HALF-ASSED WARS, LAUNCHED BY HALF-ASSED QUACKS. WE NEED REGIME CHANGE
AbelM...@webtv.net
HERE FIRST.
My philosophy on wars is that it should be fought properly, or it should
not be fought at all. It's like saying that those who are
"Half-Doctors", they do more harm than good. If you are sick, you
should stay away from these guys, they are worse than not having a
Doctor at all. These "Half-Doctors" are people who are not fully
qualified to be Doctors, they are only half-way qualified. Beware of
these Quacks, they are very dangerous and will do far more harm than you
can imagine. You are much better off being without their service
altogether, even if you are sick, even if you can not find another
Doctor, you do NOT need these Quacks. Trust me on this. Not only will
these Half-Doctors FAIL in curing you as a sick patient, but they will
actually make you even sicker and quite possibly kill you.
A war is the same way. Either it be fought properly, by a person who is
fully qualified to be in charge of it, or it not be fought at all.
Fighting a war in a half-assed way, the way we are fighting it in Iraq,
is even worse than not fighting the war in Iraq at all.
Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11 in the first place & it has no WMDs.
As Gen. Clark said, the Iraq war is a "sideshow". We had no business
going in there in the first place. But since Bush did decide to take us
in there, he should have at least started off with an adequate force.
But now, look at the mess we are in right now.
Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia had EVERYTHING to do with 9/11. Bush is
doing nothing about Saudi Arabia, except to coddle them and cover up for
them. And as for Afghanistan, that's another half-assed war too, just
like Iraq, a disaster. 2 half assed war at one time. Bush should have
devoted the full force of our military to one place or the other.
Perservere to finish one war, then go after the other war. This is what
an intelligent person would have done.
Afghanistan did not use to be, but it is now the largest producer of
Opium in the world. Afghanistan is now the world's biggest
narco-terrorist State. And it's all Bush's fault.
We have 160,000 troops in Iraq, but only 20,000 troops in Afghanistan.
If our troop presence in Iraq is inadequate, then our troop presence in
Afghanistan is even more inadequate.
Go to this link for more:
http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=ISO-8859-1&selm=4208-406E985A-14%40storefull-3137.bay.webtv.net
Abel Malcolm
Bush is a Weapon of Mass Deception
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Educate yourself & go to these links:
www.moveon.org & www.salon.com & www.buzzflash.com & www.democrats.org &
www.bushwatch.com & www.americanprogress.org & www.democracynow.org &
http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=list&category=%20NEWS%3B%20Chickenhawks%3B%20Chickenhawk%20Headquarters
John Lamont
Rafael Leyre
><..>
> We had no business going in there in the first place. But since Bush did
> decide to take us
> Bush should have devoted the full force of our military to one place or
> the other. Perservere to finish one war, then go after the other war.
> This is what an intelligent person would have done.
The persistence by which you stick to a wrong interpretation of
warfare in general and of this war specifically, now that even the
American public gets a realistic view at the catastroph, is
remarkable.
First of all you don't 'start' and 'finish' a war as if it was a
surgical operation or a football match. You are drawn in it by a whirl
of primitive impulses, and it runs out when human misery is worn up.
Each war, by its very nature, is a disaster won by primitive brutes
and lost by innocent civilians.
It is a terrible absurdity to say we had no business in Iraq and at
the same time defend sending in more troops, and it is a tragedy that
the American people has no opportunity to vote - or even think -
against this madness.
"Abusive words soil the speaker"
Rafael Leyre
http://www.essayvtm.netfirms.com
Chedley
many who argued against it, were then ridiculed.
A morally wrong war always ends badly, no matter how clever political
arguments we use to justify it (WMD's, democracy, nasty dictator,..etc...).
The Iraq war actually detracted from the war on terrorism. Do you know that
Bin Laden and his friends are freely roaming in an un-named country, sipping
coffee, watching TV and laughing.
As I see it, the US has been deeply wounded by the attacks of 9/11, and felt
that it needed to take revenge against Arabs, any Arabs. Iraq and Saddam
just happened to be the handy target. The sooner we face up and recognize
it,the better off we'll all be.
"Rafael Leyre" <Rafael...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d4422438.04050...@posting.google.com...
> AbelM...@webtv.net wrote in message
news:<13409-409...@storefull-3135.bay.webtv.net>...
> ><..>
...
jackh...@aol.com
wrote:
>The whole US invasion and war in Iraq is politically and morally WRONG. The
>many who argued against it, were then ridiculed.
>A morally wrong war always ends badly, no matter how clever political
>arguments we use to justify it (WMD's, democracy, nasty dictator,..etc...).
>The Iraq war actually detracted from the war on terrorism. Do you know that
>Bin Laden and his friends are freely roaming in an un-named country, sipping
>coffee, watching TV and laughing.
>
>As I see it, the US has been deeply wounded by the attacks of 9/11, and felt
>that it needed to take revenge against Arabs, any Arabs. Iraq and Saddam
>just happened to be the handy target. The sooner we face up and recognize
>it,the better off we'll all be.
Even though we may be looking at Silverstein and the rest of the gang
as being responsible for the whole 9/11 crime.
>
>"Rafael Leyre" <Rafael...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:d4422438.04050...@posting.google.com...
>> AbelM...@webtv.net wrote in message
>news:<13409-409...@storefull-3135.bay.webtv.net>...
>> ><..>
>>
Transition Zone
> AbelM...@webtv.net wrote in message news:<13409-409...@storefull-3135.bay.webtv.net>...
> ><..>
> > Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11 in the first place & it has no WMDs.
> <..>
> > We had no business going in there in the first place. But since Bush did
> > decide to take us
> <..>
> > Bush should have devoted the full force of our military to one place or
> > the other. Perservere to finish one war, then go after the other war.
> > This is what an intelligent person would have done.
> <..>
>
> The persistence by which you stick to a wrong interpretation of
> warfare in general and of this war specifically, now that even the
> American public gets a realistic view at the catastroph, is
> remarkable.
> First of all you don't 'start' and 'finish' a war as if it was a
> surgical operation or a football match.
Then come on out and admit that from the start.
Vendicar Decarian
"Chedley" <ched...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:YfKdnR1fHur...@comcast.com...
> As I see it, the US has been deeply wounded by the attacks of 9/11, and
felt
> that it needed to take revenge against Arabs, any Arabs. Iraq and Saddam
> just happened to be the handy target. The sooner we face up and recognize
> it,the better off we'll all be.
So as you see it, the Neocon plan to invade the soverign states of Iraq,
North Korea and Iran, Syria, etc, before 911, - a plan formulated by Bush's
highest cabinet officers - was what? Just a joke? Fate? Divine
Providence?
America is now the enemy of all freedom loving people. America is the enemy
of Liberty.