Re: Bush approval rating slumps to all-time low

"Geo" <ghmorris@candlelight.ca> wrote in message
news:1132629433.456589.221010@g44g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>
> Scott wrote:
> > "Geo" <ghmorris@candlelight.ca> wrote in message
> > news:1132620401.089741.294640@g43g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> >
> > > Irrelevant.
> >
> > How can you say that with a straight face?
> >
> > Niether Canada nor the US has had to deal with the decisons that
Chirchill
> > did, in both WWI and WWII.
> >
> Yes. But how does that make his views on stategic thinking less
> relevant which is what you seem to be implying?

I didnt say any such thing.

I only applied context to the man you quoted.

"War is continuation of politics (Politik) by other means." -- Clauswitz, is
well known by all that passed 6th grade.

> > 6 years after the rationing stopped may have well been decades.
> >
> Sure. Pull the other one. You have very definite opinions on this
> subject, but how much first hand experience? Did you travel to anywhere
> in Europe in the 50s or early 60s? How old would you have been then?

You have definite opinons on many things, and little first hand experience.

Be careful how far down that raod you drag.

> The reality is that the UK was a mess for decades after the war, right
> into the 1980s in fact.

Still is.

> Responsibility in part was the financial state
> after the war, part was some very misguided attempts at social
> engineering. The Marshall Plan worked wonders in mainland Europe, but
> if you lived in the UK you wondered who really won the war.

Not really. \\Maybe the socilists think that way, and some Canadians, but
the people I know, who have stayed in my home and broke bread with me dont
feel that way.

> I didn't say there wasn't lots of Spam around, just that there were
> other things to eat as well. I had lots of it too and can think of
> things I'd rather eat.

No, what you did was try and trivialize what I said, and I called you out on
it.

> > Get a grip.
> >
> As I said, I guess you had to be there to appreciate it.

Dr. Strangelove?

I did the "duck and cover" routine as a kid.

I amy not be as old as you, but that doesnt mean anything but that you are
older.

"Scott" <pugetsounddiver@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:gKydncj1totY4R_eRVn-hw@wavecable.com...
>
> "Geo" <ghmorris@candlelight.ca> wrote in message
> news:1132624081.608784.181520@g43g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>>
>> Al Wells wrote:
>> > In article <1132620401.089741.294640@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>,
>> > ghmorris@candlelight.ca says...
>> >
>> > > Very wrong. That movie was way cool on a lot of levels.
>> >
>> > One of my all-time favorites - "You can't fight in here, this is the
>> > War
>> > Room"
>> >
>> LOL
>>
>> That movie has some of the best one-liners...
>
> Were well beyon one liners now, since 9/11.

The wars prior to 9/11 made 9/11 pale in comparison. You idjit.

"Scott" <pugetsounddiver@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:WJWdnaT3jMQnrx_eRVn-tQ@wavecable.com...
> "Geo" <ghmorris@candlelight.ca> wrote in message
> news:1132599244.976094.211380@z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...
>
> First off, Mossman's only interest in Murtah is that he is a democrat
> countering Bush.

Lots of those, that's not interesting. What's interesting about Murtha is
that he's a Marine countering Bush, and oh what a Marine! If he were a
Republican Marine, that would make him even more special.

But you're a big dummy, so I can understand the confusion. Carry on
soldier.

> He can act like he respects the man because he is a retired and decorated
> Marine, but as we have seen before, his admiration and respect for
> veterans
> is strictly based upon pary propaganda and party lines.
>
> PERIOD.

Not so at all. I don't respect Bush as a veteran because he is a joke. I
don't respect you as anything because you are a joke. I do respect Popeye
as a Marine because he is not a joke. I don't respect you as anything
because you are a joke. I do respect McCain and Murtha because they are no
jokes. I don't respect you as anything because you are a joke.

> We went through this all las time in Vietnam;

We, huh. Sure we did.

> Let's let the men and women who are doing the fighting make the calls.

That's absolutely the most inane utterance I've ever heard about the current
boondoggle. Congratulations.

> They, unlike Murtah, Mossman, Bush, Cheney, Rummy or anyone else,
especially
> the far left lickspittles that make the majority of the Democrat decisons,
> know the facts on the ground in Iraq, and they are not yet ready or
> wanting
> to leave. They believe in what they are doing and want to finish the job.

Uh, sure.

So what's the job?

"Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> wrote in message
news:11o44gtsrp4k309@corp.supernews.com...
> "Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> wrote in message
> news:11o42vun8uro8f0@corp.supernews.com...
>> "Popeye" <Popeye@Finalprotectivefire.com> wrote in message
>> news:11o3os0ekpkac9f@news.supernews.com...
>>
>>>> How do you spin Murtha's attitude?
>>>
>>> What about it?
>>
>> That he's an honest-to-goodness U.S. Marine Corps hero and he wants to
>> bring the troops back home within 6 months.
>
> Mainstream:
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051121/...MzBHNlYwM3MDM-
>
> "The public turned against this war before I said it," said Murtha, a key
> Democrat on military issues. "The public is emotionally tied into finding
> a solution to this thing, and that's what I hope this administration is
> going to find out."

That says it all.

Murtha has apparently forgotten what America's emotional involvement in
Vietnam cost him.

"Geo" <ghmorris@candlelight.ca> wrote in message
news:1132599244.976094.211380@z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...
>
> Greg Mossman wrote:
>> "Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> wrote in message
>> news:11o42vun8uro8f0@corp.supernews.com...
>> > "Popeye" <Popeye@Finalprotectivefire.com> wrote in message
>> > news:11o3os0ekpkac9f@news.supernews.com...
>> >
>> >>> How do you spin Murtha's attitude?
>> >>
>> >> What about it?
>> >
>> > That he's an honest-to-goodness U.S. Marine Corps hero and he wants to
>> > bring the troops back home within 6 months.
>>
> What he actually said was redeploy. Although he did use "bring them
> home" later on. The object is to remove US troops from being both
> targets and irritants on the streets of Iraq while still having enough
> troops handy to use if the *military* situation deteriorates. He's a
> smart guy and its worth reading the entire statement. Pity his ideas
> didn't attract a more balanced debate.


And, what, exactly, would he know about the situation in Iraq?

Scott wrote:
>
> I didnt say any such thing.
>
> I only applied context to the man you quoted.
>
OK, I'm still a little fuzzy over whether you agree with him or not,
but whatever.
>
> "War is continuation of politics (Politik) by other means." -- Clauswitz, is
> well known by all that passed 6th grade.
>
Absolutely.
>
> You have definite opinons on many things, and little first hand experience.
>
> Be careful how far down that raod you drag.
>
Rock and roll. I have *lots* of first hand experience with all kinds of
strange things. Let's start with 1959-1966 in England, then 1978-1992
in Scotland.
>
> > The reality is that the UK was a mess for decades after the war, right
> > into the 1980s in fact.
>
> Still is.
>
Nah, its pretty good now by comparison.
>
> > Responsibility in part was the financial state
> > after the war, part was some very misguided attempts at social
> > engineering. The Marshall Plan worked wonders in mainland Europe, but
> > if you lived in the UK you wondered who really won the war.
>
> Not really. \\Maybe the socilists think that way, and some Canadians, but
> the people I know, who have stayed in my home and broke bread with me dont
> feel that way.
>
You may be right at your house, but reality on the ground in the 70s
and early 80s was that British industry was getting its ass kicked.
Partly by obsolete working practices, but also because of obsolete
plant. Unlike Germany and Japan, the British were still getting by with
obsolete equipment. No Marshall plan dollars you see.

Where I was, who really won the war was a standing joke. But then the
Scots have a different sense of humour.
>
> > I didn't say there wasn't lots of Spam around, just that there were
> > other things to eat as well. I had lots of it too and can think of
> > things I'd rather eat.
>
> No, what you did was try and trivialize what I said, and I called you out on
> it.
>
Oh please.
>
> > > Get a grip.
> > >
> > As I said, I guess you had to be there to appreciate it.
>
> Dr. Strangelove?
>
> I did the "duck and cover" routine as a kid.
>
> I amy not be as old as you, but that doesnt mean anything but that you are
> older.
>
And I've worked in the air defense environment. I wan't kidding about
the 1940s command and control. What happens when the SAGE sytem goes
down, which it did regularly even in my day?

Anyway. Strangelove is set in a time before Cheyenne Mountain and North
Bay, but after the 6000 mile range soviet SS-6 ICBM was developed. The
main premise of the movie stretches reality but doesn't re-invent it.
It takes its biggest shot at mutually assured destruction.

Command and control was much more fragile and diverse than it became
later, which meant individual commanders potentially had more latitude.
Missiles were just starting to become more important than bombers, and
as a result the existing US air defense system was becoming irrelevant.
We're just after the Cuban missile crisis when the nukes nearly got
used.

On the NORAD side, SAGE (semi-automatic ground environment) was newly
operational, but with 270 ton vacumn tube computers which gave a
maximum up time of around 99%. SAGE computers were housed in
above-ground buildings that could only withstand 5psi overpressure so a
missile detonation anywhere near one was bad news.

Former NORAD Commanding General Earle E. Partridge once observed that
the two-story NORAD command building at Ent could be immobilized by a
well-aimed bazooka shot, much less by a nuclear blast.

The book its based on, Red Alert, was released in 1958, before any
computer based defense system was available. Studies suggested that no
more than 10% of an attacking bomber force could be destroyed. Scary
times.

George

"Popeye" <Popeye@Finalprotectivefire.com> wrote in message
news:11o61mu5otc6v13@news.supernews.com...

> His opinion and a dollar might get you a cup of coffee.
>
> Semper Fi.
>
> Iraq is a war, which you have no personal concept of.

It's not a war. War means two or more armies fighting each other. Bush
already declared an end to that war. We won.

Now we have an occupation. Like most occupations, there is some resistance.
The best way to end the resistance is to deoccupy.

> It's not a parking meter with a time limit.

Of course it is. We can't occupy forever. The only question is when will
the meter run out? After we've left the space or when we run out of
quarters?

> -Any- talk about a time based withdrawal policy is politically motivated,
> having -nothing- whatsoever to do with the well being of our troops, and
> will result in truly meaningless U.S. Casualties.

We will have left Iraq a democracy. It's up to them what they want to do
with it. That's the best we can do, even if we leave in ten years. The
"evil" Iraqis can always take it back in eleven.

> Either we're done, or we're not.
>
> We're not baking a cake over there.

They prefer baklava.

"Geo" <ghmorris@candlelight.ca> wrote in message
news:1132671444.946326.253970@g49g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...

<snip for brevity>

So, now, just what the %&*# does any of this have to do with the GWOT or
Bush?

40's air defense and Dr. Strangelove are so far removed from the US in Iraq
that I fail to see where even you are trying to take it.

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/colu...21/176434.html

Scott wrote:
> "Geo" <ghmorris@candlelight.ca> wrote in message
> news:1132685768.060995.167830@g47g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> >
> > Scott wrote:
> > > "Geo" <ghmorris@candlelight.ca> wrote in message
> > > news:1132666800.050858.305010@g43g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> > >
> > > > Personally, I think he's pretty close to being bang on the money.
> > >
> > > And who didnt know all that going in?
> > >
> > > It's certainly no profound revelation.
> > >
> > Well, it seems to be a profound revelation to the very few people who
> > really pushed this course of action.
>
> Where do you get this shit?
>
> No one, no one, including and especially Bush or Cheney thought or ever said
> this was going to be easy or fast.
>
> You liberals just make shit up as you go.
>
*BZZT* Wrong again, I'm not anywhere close to being a liberal. I'm more
a Thatcherite Conservative than anything you have in your political
world.
>
> > The only surprise I have among
> > that group is Cheney. He has enough of a background in international
> > business I'm quite surprised he thought Iraq was a good idea.
>
> No one thinks or thought that war is/was a good idea, only necessary.
>
Necessary only if its going to have a successful outcome. The original
plan for Iraq was silly, Its still silly and isn't getting any better
in the middle of a sectarian civil war. For longevity of sectarian
civil wars see Northern Ireland. Iraq is going to make Northern Ireland
look like a Sunday school picnic.
>
> It is a simple equation;
>
> Take it them, or wait for them to attack us again.
>
Your opinion, often stated, doesn't seem to be having quite the desired
result.
>
> Saddam bought the UN, and it was a matter of time *only* until we got hit
> again, harder than 9/11.
>
Welcome to the world in the first part of the 21st century. A
particularly unpleasant place. Now come up with something creative and
long lasting to fix the problem. Shooting people isn't working too well
so far. I'm all for the appropriate application of extreme violence,
but this wasn't the place for it.

Geo

"Geo" <ghmorris@candlelight.ca> wrote in message
news:1132686789.446720.169930@g14g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...

You know what George?

Your typically condescending Candian attitude is wearing really thin, and
already done long ago.

I dont give a tinkers cuss where you been or what you've done, or how much
older you are; your opinion is just that, and, I will add, it mirrors and
reflects the liberal matra's to a T. You dont like being labeled a liberal,
stop spewing their bullshit.

I am sick to death of people *just like you* undermining our efforts and
snuggling up to the enemy, all the while saying what the US is doing is
wrong, but having less than no solutions or plans or answers yourself.
People like you and the UN and Clinton kicked the can down the road into the
next administration (not that he, you or anyone else thought it would be
Bush) to deal with, and 9/11 was the reward for allowing the UN, Canadians
like you, and everyone esle on earth to dictate policy to us.

*YOU* come up with something creative, shit come up with anything but the
non ending criticism of everything American.

Iraq is far from a failure, except to people *just* like you.

Saddam is done with. His little asshole kids arent raping, torturing and
murdering; his WMD programs, which only an idiot would even try to
trivialize, are done. Saddam and Iraq are no longer, and never will be, a
threat to America, and by proxy, Canada, through not fault of your own.

Now, go ahead and call me a kid or an idiot again, because thats your best
shot.