eddysterckx@hotmail.com
12/17/2009 10:04:00 AM
On 17 dec, 10:49, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <18c260e8-d853-48e4-b0ec-
> fd3199d4c...@s20g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, eddyster...@hotmail.com
> says...
>
> > > Two points:
>
> > > (1) It's impossible to discuss Iraq without having some squeaky retard
> > > pop up and start bawling about how "Chimpy Bushitler Lied Us Into War
> > > (TM)."
>
> > That's why killfiles were invented :)
>
> True enough, but in the current context, the moment the word "Bush"
> appears in the thread, any opportunity to discuss a military aspect of
> Iraq or Afghanistan collapses into a worthless morass of lefty talking-
> points.
>
> It was the same with Vietnam for years. Only in the last decade or so
> has it been possible to discuss the US war effort without a lot of
> pointless blabber about "Johnson!" and "Nixon!"
So it's a time/distance thing. Ok, we'll talk about the finer points
of the diversionary tactics used at Fallujah in 2030 :)
> > > Some (most) of us are just weary about going over the
> > > same pointless ground, particularly since President Clodhopper has
> > > changed exactly *none* of Bush's policies
>
> > It's quite sad that guys who ooze integrity and honesty absolutely
> > flatly refuse to get into politics and much that is wrong with the
> > world today is due to the mediocre guys calling the shots.
>
> > For instance : one wonders what a guy like Colin Powell would do if he
> > ever could be persuaded to run for president.
>
> I'm not as impressed by Powell as I might be. He was a little too
> "finger in the wind" during both the original Gulf War and the post-9/11
> regime change effort. And I always had the sneaking suspicion that he
> was one of those generals who thought that the best way to have a strong
> military was never to use it.
... or only when really necessary.
"War should be the politics of last resort. And when we go to war, we
should have a purpose that our people understand and support"
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx