Greece to Buy 400 American Tanks

http://www.defencegreece.com/index.php/2011/10/the-u-s-approved-to-grant-400-m1a1-abrams-to-greece/

The country that's in big financial trouble is buying 400 tanks for over 1 million bucks a pop. Considering my country (the Netherlands) is greatly cutting cavalry funds and is getting rid of over 800 tanks*, methinks we might as well have gifted Greece 400 superior Leopard tanks if they needed 'em so badly — and what do they need them for anyway? To threaten us if we ever dare ask for our money back?

I realize I sound like all the anti-Greece propaganda is getting to me, but this one simply leaves me scratching my head. The number of jobs created in Greece for maintaining these new tanks will be minimal.

* Something I'm against. I'm not against reducing the still Cold War-esque numbers of tanks (albeit we used to have thousands), but to get rid of all of them? Then again, I guess they couldn't even be bothered to get them to Srebrenica back in '96, so maybe it doesn't change a thing…

Originally posted by Frenzie:

http://www.defencegreece.com/index.php/2011/10/the-u-s-approved-to-grant-400-m1a1-abrams-to-greece/

The country that's in big financial trouble is buying 400 tanks for over 1 million bucks a pop. Considering my country (the Netherlands) is greatly cutting cavalry funds and is getting rid of over 800 tanks*, methinks we might as well have gifted Greece 400 superior Leopard tanks if they needed 'em so badly — and what do they need them for anyway? To threaten us if we ever dare ask for our money back?

We give you money so you buy tanks from our cronies and we get a nice kickback

maybe they're are thinking of starting a small war. Maybe rob a bank or two somewhere in britian or norway

They don't need to rob us in the traditional way just overwhelm us with immigration and our welfare system! Strangely enough I came across a news item months ago now about the Greeks dishing out naval contracts. You couldn't make this up. The damn Greeks got themselves into this mess-up and now out battling and screaming on the streets. They overdid their employment in the public sector so with more and more on the public payroll with their accompanies generous pensions they lived the good life thanks to the rest of us dishing them out money.

"Tanks, but no tanks!" The only use Greece could have for tanks is a Tienanmen Square-type incident… I suspect (hope!) that the Russian example will prevail, among the professional soldiers.

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

"Tanks, but no tanks!" The only use Greece could have for tanks is a Tienanmen Square-type incident… I suspect (hope!) that the Russian example will prevail, among the professional soldiers.

I imagine they might be replacing their five hundred and change Leopard 1 tanks. Thing is, these are Cold War leftovers. They need phasing out more than they need replacing.

Though in all fairness, Turkey has quite a number. Perhaps there's still a mini "Cold War" in that part of Europe.

Read and weep...

Although the EU doesn't have one military, I do think it might be worthwhile to do a quick estimation of how the US compares then.

60 (France) + 58 (UK) + 47 (Germany) + 38 (Italy) + 25 (Spain) + 12 (Netherlands) + 10 (Greece) + 6 (Norway) + 5 (Sweden) + 5 (Belgium) and now I can no longer be bothered, makes for a total of 266. Even with all the rest of the EU added I doubt it'll be any more than half of what the US spends, but it does make it appear a tad less astronomical.

I don't want military sales from my country. They make me angry.
(Military giveaways are worse.)

As I understand it, the US congress has approved a grant of 400 military surplus Abrahams to Greece. That is to say the US is offering 400 second hand tanks to Greece for free and is proposing two future upgrades that Greece will have to pay for if it decides to go for such upgrades. Greece has to retire some 900 old tanks within the next five years so this will most likely save Greece money in keeping its military capability.

That is FREE. Not "buy".

Free for hundreds of millions of Dollars. (at least, so the news sources I've seen say) But good thing they're not paying the new price of over 3.2 million a tank!

Originally posted by aefields:

I don't want military sales from my country. They make me angry.
(Military giveaways are worse.)

It's been going on a long time, and the USA isn't the only one selling military stuff. Take a good look, both at the present day and throughout history. Some military hardware never would have been built if not for foreign governments buying the product first.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Originally posted by aefields:

I don't want military sales from my country. They make me angry.
(Military giveaways are worse.)

It's been going on a long time, and the USA isn't the only one selling military stuff. Take a good look, both at the present day and throughout history. Some military hardware never would have been built if not for foreign governments buying the product first.

Yes, I have known about it for a long time. Took a good look. It is part of what contributes to my being depressed.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Free for hundreds of millions of Dollars. (at least, so the news sources I've seen say)

Which is?

Various Dutch ones, but perhaps more to the point the one I linked to above? (admittedly that one doesn't say more than at least tens of millions of Dollars)

Sell them all I say. It will reduce military upkeep by spreading costs to allied countries and the U.S. can turn a little profit on upgrades and service parts. Same with the F-16's and whatever else can be sold of from the dated end of the weapon stocks. They will have to come to the US for parts giving the military some control over their use while whatever next generation weapon systems the US has developed has probably already rendered them obsolete.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

They don't need to rob us in the traditional way just overwhelm us with immigration and our welfare system! Strangely enough I came across a news item months ago now about the Greeks dishing out naval contracts. You couldn't make this up. The damn Greeks got themselves into this mess-up and now out battling and screaming on the streets. They overdid their employment in the public sector so with more and more on the public payroll with their accompanies generous pensions they lived the good life thanks to the rest of us dishing them out money.

Too true. Most of the E.U has been paying for the p.i.g.s. counties to live like kings for long enough

Can I remind you mjsmsprt40 that the USA spends half the world's military money - how do you come to terms with that corporate nonsense the way things are?

We bought two German submarines, one thousand million euros each. Greeks bought four. Also to Germans. U boats, ever heard about?
How much had the Germans received for the deal? six thousand millions, isn't it?

And are you talking about peanuts, with American tanks? four hundred million dollars? that's less than they spend with wc for their troops... they seem to poop a lot.

ooohh such a big deficit for pigs... maybe is the reason for such a superavit for Germans.... And even complaining...
As two times before, Germans are near to fall for the third time. And it will be soon.

Take the money and run.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

We bought two German submarines, one thousand million euros each. Greeks bought four. Also to Germans. U boats, ever heard about?
How much had the Germans received for the deal? six thousand millions, isn't it?

And are you talking about peanuts, with American tanks? four hundred million dollars? that's less than they spend with wc for their troops... they seem to poop a lot.

Afaik you're talking about something that transpired in '06 or earlier, so unless you're saying the crisis is due to buying a couple of submarines I'd have to say I don't see the relevance. In fact from what I found they're reselling to raise money, but I suppose in that sense the tanks may be moot as they can be obtained from the money made by selling one submarine.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

so unless you're saying the crisis is due to buying a couple of submarines I'd have to say I don't see the relevance.

Because German submarines are just an example about German impositions. As well as being paid for not producing. There's no more agriculture, fishing and middle level industry. Surprised about crisis? A deficit? Who will say it....

Originally posted by Frenzie:

they can be obtained from the money made by selling one submarine.

Course not. The problem with obsolete war material is that you have to spent three or four times more for get it operational according present requisites, one million dollars each doesn't seems to you too much of a good deal for a tank? They cost ten, twenty the good ones.

Jbro_war_materials.com

We have it all!

Ooh, I'll have to check that site out... I could use some RPGs, ya know for duck hunting.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Can I remind you mjsmsprt40 that the USA spends half the world's military money - how do you come to terms with that corporate nonsense the way things are?

OK, Mr. Howie. You don't like the USA a whole lot. OK, got that.

Before we got into the "Superpower Game", the United Kingdom was the big player, at least at sea. The British Fleet was second to nobody, and they spent enormous amounts of money on battleships to help make it so. Then, they built battleships for the Japanese navy--- battleships and aircraft carriers the British would later have to face in the early days of WW2. Hmmm..... Lost a couple of ships to the Japs about the time Pearl was attacked too, didn't you? I seem to have read something about that.

Most of the major powers have sold military supplies to other nations at one time or another, and history shows that some inventions never would have got off the ground if nationals of one country hadn't been able to sell their ideas in another one, since the home country wasn't interested. The Wright brothers had to go to Europe to sell the idea of using airplanes in warfare, for example, since the US military establishment couldn't be bothered with it--- until they saw Europeans using planes in WW1. Now you can't win a war unless you control the air. Some fine British inventions had similar fates-- invented at home, sold abroad since the home powers weren't interested-- until they saw foreigners making the inventions work. Then they had to have it, and further try to have a controlling interest in the thing. Some weapon systems were sold both at home and abroad, it depended on selling abroad to make the system profitable enough for the builders to keep building them.

And you think that the USA didn't make it worth their while in post WW2 Japan, eh? And up to recent times you funded just about every military/fascist dictatorship in South America (and elsewhere), arming them and worse. You were also out to replace the BE which in time you did thanks greatly to WW2 which you ably profited out of. When it comes to hypocrisy you win on that game too. Don't think we need any miffed lectures on that score.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

And you think that the USA didn't make it worth their while in post WW2 Japan, eh? And up to recent times you funded just about every military/fascist dictatorship in South America (and elsewhere), arming them and worse. You were also out to replace the BE which in time you did thanks greatly to WW2 which you ably profited out of. When it comes to hypocrisy you win on that game too. Don't think we need any miffed lectures on that score.

Just following your lead on the two-bit lecture circuit. I admit to being unable to compete with you on hypocritical lectures, though. The British Empire was in a class by itself. Now, I'm at a loss about something. You lost two fine battlewagons to Japanese units that were probably built in British yards--- it wouldn't surprise me if some of those IJN ships were built on the Clyde-- on or about the time the Japs were hammering Pearl Harbor. I am at a loss at the moment about whether any Japanese units attacking Pearl were built in America. Some of the top Japanese admirals certainly had an American education during the Twenties and Thirties--- one reason why Yamamoto wasn't eager to fight the USA is because he had been here, and he knew if the war dragged out longer than six months it didn't look good for Japan-- but, the question is--- did the IJN have any units that were built on American shores prior to opening hostilities on December 7, 1941?

Come now, lets not flame this threat too off-topic.
And I wouldn't talk too much about who build for whom during WW2, least we forget the U.S companies that made equipment for the Nazi's like IBM (and they did it proudly). Now see, you made me go off-topic again.

I see many Americans being against how much the US spends with military costs and the same goes with Europeans even if a smaller scale. And there's not any real war around, just "small" interventions. How much has Germany spent with WWII? everything they had and much more, absolutely everything.

Life can be much worst than it is and probably will be. Those who can do it are just preparing for the future and then people will thanks every dollar already spent to give them superiority. That's the other side of the problem.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

When it comes to hypocrisy you win on that game too. Don't think we need any miffed lectures on that score.

We are bad people, one and all.

UK, Cuba sign accord on tourism investment BEIJING, July 6 (Xinhuanet) -- The UK and Cuba have signed a bilateral cooperation agreement in Havana. The move aims to increase investment in tourism and the construction of golf courses to back economic reforms put forward by Cuba. The British ambassador to Cuba, Dianna Melrose, said she regretted trade between the two countries is still "very low" but added there is much room for growth. The embassy did not go into further details or release specific figures. Melrose said as many as 200-thousand British citizens visit Cuba every year and are interested to see the changes taking place in the island nation. Many believe the tropical island could become a tourist hot spot as reforms continue to encourage travellers to visit. (Source: CNTV.cn)

It never seems to end, does it?

Just a thought: Greece buys 400 American tanks. They're already on the ropes financially. Tanks require enormous amounts of fuel to run, and American tanks are noteworthy for being thirsty machines. How does buying 400 machines that have fuel mileage rates in the gallons-per-mile category help Greece's financial situation? Do they use the tanks to rob banks? Maybe hold up a liquor store or two, and knock over a delicatessen? I suppose going to war against a richer neighbor country might help, but until they win they still have to feed these thirsty beasts, and that's not easy on an already struggling economy.

It's a point worth noting, even powerful countries like the US have to deal with the fact that military might comes at an excruciating cost. The defense budget accounts for a massive amount of our national budget, and while a certain amount is undoubtedly necessary, the fact remains that keeping a fleet at sea, aircraft in the air, tanks rolling and so on costs a lot of money. So much money, in fact, that during peacetime such expenses can't be justified and hardware has to be mothballed or scrapped entirely.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Just a thought: Greece buys 400 American tanks. They're already on the ropes financially. Tanks require enormous amounts of fuel to run, and American tanks are noteworthy for being thirsty machines. How does buying 400 machines that have fuel mileage rates in the gallons-per-mile category help Greece's financial situation

I tell you what will happen with those 400 Americans tanks as it happens to all American offers.
Half will never work. From the other half, you need to cannibalize parts so half will work the first day.
How many have you got by now? 100.
Doesn't mind, by then someone will realize you don't have the personnel for driving it.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Half will never work. From the other half, you need to cannibalize parts so half will work the first day.
How many have you got by now? 100.
Doesn't mind, by then someone will realize you don't have the personnel for driving it.

Personally, I'd cannibalize parts from the half that'll never work which would leave me with 200.

I'm not Portuguese, though, so my logic and math are...well, you know.

Portugal used to be a big country in a small world. Now it's a small country in a big world. I guess that smarts a bit.

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

Personally, I'd cannibalize parts from the half that'll never work which would leave me with 200.

I'm not Portuguese, though, so my logic and math are...well, you know.

It doesn't matter, you'll have always the same result.
An example? the A7 Corsairs that you've sell us several years ago. In this case, after all the cannibalizing needed, we even had the pilots, formed at the US. All the planes crashed, that's why you sell them... it seems that your pilots refused to fly them.

There's nothing different between your military donations/selling and the "donations" the West sends to Africa. The reason people keeps on accepting them is money. 400 millions.. forty millions at least will end at someone's pocket. Unfortunately, is not mine.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

A7 Corsairs that you've sell us several years ago. In this case, after all the cannibalizing needed, we even had the pilots, formed at the US. All the planes crashed, that's why you sell them... it seems that your pilots refused to fly them.

We call that "buyer beware." The reason they were sold is that they're outdated and were put to rest in 1991.

Frankly, military spending here is crazy.

Why in the world did Portugal want them? To fend off attacks from Brazil?

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

Why in the world did Portugal want them? To fend off attacks from Brazil?

Because your OTAN wanted us to have it, simple as that. Now we have the F something. At least these are better. And also so much expensive.
Same goes for submarines and all the radar structure, we have the South Atlantic surveillance with us. Not Brazil, but the African coast can raise some security problems according Pentagon's genius.

Whatever you say about American tanks, I reckon they are better than previous attempts by the Greeks to buy tanks elsewhere.

Isn't that RJ?
I recognise the hat.

Nope, that's a Greek running away with your pension fund money and shooting against anyone that tries to stop him.
But yes, he's disguised with rjhowie's hat. The old hat, now rj wears a Victorian one with plumes...

To generalize the topic: I have observed that when weapons are sold, those weapons are sometimes used against the seller.

It should be easy to decide who to sell to and who not to sell to based on that criteria. It really should be. But given the track record of Earth, I'd say it's a good idea to not sell weapons to anybody. Logically, it makes sense to give or sell weapons to allies, but historically... well... turns out it doesn't make sense after all.

My specific observations relate to the United States of America giving or selling weapons to people who turn our weapons back on us. And that makes me extremely angry when anyone wants to sell or give weapons to anyone anymore.

And there is always a moral question in arms deals. Even if it is certain that one's arms won't be turned against one, can you be sure they'll be used justly? ... Sometimes, maybe. Sometimes NO.

I figure members of NATO should be reasonably trustworthy?

At this game, no one is trustworthy... things are a matter of interests not confidence.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

Why in the world did Portugal want them? To fend off attacks from Brazil?

Because your OTAN wanted us to have it, simple as that. Now we have the F something. At least these are better. And also so much expensive.
Same goes for submarines and all the radar structure, we have the South Atlantic surveillance with us. Not Brazil, but the African coast can raise some security problems according Pentagon's genius.

Wouldn't things be better for you if Portugal made it's own decisions? Don't blame your country's indecision and related problems on somebody else, NATO or Little Green Monsters.

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

Wouldn't things be better for you if Portugal made it's own decisions?

Course not, specially for others

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

Wouldn't things be better for you if Portugal made it's own decisions?

Course not, specially for others

By others, he means weapons manufacturers.

Originally posted by Muttsfan:

By others, he means weapons manufacturers.

Reading my mind.
By the way, we also produce wonderful weaponry. I remember a friend returning from a trip to the States very shocked to see our G3 machine gun at some drugstore as the "Gun of the Week" promotion...

Originally posted by Belfrager:

G3 machine gun at some drugstore as the "Gun of the Week" promotion...

Only in America

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Course not, specially for others

Then NATO has nothing to do with Portugal's decision-making?

And, yes, we sell guns in drugstores, hospitals and elementary schools.

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Course not, specially for others

Then NATO has nothing to do with Portugal's decision-making?

And, yes, we sell guns in drugstores, hospitals and elementary schools.

That might explain a few things.

All I wanna do, is buy a gun
I know a twelve year old who says he'll sell me one.
All I wanna do, is buy a gun
I have a feeling the carnage has just begun

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

And, yes, we sell guns in drugstores, hospitals and elementary schools.

I said you sell guns, even machine guns, at drugstores and yes you do.
You are out of your mind about that fixation you have with my country, constantly attacking it.
Your problem, not mine.

Special note: I can't answer for states like Texas, where people appear to be almost crazy for gun ownership, but-- in most places I've been in, and that now includes most states except the New England states East of the Mississippi, I have yet to see guns sold in drugstores, hospitals or elementary schools. Not even in Michigan, comments by Jaybro to the contrary. If you want a gun,you either have to do it right and get proper documentation and buy through a licensed gun dealer, or you have to "know somebody who knows somebody" who will sell "under the table" and asks no questions. If you do the latter, then you're up to no good to begin with and the sooner you're busted the better off the rest of us are.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

And, yes, we sell guns in drugstores, hospitals and elementary schools.

I said you sell guns, even machine guns, at drugstores and yes you do.
You are out of your mind about that fixation you have with my country, constantly attacking it.
Your problem, not mine.

Who attacked Portugal?
It didn't make the news here.

Originally posted by tt92:

Who attacked Portugal?
It didn't make the news here.

It will, it takes time to things arrive there...

Originally posted by Belfrager:

You are out of your mind about that fixation you have with my country, constantly attacking it.
Your problem, not mine.Sic transit gloria mundi

Me!? Attack Portugal! That Spanish province!

Little Portugal that came kicking and screaming to democracy after the rest of the Western world had settled in? Salazar, we love you!

And you think we're the bad boys?

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

Me!? Attack Portugal! That Spanish province!

Little Portugal that came kicking and screaming to democracy after the rest of the Western world had settled in? Salazar, we love you!

And you think we're the bad boys?Sic transit Gloria mundi.
"Gloria threw up on the bus Monday."

And keep insisting...

For the sake of discussion, I have to post against Leftists, then I have to post against Atheists, then I have to post against Protestants, then I have to post against Northern Europeans, then I have to post against Chinese, then I have to post against homosexual cause, then I have to post against fast food, then I have to post against everything in general and I even have to post against rjhowie in particular.
Be patient, your time will come, until then just take your place at the queue...

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

Me!? Attack Portugal! That Spanish province!

Little Portugal that came kicking and screaming to democracy after the rest of the Western world had settled in? Salazar, we love you!

And you think we're the bad boys?Sic transit Gloria mundi.
"Gloria threw up on the bus Monday."

And keep insisting...

For the sake of discussion, I have to post against Leftists, then I have to post against Atheists, then I have to post against Protestants, then I have to post against Northern Europeans, then I have to post against Chinese, then I have to post against homosexual cause, then I have to post against fast food, then I have to post against everything in general and I even have to post against rjhowie in particular.
Be patient, your time will come, until then just take your place at the queue...

To simplify things just a wee bit--- it might be quicker if you started posting FOR something, just for a change. It sounds like the list of things you're against is a bit lengthy, so the list of things you're for should be somewhat shorter.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

To simplify things just a wee bit--- it might be quicker if you started posting FOR something, just for a change. It sounds like the list of things you're against is a bit lengthy, so the list of things you're for should be somewhat shorter.

Posting for, mjmsprt40? I enjoy to post against.
Posting for remembers me team work...
I prefer to be in my own. Against your suggestion if you don't mind

Well i am chuffed that mjsmsprt37 still includes me in the anti-list with the big spoon! I think with regards to poor Portugal it should follow Greece's lead and buy 400 tanks.........

Oh and I forgot Belfrager. You get steamed in to Jaybro as he brought up your old chum Dr Salazar that champion of Portugese democracy. Feel free laddie!

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Well i am chuffed that mjsmsprt37 still includes me in the anti-list with the big spoon! I think with regards to poor Portugal it should follow Greece's lead and buy 400 tanks.........

Don't get too awfully chuffed. I haven't included you in an anti-list at the moment, Belfrager seems to have the anti-lists pretty well taken care of for the moment. Personally, I'm for the Pentagon buying Romulan War-Birds. Think of it, some Al-Qaeda guy wants to start some trouble and all of a sudden a War-Bird decloaks outside his office window. I fancy he'd re-think the trouble he was about to make, eh?

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Don't get too awfully chuffed. I haven't included you in an anti-list at the moment, Belfrager seems to have the anti-lists pretty well taken care of for the moment. Personally, I'm for the Pentagon buying Romulan War-Birds. Think of it, some Al-Qaeda guy wants to start some trouble and all of a sudden a War-Bird decloaks outside his office window. I fancy he'd re-think the trouble he was about to make, eh?

I support this notion. I will contact the Romulan Envoy right away.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Well i am chuffed that mjsmsprt37 still includes me in the anti-list with the big spoon! I think with regards to poor Portugal it should follow Greece's lead and buy 400 tanks.........

I suppose that if Portugal did buy 400 American tanks it would be an improvement on the present state of armor there.

Ohh from American prairies to Scotland, Indians are revolting....

Shows how much you know. No riots and mayhem on our streets north of the Border. We can't say the same for Portugal. Considering you are in the same league as Irelandand Greece you should weigh up before firing blanks. If anyone attacked Portugal the attackers would win as you cannot afford to do much!

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

...Personally, I'm for the Pentagon buying Romulan War-Birds...

That is a really tasty idea. Much as I dislike selling war materiel in general, I might like this. But then I think about the fact that the people in the pentagon are average, fallible humans. So ... maybe if I got a Romulan ship and nobody else did...

Originally posted by aefields:

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

...Personally, I'm for the Pentagon buying Romulan War-Birds...

That is a really tasty idea. Much as I dislike selling war materiel in general, I might like this. But then I think about the fact that the people in the pentagon are average, fallible humans. So ... maybe if I got a Romulan ship and nobody else did...

I'm sure the Klingons would be happy to sell ships to the other side

Originally posted by Macallan:

I'm sure the Klingons would be happy to sell ships to the other side

That must be TOS Klingons. I think TNG and later Klingons would rather fight you to the death than sell you anything.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Originally posted by Macallan:

I'm sure the Klingons would be happy to sell ships to the other side

That must be TOS Klingons. I think TNG and later Klingons would rather fight you to the death than sell you anything.

But your enemy's enemy is the one you sell your outdated crap to

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Indians are revolting....

That's not nice! Some of my best friends are Indians.

Originally posted by Macallan:

But your enemy's enemy is the one you sell your outdated crap to

Oh, outdated crap. Well, I suppose Klingons tolerate some parasites, especially if they're sort of helpful.

Originally posted by Macallan:

But your enemy's enemy is the one you sell your outdated crap to

I bet the Ferengi can offer us a better price.

That's good you have friends Jaybro but don't remind them of the cavalry.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

That's good you have friends Jaybro but don't remind them of the cavalry.

I thought that they had a particular good time with general Custer at Little Bighorn.

Jaybro in full regalia.

It can now be revealed!

Jaybro has friends--- Hey, I'm half Chippewa if the lies told to me have any bearing in truth. (I consider the source--- my aunt wasn't exactly known for being truthful on a lot of things, and both my aunt and my mother were adopted at a time when records were sealed and it became near impossible to go back and find who their birth family actually was.)

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Jaybro has friends--- Hey, I'm half Chippewa if the lies told to me have any bearing in truth.

You look indian enough for my money!

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Jaybro has friends--- Hey, I'm half Chippewa if the lies told to me have any bearing in truth.

You look indian enough for my money!

Is this the money to which you refer?

Originally posted by tt92:

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Jaybro has friends--- Hey, I'm half Chippewa if the lies told to me have any bearing in truth.

You look indian enough for my money!

Is this the money to which you refer?

oh the irony of the "liberty" tag on the right of his head. If only they knew what was coming....

Originally posted by Muttsfan:

If only they knew what was coming....

Indians had their moment of glory. European ladies were thrilled at Buffalo Bill's Circus European tour. Seeing the savages...
I don't know who were the savages, the Indians or Buffalo Bill...

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Originally posted by Muttsfan:

If only they knew what was coming....

Indians had their moment of glory. European ladies were thrilled at Buffalo Bill's Circus European tour. Seeing the savages...
I don't know who were the savages, the Indians or Buffalo Bill...

or the ladies.

Originally posted by tt92:

or the ladies.

You are talking about your grand mother, tt92, show some respect...

I liked Chief Sitting Bull. Custer was vane and over the top and sadly helped kill a lot of men. Reno and Bentine's men were the fortunates?

Originally posted by Muttsfan:

Originally posted by Macallan:

But your enemy's enemy is the one you sell your outdated crap to

I bet the Ferengi can offer us a better price.

Of course, but am I going to trust a Ferengi??? I'll buy my outdated crap from the source. Mmmmh, that sounds worse than I meant it to be.

Gee a touch of Indian mjsmsprt37? Goodness, if you'd lived way back then you would have been in a quandry? Somehow I couldn't see you as a scout?

Better to put your wagons in circle rjhowie, lot of Indians around.

Well I have always had a compasion for the Indians after the way the Ex-Colonists treated them. So I will practice squatting and murmouring "how" with an arm upraised and parly with the Chicago Indians.....

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Gee a touch of Indian mjsmsprt37? Goodness, if you'd lived way back then you would have been in a quandry? Somehow I couldn't see you as a scout?

Why not? These days I make my living by going to places I've never been before, so being part of a scouting party might fit right in.

Maybe not actually in Chicago someone might think I am eccentric. You will have an excuse livingn there?

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Maybe not actually in Chicago someone might think I am eccentric.

Hard to believe. What's the world coming to?

Hhhm. Beginning to have wonders about that Jaybro as such a claim has been echoed by friends here.

I don't know if anyone has noticed, with the referendum news that the Greek government has surprised the EU, that the three chiefs in command of the army, marine and air force were demitted. Official explanation that it was normal, reaching the end of their mandates.

To anyone paying attention this is called an attempt of coup d'état being stopped. And this is really big news. Huge news.
So, are the tanks already operational or what?

Originally posted by Belfrager:

I don't know if anyone has noticed, with the referendum news that the Greek government has surprised the EU, that the three chiefs in command of the army, marine and air force were demitted. Official explanation that it was normal, reaching the end of their mandates.

To anyone paying attention this is called an attempt of coup d'état being stopped. And this is really big news. Huge news.
So, are the tanks already operational or what?

I don't know about the tanks, but a link to the story would have been helpful. A coup is big news, but that's not what the story in the Telegraph indicated was afoot. This sounds more like the embattled premier trying to consolidate his power by surprise changes-- which, incidentally aren't going over very well at home or abroad. He's in a lot of trouble, no two ways about it, and it will take a trifle more than 400 tanks to help him. See link below.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/8863728/Greek-military-leadership-changes-spark-opposition-outcry.html

Never rely on British opinion about nothing mjmsprt40.
I can guarantee you that at Southern Europeans states you don't change military commands abruptly if not for a very good reason to. That kind of changes is always prepared many months before, because there are many different internal "sensibilities" that you have to deal with, not "20 days" as the Greek minister of defense said that it was decided and are never an entire change of leaderships. Smoothness is the policy. If not, it's because something urgent requires extreme measures before too late.

That the prime minister is in a lot of trouble, that you're absolutely right.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Never rely on British opinion about nothing mjmsprt40.
I can guarantee you that at Southern Europeans states you don't change military commands abruptly if not for a very good reason to. That kind of changes is always prepared many months before, because there are many different internal "sensibilities" that you have to deal with, not "20 days" as the Greek minister of defense said that it was decided and are never an entire change of leaderships. Smoothness is the policy. If not, it's because something urgent requires extreme measures before too late.

That the prime minister is in a lot of trouble, that you're absolutely right.

OK, you don't like the British opinion, and I can guess that even if I find something in the US press that won't be up to standards either. So, how about a link so we can trace this down? Otherwise, all we have is your say-so, and we have to try and figure out if your say-so is as reliable as the British press. Sources, sources, sources. My kingdom for a source.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

OK, you don't like the British opinion, and I can guess that even if I find something in the US press that won't be up to standards either. So, how about a link so we can trace this down? Otherwise, all we have is your say-so, and we have to try and figure out if your say-so is as reliable as the British press. Sources, sources, sources. My kingdom for a source.

Do you understand that what is really important, you don't have sources? no links, nothing, zero, nada. No one to explain you the situation.
You've to rely at your interpretation and experience, then you speak with people that are well aware of this problems and it will either confirm or negate your analysis. And so for, the process continues.
Basically you've got to think with your own head just with signals, broken information, rumors and camouflage information.
That's how things are...

This is all a fantastic misunderstanding. See the true story here:
http://www.cafepress.co.uk/+greece+womens-tank-tops

Well, perhaps not. Seriously folks, floating among all the fatuous comments here, is but one unassuming, quiet, and correct warning from OakdaleFTL:

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

"Tanks, but no tanks!" The only use Greece could have for tanks is a Tienanmen Square-type incident… I suspect (hope!) that the Russian example will prevail, among the professional soldiers.

With Greece on the verge of collapse, with the history of Greece in the last century, with examples from all over the world about what happens when the current internal order is threatened, only one of these commentators knows against whom those tanks are to be used. I guess it needs spelling out. They are to be used against the Greeks.

Let's see... British sources won't do, American sources are suspect, let's see what the Greeks have to say about it.

http://www.athensnews.gr/portal/8/49916

Hmmm..... This seems to tie in with what the Telegraph had to say. Next, Reuters:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/02/us-greece-govt-military-idUSTRE7A11RP20111102

Hmmm... more confirmation of the Telegraph piece.

In fact, every major news source I see indicates the prime minister was trying to stack the deck before he gets ousted in a lack-of-confidence vote. No sign of a military coup being planned, but plenty of sign of the prime minister being up to no good.

For further details, see here, now.

Ok, mjmsprt40, if you insist on your "linkage" obsession, I can't do nothing. I hope you comprehend that you'll be just approaching the superficial layer of reality.

Just one more observation, many times serious revolutions happens exactly a few days, weeks or a couple of months after something unusual has happened. Sometimes after a failed attempt of insubordination, sometimes after the dismissal of the entire military leaderships... and it doesn't come with previous links to sources announcing it.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Ok, mjmsprt40, if you insist on your "linkage" obsession, I can't do nothing. I hope you comprehend that you'll be just approaching the superficial layer of reality.

Just one more observation, many times serious revolutions happens exactly a few days, weeks or a couple of months after something unusual has happened. Sometimes after a failed attempt of insubordination, sometimes after the dismissal of the entire military leaderships... and it doesn't come with previous links to sources announcing it.

Maybe. But, some kind of official source does give something a little more solid than "Some guy on a forum said----".

Example: Suppose I say that Mayor Rahm Emmanuel, of Chicago, has two heads. Are you going to take my word for it, or will you (a) request sources and (b) look up sources yourself? If you take my word for it, I can probably sell you anything. If you demand proof, I might have a harder time convincing you that the mayor of Chicago has two heads.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Maybe. But, some kind of official source does give something a little more solid than "Some guy on a forum said----".

Course not, I told that you have to analyze facts by your own head, when wanting to know what's happening regarding real important things.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Example: Suppose I say that Mayor Rahm Emmanuel, of Chicago, has two heads. Are you going to take my word for it, or will you (a) request sources and (b) look up sources yourself? If you take my word for it, I can probably sell you anything. If you demand proof, I might have a harder time convincing you that the mayor of Chicago has two heads.

Well, I'm speaking about possible signals of major happenings in Greece, you answer me with a two headed American Mayor as an example...
This is becoming surrealist, and the funniest thing is that you don't realize it, instead you're using the best of your patience to explain me... and I'm doing the same...
I like when conversations becomes like this, "dadaistic"...
I really do, not being ironical.

A politician with 2 heads? It is bad enough for such to have one.

It is commonly the second that brings him the most political trouble.

Maybe thinking back to the tanks (anyone remember them? Maybe the Greeks are worried in case the USA attacks them? Well it does tour the world looking for a fight. A good excuse would be them helping to cause more finacial woes. Hey Belfrager you watch your backs too and keep training your soldiers!

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Maybe thinking back to the tanks (anyone remember them? Maybe the Greeks are worried in case the USA attacks them? Well it does tour the world looking for a fight. A good excuse would be them helping to cause more finacial woes. Hey Belfrager you watch your backs too and keep training your soldiers!

Howie, I doubt that the Greeks, the Portuguese or, for that matter, any European powers need to be worried about the US picking a fight with them. Our interests are tied up elsewhere at the moment.

In other news: I hear the Russians have come up with flying tanks. Now, that's something to fear. See below.

Interesting answer there mjsmsprt40 but I do hope that Jaybro was being naughty in saying what happened in his State. That would be very negative. If I were you Belfrager I would declare war on the USA. They are stretched militarily so you have an advantage?

For what? Do they have anything worthwhile for looting?
Besides, I don't accept their Monopoly's money for paying the war costs.

Hhhm. On hindsight Belfrager you do have a point. They are in the pawnbrokers - especially the Red Chinese one (!), the place is falling apart, politically it is deeply flawed and divided. You would be wasting good Portugese men of war for little return! Iberian common sense I reckon?

There is an undercurrent in Greece that is anti-German and it simmers from time to time in reports during this debacle going on in the country. But then Germany confiscated Greek bank money during the war.

Wasn't Germany instructed after WW2 to give Greece the requvilant of $41,000,000 in form of compensation? Why wasn't this done?

The Greek government denied that there will be a supply of 400 used tanks from the U.S. October 11, 2011 |
Army The Greek government denied that there will be a supply of 400 used tanks from the U.S. The reports are not true, said the government spokesman Mr. Mosialos in a statement. “There is no deal, there are no thoughts to acquire 400 tanks, as the publications suggest, there will be no new burdens on the state budget. Categorical denial: there is no such thing”, concludes the statement.
http://www.defencegreece.com/index.php/2011/10/the-greek-government-denied-that-there-will-be-a-supply-of-400-used-tanks-from-the-u-s/

If Greece changes it's mind, the Chinese will lend it the $$$. Or the

Thanks, I'd missed that follow-up.

So... it seems that after all this was nothing but rumors... spreading rumors over decent people...
Who opened the "Greece to Buy 400 American Tanks" thread?
Ahhh, Frenzie... The Flying Dutchman...

And another bunch of clever cookies the Dutch. We even asked them to invade us once!

Originally posted by Belfrager:

So... it seems that after all this was nothing but rumors... spreading rumors over decent people...
Who opened the "Greece to Buy 400 American Tanks" thread?
Ahhh, Frenzie... The Flying Dutchman...

The source was the same Defence Greece site.

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

If Greece changes it's mind, the Chinese will lend it the $$$. Or the

Yup. They'll just take the Parthenon as collateral. Hell, they'll probably even loan us money for our military. We can just offer up the Statue of Liberty. Who really needs that anyway?

Originally posted by Inscription on Statue of Liberty:

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses, yearning to breath free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest tossed,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

Such liberal/communist/socialist/fascist BS!

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Wasn't Germany instructed after WW2 to give Greece the requvilant of $41,000,000 in form of compensation? Why wasn't this done?

I didn't know about this until you mentioned it, but at 3% interest per year, it would be 95,000,0000,000 now.

476 million reichsmarks lent against its will to Germany by the Greek National Bank during the war. If this were to be considered a form of war damage, then in principle it would be subject to reparation — except that according to the 1990 treaty, Germany would not have to pay it.

Yes it would be a tidy sum and there is still much feeling re the Germans internally in Greece,

Must say that veing reminded of that original Liberty declaration shows that there was a sense of (unintended?) humour even in the old days?

Originally posted by rjhowie:

And another bunch of clever cookies the Dutch. We even asked them to invade us once!

I'd suggest a U.S. invasion, but we're in as bad a state as you folks are. We'd go down the tube with you.

Initially, we wanted to sell the tanks to Cuba, but it pointed out that they'd have no way to get them to Florida, at which point we offered them a fleet of heavy landing vessels. The quick response was Yankee No!

They just don't like us, kinda like Scotland, Zambia, Kenya, and others of that ilk. Go figure.

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

Initially, we wanted to sell the tanks to Cuba, but it pointed out that they'd have no way to get them to Florida, at which point we offered them a fleet of heavy landing vessels. The quick response was Yankee No!

What if the tanks are delivered to Florida where they'll pick 'em up themselves?

Jaybro, you could sell them to your pals in Ireland as long as you expolain what they are and nothing to do with fish?

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Jaybro, you could sell them to your pals in Ireland as long as you expolain what they are and nothing to do with fish?

Brotherton is an English name, sir.

I only eat buffalo on Friday.

Well the origin of your name is a saving grace for you over there Jaybro. As for us going down together it is far worse for you lot as you have no Welfare State. You'll therefor be first then. And you are certainly right about rhe number of places that are "anti". They are increasing all the time. You surely must be slipping having no-one down for invading. Hhhm, definitelty slipping.

Are things just fine when a welfare state goes down the tube? You recall the Great Slump, do you not?

Welfare state during the 1930s In the 1920s and 1930s, Britain had a relatively advanced welfare system compared to many of the industrialised countries. In 1911, a compulsory national unemployment and health insurance scheme had been put in place by the Liberal government of Herbert Henry Asquith (see Liberal reforms). This scheme had been funded through contributions from the government, the employers and the workers. At first, the scheme only applied to certain trades but, in 1920, it was expanded to include most manual workers.[4] However, the scheme only paid out according to the level of contributions made rather than according to need, and was only payable for 15 weeks. Anyone unemployed for longer than that had to rely on poor law relief paid by their local authority. In effect, millions of workers who had been too poorly paid to make contributions, or who had been unemployed long term, were left destitute by the scheme. With the mass unemployment of the 1930s, contributions to the insurance scheme dried up, resulting in a funding crisis. In August 1931, the 1911 scheme was replaced by a fully government-funded unemployment benefit system.[8] This system, for the first time, paid out according to need rather than the level of contributions. This unemployment benefit was subject to a strict means test, and anyone applying for unemployment pay had to have an inspection by a government official to make sure that they had no hidden earnings or savings, undisclosed source(s) of income or other means of support. For many poor people, this was a humiliating experience and was much resented.

Unless the bottom totally shreds, I'll do just fine with my retirement benefits and Social Security payment. Failing that I'll starve along with my British friends.

The Welfare State will not go down the tubes Jaybro and you are making a desperate attempt to kind of detract from the utter misery in your own country.

Here you don't need a private insurance nor a credit card to see your GP, consultant, find a job with health care (then discover the small print!) or go into hospital and that will continue because it is so much part of the country and every single political party supports it. Look at the mess in America over health care. Damnable. On the other hand you have a worse situation than us even if things do go awry. In America a million a year losing homes, no payments on SS after a while, fraud in the Mortgage business in big scales, 40 million too poor to afford medical care, the proportion food stamps issuing going up. The middle classs people ending up like beggars in legions, in pawn to Red China. You are well ahead whatever 2012 brings and we can thank your corporate/military dicatorship that really runs the country.

The two lands are completely different so don't think the situations are equal even proportionally because they are not. I say as I always have that being poor in America is far worse than here. Americans may sneer at the Welfare State concept but look at your own situation in not having one and the widespread and worsening despair.

Difficult to respond to because you're committed to matters so distant from you. Of course there are problems here. It's a large country, and I'm remote from the things that you so confidently pontificate on.

The middle class in pawn to China? What could that mean? I'm in that class and not in pawn to anybody. There are tens of millions like me, and there's nothing extraordinary about me.

What is poverty? Who defines it? In the UK the government does:
"There are basically three current definitions of poverty in common usage: absolute poverty, relative poverty and social exclusion.

Absolute poverty is defined as the lack of sufficient resources with which to keep body and soul together.
Relative poverty defines income or resources in relation to the average. It is concerned with the absence of the material needs to participate fully in accepted daily life.
Social exclusion is a new term used by the Government. The Prime Minister described social exclusion as "…a shorthand label for what can happen when individuals or areas suffer from a combination of linked problems such as unemployment, poor skills, low incomes, poor housing, high crime environments, bad health and family breakdown".
House of Commons Scottish Affairs Committee [16]"

Percentage of people living below 60% median income:
 Sweden 12.3%
 Germany 13.1%
 France 14.1%
 United Kingdom 21.8%
 United States 23.8%

It seems that we're not far apart. Unhealthy numbers. What is it about English speaking countries?
..............
You might take a peek at http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/file.php/3753/!via/oucontent/course/555/povertyinscotland.pdf

It speaks of complexity, thereby avoiding your simplistic biases. You do love to bash the U.S., don't you? Inferiority complex? Glandular disorder?

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

Difficult to respond to because you're committed to matters so distant from you. Of course there are problems here. It's a large country, and I'm remote from the things that you so confidently pontificate on.

The middle class in pawn to China? What could that mean? I'm in that class and not in pawn to anybody. There are tens of millions like me, and there's nothing extraordinary about me.

What is poverty? Who defines it? In the UK the government does:
"There are basically three current definitions of poverty in common usage: absolute poverty, relative poverty and social exclusion.

Absolute poverty is defined as the lack of sufficient resources with which to keep body and soul together.
Relative poverty defines income or resources in relation to the average. It is concerned with the absence of the material needs to participate fully in accepted daily life.
Social exclusion is a new term used by the Government. The Prime Minister described social exclusion as "…a shorthand label for what can happen when individuals or areas suffer from a combination of linked problems such as unemployment, poor skills, low incomes, poor housing, high crime environments, bad health and family breakdown".
House of Commons Scottish Affairs Committee [16]"

Percentage of people living below 60% median income:
 Sweden 12.3%
 Germany 13.1%
 France 14.1%
 United Kingdom 21.8%
 United States 23.8%

It seems that we're not far apart. Unhealthy numbers. What is it about English speaking countries?
..............
You might take a peek at http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/file.php/3753/!via/oucontent/course/555/povertyinscotland.pdf

It speaks of complexity, thereby avoiding your simplistic biases. You do love to bash the U.S., don't you? Inferiority complex? Glandular disorder?

Ignorance, mean-spiritedness

Thanks. I forgot those.

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

You might take a peek at http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/file.php/3753/!via/oucontent/course/555/povertyinscotland.pdf

Glasgow in particular has majorly bad numbers

On the plus side, looks like you can get a decent house for cheap, there. Only 50,000 GBP (~77,000 USD) for a large house...must be all the people moving out that's making homes so cheap.

Well it doesn't stop you amongst others doing exactly the same thing here Jaybro. Pot calling the proverbial, black.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Well it doesn't stop you amongst others doing exactly the same thing here Jaybro. Pot calling the proverbial, black.

I don't think so. Which country have I denigrated? Silliness in extrimis, Sir.

Poking at an entire country is just plain goofy, and you do it all the time. It's no skin off my sainted ass, though. Stew in your ignorance.

Well now, considering that you occasionaly stick in wee links or comments about Gt Britain or to the point, Scotland you really should control your own examples of things about a whole country. It makes a joke of you trying to disdain when you pracice such yourself. So maybe try to control your own ignorance when trying to deal with those you accuse of the same thing. That way you will look genuinely intelligent not clutching at invisible straws.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Well now, considering that you occasionaly stick in wee links or comments about Gt Britain or to the point, Scotland you really should control your own examples of things about a whole country.

Indeed I do, but please notice when I do that...always in response to some derogatory remark that you make about my country. If I've done it elsewhere, please show me.

I've said nothing ill of GB in general because I've nothing to say. You've had your worse days, while we're still manufacturing ours. And, sad to say, they show no end in sight. We're "leaving" Iraq and still mired in the muck of Afghanistan. Left behind will be 150 troops to guard the embassy.

The final convoy of US troops left Iraq a few minutes before 8 am on Sunday, Dec. 19, 2011, marking the end of the nine-year US-Iraq War. 16,000 people are scheduled to remain at the US State Department's embassy in Baghdad and other consulates throughout Iraq. The remaining US presence includes 5,000 security contractors, and 1,700 diplomats and experts in agriculture, economics, and law enforcement. The Baghdad embassy, the largest US embassy in the world, is estimated to cost the United States $3.5 billion a year.

Odd sort of "leaving", eh?

And by jingo there is much to degenerate! I am as it happens, well aware of the private security system in Iraq. It always is part of the US empirical military/coroporate pwer that runs the ex-Colonies. Unfortunately Jaybro the dollar and bullet has replaced once fine ideals. How can a land with so many decent people end up in the quagmire and need to want to rule the world?

Originally posted by rjhowie:

How can a land with so many decent people end up in the quagmire and need to want to rule the world?

I'm puzzled by "rule the world". Whatever does that mean? Canada, Mexico, the UK, all of Europe? Who did I miss? Oh, China, Japan, India, Australia. Troops are landing as I type!

Methinks you hyperventilate a bit too much.

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

Originally posted by rjhowie:

How can a land with so many decent people end up in the quagmire and need to want to rule the world?

I'm puzzled by "rule the world". Whatever does that mean? Canada, Mexico, the UK, all of Europe? Who did I miss? Oh, China, Japan, India, Australia. Troops are landing as I type!

Methinks you hyperventilate a bit too much.

You forgot about the carrier group off of the West coast of Scotland. Marines are landing in Glasgow as I post this.

Well if it was your Marines they wouldn't last long here. I reckon the Glasgow Scouts or The Boys' Brigade would have them "greetin". You have some nerve considering the spy planes, the robot planes for taking people out, flying where you are not wanted and so on. Obama beats Bush for clandestine stuff and he is supposed to be more liberal. Yeah tell that to the Marines as they say but before they land in my city and don't get back home! Whole you lot are creating trouble the Russians are slowly going somewhere and maybe you could do with a re-look?

Regarding ruling the world mjmsprt40, I would remind that you have 200 odd military places around the globe. The usual excuse is "security". Even when it covers places that can't reach you. Why does one country in the world spend half the planet's military bill? It is the No when it comes to destablishing countries that are the "enemy" or invade them if that doesn't work. It will be interesing to see the answer to facts rather than skirting round hyper ventelating. Explain these facts please?

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Why does one country in the world spend half the planet's military bill?

Because, much more than the rest of the world, they use it for driving their economy. Stop doing it and they would collapse economically.
It's also useful for paying to thousands and thousands of politicians, generals and such.
That's the main reason why they need to be constantly inventing menaces all over the world.

The second reason is that being able to maintain their position of world leadership without expressing it by military means is a way too subtle idea for their collective mind.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Obama beats Bush for clandestine stuff and he is supposed to be more liberal.
................
when it comes destablishing countries that are the "enemy" or invade them if that doesn't work.

Wherever did you get the idea that Obama is liberal? Have you been reading Republican press releases?

More importantly, though, a reminder:

The 2003 invasion of Iraq (March 19–May 1, 2003), was the start of the conflict known as the Iraq War, or Operation Iraqi Freedom, in which a combined force of troops from the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and Poland invaded Iraq and toppled the regime of Saddam Hussein in 21 days of major combat operations.

I know....you were hoodwinked.

It was a major act of stupidity, but we weren't alone.

No you weren't alone but sticking to the point all the yak was that Obama was going to be distant from the Bush fiasco. Do away with your would-be concentration camp in Cuba, clandestine stuff, controlling military tribunals instead of normal legal procedures and none has been true and he is your Demoraic love-in leader. You neatly try to sidestep by throwing in why anyone would think he was a liberal.

Considering his promises that is what he amounted to compared to "W" who has been roundly condemned for much yet the Chicago yawn is just the same. Choices? You have none over there with the 2 parties doing a closed shop. And the continuing eradication of rights and privacy are going on in his latest security law. Trouble with the devil and the deep blue sea there is nothing inbetween to cling on to.