As Robatoy already pointed out, I'm afraid your correction is incorrect. And I
Fly" was being sarcastic and trying to make a point by his incorrect use of
other misplaced punctuation, to which you and Jack both fell victim. But what I
to know is whether or not "fuck-nozzle" should be hyphenated; about that I'm not
In another group that I follow one moron uses apostrophes EVERYWHERE, and I
finally told him
one day that if he were to just stop using them, at all, EVER, he would be
often than he currently was. I think he responded with some apostrophe laden
continued to utterly ignore my advice. Oh well. :-)
Any given amount of traffic flow, no matter how
sparse, will expand to fill all available lanes.
Sure, you need to make sawdust to build a house. You should have a right to
build the house (or a request from those who own the property) before you
start making the sawdust, though. Bush and Cheney had neither.
Coupla questions for you, Ed, mostly just food for thought.
Do you believe that nations have an obligation to comply with the treaties
Do you believe that nations have an obligation to comply with resolutions of
the U.N. Security Council?
Do you believe that if a nation fails to do so, it should be compelled to?
Finally, what value does a resolution of the U.N. Security Council have, if
there is no means of enforcing it?
Yes. But only if the resolutions are based on factual and not trumped up
falsified data. And, passage of the resolution should not be forced through
as a result of backroom threats by a large bullying country.
None of this has much of anything to do with the death of Mr. Kennedy. He
was a man who did a lot of good for this country, regardless of his personal
When either Bush or Cheney dies, I doubt I'll have the same opinion of their
We'll see. It's entirely possible that both Bush and Cheney will pass from
this mortal coil much like Enoch, the only person in the Bible that did not
"Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, for God took him." (Gen 5:24)
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:59:26 -0400, "Ed Edelenbos"
And both republican and democratic politicians , on the whole,
respected him in his politics. His personal life was not particularly
exemplary - but he stood up well under extreme adversity.
As drunks go, he did very well.
That Saddam was a vicious bastard responsible for millions of deaths, that
he had tried in the past to acquire WMDs, that he had attacked his neighbors
and would have done so again if he had been able, that he was dangerous and
had to be confined and prevented from becoming a threat again--all these are
undeniable. But at the time of the invasion he didn't have the WMDs the
White House claimed he had, and he had no means to acquire them in the
immediate future. His military was a broken remnant of its former strength,
coalition aircraft patrolled his skies and bombed targets at will, his
economy was in shambles, he was no immediate threat to America or anyone
If Saddam violating UN resolutions was justification for invading Iraq, then
why was it necessary to rely on horribly flawed intelligence to buttress the
case against him? Why did Colin Powell present the UN with evidence that
turned out to be fantasy, some of which the U.S. had already been warned was
The invasion was something the administration wanted to do, they thought
they were going to remake the political map of the middle-east and change
the course of history by installing a secular democracy in a region not
known for enlightened government. They eagerly accepted whatever supported
that policy regardless of how flimsy the evidence was; they ignored or
ridiculed anyone or anything that didn't support what they wanted to do.
Remember when Gen. Shinseki told a Senate committee that several hundred
thousand troops would be needed to occupy Iraq in part because of the ethnic
divisions in the country, remember how Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz reacted to
that? They didn't want to hear it, according to them the invaders would be
greeted as liberators and the occupation would pay for itself--remember?
They were grossly, horribly wrong, and thousands of young Americans have
paid with their lives for that incompetence.
Certainly. Here are some reasons you may not have heard emphasized:
* We need a war every decade or so to keep the tip of the spear sharp. Who
would ever enlist otherwise? I mean, who would become a firefighter if there
were never any fires? Sure, you hear reasons for joining the military: job
security, educational benefits, retirement goodies, and so on. These are
just PC sops. Most people join up so they can kill others. It's what our
warrior class is supposed to do.
* Deterrence. Consider old Sadaam: We invaded his country, confiscated his
fortunes, evicted him from his homes, imprisoned his friends, exiled his
family, killed his children, and, ultimately had his skanky ass hanged. I
suggest such actions have SOME sobering effect on despots similarily
* Oil. We (cleverly) don't get any oil from Iraq. Oil, however, is fungible.
Whatever Iraqi oil gets sold to France lowers the price of the oil we buy
* Experience: I don't think there's a member of the military in a leadership
role - from sergeant to 4-Star general - who hasn't led troops in combat.
You can't BUY they level of expertise.
The United States IS the world's policeman and the president IS the top cop.
One may not like the role or feel it was achieved improperly, but it is what
it is. We, in general, write the rules then we enforce them. Again, it is
what it is.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.