🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 2 Aug 2002 14:53:35 -0700, "Rod & BJ" <soggy@pacifier.com>
wrote:

>
>
>"Charlie Wilkes"
>> Sure.  That's the reassuring talk, and that may be how it works out.
>> But don't kid yourself with your partisan crap.
>
>What partisan crap? Granted I used the term "hot air" but Clinton's threats
>& token bombing following Saddams breech of the cease-fire agreement
>qualify....empty threats are hot air.
>
>>These guys -- Cheney,
>> Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz -- are congenital warmongers who very much want
>> a war.  Hell, Wolfowitz pushed for war against the Soviets in the
>> Reagan administration.
>
>You know this because they have lead us into multiple unjustified wars?
>Here you have made extreme claims but presented zero foundation.....In
>otherwords lots of blather.

They haven't been in power long, but war against Iraq is without a
doubt their number-one policy goal as of now.  I base my assessments
on what they have said publicly.  Read up on Paul Wolfowitz if you
doubt me -- he's the most vocal of the three warmongers.
>
>> And as for George W., he's a different kind of leader, alright.  He's
>> a fucking dunce, with his workout routine and his stage-managed act as
>> Chief Executive.  And he's got lots of confidence in the way his veep
>> is running things.
>
>Its takes a small and rather ignorant mind to think someone who mangles a
>few words is a dunce.... people have different abilities but I know of  no
>correlation between "public speaking" and intelligence...unless you truly
>feel the "best and the brightest" are represented by used car salesmen and
>actors. Since Bush has a Masters degree in Business and was a jet fighter
>pilot, became reasonably wealthy and has executed both his Govenorship and
>Presidency quite decently....the actual evidence dispels your insults.

The "actual evidence" is quite clear -- George W. Bush was a complete,
unmitigated, wall-to-wall failure as a businessman.  Despite his
family connections and his Ivy League pedigree, he never once returned
anything other than a catastrophic financial loss to anyone who
invested in his business schemes.  This is a matter of public record.

Bush eventually became wealthy because some rich Texans saw him as a
useful front man for their business projects, and so they forfeited
some of their own stock appreciation in the Texas Rangers to lard W's
ass to the tune of a few million bucks -- chump change, for them.  

Then they ran him for the Texas governorship and paid for an expensive
campaign, just as they paid for a telephone whisper campaign in the
South Carolina primaries where a taped message told voters John McCain
was a war criminal and a coward who sold out to the gooks while POW.  

Again ,this is all public record.
>
>Finding fault with a workout routine is downright silly.....A stage-managed
>chief executive claim is puzzling since he in both private and public
>appears quite consistent. Indeed Cheney is a competent vice President and I
>truly believe he does have a active participatory role...contrasted to the
>normal VP figurehead....but I fail to see this as a negative.

Cheney is a college flunk-out who figured out how to get ahead by
kissing ass on bigshot Republicans in Wyoming.  This got him a slot in
the Nixon Administration, where he distinguished himself as a
right-winger and an ass-kisser with a velociraptor wife.  Public
record.
>
>> I don't think these assholes will get their war, BTW.  The reason I
>> don't think so is because taking out Saddam will not be a pinpoint
>> operation; it will require huge mobilization, made more cumbersome by
>> the fact that we won't have a coalition backing us like last time.
>
>Other than staging areas and territorial flyovers the previous coalition was
>largely political.....it was our arms and troops that defeated Saddam's
>invading force. Our force of the day was overwhelmingly superior and much
>larger than actually needed. Saddam's force today is less than half and not
>nearly as well equipped.....Before he had a decade of serious Russian help
>and arms, not this time. Besides Saddam is not loved nor respected in the
>Middle-east and will not actually be supported significantly by either
>neighboring governments nor the populous as a whole.
>
>> And as soon as that mobilization gets under way, that's when the
>> pedestrian suicide bombers will start blowing up in Midtown, and
>> that's when Pakistan will crumble into civil war and we have to go in
>> and take 100,000 casualties to keep nukes off U.S. soil.  Events will
>> overtake the U.S. long before the U.S. puts grunts in Baghdad.
>
>What an imagination.....Your scenario has more holes than Swiss cheese. Why
>would Pakistan crumble into civil war because of anything going on in Iraq?

Have you read any news in the last year???  It's not an imaginary
worry.

>The Pakistan people would have supported the Taliban considerably more than
>a secular Iraq......Whom are these suicide bombers ?
>
>> So you like this fine crew of Texas Republicans who rented the White
>> House for cash, eh?
>
>When you allow Dem talking points masquerade as thinking you pretty much get
>pap......Please present any evidence, legislation or proof that Bush has
>sold the Whitehouse?

Imposing steel tarriffs, which the Economist magazine estimates will
cost the U.S. economy $200 billion a year in lost productivity and
higher prices. 

But hey -- I thought our boy George was an All-American pro-business
free-trader?  Nope.  Not where crony business interests are at stake.
>
>>You think ol' Clinton was the worst piece of shit
>> that ever floated down the stream, eh?
>
>I don't know about that but inept and reasonably bad for the country and
>possibly the worse president of the century is not a hard act to
>prove.....germane to this topic .....he should have enforced the Iraq peace
>keeper presence.

You think Clinton was worse than Warren Gamaliel Harding, eh?
>
>>Well if your good boys get
>> their precious war, 9-11 will seem like a fireworks show and the whole
>> country will be hiding under the fucking bed.  Because Saddam will hit
>> our civilians hard INSIDE our borders, with the creme-de-la-creme of
>> his nightmare toolkit.  And he's a hell of a lot better equipped than
>> Osama bin Laden ever was, with a germ arsenal that definitely includes
>> smallpox.
>> Charlie
>
>Amazing.......If Saddam indeed possesses such abilities you just made a
>strong case to take him out and aptly demonstrated how negligent Clinton was
>to let him off the inspection hook. Your apparent appeasement desire has a
>strong correlation to WW2 and Chamberlain's rather failed policies.  Soggy
>
The analogy is nonsensical.  Saddam is not even rattling sabres, let
alone grabbing territory as Hitler was; you point out yourself that
his conventional military capabilities have been reduced.  In effect,
he has been contained per the intended policy goal of the U.S. and its
allies.

If you think Clinton is responsible for Saddam being in power today,
you had better come to terms with the fact that George H.W. Bush
failed to support a popular revolution that very nearly unseated
Saddam immediately after the Gulf War.  U.S. air strikes against Iraqi
armor putting down the revolt would easily have swung the balance.
Bush Sr. knew it, had a plan in place, and decided not to execute.  He
has since expressed regret over balking in a letter that was made
public.  He did not want to put Saudi crown stability at risk by
supporting a Shiite-led revolution in Iraq.

Charlie