wrote in message
...
On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 20:08:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

Maybe I'm wrong, but I recall our limiting our bombing to points
containing
radar & antiaircraft weaponry, not missions into their cities. Never mind.
The point was that our goal at that stage was, as you said, the no-fly
zone,
or containment.


We always have some bull**** goal when we bomb brown people, that
doesn't mean it is right
If you read what Europe was saying about us at the time you will see
out intent didn't really match where the bombs were falling.
We seem to have forgotten the French, Italians and Germans had already
left the reservation on Iraq long before GW showed up.
Al Jazerra was showing pictures of dead civilians to the Muslim world.

OK, but we're getting far afield here. Saddam could've been contained
forever, with little or no cost to us. Now, you can be silly and say that
our pounding of his radar installations would do nothing to stop wire
transfers of currency to terrorists, but that's another subject which has no
known end.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
Harry Krause wrote:
JohnH wrote:
On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 09:27:09 -0400, Harry Krause

wrote:

Bert Robbins wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...
basskisser wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 21:58:47 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

wrote:
Don White wrote:

Why are you dissin' the French? They softened the Viet Cong
up for you
al through the 50's and you still couldn't win.
Courtesy of the Paris "peace" talks?

I'll diss the french on that one
What's absolutely amazing is that we didn't seem to learn much
from our
war against Vietnam and its various "insurgencies." I'm hearing
the same
sorts of really stupid talk from our Prez and company about our
war
against Iraq as I remember from the late 1960s and early 1970s,
and
there is still a large percentage of American people who
actually
believe the Chimp-in-Chief and his henchmen. When will they ever
learn?
I'm not sure you can directly analogize the Vietnam conflict with
the
Iraqi War, but I get your point.
No, the conflicts are not the same, but the callousness,
stupidity, and
b.s. coming from our national leaders is pretty much the same. I
watched
Rumsfeld testifying last week, no, telling one lie after another
last
week. It was an incredible performance.
Hell, all of the talk radio Fox news types are saying we are in WW3
and
claiming that this is just like the rise of the Nazis in the late
'30s.

All you have to do is get past your hatred for the Bush
administration and "Big Oil" and things will become clear.
You've got it backwards. Any chance that if Bush had NOT invaded
Iraq, he would have more friends, or at least more people who would
patiently wait for him to vanish from public life? Or, do you think a
person's deeds are not connected with his reputation?
I thought it was the intent rather than the action that determines the
effectiveness of a person or a project?

And, if Pres. Bush had stayed out of Iraq the BP pipeline wouldn't
have rusted and corroded?


If Bush hadn't lied us into Iraq and remained there, there likely would
be more oil on the market, with disruptions of supply, at lower prices,
and Iran wouldn't be so aggressively pursuing our demise, North Korea
might be behaving, and Hezbollah wouldn't have invaded Israel.

Many of the serious problems the world is facing right now can be
attributed to the ignorance, hubris, stupidity, laziness and utter
incompetence of Bush and his administration.

Glad you asked.
And Hurricane Katrina wouldn't have happened and all those charter boats
would be operating and the shrimp boats would be catching shrimp and
Safeway wouldn't be making a fortune on imported shrimp and we'd all be
happy ever after, Amen.
--
******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

John

Silly boy. I was discussing acts and reactions for which Bush can be held
strictly accountable. While Bush is responsible for pooching the federal
planning and reaction to Katrina, he didn't cause the storm. Apples and
oranges.
Of course Harry is going to attempt to limit the debate to what thinks he
can win.

Are you thinking anyone should seriously entertain an idea as stupid as
"Bush caused the storm"?

Sure, you believe in black helicopters and I bet you are one of the 1/3
of Americans who believe that Bush blew up the WTC and that the Pentagon
was hit by a missle?

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
DSK wrote:
What can be solved (but I don't know how): That book I mentioned said
that by Reagan's time in office, many of the CIA's most experienced and
creative risk-takers were retired. These were people who started with
the OSS, and pretty much invented tactics that we think are only
appropriate in movies. One of William Casey's frustrations was finding
more people like this.


Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
That's one point and a good one.

They don't make good spies like they used to. Now they all seem to be
Valerie Palme.

The only thing Valerie Plame did wrong was to disprove some of Vice
President Cheney's pet theories about how to justify starting a war for
profit.

Valarie Plame wasn't in a policy making job she was just an analyst for
the previous five years.

I guess when you put ideology above reality, you are obligated to hate
the guys (and women) who keep pointing out that water really does run
downhill.

If you disagree with the direction your employer, I reiterate employer,
wants to go in you have the ability to quit and say whatever you want.
Whether you have intestinal fortitude to to quit is another issue.

You also have the option of staying, and criticizing the employer,
especially when he is killing teenagers for fun. It's up to the employer to
fire you. Some employers might have the intestinal fortitude to actually
fire you and not be ashamed to tell the country why. Others would be sneaky
about it.

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 20:05:37 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 20:08:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

Maybe I'm wrong, but I recall our limiting our bombing to points containing
radar & antiaircraft weaponry, not missions into their cities. Never mind.
The point was that our goal at that stage was, as you said, the no-fly zone,
or containment.


We always have some bull**** goal when we bomb brown people, that
doesn't mean it is right
If you read what Europe was saying about us at the time you will see
out intent didn't really match where the bombs were falling.
We seem to have forgotten the French, Italians and Germans had already
left the reservation on Iraq long before GW showed up.
Al Jazerra was showing pictures of dead civilians to the Muslim world.

How does one tell the difference between a dead civilian and a dead
terrorist? Please don't say the terrorist will have a rifle in his hands.
--
******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

John

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
DSK wrote:
What can be solved (but I don't know how): That book I mentioned said
that by Reagan's time in office, many of the CIA's most experienced and
creative risk-takers were retired. These were people who started with
the OSS, and pretty much invented tactics that we think are only
appropriate in movies. One of William Casey's frustrations was finding
more people like this.
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
That's one point and a good one.

They don't make good spies like they used to. Now they all seem to be
Valerie Palme.
The only thing Valerie Plame did wrong was to disprove some of Vice
President Cheney's pet theories about how to justify starting a war for
profit.
Valarie Plame wasn't in a policy making job she was just an analyst for
the previous five years.

I guess when you put ideology above reality, you are obligated to hate
the guys (and women) who keep pointing out that water really does run
downhill.
If you disagree with the direction your employer, I reiterate employer,
wants to go in you have the ability to quit and say whatever you want.
Whether you have intestinal fortitude to to quit is another issue.

You also have the option of staying, and criticizing the employer,
especially when he is killing teenagers for fun. It's up to the employer to
fire you. Some employers might have the intestinal fortitude to actually
fire you and not be ashamed to tell the country why. Others would be sneaky
about it.

Bush is a fair minded man and he decided to let Plame continue to be
employed. However, Plame decided to terminate her employment.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..

You've got it backwards. Any chance that if Bush had NOT invaded Iraq,
he would have more friends, or at least more people who would patiently
wait for him to vanish from public life? Or, do you think a person's
deeds are not connected with his reputation?
I thought it was the intent rather than the action that determines the
effectiveness of a person or a project?
That makes no sense. If a project fails, but you gave it your best
effort, then your intent was wrong?
The intent of Johnson's great society was wrong, it failed.

Your conclusion: 100% of the time, when a project fails, the intent was
wrong.

Got it. Just wanted to make sure I understood you correctly.


Bush *needed* a war, for personal reasons. Cheney needed it for his own
reasons. It had nothing at all to do with the good of this country.
What personal reasons?

Nothing you're educated enough to understand.

Why can't you them Doug and we will see if I can read them at least.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 20:08:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

Maybe I'm wrong, but I recall our limiting our bombing to points
containing
radar & antiaircraft weaponry, not missions into their cities. Never mind.
The point was that our goal at that stage was, as you said, the no-fly
zone,
or containment.

We always have some bull**** goal when we bomb brown people, that
doesn't mean it is right
If you read what Europe was saying about us at the time you will see
out intent didn't really match where the bombs were falling.
We seem to have forgotten the French, Italians and Germans had already
left the reservation on Iraq long before GW showed up.
Al Jazerra was showing pictures of dead civilians to the Muslim world.

OK, but we're getting far afield here. Saddam could've been contained
forever, with little or no cost to us. Now, you can be silly and say that
our pounding of his radar installations would do nothing to stop wire
transfers of currency to terrorists, but that's another subject which has no
known end.

Can you put an actual number or range of number on your "little or no
cost to us" assertion.

Harry Krause wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..

You've got it backwards. Any chance that if Bush had NOT invaded
Iraq, he would have more friends, or at least more people who
would patiently wait for him to vanish from public life? Or, do
you think a person's deeds are not connected with his reputation?
I thought it was the intent rather than the action that determines
the effectiveness of a person or a project?
That makes no sense. If a project fails, but you gave it your best
effort, then your intent was wrong?
The intent of Johnson's great society was wrong, it failed.
Your conclusion: 100% of the time, when a project fails, the intent
was wrong.

Got it. Just wanted to make sure I understood you correctly.


Bush *needed* a war, for personal reasons. Cheney needed it for his
own reasons. It had nothing at all to do with the good of this
country.
What personal reasons?
Nothing you're educated enough to understand.

Why can't you them Doug and we will see if I can read them at least.



Read them? You can't even write a coherent sentence. Go back to high
school, Bertbrain. Try to graduate this time. Joining the marines is not
an excuse for dropping out of high school.

You and Doug aren't worth the effort to re-read what I write in this
newsgroup? Does that sound familiar, it should.

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..

3) If you're a competent leader, you realize that the enemy is driven by
the exact same religious zeal that drives your own decisions, and which
also makes you unfit for the office you hold.

What are you talking about?

This is probably too long a response for you to cope with, but your answer
is within.

There's a very short list of reasons why politicians do things which are
doomed to failure before they even leave the planning stage. It doesn't
matter whether it's a war, or some lame-ass public works project. A few
weeks ago, I watched with great joy as a city councilman was brutally
interrogated by a couple of citizens at a public comment meeting for a
ridiculous apartment project that will destroy a beautiful waterfront park,
and which only the politicians are in love with. The consultants for this
plan think 400 apartments would be feasible. The councilman insisted that
"the area could probably support 1000 units". One by one, the two citizens
went through the list of reasons below, and when they got to #6, the
councilman turned red and left the meeting.

1) Too stupid or incompetent to see what a bad plan they're in love with.
2) Too young to be aware of history and too proud or stupid to listen.
3) Old enough to know better, but too stupid to learn from the past.
4) Ego out of control - must do something, ANYTHING with the hope of being
remembered. "I'm a WAR president!"
5) Blind faith in the idea. This takes training, which I believe is most
likely found in religion.
6) Crooked: The politician is receiving some kind of incentive for his love
affair with the idea.

Your president certainly falls into category 1, 3, 4 and 5. Guaranteed.

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 00:20:47 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

Saddam could've been contained
forever

So you think we could still be flying 100 sorties a week over Iraq
bombing them and the world would be fine with it?

Absolutely, although I think it wouldn't have lasted more than another year
or two, for other reasons which you may remember.