The war lovng Martians are in Iraq
Werewolfy
The deep hostility of Britain’s senior military commanders in Iraq
towards their American allies has been revealed in classified
Government documents leaked to the Daily Telegraph.
Andrew Gilligan
Published: 10:00PM GMT 22 Nov 2009
In the papers, the British chief of staff in Iraq, Colonel J.K.Tanner,
described his US military counterparts as “a group of Martians” for
whom “dialogue is alien,” saying: “Despite our so-called ‘special
relationship,’ I reckon we were treated no differently to the
Portuguese.”
Col Tanner’s boss, the top British commander in the country, Major
General Andrew Stewart, told how he spent “a significant amount of my
time” “evading” and “refusing” orders from his US superiors.
Secret papers reveal Iraq war blunders At least once, say the
documents, General Stewart’s refusal to obey an order resulted in
Britain’s ambassador to Washington, Sir David Manning, being summoned
to the State Department for a diplomatic reprimand - of the kind more
often delivered to “rogue states” such as Zimbabwe or the Sudan.
The frank statements were made in official interviews conducted by the
Ministry of Defence with Army commanders who had just returned from
Operations Telic 2 and 3 – the first, crucial year of “peacekeeping”
operations in Iraq, from May 2003 to May 2004.
A set of classified transcripts of the interviews, along with “post-
operational reports” by British commanders, has been leaked to the
Daily Telegraph.
The disclosures come the day before the Chilcot inquiry is due to
begin public hearings into Britain’s involvement in Iraq. Among the
issues it will investigate is the UK-US relationship.
The leaked documents paint a vivid picture of the clash between what
General Stewart described as “war-war” American commanders and their
British counterparts, who he said preferred a “jaw-jaw” approach.
General Stewart bluntly admitted that “our ability to influence US
policy in Iraq seemed to be minimal.” He said that “incredibly,” there
was not even a secure communication link between his headquarters in
Basra and the US commander, General Rick Sanchez, in Baghdad.
Col Tanner said that General Sanchez “only visited us once in seven
months.” Col Tanner also added that he only spoke to his own US
counterpart, the chief of staff at the US corps headquarters in the
Green Zone, once over the same period.
Top British commanders angrily described in the documents how they
were not even told, let alone consulted, about major changes to US
policy which had significant implications for them and their men.
When the Americans decided, in March 2004, to arrest a key lieutenant
of the Shia leader Muqtada al-Sadr – an event that triggered an
uprising throughout the British sector – “it was not co-ordinated with
us and no-one [was] told that it was going to happen,” said the senior
British field commander at the time, Brigadier Nick Carter.
“Had we known, we would at least have been able to prepare the
ground.” Instead, “the consequence [was] that my whole area of
operations went up in smoke… as a result of coalition operations that
were outwith my control or knowledge and proved to be the single most
awkward event of my tour.”
Among the most outspoken officers was Col Tanner, who served as chief
of staff to General Stewart and of the entire British division during
Operation Telic 3, from November 2003 to May 2004.
He said: “The whole system was appalling. We experienced real
difficulty in dealing with American military and civilian
organisations who, partly through arrogance and partly through
bureaucracy, dictate that there is only one way: the American way.
“I now realise that I am a European, not an American. We managed to
get on better…with our European partners and at times with the Arabs
than with the Americans. Europeans chat to each other, whereas
dialogue is alien to the US military… dealing with them corporately is
akin to dealing with a group of Martians.
“If it isn’t on the PowerPoint slide, then it doesn’t happen.”
Gen Stewart was more diplomatic, but said: “As the world’s only
superpower, they [the US] will not allow their position to be
challenged. Negotiation is often a dirty word.”
Gen Stewart added: “I spent a significant amount of my time
‘consenting and evading’ US orders… Things got sticky…when I refused
to conduct offensive operations against [al-Sadr’s] Mahdi Army as
directed [by the US]. This resulted in the UK being demarched by the
US, by [Paul] Bremer [the US proconsul in Iraq] through State [the US
State Department] to the UK Ambassador in Washington.”
A “demarche” in this context was a formal diplomatic reprimand of a
kind not normally handed out to friendly allies such as Britain. Gen
Stewart said that the US military “were mortified” that it had got so
far and said he “was always fully supported in the UK by the Chief of
Defence Staff and Chief of Joint Operations.”
JTEM
Werewolfy <Werewol...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Hostility between British and American
> military leaders revealed
Now if we can only get Obumhole to pull out,
leaving the British to rot in their former
colony...
--
Check out my friend's lame ass show:
Werewolfy
> Werewolfy <Werewol...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Now if we can only get Obumhole to pull out,
> leaving the British to rot in their former
> colony...
You want Englishmen to decompose in America?
Werewolfy
JTEM
Werewolfy <Werewol...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
You're making my point. The British enslaved a quarter
of the globe, drawing the maps on Africa and the middle
east, while the United States has had it's feet on the
ground in the middle east only since 1991.
The U.S. "inherited" the position of representative-of-
western-interests only because the Europeans -- and
that would be the U.K. and France in particular -- had
so thoroughly soiled their reputations that there was
little choice.
Google the 1956 war.
You're welcome, Europe.
Like the Italians were going to put the fear of God into
Syria... Sheesh!
Doc
"JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:758f6734-9a8d-4b9f...@t18g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
central government.
Like Americans are going to do the same with a corrupted democracy under
Karzai.
Jeeezuz shit !
;))~~
>
>
>
>
>
>
JTEM
"Doc" <cmdrl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Like the Russians were going to reform the Afghans
> into accepting a commie central government.
The Russians certainly wish that they never tried.
> Like Americans are going to do the same with a
> corrupted democracy under Karzai.
I agree that we won't.
Now what on earth do you mistakenly believe you're
disputing?
Werewolfy
> Now what on earth do you mistakenly believe you're
> disputing?
Not disputing. Doc's pointing out that you can't 'have it both ways'.
Look to America's faults if you want to complain about similar things
from other Lands.
Werewolfy
Saint Isadore Patron Saint of the Internet
Actually I was just informed by the Grand Leader of Mars that they
will
take over world domination to bring peace, prosperity and total world
unity
on 12/21/2012. And here we all thought the world would end then.
Werewolfy
<tadap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually I was just informed by the Grand Leader of Mars that they
> will
> take over world domination to bring peace, prosperity and total world
> unity
> on 12/21/2012. �And here we all thought the world would end then.
I've always known that, Tom. The Grand Leader is quite an approachable
sort of ...thing...really. He will bring us all peace and prosperity,
but he also intends to convert everything green into red; something
about making the Earth, 'homely' He's even toying with the idea of
digging down along our roads and filling them with red water to make
pretty canals.
Mind, Australians won't even notice the changes....their wilderness is
rather like that already.
Werewolfy
JTEM
Werewolfy <Werewol...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Now what on earth do you mistakenly believe you're
> > disputing?
>
> Not disputing. Doc's pointing out that you can't
> 'have it both ways'.
Um... okay. But that begs the question, "What are
the two ways that you're imagining, and why?"
> Look to America's faults if you want to complain
> about similar things from other Lands.
Again, you're not the least but clear. Given the
context, what are these "Faults"?
We're not in Afghanistan for the same reasons as
the old Soviet Union. Our motives are not the same.
The Soviets really did go in with the idea of imposing
a specific government. That was their goal. The U.S.
mandate was premised on 9/11. The concern over the
government isn't so much "We want to install a
government that we like" as it is "We don't want to
have to come back every few years to kick some ass."
Put another way: The Soviets intention was to install
a specific government, the U.S. intention is to keep
out a specific government, so we don't have to fight
them again & again & again.
Very different motives, very different goals, and it
would take the most shallow, least intelligent view
in order to claim they are similar.
JTEM
Saint Isadore Patron Saint of the Internet <tadap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And here we all thought the world would
> end then.
I thought that MXC deserved another season.
Werewolfy
> Very different motives, very different goals, and it
> would take the most shallow, least intelligent view
> in order to claim they are similar.
Same result though.
Werewolfy
Doc
LOL! Well...how about the 'revolutionary' act of keeping our goddamn noses
outta' other's civil conficts?
It gave us no gain in Viet Nam, and little in Korea.
If you think people living with a "DMZ and constant war tension for
generations is 'social progress' we should promote everywhere, you're nuts.
I learned early on to stay the hell outta of other's conflicts, and I see
nothing different in national foreign governments staying outta' civil wars.
If folks are so 'idealistic' they just can't hold onto their pants and let
some internal conflict rage 10,000 miles away without military intervention,
then I can only hope the same will be done to them someday in an internal
conflict here.
That their familes, friends, homes, businesses, jobs, infrastructure, and
play toys, are all destroyed, and then hear them tell how 'the liberators'
were a Godsend.
Doc
Steven Douglas
>
> I learned early on to stay the hell outta of other's conflicts,
It was that kind of mentality that kept us out of World War II in 1939.
Doc
They are similar in that a foreign ideology wishes to coerce or force
itsself on another, when it is the people there that solely need to be
determine their destiny. They've been in tribal conflicts for decades. As
the British were unable to resolve such numerous complex tribal rivalries in
Sudan, for example, despite considerable occupation, governmental take-over,
and many bloody battles, America, Russia, any foreign power, is likewise
unable to do the same.
It's heartening to think that Americans have such avid advocacy of warfaring
in others' faraway lands these days to 'liberate' the poor oppressed souls,
that they just forget all about how Native Americans regarded white mens'
bloody push across their lands to 'liberate' it for commercial and
residential pale-faced occupation.
Doc
JTEM
"Doc" <cmdrl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> LOL! Well...how about the 'revolutionary'
> act of keeping our goddamn noses outta'
> other's civil conficts?
That makes no sense.
Are you now pretending it was wrong to go into
Afghanistan after 9/11?
We had reason enough to go in BEFORE 9/11, to
destroy the camps -- the infrastructure -- of
a global terrorist network.
9/11 was a license to invade to action, it was
a creaming pink neon sign telling us that we
already waited too long.
JTEM
Werewolfy <Werewol...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Very different motives, very different goals, and it
> > would take the most shallow, least intelligent view
> > in order to claim they are similar.
>
> Same result though.
Not even close.
The U.S. destroyed all the targets it had identified, and
is now (from my point of view) ready to leave.
Personally, I don't care to see any more Americans die
in yet another former British colony....
I may be a shameless liberal, but only on domestic policy.
I'm a cold hard liberal on foreign policy. War is not
something a nation should ever want to do, it's something
that a nation must need to do.
If you need to go to war then you need to win a war.
Period.
And I don't mean a government or a people must convince
themselves of the need. I mean they must really need to
go to war, or they have no business fighting.
We don't need to fight any more. All our stated objectives
at the beginning of the conflict have been met. It's time
to bring the troops home.
Yes, it would be nice if we could install a government that
would eliminate the possible need to return, but that is
not absolutely necessary.
Doc
"Steven Douglas" <steven....@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:2c14750c-8a8d-40de...@b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 24, 9:48 pm, "Doc" <cmdrl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I learned early on to stay the hell outta of other's conflicts,
It was that kind of mentality that kept us out of World War II in 1939.
The war's over, stupid...what's it been, 70 years now? LOL!
We were hit at Pearl and MIdway.
Until then, most Americans wanted to leave it alone.
But let me play your game.
Since most wanted to stay out of it, that makes me more moral and right.
It's like the invasion of Iraq that was supported by Democrats as well as
Republicans.
It makes you and your war-loving rightists look better to spread around the
decision.
LOL!
So, it is with me. I feel *good* I had the company of many American's
disposition.
Doc
Doc
And what was the evidence that the Taliban cooperated with Bin Laden? We
could find no link for the 9-11 strike.
Do we really fucking need to go over the fact we've spread out them mission
to them, and not kept in on Al Queda?
Do you think we're gonna get rid of anti-American terrorists even if we
snuff out that particular group? How many Muslims have died so far in our
bombings? How many more do you think it will take to feel we've made
*progress* toward making everyone in the world hail us as a Godsend?
HUH?
It makes perfect sense to stay out of civil wars, and not slop the mission
over to a target we lack evidence of culpabiliity in the attack.
It breeds even more hatred and terrorism, as we are seeing the Taliban surge
back.
How many more assinine wars will it take to rid the world of human evil, do
you think?
HUH? Are we not without plenty of it ourselves?
Look at you and Stevie -- playing mind games, denying, dodging,
rationalizing, obsessively nitpicking. Aren't you the guy for months here
that fucked around with Wolfy and me, sticking your dick up our asses every
opportunity you got?
Sure wasn't a bad dream...plenty of evil and sickness all over, ain't there?
Doc
>
Steven Douglas
>
> "Steven Douglas" <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >On Nov 24, 9:48 pm, "Doc" <cmdrl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>I learned early on to stay the hell outta of other's conflicts,
>
> >It was that kind of mentality that kept us out of World War II in 1939.
>
> The war's over, stupid...what's it been, 70 years now? LOL!
> We were hit at Pearl and MIdway.
> Until then, most Americans wanted to leave it alone.
> But let me play your game.
> Since most wanted to stay out of it, that makes me more moral and right.
Really? While our friends in England were being bombed by Hitler,
people like you were more moral and right for not wanting to do
something to stop that? I'll tell you who was more moral and right --
the Americans who volunteered to fly for the Royal Air Force, to try
to stop Hitler.
>
> It's like the invasion of Iraq that was supported by Democrats as well as
> Republicans.
> It makes you and your war-loving rightists look better to spread around the
> decision.
But it's just a fact that many Democrats were calling on President
Bush to do something about the threat that was Saddam Hussein. And
Saddam was considered a threat because of intelligence that was
gathered by the Clinton-appointed CIA director, who told Bush the WMD
intelligence was a slam dunk. Despite your best efforts, Doc, you
cannot make the Iraq war about Bush alone. Then there is Prime
Minister Blair and British Intelligence, who also believed Saddam was
a threat.
>
> So, it is with me. I feel *good* I had the company of many American's
> disposition.
Even after having been proven wrong, you still feel good that
Americans wanted to sit on their hands while Hitler's army marched
across Europe. Imagine we had done the right thing and entered the war
when we should have. Could we have stopped Hitler before he invaded
France? Which would have made landing on the continent far easier than
it turned out to be in 1944. Thank God Churchill stood up to Hitler
and didn't fold. Without England from which to launch our invasion of
France in 1944, Hitler might have had that opportunity (in who knows
how many years) to eventually defeat himself that you like to talk
about.
Jane
wrote:
Thank god for England they had the help of Australia and Canada while
they waited for the U.S. Contrary to what you may believe about our
'little country', Canadians were very effective in both World Wars. We
are still heroes to the Dutch.
Successive Liberal governments squandered that heritage, but that is a
subject for another thread.
Werewolfy
> Thank god for England they had the help of Australia and Canada while
> they waited for the U.S. Contrary to what you may believe about our
> 'little country', Canadians were very effective in both World Wars. We
> are still heroes to the Dutch.
I used to stop at a cemetary for the Canadian dead on the road to Caan
from Alencon, Jane. Canada and Australia both gave willingly and were
very effective. England thanks you.
Ricky
Jane
I appreciate that, Ricky. I would love to visit those cemeteries
myself, should I ever get to Europe.
JTEM
"Doc" <cmdrl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And what was the evidence that the Taliban
> cooperated with Bin Laden?
Who cares? We had to go in to destroy the camps,
and we couldn't go in without fighting the
Taliban.
I agree that we're done, we accomplished all of
our stated goals, so it's time to leave. But, it's
just nonsense to claim that we had no reasons to
go in.
> It makes perfect sense to stay out of civil wars,
I agree. But we had to go in, and the Taliban was
going to oppose us, so we couldn't go in without
fighting the Taliban.
We're talking about people who stoned little girls
for things like not wearing those bed sheets. They
were never going to tolerate thousands of young
American soldiers who, once off duty, wanted nothing
more than sex and alcohol.
We're talking about the military, not a religious
order. And, come to think of it, the Taliban was
violently opposed to even western religion! They
had arrested American fundies for proselytizing!
There was just no way of entering Afghanistan without
fighting the Taliban.
JTEM
Steven Douglas <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> Really? While our friends in England were being
> bombed by Hitler,
If our "Friends" in England & France had been a little
less interested in raping Germany after WWI, and a
little more interested in peace, they would have
listened to Wilson, and there never would have been a
WWII.
Germany was punished for WWI, even though France and
Britain were AT LEAST as responsible for the war. The
Brits & French squeezed reparations from Germany, took
land & people away from the highly nationalistic
Germans and even denied them any more than a purely
defensive military.
In other words, these "Friends" tried to artificially
keep Germany from being a world power.
If this never happened there never would have been
the reactionary turn to people like Hitler and groups
like the Nazis.
Put another way: Europe had set Europe on fire, again,
and absolutely everyone in America was aware of this
fact. Nobody wanted to send their boys to die in another
war that the Europeans inflicted upon themselves.
Doc
On Nov 25, 8:04 am, "Doc" <cmdrl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> "Steven Douglas" <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >On Nov 24, 9:48 pm, "Doc" <cmdrl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>I learned early on to stay the hell outta of other's conflicts,
>
> >It was that kind of mentality that kept us out of World War II in 1939.
>
> The war's over, stupid...what's it been, 70 years now? LOL!
> We were hit at Pearl and MIdway.
> Until then, most Americans wanted to leave it alone.
> But let me play your game.
> Since most wanted to stay out of it, that makes me more moral and right.
Really? While our friends in England were being bombed by Hitler,
people like you were more moral and right for not wanting to do
something to stop that? I'll tell you who was more moral and right --
the Americans who volunteered to fly for the Royal Air Force, to try
to stop Hitler.
War's over. Hitler's dead. Your brain's dead.
Go blow yourself. Or blow yourself up.
Doc
>
> "Doc" <cmdrl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> And what was the evidence that the Taliban
>> cooperated with Bin Laden?
>
> Who cares? We had to go in to destroy the camps,
> and we couldn't go in without fighting the
> Taliban.
to get revenge on something with brown skin.
Woodswun
> "JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:18c31422-1bb5-400e...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > "Doc" <cmdrl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> And what was the evidence that the Taliban
> >> cooperated with Bin Laden?
>
> > Who cares? We had to go in to destroy the camps,
> > and we couldn't go in without fighting the
> > Taliban.
>
> Yeah, who fucking cares? We don't need any evidence, just the fucking desire
> to get revenge on something with brown skin.
The Taliban said that bin Laden was their guest.
Woods
Doc
"Woodswun" <wood...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0c8e3331-e745-4cfa...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Woods
Can you remotely imagine a large militancy fighting a fierce hard civil war
with another large faction for many years, and finally gaining relative
control over most of a nation, including its capital, and then going to some
rogue splinter group and saying, "Hey, we'll help you attack America, or at
least we'll give you as much support here as we can for that attack, so that
America will be able to justify removing us from the power we fought so
fucking hard to get. We're just a bunch of suicidal nuts."
LOL!!!!!
And we put a demand to the Taliban in 2001 to get the hell outta of our way
and support our pursuit of Bin Laden, or be removed from power, as we also
demanded of Musharoff.
And then we go in, spend 7 years under Bush supposedly doing everything (??)
we can to get Al Queda destroyed, but early on, we decide to launch into
Iraq. Later we find there was no causal working relationship with Al Queda
there, no WMD, and of course we had no authorization from the UNSC.
And now we simply hear the daily drone of 'let's defeat the Taliban and
destroy Al Queda" much to the delight of conservatives who hunger for that
ticker-tape glory parade down the happy city streets, with pretty laughing,
dancing handmaidens tossing flowers onto the path of the passing military
vehicles and neatly uniformed blocks of marching men.
Oh, how they need to relive the ol' WW2 glory days!!!
And that's why we hear 'em rattling on, like that twisted soldier ant does
every week, about how the USA saved the world from total fascist domination,
even though they have trouble figuring out how they'd control such a large
population spread out over tens of thousands of miles.
LOLOL!!
But, let's not banter with them about evidence on which to act to kill en
masse, or about reality itself, let's just agree with the deluded silly
fuckers that we need to keep killing someone on this planet around the clock
so that we angels here can glow and float about, singing our songs of
'liberation', and be praised by all.
Is this a fucking goddamned nightmare on fucking earth, or what????
Doc
JTEM
"Doc" <cmdrl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yeah, who fucking cares? We don't need any evidence,
Evidence? Evidence for what?
We had mountains of evidence telling us about the
camps, where they were, and only a jackass would
pretend that we had to limit ourselves to the
destruction of camps related to 9/11.
JTEM
Woodswun <woods...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The Taliban said that bin Laden was their guest.
Does it really matter? Even if we knew for a fact
that Bin Laden wasn't there, we knew that the
camps were present, the training centers. Wouldn't
it have been insane to NOT destroy them after 9/11?
One of the problems with the invasion of Iraq was
that there were no "Al Qaeda ties," no "Terrorist
camps" inside Iraq. If there had been, we wouldn't
all have denounced Bush as a total liar.
Well there were terrorist training centers in
Afghanistan, and nobody ever denied it.
Woodswun
> Woodswun <woods...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > The Taliban said that bin Laden was their guest.
>
> Does it really matter? Even if we knew for a fact
> that Bin Laden wasn't there, we knew that the
> camps were present, the training centers. Wouldn't
> it have been insane to NOT destroy them after 9/11?
>
> One of the problems with the invasion of Iraq was
> that there were no "Al Qaeda ties," no "Terrorist
> camps" inside Iraq. If there had been, we wouldn't
> all have denounced Bush as a total liar.
Ah, sorry - I thought this was about invading Afghanistan. Neither
bin Laden or the Taliban had anything to do with Iraq.
>
> Well there were terrorist training centers in
> Afghanistan, and nobody ever denied it.
Yes, that's what I thought we were discussing - Afghanistan.
Woods
Doc
>
> "Doc" <cmdrl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yeah, who fucking cares? We don't need any evidence,
>
> Evidence? Evidence for what?
>
> We had mountains of evidence telling us about the
> camps, where they were, and only a jackass would
> pretend that we had to limit ourselves to the
> destruction of camps related to 9/11.
We could find no causal working relationship between Saddam and Bin Laden,
and we could find no evidence the Taliban ever supported the 9-11 attack
planning, participated in it, or even wanted such a thing to happen. Working
their asses off to control Afghanistan, and then neatly providing a
rationale for Bush to stomp them, would be the most insane move one could
imagine.
Just common sense would tell anyone but a jackass like you that such a lack
of evidence to kill en masse is a most immoral, stupid thing to do.
Steven Douglas
>
> "JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > camps, where they were, and only a jackass would
> > pretend that we had to limit ourselves to the
> > destruction of camps related to 9/11.
>
> We could find no causal working relationship between Saddam and Bin Laden,
Actually, the correct terminology was that there was no "operational
collaboration" between Saddam and bin Laden. That doesn't mean there
weren't contacts, as the 9/11 Commission Report showed there were
numerous contacts. Contacts means there *was* a relationship.
>
> and we could find no evidence the Taliban ever supported the 9-11 attack
> planning, participated in it, or even wanted such a thing to happen.
But they harbored bin Laden when we asked them to turn him over.
From CBS News, September 21, 2001
[excerpt] Mr. Bush demanded in his speech before members of Congress
that the Taliban surrender bin Laden, release imprisoned Americans,
and give the United States full access to terrorist training camps.
These demands are not open to discussion, Mr. Bush said. "They will
hand over the terrorists or they will share in their fate."
The Taliban envoy added that his government was ready if necessary to
defend the country against American attack.
"If they want to show their might, we are ready and we will never
surrender before might and force," Zaeef said. "According to Islam,
the blood of anyone who spies for the enemy or sympathizes with it in
time of war must be shed." [end excerpt]
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/11/world/main310852.shtml
JTEM
"Doc" <cmdrl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We could find no causal working relationship
> between Saddam and Bin Laden,
That has nothing to do with Afghanistan.
> and we could find no evidence the Taliban ever
> supported the 9-11 attack planning, participated
> in it, or even wanted such a thing to happen.
Amazingly, I had just addressed that very point,
and you ignored it:
: only a jackass would
: pretend that we had to limit ourselves to the
: destruction of camps related to 9/11.
Not that there weren't camps in Afghanistan related
to Bin Laden & 9/11. There were. But it would have
been insane to limit ourselves to just those camps.
JTEM
Steven Douglas <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> Actually, the correct terminology was that there
> was no "operational collaboration" between Saddam
> and bin Laden. That doesn't mean there weren't
> contacts, as the 9/11 Commission Report showed
> there were numerous contacts. Contacts means
> there *was* a relationship.
Here in this universe the 9/11 report found that
there were ties between the Al Qaeda and Iran.
The 9/11 commission said that Iran provided some
training to Al Qaeda.
It also found that Saddam had denied the request made
by Al Qaeda linked groups to operate inside of Iraq.
THAT would be your imaginary contact.
Saddam was a lot of things, but he wasn't about to
give religious radicals who wanted him dead (replaced
by an Iranian-style Islamic state) permission to
operate in his own back yard.
Besides, he was already fighting Iranian-backed,
Al Qaeda linked groups struggling to overthrow
him...
Woodswun
You're talking to the backside of an ostrich, I'm afraid.
Woods
Steven Douglas
Here's what the 9/11 Commission Report says about Saddam and bin
Laden:
[quoting 9/11 Commission Report] Bin Ladin was also willing to explore
possibilities for cooperation with Iraq, even though Iraq's dictator,
Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda — save for his
opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against 'Crusaders'
during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been
sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to
attract them into his Islamic army.
To protect his own ties with Iraq, [Sudan's Islamic leader] Turabi,
reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting
activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge,
at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist
extremist operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad's
control. In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major
defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin's help they re-
formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are
indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have
helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.
With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met
with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or
early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish
training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there
is no evidence that Iraq responded to his request. ... [T]he ensuing
years saw additional efforts to establish common connections. [end
quoting]
Steven Douglas
Never mind that I actually post cites to back up my claims, while all
you've got is you med-deluded blathering.
Doc
On Nov 27, 12:45 am, "Doc" <cmdrl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> "JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > We had mountains of evidence telling us about the
> > camps, where they were, and only a jackass would
> > pretend that we had to limit ourselves to the
> > destruction of camps related to 9/11.
>
> We could find no causal working relationship between Saddam and Bin Laden,
Actually, the correct terminology was that there was no "operational
collaboration" between Saddam and bin Laden. That doesn't mean there
weren't contacts, as the 9/11 Commission Report showed there were
numerous contacts. Contacts means there *was* a relationship.
There is no verification that any 'working relationship' ever existed
between Saddam and Bin Laden, or between their officers, in the planning
and/or execution of the 9-11 attacks, either casually or on any other level.
"Operational" means -- pertaining to a process or series of actions for
achieving a result. A 'working relationship' means the same thing.
If thinking Saddam made 'contact' with any unsavory group is damnable
evidence for the two working together on a sinister project, then we'd have
to 'indict' many government heads, including Donald Rumsfeld and Reagan.
LOL!!! LOL!!!
Doc
Doc
"Steven Douglas" <dst...@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:d01b12d8-9d0d-42bd...@z10g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Do you any evidence Johnny's talking through a haze of drugs? Cite, please.
Doc
It would be insane to fight a tough long battle and achieve control over
most of the nation, only to link up with Bin Laden's 9-11 project, and
provide a rationale politically or otherwise, for the USA to remove them
from power. They were told by Bush to cooperate in our pursuit of Al Queda
or face removal from office.
Is it not strange that they made repeated attempts to discuss this ultimatum
with Bush officials, but were flatly refused? Of course, the Taliban wanted
very much to hold onto the power they'd sacrificed so much to achieve.
Later, the Iraq commission could find no working relationship with Bin
Laden's 9-11 project, indicating the Taliban was doing what any sane power
hungry bunch would do -- not critically jeopardize their power position.
The Taliban is a very localized relatively small military-political
organization that has shown no indication it aspires to world domination,
nor certainly does it have the strength to achieve it by any stretch of the
imagination.
Just common sense and simple 'power pyramid' psychological history of this
species will tell you the story.
Doc
>
JTEM
Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
[---snip---]
this is a serious question: Are you insane?
I only ask because your cite verifies everything
I said, and contradicts you.
It states:
#1.
Al Qaeda was fighting to overthrow Saddam.
#2. A third party with their own agenda, in the
interest of Uniting the Arab world, talked the
Al Qaeda groups into suspending their war against
Saddam.
#3. Al Qaeda groups asked Saddam for permission to
operate inside Iraq. Saddam refused to give his
permission.
JTEM
"Doc" <cmdrl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually, the correct terminology was that there
> was no "operational collaboration" between Saddam
> and bin Laden. That doesn't mean there weren't
> contacts, as the 9/11 Commission Report showed
> there were numerous contacts. Contacts means
> there *was* a relationship.
...in the same sense that there *was* a
relationship between the U.S. and Communist China
during the Koean war...
You know, when we killed almost a million of them.
JTEM
"Doc" <cmdrl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It would be insane to fight a tough long
> battle and achieve control over most of
> the nation, only to link up with Bin
> Laden's 9-11 project,
If you're arguing against the charge that there
were terrorist camps inside of Afghanistan, you're
crazy. And if you're not arguing that then, well,
then you have no point.
The camps were there. They existed. Whether or not
the Taliban approved of them was irrelevant, as
we couldn't enter Afghanistan and destroy those camps
without fighting the Taliban.
I've already said all this before without you
addressing any of it, which is why it may sound
familiar to you.
Doc
Doc
The Taliban isn't our proved 9-11 revenge target, fella. Contemptible,
maybe, and crude, possibly, but not a threat to us.
And they're not any more nuts than Bush or you.
They want to hold onto what they've worked so hard to get.
Any linking they did to bin Laden's 9-11 project would get them knocked out
of power, as it certainly did. They knew that. It's common sense.
And they made repeated appeals to talk to high state dept. officials to
explain their situation and perhaps offer some evidence they had nothing to
do with it.
Bush warned them to either cooperate, not interfere, with ops there are face
a ousting from power.Bush had no evidence the Taliban was involved in the
9-11 project.
Either we act like sane, intelligent, civil people or we act irrationally on
our fears and hatred. As such, we are as bad as our enemies.
And in the case of Afghanistan, Bush didn't afford them any conferences
before he invaded, as he never polled the Iraqi people as to their thoughts
on a massive bombardment.
We do want we want, and get our emotional satisfaction, our political
advantage, commercial gain, and dance to our own glorious foolish tune,
fella, and the Third World has little respect for such assininity and
arrogance. It's seen it all many times before, with the same suffering
results.
I've got plenty of things to do here every day, more than I can handle, so
I'm not really interested in getting my tax money involved in other's
fucking complex disputes, murdering them, destroying their homes,
terrorizing them, bullying them, then rationalizing it as 'liberation'.
Since Americans live in mostly a fantasy world and have had little
experience with the hardships of third World peoples, and talk incessantly
of cable TV and dvrs, celebs, sports, etc., like you do, and exciting or
dull movies and programs, exotic recipes, and other distractions and
luxuries that fill much of your and Americans' hours, I think it's high time
we just appreciate living like fucking stupid fat pigs, and keep our oinkers
outta others' internal conflicts, and make sure we have evidence of
wrongdoing before we massively murder.
Doc
>
Doc
Bombing the terrorist camps is about as futile as stomping on cockroaches.
They simply mutiply and appear other places. The mission of Bush, as sold to
the public, was that the Taliban had something to do with 9-11. We could
not find that evidence.
He had 7 years to get Bid Laden and he failed. You might want to ask
yourself that if it was such a great threat, he and the Taliban, why is it
that he took off into Iraq?
LOL!
You'd naturally think he'd concentrate the firepower on that one nation, and
not put most of it into another, which, BTW, we have no evidence Saddam
worked with Bin Laden, on anything, let alone the 9-11 attacks.
Here we are with no evidence of either 'enemy' having attacked us, but,
generically, we've slopped the 'mission' over to just pounding the hell out
of Afghanistan, hoping to get lucky or forever warfaring our asses off in
futility.
It's become a political football now, with Obama appeasing conservatives
with more useless troop concentration. I say useless because terror camps
can easily be moved around from nation to nation, with at least 4 playing
host to them in the Mideast.
Now, either we want to keep this silliness going until it erupts into a
World War, or we get out and just figure that tens of thousands of Muslims
dead and injured has satiated our blood lust for revenge.
Doc
>
Steven Douglas
>
> There is no verification that any 'working relationship' ever existed
> between Saddam and Bin Laden, or between their officers, in the planning
But there were repeated (and friendly) contacts between Iraq and Al
Qaeda. Sometimes those contacts were initiated by bin Laden, and
sometimes they were initiated by Saddam. The fact is, the 9/11
Commission Report mentioned those repeated contacts, and it was those
contacts that were troubling to both US and UK officials. There was
concern that Saddam might share WMD with Al Qaeda. That's why Richard
Gephardt (who said he didn't listen to Bush, but went to the Clinton-
appointed CIA director and other Clinton officials) said he was
concerned about a WMD being used in this country, and that's why he
voted to have Saddam removed from power by military force.
Steven Douglas
>
> Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
>
> [---snip---]
>
> this is a serious question: Are you insane?
Serious answer: no. But I question your sanity with your selective
reading of the 9/11 Commission Report.
>
> I only ask because your cite verifies everything
> I said, and contradicts you.
Uh, your selective reading verifies (in your mind) what you want it to
verify. Ignoring other points doesn't mean they don't exist, it just
means you're ignoring them.
>
> It states:
Among other things ...
>
> #1.
>
> Al Qaeda was fighting to overthrow Saddam.
>
> #2. A third party with their own agenda, in the
> interest of Uniting the Arab world, talked the
> Al Qaeda groups into suspending their war against
> Saddam.
>
> #3. Al Qaeda groups asked Saddam for permission to
> operate inside Iraq. Saddam refused to give his
> permission.
Now that you've excluded what you don't want it to say, go back and
read the whole thing. You know, all that stuff you snipped. It says,
among other things, that Saddam DID tolerate and even helped bin
Laden's group. Elsewhere in the 9/11 Commission Report, it mentions
the various contacts with bin Laden that were initiated by Saddam. I
know you'd rather ignore this stuff, so you can go on believing your
delusions. But it's dishonest to do that. There were MANY contacts
between Al Qaeda and Iraq over the years, whether you want to believe
that or not.
Steven Douglas
>
> "Doc" <cmdrl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Actually, the correct terminology was that there
> > was no "operational collaboration" between Saddam
> > and bin Laden. That doesn't mean there weren't
> > contacts, as the 9/11 Commission Report showed
> > there were numerous contacts. Contacts means
> > there *was* a relationship.
>
> ...in the same sense that there *was* a
> relationship between the U.S. and Communist China
> during the Koean war...
No, not in the same sense. Why are you deluding yourself? The 9/11
Commission Report, which you've obviously NOT read, says there were
numerous friendly contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The concern at
the time was that Saddam would share WMD with terrorists. Tony Blair
and George Bush both had that concern, along with many Democrats in
Congress (and I've pointed them out by name, many times).
Doc
If we wish to indict those in a court of law on mere suspicions of shady
relationships, then let's get back to Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy.
No such evidence was found of a 'working relationship' and that is what this
discussion is entirely pinned on, not 'friendly contacts.'
Use of the word, 'friendly', conjures up 'palling with terrorists' Palin
blew out her ass last year.
It is reasonable to assume that various contact of a varying nature would be
made between Muslim groups, but proof of their working together on projects
to destroy needs to be found to justify specific charges.
Blanket condemnation from suspicions and incidential associations are the
stuff that fascists were good at decades ago in Europe, and used to imprison
and kill many.
It's a dangerous non-democratic, irrational path to go down, and I'm not
fucking going there.
You go ahead and skip and hop to it, junior.
It suits you.
Doc
Steven Douglas
>
> If we wish to indict those in a court of law on mere suspicions of shady
I have no idea what you're babbling about, and I don't really care.
Doc
wrote:
Yep, you got that right -- you don't really care -- for anything other
than lecturing us on the maligned leadership you support(ed), and the
'truth' of your version of history, as opposed to our supposed
attempts to make this nation of flawed power fuckers into less than
saints.
LOL!
Steven Douglas
>
> On Nov 28, 9:58 pm, Steven Douglas <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 28, 9:36 pm, "Doc" <cmdrl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > If we wish to indict those in a court of law on mere suspicions of shady
>
> > <snip, remainder unread>
>
> > I have no idea what you're babbling about, and I don't really care.
>
> Yep, you got that right -- you don't really care --
That's right, Doc, when it comes to anything you have to say, I really
don't care. You think you have the high moral ground because you
wouldn't have lifted a finger to help our allies in England while they
were being bombed by Hitler. You're warped, Doc. Your *pacifism* might
make you feel good, but it's dangerous. If you had your way, evil
dictators would rule the world. Because no pacifist would ever fight
them.
Doc
I know this -- that the 'high moral ground' can't be retroactively
justified by WW2 in Iraq today.
We fought WW2 not for a moral crusade, not for ideological comfort,
junior, but for fucking survival
No such threat to our system, our culture, our extremely huge superior
military, was made by Saddam's beaten-down nation.
My contention is that when survival is directly threatened, we do what
we need to keep our world intact, and we do NOT intervene into lesser,
or internal conflicts, unless the majority there is known to want our
intervention.
As for dictators taking over the world -- that is a movie fantasy, the
stuff of a Tom Clancy novel.
No world power can effectively control the high variety of human
activity, purpose, ideology, etc., on this globe. No one nation or
leader has that ability.
Pacificism is simply the support of sovereign people for self-
determination, with promotion for nonviolence as the primary mission,
and the de-emphasis on military force as a solution to what is more
commonly social problems that can usually be peacefully aided by
foreign 'intervention' of social workers exclusively, with the
greatest participation of the locals being organized and encouraged.
Pacifists work for cooperation over confrontation and arrogance,
getting to a common denominator of sovereign people wanting what the
entire species more often desires over relentless or cyclical massive
bloodshed, fear,and hatred.
When war is necessary, and that occurs rarely as an interventionalist
necessity, most pacifists will support it for their own survival.
Essentially, survival is not a political issue, but a purely human
one, of commonly shared innateness of the species' behavior.
We have more in common than wantng to survive, though,and that is to
live a life as free of bloodletting, violent, threats, coercion,
oppression, repression, suppression as we humanly can, and as such,
pacificism is preferable to knee-jerk militancy, tension-causing
corporate hegemony, religious biasedness and promotion of it as a
dominant belief.
When people can truly fight their own fights, and stay out of others,
and fight only when they are directly threatened, but to always use
every avenue to avoid war, we can look toward a future that is much
more beneficial to live in, than the Cold War was, for example.
Others want to keep the violent cycle going much like a heroin addict
and his dependence and resultant madness and suffering.
War becomes an addiction, violence a thrill, a great psychodrama all
too easily resorted to if people don't try hard enough to see
alternatives often less stimulating, but ultimately more satisfying as
a viable future.
Doc
Werewolfy
wrote:
Oddly, I found it all quite simple, both to read, understand and to
agree with, Steven (Betty)
Doc's post is valid, and worthy of a response...perhaps the best
response would be to agree with him and retract the post you made that
pre-empted this contested and 'snipped' post.
Woodswun
Very well said, Doc.
Woods
Steven Douglas
>
> On Nov 28, 11:28 pm, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 28, 11:15 pm, Doc <cmdrl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 28, 9:58 pm, Steven Douglas <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 28, 9:36 pm, "Doc" <cmdrl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > If we wish to indict those in a court of law on mere suspicions of shady
>
> > > > <snip, remainder unread>
>
> > > > I have no idea what you're babbling about, and I don't really care.
>
> > > Yep, you got that right -- you don't really care --
>
> > That's right, Doc, when it comes to anything you have to say, I really
> > don't care. You think you have the high moral ground because you
> > wouldn't have lifted a finger to help our allies in England while they
> > were being bombed by Hitler. You're warped, Doc. Your *pacifism* might
> > make you feel good, but it's dangerous. If you had your way, evil
> > dictators would rule the world. Because no pacifist would ever fight
> > them.
>
> I know this -- that the 'high moral ground' can't be retroactively
> justified by WW2 in Iraq today.
> We fought WW2 not for a moral crusade, not for ideological comfort,
> junior, but for fucking survival
Not entirely true, since FDR was bending the rules of Congress to send
military equipment to England long before Pearl Harbor.
Steven Douglas
>
> On 29 Nov, 05:58, Steven Douglas <steven.doug...@rocketmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 28, 9:36 pm, "Doc" <cmdrl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > If we wish to indict those in a court of law on mere suspicions of shady
>
> > <snip, remainder unread>
>
> > I have no idea what you're babbling about, and I don't really care.
>
> Oddly, I found it all quite simple, both to read, understand and to
> agree with, Steven (Betty)
I have no idea who Betty is. I don't post under ID's in which I'm
trying to hide my identity. I used "Bob" to make a point, and I made
it. But during that entire time, my email address remained the same as
the one I'm using right now. Take a look at it.
Doc
The majority of people didn't want another war, after suffering heavy losses
in WW1. They had enough of suffering under the weight of the Depression, as
well.
Had that been a moral crusade they desired, they showed little interest in
bloodletting to support it...until Pearl was hit.
And then it became purely a matter of survival by beating a foe widely
believed very capable of destroying their homeland.
Idealism and fiery patriotism were certainly present in propaganda, as it is
with the beginning of any war from the day of preemptive attack, and
continues onward until its end.
But, it was not a moral crusade in blood the American people wanted, and FDR
didn't represent what the majority wanted.
Doc
Werewolfy
wrote:
> I have no idea who Betty is. I don't post under ID's in which I'm
> trying to hide my identity. I used "Bob" to make a point, and I made
> it. But during that entire time, my email address remained the same as
> the one I'm using right now. Take a look at it.
The name was irrelevent. My post was to you, and wondering why you
cannot understand a simpe and very true post written by Doc. Instead,
you prefer to use a pair of scissors.
Werewolfy
JTEM
JTEM
"Doc" <cmdrl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The Taliban isn't our proved 9-11 revenge target,
Why do you think that matters?
We couldn't go into Afghanistan without fighting
the Taliban, and the camps were in Afghanistan.
Whether the Taliban had anything to do with the
camps or not, whether we wanted to be friends
with the Taliban or not, we weren't going in to
Afghanistan without fighting the Taliban.
They've closed hospitals because women & men were
allowed to eat in the same cafeteria, they weren't
about to look the other way as a sexually intergrated
majority-Christian army occupied their country.
: In May 2001, the Taliban raided and temporarily
: closed a foreign-funded hospital in Kabul because
: male and female staff allegedly mixed in the
: dining room and operating wards. It is significant
: to note that approximately 70% of health services
: had been provided by international relief
: organizations -- further highlighting the Taliban's
: general disregard for the welfare of the Afghan
: people.
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/6185.htm
The above story was actually old news by the time
it appeared on that government web site. I debated
it in alt.politics.homosexuality in May of 2001,
BEFORE the 9/11 attacks.
Doc
>
> "Doc" <cmdrl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I didn't write that.
>
> It was your post. You posted it. Grow up.
Seriously, it wasn't me. You'd better get some professional help.
>
>
>
Doc
LOL! You keep diverting to the camps, but I'm telling you we found no link
from the Taliban to Bin Laden's 9-11 project. And that is obstensibly why
the USA invaded. It was not to get rid of the camps, which had been there
for years. In fact, anti-Western terrorist camps exist in several other
Muslim nations, and yet you don't see us lumbering into those sovereign
nations, removing governments, do ya?
As I said, Johnny, we all know the Taliban's a rough bunch of customers, but
so are the Iranians, Syrians, Sudanese. Our mission is or was not to 'right
the wrongs' of systems of government over there, but to pursue and punish Al
Queda on the evidence we had.
But, crushing Al Queda will not likely rid us of anti-Western militant
groups, as a new congressional committee's report chaired by Kerry revealed
lately.
If removing nasty governments is the primary goal of US forces, then why was
Pol Pot not taken out?
You go ahead and justify destroying systems we're told are immoral, while
our military invasions simply inspire more terrorism.
We cannot solve human evil by military force. If that were the solution to
all the evil of the past, we'd be well on our way to nirvana on earth by
now.
And, yes, it's goddamned important to prove the Taliban was involved in the
9-11 attack, just as it would be if you were suspected of a capital crime,
but lacking anything other than suspicion, and circumstantial evidence, they
put your ass into Death Row. We have some modicum of morality still in this
increasingly assinine society, and I'm not about to abandon what's left for
sick emotional satisfaction, stupidity, arrogance, bigorty, racism,
political expendiency, and commercial greed.
You tell me how many more wars and how many more dead it will take to rid
ourselves of what is embedded in every one of us - evil?? Go ahead, tell us
how or bloodletting will improve the species' innate misbehavior? Hasn't
fucking done anything lasting or good for us in millenia of conflicts.
Doc
>
Doc
>
> "Doc" <cmdrl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I didn't write that.
>
> It was your post. You posted it. Grow up.
You'd better check your news reader, or your eyesight, or see a doctor.
> Actually, the correct terminology was that there
>> was no "operational collaboration" between Saddam
>> and bin Laden. That doesn't mean there weren't
>> contacts, as the 9/11 Commission Report showed
>> there were numerous contacts. Contacts means
>> there *was* a relationship.
The above as you included came from Steven Douglas -- a header appears to
have been missing that led to your mistake. It happens occasionally here to
everyone in long threads, so get over it, and let's move on. =)
Doc
"Werewolfy" <Werew...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8242c25f-8a79-40b7...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
I've been cut so many times now, I look like a pile of minced meat.
Doc
Woodswun
> "JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:87fcf5aa-21ba-4efd...@h10g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > "Doc" <cmdrl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> I didn't write that.
>
> > It was your post. You posted it. Grow up.
>
> You'd better check your news reader, or your eyesight, or see a doctor.
>
> > Actually, the correct terminology was that there
> >> was no "operational collaboration" between Saddam
> >> and bin Laden. That doesn't mean there weren't
> >> contacts, as the 9/11 Commission Report showed
> >> there were numerous contacts. Contacts means
> >> there *was* a relationship.
>
> The above as you included came from Steven Douglas -- a header appears to
> have been missing that led to your mistake. It happens occasionally here to
> everyone in long threads, so get over it, and let's move on. =)
Your responses never seem to display the previous posters' writings as
a quote, but as something you've written. It took me a couple of "Wha-
at?!"s before I figured out what was happening.
Woods