the peace loving people we hope they will
be. I can remember people talking about what a great guy Castro was
because he defeated that evil dictator Batista and how he was going to
bring freedom to the island.. That lasted about 6 weeks until Castro
said, "Oh wait. Maybe I am really a communist" (after denying it for
years) and started nationalizing the whole island. Two years later we
damned near had WWIII over Cuba.

This time it might be WWIII over Israel.

Fortunately, we didn't have an absolute dummy in the white house during
the cuban missle crisis. We did have an absolute dummy in the white
house from 2001 to January 2009. You know, the guy who started two wars
with countries not at war with us. That dummy.

You mean the dummy who is running around assassinating citizens without
a trial, killing foreign leaders, shooting at uniformed soldiers, they
shooting back, but we are not at war, that dummy. Yeah, he is a traitor
and has blown the constitution all to hell...

No, Bush isn't president now.

He wasn't talking about Bush.

I have given up on that one, she can't read...

Sure, I read it and you described Bush to a tee!

On 10/21/2011 10:55 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In aweb.com,
says...

On 10/21/2011 8:56 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"X ` Man" wrote in message
m...


Fortunately, we didn't have an absolute dummy in the white house during
the cuban missle crisis. We did have an absolute dummy in the white
house from 2001 to January 2009. You know, the guy who started two wars
with countries not at war with us. That dummy.

------------------------------------------------------------------

I am old enough to remember well the Cuban missile crisis and watching
JFK on television announcing the blockade.
It turns out he made the right choice of his options but most historians
agree that we were never closer to WWIII.
It could have gone another way. Khrushchev also got much of what he
wanted in under reported, secret negotiations.

I think many are too quick to condemn Bush for some of his decisions and
seem to forget that forcing Saddam Hussein
from power was not without at least 6 months of international discussion
and debate in the UN. Hussein was becoming increasingly more
defiant of the resolutions imposed by the international community (UN)
following his invasion of Kuwait, firing on
aircraft patrolling the "no fly" zone, etc. I am sure there was some
pressure from other nations as well to keep him in check.

We can only speculate on what actions Hussein would have taken if he was
not confronted. If Bush had done nothing and
Hussein had become more aggressive again, internally and with neighbors,
Bush would be regarded as a dummy for not doing anything rather than
being a dummy for the action he took. Tough job, being POTUS. I surely
would never want it.

President Obama rightly deserves some credit for helping rid the world
of Gaddafi. Hussein was also a war mongering
dictator who ruled by imposing terror on Iraqi citizens who didn't
pledge their allegiance to him. So why is Bush a dummy
and Obama a hero?

The argument that Obama took a "back seat" role versus a major military
action doesn't hold up. Different situations, different
difficulties and challenges.





O/bama seems to be implying he deserves credit for Gaddafi's killing.
Covert operations generally go un credited but Obama is changing all
that. Makes the secret services job a little tougher.

Do you mean like Bush "getting" Saddam?

Did bush murder Sadaam?