Re: OT: Happy now, Bushies?

[OrangeSFO]

"whatever" <AquaDeals@metrocast.net> wrote in message news:<b1CdnZh3r-PTioKiU-KYvA@metrocast.net>...
> Economically, maybe. Militarily and Diplomatically, he has given this
> country it's spine back - the one the democrats sold off over the past 8
> years

You've got to be kidding? What did we accomplish diplomatically in
the last year apart from telling the world it's our way or the
highway.

Some "diplomacy."

And perhaps you should look more closely at what the article has to
say about troop commitments and our readiness to face multiple
simultaneous threats (e.g. North Korea).








>
>
> "OrangeSFO" <turgorsfo@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:a9255354.0307230903.b534a11@posting.google.com...
> > Bushies,
> >
> > Your Big-Package-Top-Gun-Commander-in-Thief has weakened the country.
> >
> > Militarily
> > Economically
> > Diplomatically
> >
> > Enjoy.

[Joe Long]

On 24 Jul 2003 19:43:55 -0700, turgorsfo@aol.com (OrangeSFO) wrote:

>"whatever" <AquaDeals@metrocast.net> wrote in message news:<b1CdnZh3r-PTioKiU-KYvA@metrocast.net>...
>> Economically, maybe. Militarily and Diplomatically, he has given this
>> country it's spine back - the one the democrats sold off over the past 8
>> years
>
>You've got to be kidding? What did we accomplish diplomatically in
>the last year apart from telling the world it's our way or the
>highway.
>
>Some "diplomacy."

ROTFLMAO ... this guy doesn't even realize that he's illustrating the
other guy's point!

>And perhaps you should look more closely at what the article has to
>say about troop commitments and our readiness to face multiple
>simultaneous threats (e.g. North Korea).

Courtesy of Bill "I loathe the military" Clinton deciding we didn't
need enough troops to fight in two places at once?

--

Joe Long
jlong (at) rnbw (dot) com

[Joe Long]

On 25 Jul 2003 09:27:44 -0700, turgorsfo@aol.com (OrangeSFO) wrote:

>What's it like to go through life so misinformed?

I don't know, why don't you tell me?

>Did you even read the article?

Yep. Wasn't impressed. I'm sure some people, though, buy into that
claptrap.

>I find it very depressing that the only debate tactic
>defenders of our "leadership" can muster is to change the subject and
>toss up the Clintons. News flash!! George W. Bush is the President!
>It's what HIS administration does TODAY that is relevant.

You can't build a military force overnight, even if Congress voted to
do it, it takes time to recruit, equip, and train troops. Which makes
what previous Administrations did quite relevant. Is this another
example of how you go through life so misinformed?

>Why is it assumed that anyone attacking Bush must--by definition-- be
>a liberal (gasp! that dirty word!) Clinton lover?

Why are you so paranoid about that?

>Do yourself a favor and get your news of the world from more than one
>source besides Fox or Rush.

Oh, I do (actually, I don't listen to Rush) -- such as CNN and public
radio, among others. Do you get your news from any non-leftie
sources?

[Augie Chiausa]

"Joe Long" <see@my.sig> wrote in message
news:6l33ivgkundl8vjf6gfiargepm5ne2juef@4ax.com...
> On 25 Jul 2003 09:27:44 -0700, turgorsfo@aol.com (OrangeSFO) wrote:
>
> >What's it like to go through life so misinformed?
>
> I don't know, why don't you tell me?
>
> >Did you even read the article?
>
> Yep. Wasn't impressed. I'm sure some people, though, buy into that
> claptrap.

Yeah, that liberal Novak was sourced as confirming that the Whitehouse blew
the cover of a CIA operative. I believe that falls under treason. Shades
of Nixon?

>
> >I find it very depressing that the only debate tactic
> >defenders of our "leadership" can muster is to change the subject and
> >toss up the Clintons. News flash!! George W. Bush is the President!
> >It's what HIS administration does TODAY that is relevant.
>
> You can't build a military force overnight, even if Congress voted to
> do it, it takes time to recruit, equip, and train troops. Which makes
> what previous Administrations did quite relevant. Is this another
> example of how you go through life so misinformed?

Didn't Bush claim that our military was overstretched doing nation building?
Oh that was just a campaign lie.


>
> >Why is it assumed that anyone attacking Bush must--by definition-- be
> >a liberal (gasp! that dirty word!) Clinton lover?
>
> Why are you so paranoid about that?
>
> >Do yourself a favor and get your news of the world from more than one
> >source besides Fox or Rush.
>
> Oh, I do (actually, I don't listen to Rush) -- such as CNN and public
> radio, among others. Do you get your news from any non-leftie
> sources?

Krugman's source was Novak.

>

[Joe Long]

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 22:40:40 GMT, "Augie Chiausa"
<achiausa@bellatlantic.net> wrote:

>"Joe Long" <see@my.sig> wrote in message

>> You can't build a military force overnight, even if Congress voted to
>> do it, it takes time to recruit, equip, and train troops. Which makes
>> what previous Administrations did quite relevant. Is this another
>> example of how you go through life so misinformed?

>Didn't Bush claim that our military was overstretched doing nation building?
>Oh that was just a campaign lie.

????? Doing "nation building" with a seriously reduced military was
part of the problem, yes. Still is.

....
>> >Do yourself a favor and get your news of the world from more than one
>> >source besides Fox or Rush.

>> Oh, I do (actually, I don't listen to Rush) -- such as CNN and public
>> radio, among others. Do you get your news from any non-leftie
>> sources?

>Krugman's source was Novak.

Oh, do you just uncritically believe anything Novak says? Or only
when it is unfavorable to Bush?

I apologize for getting involved in this off-topic thread. You may
have the last word, and tell yourself how you left me speechless.

--

Joe Long
jlong (at) rnbw (dot) com

[Augie Chiausa]

"Joe Long" <see@my.sig> wrote in message
news:s8o3iv8i4neesplrncf888g9agbnminns8@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 22:40:40 GMT, "Augie Chiausa"
> <achiausa@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>
> >"Joe Long" <see@my.sig> wrote in message
>
> >> You can't build a military force overnight, even if Congress voted to
> >> do it, it takes time to recruit, equip, and train troops. Which makes
> >> what previous Administrations did quite relevant. Is this another
> >> example of how you go through life so misinformed?
>
> >Didn't Bush claim that our military was overstretched doing nation
building?
> >Oh that was just a campaign lie.
>
> ????? Doing "nation building" with a seriously reduced military was
> part of the problem, yes. Still is.
>
> ...
> >> >Do yourself a favor and get your news of the world from more than one
> >> >source besides Fox or Rush.
>
> >> Oh, I do (actually, I don't listen to Rush) -- such as CNN and public
> >> radio, among others. Do you get your news from any non-leftie
> >> sources?
>
> >Krugman's source was Novak.
>
> Oh, do you just uncritically believe anything Novak says? Or only
> when it is unfavorable to Bush?
>
> I apologize for getting involved in this off-topic thread. You may
> have the last word, and tell yourself how you left me speechless.
>

How big should the military have been afte the collapse of the Soviet Union?

> --
>
> Joe Long
> jlong (at) rnbw (dot) com

[Joe Long]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 03:26:49 GMT, "Augie Chiausa"
<achiausa@bellatlantic.net> wrote:

>"Joe Long" <see@my.sig> wrote in message

>> I apologize for getting involved in this off-topic thread. You may
>> have the last word, and tell yourself how you left me speechless.

>How big should the military have been afte the collapse of the Soviet Union?

OK, since you asked me a question, one more to answer it.

Without doubt, bigger than it became by the year 2000.

At a minimum, big enough to do the job in Iraq well AND deal with
North Korea at the same time (should that be necessary), with some
forces still left in reserve. Also, enough to rotate troops so that
no particular units have to spend inordinate amounts of time deployed
away from their families.

Which, alas, due to the builddown in the 1990's, we don't have.

Now, unless you have a question about poker, I'd prefer to make no
more posts in this thread.

--

Joe Long
jlong (at) rnbw (dot) com