You may be right about the people's support. But there will never be a better time than now, with the huge ratings Bush enjoys. And Saddam is very dangerous.
Another prdiction... Bush will NOT get the support from the people for half a million young men and women to invade Iraq, UNLESS, we are severely provoked.
Bush is building a cause for us to enter. Why do you think he called them the Axis of Evil? He's trying to get them to do something stupid so we have an excuse to attack them, even though they may not have had anything to do with 9/11.
We can't sit around and wait for tragedies like those that happened in Pearl Harbor and New York City. I'd be more than happy to give my life for my country. It's freedom that matters the most.
I think -- HOPE -- that we're too smart for another Vietnam. Saddam bears watching, and our intel agencies have been emasculated. And I don't care much for coalitions.
Even most Middle Eastern countries recognize how dangerous Iraq is. They may not want the U.S. to be the one to take care of it, but nobody else will.
Just the amount of increase in Bush's military budget exceeds what other nations spend on their armies and navies, in total.
The next 14 countries combined can't match what we alone currently shell out on "defense".
Forget, for the moment, the havoc Washington's fresh hawkishness will raise with civilian programs and priorities, the decimation of which (due to lack of funding) will undermine our national security far more than either terrorists or any foreign armed threat ever possibly could.
What about veterans?
Is there any corresponding outlay -- any proposal -- to properly take care of the countless vets with special needs that "permanent war" will surely generate?
Remember Agent Orange exposure and Gulf War Syndrome? Isn't it likely the future will see similar "surprises"?
Lots of loot for the munitions makers and manufacturers of ridiculous, high-priced redundancy.
But what for the ex-soldiers turned street people, of tomorrow?
The military has blank check, they spend to meet or exceed the budget. If you don't spend what's budgeted, you don't get the money next time around. We need to get rid of the old budget system and get real in the military budget. I've seen first hand what a crock the military finance system is. While I was in I spent about 2 million tax dollars personally. It was for things the ship needed, but I was forced to use a "government contractor" which costed me about two times more than I could have shopped around for locally. Still, it is better than the days of the $25 hammers.
O.K here's a scary moment in time.Dennis I actially agree with your last post. There is way too much waste in the military when it comes to govt. contracts etc. the money doesn't go many times where it's supposed too. It reminds me alot of school districts etc that are wasting and or losing money.(My district can't find 200,000 ?) Proof once again that govt. cannot handle money better then we can,, but a private mercinary armed force is not an option. But it doesn't mean that we should de-fund it. Going back to the Kennedy admin we spent almost 46% of our national budget on defense, it is now around 14% and will go up to 16-17% under Bush. That's a plain and stark fact. I am not saying we should go back to 46% at all, not even close. But the military is easily gutted and cut during peace time and a favorite place to take money from and make cuts to and usually popular with the left. That's all fine and good until you need it. I realize that you are opposed to our actions all toghether, that's a whole other argument. But that aside I would like to point out one thing. Why is it that we have been able to wage our last few campaigns ie: Gulf War and Afghanistan with lower U.S or allied casualties ? Because of the money invested in technology. Aircraft mainly but many other areas a well where technology has saved not only U.S lives but civilians as well. I know you despise our actions and have pointed out the civilian deaths. Yes they are sad no doubt, but how many more would have been killed without investing in technology ? Thousands Dennis, thousands. If we employed the technology that Russia or China currently have not only would more civilians die but more of our troops as well. What price do you put on it ? cut out all govt waste ? You bet ! Defund the miltiary more ? No, it risks our troops life but also civilians caught up in this as well. Our vets deserve better treatment and benefits, no doubt.
As someone who will be a Vet someday, I appreciate your efforts. I have been fortunate to not have any Gulf War symptoms, many in my old unit I keep up with have had symptoms. Personally I think it was from the anti chem drugs they gave us that were "safe" and brand new. they never told us what we were taking and had no choice in the matter. But of course as usual they aren't saying and need to "do more study" Gee, Where have we heard that before ? Looking ahead I will look at my benefits the same way I do Social Security. I will look at it as gravy, I will not plan on it being a major contributor to my finances. If it's there, great. I am getting short now and I am probalby not going to re-up again in the resreves which will put me 4 short of my 20. I'd like to stick it out but it's harder and harder with my family and work. 4 more seems pretty tough in my situation and the growing frustration within the military, not to mention the Mrs. It is getting better with Bush and morale in the full timers is better from those I talk too. I realize you are not a big fan of his but I was wondering, I know that active (mainly F/T) are seeing improvmements under Bush, but from what you're saying it sounds to me like the vets aren't seeing any better treatment than his predecessor, is this true ? What about the new vets bill ? Where is that at ?
I'm convinced we have precious few enemies in this world that we haven't engendered ourselves through an incredible, staggeringly arrogant belief that it's our divine duty to impose on virtually all of civilization OUR political and economic attitudes, and cultural values.
What that amounts to, in day-to-day real terms in a thousand and one places across the planet, is a degree of self-serving interventionism that exceeds anything humankind has previously known.
Doing this is massively wrong simply from the moral and legal impropriety of being astonishingly dismissive of other people's rights to be free of overbearing superpower interference.
But it's doubly wrong because -- as the rampant and pervasive decay of our own society shows -- our "model" is unworthy of imposition on anyone!
I've increasingly taken to reading the more and more militaristic pronouncements of the Bush administration with a Third World outlook of what it all means to the invariably darker-skinned peoples who -- by virtue of daring to deviate from the Washington/Wall St. line that's being forced on them -- will come to be called "terrorists" and "rogues" and have all that tax money (diverted from domestic U.S. needs) dropped or launched upon them in the lethal form of the latest high-tech weaponry.
You will kill me, and my family, my countrymen...just because we take the democratic option (which you profess to exemplify!) to find alternatives to your pushy insistence -- your hypocritical unwillingness to see free and sovereign decisions result in something outside your cookie-cutter mold -- in politics, economy, religion, cultural assumptions, etc.
Looking at it from that perspective, all I can see in American foreign policy is racism and monopoly-capitalist imperialism. You use my people's lifeblood, and our native riches, to engorge yourselves, leaving us only dependency and debt.
And multitudes of dead civilians if we dare to resist.
The United States is garnering the deepening enmity of humanity's most volatile, and ultimately pivotally decisive, demographic.
The wretched of the earth.
We'd better get smart, and change our ways, because we can't win this "war" in the end.
We're outnumbered, and history's drift is flowing against us.
Besides, it'll leave our streets littered with the human flotsam and jetsom of veterans struggling with the horrors they took part in, for lied about reasons, just as in Vietnam.
It's a wrong and unworthy thing to do to kids still in high school, who haven't a clue about what awaits them under Bush's permanent war.
Resorting to Red baiting, or outlandish portrayals of the supposed evils of Islamic, this, that or the other fundamental nature of "enemies" Washington and Wall Street are propagandistically likely to use to get the kids sitting across our supper tables today to fight in dirty wars for the rich tomorrow...is THE best way to assure that veterans, who never should have wrongly served in bad causes, will languish, underfunded and unattended, in inadequate hospitals and homes in the future.
58,000 of our sons and daughters died in Vietnam.
But how many were actually killed, whether by subsequent crushed spirit and suicides, via fatal substance abuse, or through ultimately lethal neglect?
The prospect of that happening again (and how can it not in a permanent war against a TACTIC?!) should spur every one of us to examine all aspects of everything that's at stake, from every angle, and to absolutely verify that what Bush, or whomever, is proposing -- is actually necessary, and sustainably just.
"Not with my child, you don't!" should be our unified expression.
Unless the powers that be can prove that there's some valid, true, national-defense reason for our children possibly winding up homeless on the streets -- if they return from overseas at all! -- haunted by horrible flashbacks that nothing can drive away.
If ships or aircraft of a specific, identifiable nation actually attacked American territory, or our military forces legitimately located overseas (and here we could get into differences about what constitutes "legitimate")...and if our president could win Congressional approval for a declaration of war -- that'd be a just basis.
Engaging in a constant, self-serving policing of the world for the benefit of our multinational corporations is NOT a proper reason for basing our forces all over the planet.
Utilizing the events of 9/11 to opportunistically launch a hegemonistic drive to assert U.S. dominance internationally -- for the crassest commercial gain and profit -- is wrong, and ultimately profoundly self-defeating.
Remove imperialism completely from the picture.
Forget about being world cop.
Concentrate on actual defense.
Save scads of money, which could be diverted to domestic social needs that, if underfunded for any great length of time, will damage our essential security more than any foreign "enemy" ever would.
Peace, not war, as the foundation of our foreign policy and our central, guiding philosophy.
This isn't either uptopian, idealistic or naive...but something entirely consistent with the imperatives humanity faces in this millennium.
SEC. 4. (a) In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced--
(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation; the president shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth--
(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.
(b) The President shall provide such other information as the Congress may request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities with respect to committing the Nation to war and to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad
(c) Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into any situation described in subsection (a) of this section, the President shall, so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in such hostilities or situation, report to the Congress periodically on the status of such hostilities or situation as well as on the scope and duration of such hostilities or situation, but in no event shall he report to the Congress less often than once every six months.
---
My opinion?
Even though this legislation was enacted in the aftermath of Vietnam to prevent unchecked presidential commitment of our forces into folly, it's not a sufficient safeguard against abuse, especially when you have an "imperial presidency" and intensely manipulated patriotic fervor such as many argue Bush is utilizing at the moment, to try to aggress Iraq.
I would hope someone in Congress would find the balls to insist on an actual war declaration debate if it really, truly looks like Dubya's going to do fullscale battle with the Iraqi people and nation (no, I won't say "with Saddam", because that's a big part of the false rationale that would be used to try to justify it).
I simply don't see how we could possibly make a justifiable, legal case for attacking Iraq in the absence of some prior, quite dramatic hostility on their part.
The fact that Saddam is nasty won't cut it.
Neither does the fact that they have weapons of mass-destructive capability. (Are we serious in implicitly asserting that we alone can have arsenals of such weaponry?)
If we go in with guns blazing and bombs falling, out of the blue, we'll have NO backing at all in crucial quarters of the world.
What really scares me is that Bush knows that, and will try to fabricate some Tonkin Gulf-style provocation, ballyhooed to the hilt, and swallowed by a domestic citizenry still pumped over the events of last Sept.
By the time the truth came out, the Middle East would be on fire.
Truly spooky, dangerous stuff is coming out of George II's mind and mouth.
BTW JT I like the tag line, what's that from ?. One of my favorite Cartman lines was similar. I belive it was "goddamn I hate french people, they piss me off"
Maybe THX has one of those oh so ugly but coveted olympic beret's that the masses are apperantly clamoring for, those french love their berets you know. They want it THX and will stop at nothing to get it. I thought their were Czech's following me one time but it turned out to be the cops.
This board is a good idea, Bill.
You may be right about the people's support. But there will never be a better time than now, with the huge ratings Bush enjoys. And Saddam is very dangerous.
Bill, what is the definition of "veteran?" My fiance never fought in battle but he served in the Army for three years.
Good -- thanks!
Another prdiction... Bush will NOT get the support from the people for half a million young men and women to invade Iraq, UNLESS, we are severely provoked.
We have been provoked. Remember September 11?
We have been provoked. Remember September 11?
Bush is building a cause for us to enter. Why do you think he called them the Axis of Evil? He's trying to get them to do something stupid so we have an excuse to attack them, even though they may not have had anything to do with 9/11.
There is some evidence, based on what some former government employees have suad, that Iraq was involved in the 1993 WTC bombing.
We can't sit around and wait for tragedies like those that happened in Pearl Harbor and New York City. I'd be more than happy to give my life for my country. It's freedom that matters the most.
I think -- HOPE -- that we're too smart for another Vietnam. Saddam bears watching, and our intel agencies have been emasculated. And I don't care much for coalitions.
Even most Middle Eastern countries recognize how dangerous Iraq is. They may not want the U.S. to be the one to take care of it, but nobody else will.
Sometimes you have to shoot the rabid dog in the head before he bites us all.
Is that a South Park character in your picture?
Just the amount of increase in Bush's military budget exceeds what other nations spend on their armies and navies, in total.
The next 14 countries combined can't match what we alone currently shell out on "defense".
Forget, for the moment, the havoc Washington's fresh hawkishness will raise with civilian programs and priorities, the decimation of which (due to lack of funding) will undermine our national security far more than either terrorists or any foreign armed threat ever possibly could.
What about veterans?
Is there any corresponding outlay -- any proposal -- to properly take care of the countless vets with special needs that "permanent war" will surely generate?
Remember Agent Orange exposure and Gulf War Syndrome? Isn't it likely the future will see similar "surprises"?
Lots of loot for the munitions makers and manufacturers
of ridiculous, high-priced redundancy.
But what for the ex-soldiers turned street people, of tomorrow?
http://www.cbsnews.com/now/story/0,1597,325985-412,00.shtml
If you think Enron is a big scandal, read this.
Dennis:
The military has blank check, they spend to meet or exceed the budget. If you don't spend what's budgeted, you don't get the money next time around. We need to get rid of the old budget system and get real in the military budget. I've seen first hand what a crock the military finance system is. While I was in I spent about 2 million tax dollars personally. It was for things the ship needed, but I was forced to use a "government contractor" which costed me about two times more than I could have shopped around for locally. Still, it is better than the days of the $25 hammers.
CVN-65, USS Enterprise, the big "E", "the pig", "enterprison", ect...
Dennis,
O.K here's a scary moment in time.Dennis I actially agree with your last post. There is way too much waste in the military when it comes to govt. contracts etc. the money doesn't go many times where it's supposed too. It reminds me alot of school districts etc that are wasting and or losing money.(My district can't find 200,000 ?) Proof once again that govt. cannot handle money better then we can,, but a private mercinary armed force is not an option. But it doesn't mean that we should de-fund it. Going back to the Kennedy admin we spent almost 46% of our national budget on defense, it is now around 14% and will go up to 16-17% under Bush. That's a plain and stark fact. I am not saying we should go back to 46% at all, not even close. But the military is easily gutted and cut during peace time and a favorite place to take money from and make cuts to and usually popular with the left. That's all fine and good until you need it. I realize that you are opposed to our actions all toghether, that's a whole other argument. But that aside I would like to point out one thing. Why is it that we have been able to wage our last few campaigns ie: Gulf War and Afghanistan with lower U.S or allied casualties ? Because of the money invested in technology. Aircraft mainly but many other areas a well where technology has saved not only U.S lives but civilians as well. I know you despise our actions and have pointed out the civilian deaths. Yes they are sad no doubt, but how many more would have been killed without investing in technology ? Thousands Dennis, thousands. If we employed the technology that Russia or China currently have not only would more civilians die but more of our troops as well. What price do you put on it ? cut out all govt waste ? You bet ! Defund the miltiary more ? No, it risks our troops life but also civilians caught up in this as well. Our vets deserve better treatment and benefits, no doubt.
Bill Fold,
As someone who will be a Vet someday, I appreciate your efforts. I have been fortunate to not have any Gulf War symptoms, many in my old unit I keep up with have had symptoms. Personally I think it was from the anti chem drugs they gave us that were "safe" and brand new. they never told us what we were taking and had no choice in the matter. But of course as usual they aren't saying and need to "do more study" Gee, Where have we heard that before ? Looking ahead I will look at my benefits the same way I do Social Security. I will look at it as gravy, I will not plan on it being a major contributor to my finances. If it's there, great. I am getting short now and I am probalby not going to re-up again in the resreves which will put me 4 short of my 20. I'd like to stick it out but it's harder and harder with my family and work. 4 more seems pretty tough in my situation and the growing frustration within the military, not to mention the Mrs. It is getting better with Bush and morale in the full timers is better from those I talk too. I realize you are not a big fan of his but I was wondering, I know that active (mainly F/T) are seeing improvmements under Bush, but from what you're saying it sounds to me like the vets aren't seeing any better treatment than his predecessor, is this true ? What about the new vets bill ? Where is that at ?
I'm convinced we have precious few enemies in this world that we haven't engendered ourselves through an incredible, staggeringly arrogant belief that it's our divine duty to
impose on virtually all of civilization OUR political and economic attitudes, and cultural values.
What that amounts to, in day-to-day real terms in a thousand and one places across the planet, is a degree of self-serving interventionism that exceeds anything humankind has previously known.
Doing this is massively wrong simply from the moral and
legal impropriety of being astonishingly dismissive of other people's rights to be free of overbearing superpower interference.
But it's doubly wrong because -- as the rampant and pervasive decay of our own society shows -- our "model" is unworthy of imposition on anyone!
I've increasingly taken to reading the more and more militaristic pronouncements of the Bush administration with a Third World outlook of what it all means to the invariably darker-skinned peoples who -- by virtue of daring to deviate from the Washington/Wall St. line that's being forced on them -- will come to be called "terrorists" and "rogues" and have all that tax money (diverted from domestic U.S. needs) dropped or launched upon them in the lethal form of the latest high-tech weaponry.
You will kill me, and my family, my countrymen...just because we take the democratic option (which you profess to
exemplify!) to find alternatives to your pushy insistence -- your hypocritical unwillingness to see free and sovereign decisions result in something outside your cookie-cutter mold -- in politics, economy, religion, cultural assumptions, etc.
Looking at it from that perspective, all I can see in American foreign policy is racism and monopoly-capitalist imperialism. You use my people's lifeblood, and our native riches, to engorge yourselves, leaving us only dependency and debt.
And multitudes of dead civilians if we dare to resist.
The United States is garnering the deepening enmity of humanity's most volatile, and ultimately pivotally decisive, demographic.
The wretched of the earth.
We'd better get smart, and change our ways, because we can't win this "war" in the end.
We're outnumbered, and history's drift is flowing against us.
Besides, it'll leave our streets littered with the human flotsam and jetsom of veterans struggling with the horrors they took part in, for lied about reasons, just as in Vietnam.
It's a wrong and unworthy thing to do to kids still in high school, who haven't a clue about what awaits them under Bush's permanent war.
Hey...
I was on the Enterprise also...
did a "West-Pac" and became a shellback...
My ex-father-in-law was a plank owner.
Good for you...
Resorting to Red baiting, or outlandish portrayals of the supposed evils of Islamic, this, that or the other fundamental nature of "enemies" Washington and Wall Street
are propagandistically likely to use to get the kids sitting across our supper tables today to fight in dirty wars for the rich tomorrow...is THE best way to assure that veterans, who never should have wrongly served in bad causes, will languish, underfunded and unattended, in inadequate hospitals and homes in the future.
58,000 of our sons and daughters died in Vietnam.
But how many were actually killed, whether by subsequent crushed spirit and suicides, via fatal substance abuse, or through ultimately lethal neglect?
The prospect of that happening again (and how can it not
in a permanent war against a TACTIC?!) should spur every one of us to examine all aspects of everything that's at stake, from every angle, and to absolutely verify that what
Bush, or whomever, is proposing -- is actually necessary, and sustainably just.
"Not with my child, you don't!" should be our unified expression.
Unless the powers that be can prove that there's some
valid, true, national-defense reason for our children possibly winding up homeless on the streets -- if they return from overseas at all! -- haunted by horrible flashbacks that nothing can drive away.
Dennis, what would you consider to be a justifiable reason for committing U.S. troops? I'm not baiting you -- I'd really like to know.
If ships or aircraft of a specific, identifiable nation
actually attacked American territory, or our military forces legitimately located overseas (and here we could get into differences about what constitutes "legitimate")...and if our president could win Congressional approval for a declaration of war -- that'd be a just basis.
Engaging in a constant, self-serving policing of the world for the benefit of our multinational corporations is NOT a proper reason for basing our forces all over the planet.
Utilizing the events of 9/11 to opportunistically launch
a hegemonistic drive to assert U.S. dominance internationally -- for the crassest commercial gain and profit -- is wrong, and ultimately profoundly self-defeating.
Remove imperialism completely from the picture.
Forget about being world cop.
Concentrate on actual defense.
Save scads of money, which could be diverted to domestic social needs that, if underfunded for any great length of time, will damage our essential security more than any foreign "enemy" ever would.
Peace, not war, as the foundation of our foreign policy
and our central, guiding philosophy.
This isn't either uptopian, idealistic or naive...but something entirely consistent with the imperatives humanity faces in this millennium.
Thank you, Dennis. The first paragraph (sans the parenthetic aside) is really all I was asking for. I appreciate it.
You're welcome.
Enjoy a pleasant Saturday.
And you as well.
From the War Powers Act of 1973:
SEC. 4. (a) In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced--
(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation; the president shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth--
(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.
(b) The President shall provide such other information as the Congress may request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities with respect to committing the Nation to war and to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad
(c) Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into any situation described in subsection (a) of this section, the President shall, so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in such hostilities or situation, report to the Congress periodically on the status of such hostilities or situation as well as on the scope and duration of such hostilities or situation, but in no event shall he report to the Congress less often than once every six months.
---
My opinion?
Even though this legislation was enacted in the aftermath of
Vietnam to prevent unchecked presidential commitment of our forces into folly, it's not a sufficient safeguard against abuse, especially when you have an "imperial presidency"
and intensely manipulated patriotic fervor such as many argue Bush is utilizing at the moment, to try to aggress
Iraq.
I would hope someone in Congress would find the balls to insist on an actual war declaration debate if it really, truly looks like Dubya's going to do fullscale battle with
the Iraqi people and nation (no, I won't say "with Saddam",
because that's a big part of the false rationale that would be used to try to justify it).
I simply don't see how we could possibly make a justifiable, legal case for attacking Iraq in the absence of some prior, quite dramatic hostility on their part.
The fact that Saddam is nasty won't cut it.
Neither does the fact that they have weapons of mass-destructive capability. (Are we serious in implicitly asserting that we alone can have arsenals of such weaponry?)
If we go in with guns blazing and bombs falling, out of the blue, we'll have NO backing at all in crucial quarters of the world.
What really scares me is that Bush knows that, and will try to fabricate some Tonkin Gulf-style provocation, ballyhooed to the hilt, and swallowed by a domestic citizenry still
pumped over the events of last Sept.
By the time the truth came out, the Middle East would be on fire.
Truly spooky, dangerous stuff is coming out of George II's
mind and mouth.
http://www.joebrower.com/PHILE_PILE/ANIM_GIF/MISC/BSMETER.GIF
Well said.
Excellent Fold, Bravo ! Standing O !
Notice it was an Irish Marine who said it ! Boy, anyone of Irish linneage who is a Marine must really be on the ball ! :)
Let me guess, you're Irish?
Or sarcastic
a wee bit JT :) about 95% Irish.
But I am also sarcastic too :) So I guess I am both !
BTW JT I like the tag line, what's that from ?. One of my favorite Cartman lines was similar. I belive it was "goddamn I hate french people, they piss me off"
BTW JT I like the tag line, what's that from ?
It's from me. I really do have French people following me.
No, I am not a crackpot!
What are they after?
What are they after?
I don't know yet.
Maybe THX has one of those oh so ugly but coveted olympic beret's that the masses are apperantly clamoring for, those french love their berets you know. They want it THX and will stop at nothing to get it. I thought their were Czech's following me one time but it turned out to be the cops.
No, I am not a crackpot!
Really. Tell me more about the french following you. And tell me about your mother.
Maybe THX has one of those oh so ugly but coveted olympic beret's
I don't care how trendy those are, they're simply ugly.
Tell me more about the french following you.
There's not much to tell. I have a fan that lives in France. That's about it.
And tell me about your mother.
She lives in a Gremlin, down by the river.
WOW what are the odds ? mine too only it's a 78 Volare wagon. We should get them together, they could scrapbook together !
Speaking of veterans' affairs...
My 91-year-old father fell and couldn't get up yesterday morning.
He'd complained of cold-like symptoms for a couple days prior.
Turns out he's got double pneumonia.
Pretty serious.
He's down at the vets hospital in the cities
now.
I won't have much free time for posting for awhile.
(By the way, please watch the Rosa Parks story on CBS this Sunday.
We all need to glory in her accomplishment.)
Dennis, here's hoping for a speedy recovery for your father. Please keep us up to date on his condition. I wish him well.
YOU are a good advocate, Bill!
Volare
LOL!
Volare's rock !
Dennis Rhankonen,
I hope your Father has a speedy recovery, godspeed to him. You'll be in my thoughts.