Not Cutting & Running!
Max-he-must
shameful - that we'd be cutting and running and doing something that
macho U.S. Marines would never do - is absolutely ridiculous.
The invasion was a huge mistake. It was justified with deception.
The invasion should NEVER have been.
NONE of the people who are now dead or crippled for life, should have
been hurt at all. It was all UNNECESSARY. Bush, Cheney, and the US
politicians (both dems & reps) -who pushed for the invasion are sick
war criminals with blood soaked hands. Justice demands that they be
prosecuted and brought to justice.
If one man walked into Luby's while you were all eating lunch together
and persuaded you with deception, to get your guns and join him in
invading another man's ranch and killing a bunch of people there, and
maiming many more, you would ALL be criminals. The fact that you were
deceived could be used as part of your defense in a court of law, but
you would still have unjustly killed and maimed others. You would still
have a very steep price to pay for your errors. Justice would demand
that.
That's a valid synoposis of what happened, and some of you foolishly
think that it would be cowardly to pull out. The truth IS stranger
than fiction! This is not a game.
===============
Some of the major elements of the problem:
political corruption, corporate/political greed, deception, genocide,
torture, theft, insanity, fear... national pride, separatism, myopic
vision and extreme ignorance.
go figure!
======================================
Published on Monday, November 21, 2005 by Reuters
U.S. Troops Fired on Baghdad Civilians: Reports
BAQUBA, Iraq - Witnesses and the Iraqi police said U.S. troops opened
fire on a crowded minibus north of Baghdad on Monday, killing five
members of the same family, including two children, and wounding four
others....
the family was traveling from Balad, a town about 80 km (50 miles)
north of Baghdad, to the nearby city of Baquba for a funeral when they
were shot at by a U.S. patrol as it approached them on the road.
"As we tried to move over to one side to let them pass, they opened
fire," one of the survivors said
Police and the surviving family members said five people were killed,
including two young children. Reuters television footage showed the
dead children in a morgue in Baquba and relatives kissing another dead
body on a morgue trolley.
"They are all children. They are not terrorists," shouted one relative.
"Look at the children," he said as a morgue official carried a small
dead child into a refrigeration room.
"We felt bullets hitting the car from behind and from in front," said
another survivor with blood running from a wound to his head and
splattered on his shirt. "Heads were blown off. One child had his hand
shot off," he said.
======================================
That kind of crap is paid for everyday with our tax dollars.
http://www.ImpeachBush.org
Bringing the boys home from Iraq, and Impeaching president Gas Bag Bush
is the smartest thing that we can do. We really should do that before
he causes any more huge problems.
Sanders Kaufman
news:1132674923....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Published on Monday, November 21, 2005 by Reuters
> U.S. Troops Fired on Baghdad Civilians: Reports
>
> BAQUBA, Iraq - Witnesses and the Iraqi police said U.S. troops opened
> fire on a crowded minibus north of Baghdad on Monday, killing five
> members of the same family, including two children, and wounding four
> others....
Unfortunately, those bloodthirsty Marines who killed those kids did so,
ostensibly, on behalf of the People of the US.
That means that if WE THE PEOPLE don't punish the killer thugs, openly and
publicly, WE THE PEOPLE will have to pay the price for what they did to
those little kids.
SteveR
"Max-he-must" <maxh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Patriotic Bush supporters saying that pulling out of Iraq would be
> shameful - that we'd be cutting and running and doing something that
> macho U.S. Marines would never do - is absolutely ridiculous.
Firstly, support of Bush and support for our actions in the mideast are
not necessarily wed at the hip. It is possible to have voted for and
supported Clinton's relatively tough stance on Iraq (relative to the
UN's), and support Bush's actions there as well. At least it's a
consistent position.
Secondly, the basis for keeping on course is to complete the stated
mission. It doesn't have as much to do with "macho US Marines" as it
does with the Islamist view of weak horse/strong horse and global
perception.
We have choices, pull out prematurely with a chance of chaos and
slaughter because internal security structure is incomplete. The result
would be a great boon to the radical minority of Islam - they
desperately need a clear victory of some kind to boost their sagging
poll numbers and growing resentment from the majority of Islam.
Or, we pull out at a time that the Iraqis have their house in order, or
at least appear to in the eyes of the world.
If the established government fails, if civil war erupts, it's less
likely to happen immediately on our departure - presumably what ever
security structure is created, it can last a whole 12 months.
If the result is the same in the end, the focus will on Islam, not the
US. It will be hard to blame us if we're not there, let them have their
civil war if they choose, I think there's a great chance of that, but if
we bail now, we get a two-fer, the weak horse Infadel whom can't be
trusted to back the majority liberals and moderates, and we get to
witness a slaughter like we did in Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam.
This will be the beginning of a downward spiral in global influence, we
will never be trusted by anyone ever again, and Islamists? Payday!
For the Iraqis, the pre-war period had two important issues. Vietnam,
and the post GW1 period. In both cases, we didn't look good in their
eyes. Can you blame them?
If we do it again, then all of Islam have no choice but to say "Osama
was right".
This is going to be long war, fought globally - Iraq and Afghanistan
are key early battles. To abandon when we have more forward momentum
than the enemy is about as stupid a tactical move one could make, given
the stakes and the nature of the enemy.
>
> The invasion was a huge mistake.
Why? The elections? The constitutions? A chance at transitioning from a
dictatorship to self-determination?
This is Islam's last chance. We will, as usual, give our treasure to
liberate - but if the liberated don't carry the ball when we leave, then
they will go down with their warmongering minority. It's time for the
liberal and moderate majority to modernize. They have their best shot
yet with Bush in the WH, they better use it.
> It was justified with deception.
At it's root, the war has driven chiefly by Saddam's deceptions, and
no-one else's.
Look at the history of his regime.
The man had his constituency either involved in aggressor war, or
suffering from the aftermath of those wars for the *entirety of his
tenure*.
I don't even think he signed the Kyoto agreement!
> The invasion should NEVER have been.
Too late. But you can atone:
587s...@temple.nul
wrote:
Steve's delusions about the virtue of the Iraq war is only exceeded by
his fantasy that he is a veteran when in real life, he and Dubya and
Cheney were all snorting the same powder on the American flag.
Mike Smith
wrote:
>Patriotic Bush supporters saying that pulling out of Iraq would be
>shameful - that we'd be cutting and running and doing something that
>macho U.S. Marines would never do - is absolutely ridiculous.
>
>The invasion was a huge mistake. It was justified with deception.
>
>The invasion should NEVER have been.
Great.... another delusional moron splattering his crap all over
usenet.
Mike Smith
587s...@temple.nul
>usenet named Mike Smith.
Your grammar error was corrected.
Freedom Fighter
Obwon
<tex_d...@comcast.net> wrote:
>In article <1132674923....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> "Max-he-must" <maxh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Patriotic Bush supporters saying that pulling out of Iraq would be
>> shameful - that we'd be cutting and running and doing something that
>> macho U.S. Marines would never do - is absolutely ridiculous.
>
>Firstly, support of Bush and support for our actions in the mideast are
>not necessarily wed at the hip. It is possible to have voted for and
>supported Clinton's relatively tough stance on Iraq (relative to the
>UN's), and support Bush's actions there as well. At least it's a
>consistent position.
I think the support is for our troops, who can only
follow what appear to be lawfully given orders. Even
while we debate and question the underlying materials
here at home, these discussions do not provide any
basis for the military to believe that they have
anything other than lawful orders to follow. Thus they
deserve our support. We are told, that they are
defending our country, and not engaging in an act of
aggression. So, until the proper authorities find the
fact of the matter, and issue orders therefore, the
troops are doing their duty defending their country.
Obwon
>Secondly, the basis for keeping on course is to complete the stated
>mission. It doesn't have as much to do with "macho US Marines" as it
>does with the Islamist view of weak horse/strong horse and global
>perception.
Unfortunately "completing the stated mission", isn't
possible under the present configuration of things.
This is because the "mission" is now a purely poltical
one. Only the poltics of the matter will persist after
we leave, and the configuration of the political
domain, we will leave behind, does not conform to
what will be needed to preserve any peace that may
exist when we pull out.
In fact, having missed the opportunities to immediately
connect with the people, explain what had happened and
discuss our plans and their positions with them, led
to mistrust, borne of mistakes, errors, tragedies and
the like. All of which now is deeply embedded in the
populace, who wants us to leave at all costs.
Even the troops we are training can't be trusted.
They are drawn from the same misused and abused
populace, disheartend by the shame of defeat in front
of the eyes of the world. They are people who cannot
have built any alliegance to the newly created gov't.
Nor can they devine the principles of the new
constitution, as convoluted and complicated as it is.
All they can do, in fact, is attempt to perform a
charade of compliance, in the face of a superior force.
A superior force that has alienated them, and whose
ministrations they, therefore, cannot embrace.
That makes the "mission" impossible to achieve by the
current means. Unless something poltically acceptable
can be provided, something the people can accept and
embrace, everything we leave behind is in gravest
danger of being immediately swept away, out of hand.
The problem is not a military problem now! The
problem is now completely political. The longer we
keep our military forces there, the longer we will
suffer losses quite needlessly. Because it is the
travesty, tragedy of failures to build a political
consensus sufficient to sustain the populace and
provide goals they would want to work towards, the
constant military presence reminds them of things they
wished never happened.
If we are truly concerned about establishing the
articles we've enumerated as "The Mission", then we
need to pull back and let those with whom the people of
Iraq can connect politically, do the job. Anything
less is just a charade designed to prolong the
occupation.
Obwon
>We have choices, pull out prematurely with a chance of chaos and
>slaughter because internal security structure is incomplete. The result
>would be a great boon to the radical minority of Islam - they
>desperately need a clear victory of some kind to boost their sagging
>poll numbers and growing resentment from the majority of Islam.
"Pulling out prematurely", presumes that we are on
course to accomplish something. That is not the case!
As I've pointed out, we've lost the chance to connect
with the people politically, in any meaningful way. We
cannot "complete the security structure", because the
politics preclude it. We can create military forces,
but we have no control over how those forces will
perform or what they will decide their mission will be,
either before or after we leave.
The only "clear boon" to radical islamics, would be
to continue on this failing course, thus prolonging
the time to our exit, and the removal of the main cause
of political distress. That time, our delayed
withdrawal/handover yields, is time that Islamic
fundamentalist need to configure something, they can
provide, that the people will embrace. The people
are already politically upset with the occupation, the
more time they are given under this disapproved regime,
the more resentment grows.
Resentment of the Occupation, does not automatically
accrue to either the terrorist or Islamic
fundamentalist, yet. But given enough time it can.
We need to recognise that we've done all we can, at
this point, and that a change of leadership and plans
are needed. That is far cry from "Cutting and
Running", which is just yet another jingoistic slogan
for "Please, give us more time before saying that Bush
is a failure". How many times have we heard that plea?
How many times have we seen Bush take advantage of that
time, to shift to yet another failed plan? Do we not
remember the "Clear Strategy"?
Obwon
>Or, we pull out at a time that the Iraqis have their house in order, or
>at least appear to in the eyes of the world.
If they ever even appear to have their house in order,
it will only be a charade designed by people who plan
to take over. There is no popular poltical support for
either the gov't or the constitution, since the people
don't know the gov't people, nor do they understand the
constitution. But they are mightily irritated by the
circumstances they're living under, and they have good
reason to think they know who to blame for that.
Thus is the "stage" set for someone to emerge as a
leader. Will it be a "Hitler", a man who promises
and/or does good public works, but who conceals deadly
designs? Or a more peaceable person? Who can know at
this point in time. All we can know is that if the
opprobrium of the occupation is not attenuated, and
these people are not given leadership that they can
trust and follow, then everything else is out of our
hands, no matter how long we wait or stay. In fact,
the longer we stay the more irritation we provide,
that can propel the people to make "precipitous
leadership selections".
Obwon
>If the established government fails, if civil war erupts, it's less
>likely to happen immediately on our departure - presumably what ever
>security structure is created, it can last a whole 12 months.
Whatever "security force/structure" we create, will be
"supported" by only a confused electorate led by and
under an even more confusing constitution. Whatever
these "security forces" are going to do, is probably
being planned even now. For certain it involves taking
power, and for just as certain, it doesn't involve
constitutional law, which no one understands anyway.
Conclusion: The "Security Structure", can't last even
24 hours, after we leave. It probably won't last until
we leave. As you no doubt have noticed, uniformed
Iraqi soldiers have carried out acts of their own
devising. That makes them a force, unto themselves,
which the public cannot trust. Even if this is "just a
few bad apples", how can the people know who in the
uniform is or isn't a "bad apple"?
Without a poltical will to abide by the law, because
they don't know what the laws are. The people haven't
a choice but to create a law they understand. Or, have
such a law created for them by someone whom they
believe they can trust.
>If the result is the same in the end, the focus will on Islam, not the
>US. It will be hard to blame us if we're not there, let them have their
>civil war if they choose, I think there's a great chance of that, but if
>we bail now, we get a two-fer, the weak horse Infadel whom can't be
>trusted to back the majority liberals and moderates, and we get to
>witness a slaughter like we did in Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam.
>
>This will be the beginning of a downward spiral in global influence, we
>will never be trusted by anyone ever again, and Islamists? Payday!
>
>
>For the Iraqis, the pre-war period had two important issues. Vietnam,
>and the post GW1 period. In both cases, we didn't look good in their
>eyes. Can you blame them?
>
>If we do it again, then all of Islam have no choice but to say "Osama
>was right".
>
>This is going to be long war, fought globally - Iraq and Afghanistan
>are key early battles. To abandon when we have more forward momentum
>than the enemy is about as stupid a tactical move one could make, given
>the stakes and the nature of the enemy.
>>
But we don't have any "forward momentum", all we
have is control! To try and cast military control as
political stability is ludicrous. We should remove
ourselves as "irritants" who can eventually propel the
people towards making unintended choices.
That is about as stupid a mistake we could make, given
the stakes and nature of the enemy available.
>> The invasion was a huge mistake.
>
>Why? The elections? The constitutions? A chance at transitioning from a
>dictatorship to self-determination?
Self determination presumes a high degree of
knowledge among the people, of the matters of
constitutional law and who in gov't stands for what.
Without popular political support for any particular
position -- because those positions are so confusing --
translates into disorder. Not self determination,
because "self determination" requires not just a will
but some knowledge and belief.
Obwon
>This is Islam's last chance. We will, as usual, give our treasure to
>liberate - but if the liberated don't carry the ball when we leave, then
>they will go down with their warmongering minority. It's time for the
>liberal and moderate majority to modernize. They have their best shot
>yet with Bush in the WH, they better use it.
But no! They don't have their best shot with Bush in
the whitehouse, he provided them with an "opportunity"
they didn't ask for, at costs they never decided to
accept. Then he failed to meet, personally, with the
popular leadership, that the people could have
selected. Instead he attempted to impose leadership
from outside, without even consulting with them. Which
is the "insult to the injury" of being an Occupied
Nation.
How can they "use" this "opportunity"? There is no one
who can make the decision for them, and they can't make
it for themselves because they are so fearful,
confused, irritated and fractionalized.
>> It was justified with deception.
>
>At it's root, the war has driven chiefly by Saddam's deceptions, and
>no-one else's.
For more than TEN LONG YEARS, the PNAC has wanted
just this particular war! They have advocated for it
openly and with some gusto! Yet, the reasons given for
their mission, have proved to be unfounded.
Non-existent! Even the "hunches" have proved to be
untrue! And they did present information that was
known to be false! They fed information to the NYT,
then supported what was printed as fact, even though
they were the source, and without any conclusive proof
of anything at all.
You can hardly blame this war on a Saddam who was
allowing unfettered inspections at the time Bush pulled
them out. Saddam was destroying missles of only
questionable legality, they might have been able to
range further than permissible by some 10 to 20 miles.
Such compliance efforts bespeaks that "Containment"
could work. That and Saddams stated hope of getting
the sanctions lifted, hardly comport with the image of
a dangerous madman ready to attack the U.S.
>Look at the history of his regime.
The history of his regime is irrelavent in the matter
of declaring war for defensive purposes only.
Obwon
>The man had his constituency either involved in aggressor war, or
>suffering from the aftermath of those wars for the *entirety of his
>tenure*.
>
>I don't even think he signed the Kyoto agreement!
>
>> The invasion should NEVER have been.
>
>Too late. But you can atone:
>
>http://www.sorryeverybody.com/
0[ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ]0
Liars share with those they deceive
the desire not to be deceived.
--Sissela Bok
0[ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ]0
SteveR
Obwon <obl...@att.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 19:51:58 -0600, SteveR
> <tex_d...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <1132674923....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Max-he-must" <maxh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Patriotic Bush supporters saying that pulling out of Iraq would be
> >> shameful - that we'd be cutting and running and doing something that
> >> macho U.S. Marines would never do - is absolutely ridiculous.
> >
> >Firstly, support of Bush and support for our actions in the mideast are
> >not necessarily wed at the hip. It is possible to have voted for and
> >supported Clinton's relatively tough stance on Iraq (relative to the
> >UN's), and support Bush's actions there as well. At least it's a
> >consistent position.
>
> I think the support is for our troops, who can only
> follow what appear to be lawfully given orders. Even
> while we debate and question the underlying materials
> here at home, these discussions do not provide any
> basis for the military to believe that they have
> anything other than lawful orders to follow. Thus they
> deserve our support. We are told, that they are
> defending our country, and not engaging in an act of
> aggression. So, until the proper authorities find the
> fact of the matter, and issue orders therefore, the
> troops are doing their duty defending their country.
If you read milblogs, or know any veterans of the conflict, it appears
there is a big disconnect between what they see or saw in Iraq, and how
the story is being played in the US press and politics.
From what I read and hear, the people on the ground there are of a
majority opinion that we're winning, and that there are a lot of
positives, and forward momentum - while the opposite view seems to
permeate the message from the democrat party and the MSM. We're moving
bachwards, they are gaining strength, etc.
I don't think the Democrat party is breeding new democrats in the ranks
of combat military, to put it mildly.
>
> >Secondly, the basis for keeping on course is to complete the stated
> >mission. It doesn't have as much to do with "macho US Marines" as it
> >does with the Islamist view of weak horse/strong horse and global
> >perception.
>
> Unfortunately "completing the stated mission", isn't
> possible under the present configuration of things.
> This is because the "mission" is now a purely poltical
> one.
OK, let's say there are two goals which are mutually exclusive, as you
suggest, and that they cancel each other out. They are:
*Mission A) Creation of a stable government and capable security
structure. This was the stated mission prior to the invasion.
*Mission B) Apparently, mission B is to downplay any evidence of forward
momentum of elements of Mission A - for, as you infer, some sort of
political gain.
Given that, it appears the people most vocal in support of Mission B are
the democrats.
IOW, the greatest threat of failure comes not from the superior numbers
or military tactics and victories of the enemy in the war, but from
those within our own country with a vested interest in pursuing Mission
B.
That doesn't look good for the Democrats - after all, they voted for
Mission A, and the closer we get to completion of the goals of Mission
A, the more eager they seem to pursue Mission B.
I think Misson B can be accurately interpreted as "defeat the
Republicans". To do that, they need to paint the Mission they approved
of as unworkable somehow, or failing, i.e. "unwinnable". To reach that
goal, they have to delegitimize the current administration. To
delegitimize the current administration, they have to delegitimize the
mission itself.
Sound familiar? It should, because it's been done before. Simply put,
like it or not, a clear victory and attainment of the goals of MIssion A
won't be good for them politically in the future, so they have a vested
interest in hampering success of Mission A.
At this point, they've worked themselves into a corner where they appear
to need failure and defeat in Iraq to translate to domestic political
victory, and it's becoming harder for them to keep this from becoming
even more transparent.
And, of course, they can politicize, attack Bush, bemoan any and all
negatives (Abu Ghraib), and if they'lre called on their tactic and
motivation -= as is beginning to occur - they scream "You're
politicizing the war!!"
> Only the poltics of the matter will persist after
> we leave, and the configuration of the political
> domain, we will leave behind, does not conform to
> what will be needed to preserve any peace that may
> exist when we pull out.
That's a possibility, but you seem to have bought into the undeniable
inevitability school of thought.
IOW, the mid-east can't handle democracy, or can't defend against
minority totalitarian wannabees, or don't want to, or the majority
actually prefers totalitarian rule, theocratic or otherwise.
Every poll taken in Iraq concerning the viability of the country in the
future shows that Iraqis themselves are as optimistic on that issue as
the war's detractors in the US are pessimistic.
It seems that a certain segment of the US seems eager to declare
surrender for the Iraqis, and the Iraqis don't in any way indicate they
want to surrender to the minority fascists/Islamists or any alliance
thereof.
Furthermore, every poll taken indicates the Iraqis want us "out of there
- ASAP".
Of course they do, but more careful reading of the polls, and the entire
situation, shows that they don't mean "we want to be ruled by Zarqawi",
or a return to Baathist totalitarian rule. Yet, that is how the war's
detractors would have it interpreted here.
So, we have a segment of the political population here that has taken it
upon themselves to
A) Surrender for the Iraqis who don't want to surrender, and
B) Speak for the Iraqis by mis-represnting their desire for the
"occupation" to end as a clear rejection of the concept of
democratization.
Disingenuous conflation with intent to attain a domestic political goal
is what's known as "playing politics" with the war.
When every poll clearly shows that the majority not only prefers
democratization and is optimistic of that process coming to fruition -
I'd say the greatest threat to their chances are not Islamists and
baathists, or whatever groups are battling against democratization, it
is the US Democrat party, and those who's rhetoric suggests the goal is
unattainable, or advocate the Sheehan Strategy of immediate withdrawal.
If you read Iraqi blogs, they get it.
But, there is an upside to the rhetoric here in the US, it will
hopefully cause the Iraqis to speed things up as far as becoming strong
and competent enough to keep the country from collapsing when we leave.
So, the cynical and selfish political motives of some can be used to
further the attainment of Mission A, while actually damaging the chances
of success of mission B. Win-win, but not for the Democrats.
> In fact, having missed the opportunities to immediately
> connect with the people, explain what had happened and
> discuss our plans and their positions with them, led
> to mistrust, borne of mistakes, errors, tragedies and
> the like. All of which now is deeply embedded in the
> populace, who wants us to leave at all costs.
"At all costs"? I think you mean "At any cost", which is not so.
This is an example of what I cited, an eagerness to translate Iraqi
opinion in order to mis-represent.
"At any cost" is code for "rule by Zarqawi", or "civil war", and that's
simply not exactly what the Iraqis mean at all. Read their blogs and
you'll see the issue for them is not so simplified as their self-styled
"interpreters" here would have us all believe.
> Even the troops we are training can't be trusted.
> They are drawn from the same misused and abused
> populace, disheartend by the shame of defeat in front
> of the eyes of the world. They are people who cannot
> have built any alliegance to the newly created gov't.
> Nor can they devine the principles of the new
> constitution, as convoluted and complicated as it is.
Their armies and police forces are growing in numbers, not diminishing.
The attacks during elections meant to stop them have diminished
dramatically, not accelerated.
The number of those registering to vote has increased, not decreased
after the first election.
The percentage of registered voters who voted increased, not decreased
in the second election.
This is what is known as "quantifiable forward momentum", yet somehow,
we're going backwards?
From what I gather, none of this is of any import to those who see no
chance of success, they seem to base their position soley on the fact
that resistance exists, and that it exists, no matter the strength or
effectiveness, is de facto proof of failure.
It's all they have, really. No other parameter - economy, employment,
school attendance, electricity output - none of it supports the
assertion of imminent failure or even negative momentum.
I'd like to see folks with this mindset climb a mountain or build a
house. The very fact that you're moving uphill, or adding lumber is an
indication that you'll never reach the summit, or complete the house.
Why? *Because we have yet to reach the summit or complete the house*
This logic is bizarre, but increasingly forms the bedrock of the
anti-war argument. "We're not there yet, ergo we will never get there"
There is of course, the "other" totally logical anti-war argument: "I
Hate Bush", but I won't go there.
>
> All they can do, in fact, is attempt to perform a
> charade of compliance, in the face of a superior force.
> A superior force that has alienated them, and whose
> ministrations they, therefore, cannot embrace.
THey will embrace and protect their own freedoms that we had everything
to do with, or they'll go down. Their choice.
It has nothing to do with whether or not they like Americans. Do you
believe that the majority of Iraqis hate Americans so much they are
willing to commit suicide to get their point across?
Obviously, some do, but that's our old buddy, the Islamists doing
exactly what the domestic detractors are attempting - to "speak" for the
majority, who *want nothing to do with them, their tactics, or their
aims*
I think the anti-terror demonstrations in Iraq and Jordan should make
that clear. Considering that to demonstrate so publicly - just as in
voting and the "purple finger" - is very dangerous given the obvious,
one can assume that every demnnstrator speaks for many not demonstrating.
Momentum.
> That makes the "mission" impossible to achieve by the
> current means. Unless something poltically acceptable
> can be provided, something the people can accept and
> embrace, everything we leave behind is in gravest
> danger of being immediately swept away, out of hand.
We're working on it as we speak. The current means, rather than being an
impediment, seem to be working.
Again, if your sole parameter is "we want the US gone", then you're
ignoring every other quantifiable parameter to make your point, and even
that parameter is a false indicator.
> The problem is not a military problem now!
Oh yes it is. And guess what, it will be military poroblem for the
Iraqis when we leave as well.
History shows that there is *alwyas* conflict, there are *always* groups
with competing agendas.
That is why we have things like armies and police forces. To keep the
peace. That's what Iraqis want as well.
> The
> problem is now completely political. The longer we
> keep our military forces there, the longer we will
> suffer losses quite needlessly.
Yes. The longer we are there, the more time we will be there. The more
time we spend there, the greater the likelihood of increased casualties.
That's a given.
That's a given in any war. The longer it persists, the greater the
casualties, *even if the casualties trend downward as time goes on*,
they still add to the total cost.
> Because it is the
> travesty, tragedy of failures to build a political
> consensus sufficient to sustain the populace and
> provide goals they would want to work towards, the
> constant military presence reminds them of things they
> wished never happened.
You seem determined to describe forward momentum as a stall, or negative
momentum.
>
> If we are truly concerned about establishing the
> articles we've enumerated as "The Mission", then we
> need to pull back and let those with whom the people of
> Iraq can connect politically, do the job. Anything
> less is just a charade designed to prolong the
> occupation.
*That is what we are doing*
> >We have choices, pull out prematurely with a chance of chaos and
> >slaughter because internal security structure is incomplete. The result
> >would be a great boon to the radical minority of Islam - they
> >desperately need a clear victory of some kind to boost their sagging
> >poll numbers and growing resentment from the majority of Islam.
>
> "Pulling out prematurely", presumes that we are on
> course to accomplish something.
Puhleeeze. Is it not obvious to you by now that we "intend to accomplish
something"?
> That is not the case!
> As I've pointed out, we've lost the chance to connect
> with the people politically, in any meaningful way. We
> cannot "complete the security structure", because the
> politics preclude it. We can create military forces,
> but we have no control over how those forces will
> perform or what they will decide their mission will be,
> either before or after we leave.
IOW, all wars are unwinnable, simply by virtue that they are fought at
all.
>
> The only "clear boon" to radical islamics, would be
> to continue on this failing course, thus prolonging
> the time to our exit, and the removal of the main cause
> of political distress.
The Islamists are getting some rather hostile reactions from a
population that at one time turned a blind eye. This is a boon?
> That time, our delayed
> withdrawal/handover yields, is time that Islamic
> fundamentalist need to configure something
They seem hell-bent on continuing the process of their demise. After
all, if we believed the greatest way to win the support of the populace
was to continually target innocents as they, and apparently you, believe
- we could do it posthaste, and much more effectively than them.
But we don't employ that tactic. Why? because it's counter-productive.
Look at the demos, look at the polls, it's clearly not a winning
political strategy.
<snip>
The remainder of the debate is just back and forth saying the same
thing, so for brevity, I snipped.
Good debate though, It's refreshing to discuss the issue without being
called a liar, or worse.
Sanders Kaufman
news:es19o1t0va1egoqn9...@4ax.com...
> I think the support is for our troops, who can only
> follow what appear to be lawfully given orders. Even
That belief is a HUGE mistake.
As the entire world now knows, the US soldiers do not limit themselves to
obeying lawfully given orders.
They are much more industrious and improvisational than that.
The ones who were "just following orders" are now dead, maimed or
discharged.
And what's worse - they've been doing it SO LONG now that it will be
difficult to impossible for many of them to re-integrate into peaceful
society.
These are not the minutemen of the Revolutionary War.
Iraq wasn't just a training ground for foreign terrorists - it trained our
domestic ones equally as well, if not better.
Nazi-era Germans didn't believe that about their own troops, either - until
the gates to Buchevald were thrown open.
--
"I love terrorizing these people" - Sgt. Mike Bell, Kandahar, Afghanistan
(Dallas Morning News)
587s...@temple.nul
wrote:
As far as your "100% Mission Accomplished" military blogs are
concerned, I'm sure plenty of soldiers are willing to risk court
martial posting criticism of Dubya. NOT.
587s...@temple.nul
<bu...@kaufman.net> wrote:
>"Obwon" <obl...@att.net> wrote in message
>news:es19o1t0va1egoqn9...@4ax.com...
>
>> I think the support is for our troops, who can only
>> follow what appear to be lawfully given orders. Even
>
>That belief is a HUGE mistake.
>As the entire world now knows, the US soldiers do not limit themselves to
>obeying lawfully given orders.
>They are much more industrious and improvisational than that.
>The ones who were "just following orders" are now dead, maimed or
>discharged.
>
>And what's worse - they've been doing it SO LONG now that it will be
>difficult to impossible for many of them to re-integrate into peaceful
>society.
>These are not the minutemen of the Revolutionary War.
>
>Iraq wasn't just a training ground for foreign terrorists - it trained our
>domestic ones equally as well, if not better.
>Nazi-era Germans didn't believe that about their own troops, either - until
>the gates to Buchevald were thrown open.
The Nazi Death Camps were all the idea of one German Private, Hitler
would never condone the use of torture.
Sanders Kaufman
news:8f0ao1l8bnfbjr098...@4ax.com...
>>Iraq wasn't just a training ground for foreign terrorists - it trained our
>>domestic ones equally as well, if not better.
>>Nazi-era Germans didn't believe that about their own troops, either -
>>until
>>the gates to Buchevald were thrown open.
>
> The Nazi Death Camps were all the idea of one German Private, Hitler
> would never condone the use of torture.
Hitler - that's that European feller who coined the word "terrorist", ain't
he?
Sanders Kaufman
news:m20ao1luh9kiicabh...@4ax.com...
> As far as your "100% Mission Accomplished" military blogs are
> concerned, I'm sure plenty of soldiers are willing to risk court
> martial posting criticism of Dubya. NOT.
They sure do like writing books *after* their discharge, though!
SteveR
587s...@temple.nul wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 15:05:32 -0600, SteveR <tex_d...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
<snip>
> >Good debate though, It's refreshing to discuss the issue without being
> >called a liar, or worse.
>
> As far as your "100% Mission Accomplished"
I didn't assert that at all, ventriloquist.
Out of courtesy to any readers, I snipped the gazillion words you didn't
for your one-paragraph, one-legged response, but it's still out there
for you to copy and paste something to back up what you claim. Go for it.
> military blogs are
> concerned, I'm sure plenty of soldiers are willing to risk court
> martial posting criticism of Dubya. NOT.
Uhhh... I see you don't read milblogs. Were you to actually do so, you'd
realize that they are *not all active military*.
Whoops, foot meet bullet. Y'all come back now when ya' heals up
Bill Walker
"SteveR" <tex_d...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:tex_driver-A9D33...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <1132674923....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> "Max-he-must" <maxh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Patriotic Bush supporters saying that pulling out of Iraq would be
>> shameful - that we'd be cutting and running and doing something that
>> macho U.S. Marines would never do - is absolutely ridiculous.
>
> Firstly, support of Bush and support for our actions in the mideast are
> not necessarily wed at the hip. It is possible to have voted for and
> supported Clinton's relatively tough stance on Iraq (relative to the
> UN's), and support Bush's actions there as well. At least it's a
> consistent position.
>
> Secondly, the basis for keeping on course is to complete the stated
> mission. It doesn't have as much to do with "macho US Marines" as it
> does with the Islamist view of weak horse/strong horse and global
> perception.
Which one of those "stated missions" are you referring to ?
>
> We have choices, pull out prematurely with a chance of chaos and
> slaughter because internal security structure is incomplete. The result
> would be a great boon to the radical minority of Islam - they
> desperately need a clear victory of some kind to boost their sagging
> poll numbers and growing resentment from the majority of Islam.
"Sagging poll numbers in the middle east isn't the concern of the middle
east.. Those sagging poll numbers and opposition to Bush/Cheney are the
motivation .. Americans are coming to recognize the corruption of George
Bush and company..
Approximately one third of Americans do not believe anyone in leadership of
this administration.. Right, Wrong or Indifferent .. that is a fact..
Americans are beginning to make their voices heard all over this country..
>
> Or, we pull out at a time that the Iraqis have their house in order, or
> at least appear to in the eyes of the world.
>
> If the established government fails, if civil war erupts, it's less
> likely to happen immediately on our departure - presumably what ever
> security structure is created, it can last a whole 12 months.
>
> If the result is the same in the end, the focus will on Islam, not the
> US. It will be hard to blame us if we're not there, let them have their
> civil war if they choose, I think there's a great chance of that, but if
> we bail now, we get a two-fer, the weak horse Infadel whom can't be
> trusted to back the majority liberals and moderates, and we get to
> witness a slaughter like we did in Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam.
>
> This will be the beginning of a downward spiral in global influence, we
> will never be trusted by anyone ever again, and Islamists? Payday!
Better take a look at the image of America around the world, today.. Bush
has diminished, if not destroyed the image of OUR country to the point that
we are no longer considered credible .. His failures in the recent weeks are
the indicators of Americas stature in the world.. They fear us as a super
power .. They don't trust Bush as president nor do they trust Rice as
Secretary of State..
>
>
> For the Iraqis, the pre-war period had two important issues. Vietnam,
> and the post GW1 period. In both cases, we didn't look good in their
> eyes. Can you blame them?
>
> If we do it again, then all of Islam have no choice but to say "Osama
> was right".
>
> This is going to be long war, fought globally - Iraq and Afghanistan
> are key early battles. To abandon when we have more forward momentum
> than the enemy is about as stupid a tactical move one could make, given
> the stakes and the nature of the enemy.
>>
>> The invasion was a huge mistake.
>
> Why? The elections? The constitutions? A chance at transitioning from a
> dictatorship to self-determination?
>
> This is Islam's last chance. We will, as usual, give our treasure to
> liberate - but if the liberated don't carry the ball when we leave, then
> they will go down with their warmongering minority. It's time for the
> liberal and moderate majority to modernize. They have their best shot
> yet with Bush in the WH, they better use it.
LOL. George Bush has already established himself as a lunatic.. in the eyes
of other legitimate world leaders.. He's led America into a war that has
never been considered legitimate other than by Tony Blair, who led Great
Britain into the same disaster.. Both of these leaders are hysterically
scrambling to recover from the Downing Street Memos and other exposures of
their collusion in this illegitimate catastrophy..
>
>> It was justified with deception.
>
> At it's root, the war has driven chiefly by Saddam's deceptions, and
> no-one else's.
Regardless of Saddam Hussein's corruption and ruthlessness .. as it turns
out he's the only one who told the truth in all this.. When he told the
world that he had no WMD's and his stockpiles of chemical and biological
stockpiles were long since expired .. he told the truth.. Bush and Blairs
lies about those weapons have been exposed and are common knowledge with
those exposures.. Saddam Hussein is a corrupt and blustering bully.. George
Bush is motivated by the same ambitions as Saddam Hussein, only more
dangerous.. After all, he is the leader of a super power nation, with the
capability that Saddam Hussein only fantacized about..
>
> Look at the history of his regime.
Why ? The world is well aware of that cesspool of a government.. Better
advise would be to thoroughly examine the "regime" of George Bush.. That one
is critical to the United States and all Americans..
>
> The man had his constituency either involved in aggressor war, or
> suffering from the aftermath of those wars for the *entirety of his
> tenure*.
ROTFL.. that one is hilarious. Which nation is the aggressor in Iraq ?
>
> I don't even think he signed the Kyoto agreement!
>
>> The invasion should NEVER have been.
>
> Too late. But you can atone:
Yup.. The starting place for that "atonement" is in the White House.. That
"atonement" could have commenced in 2004, but there were enough idiots like
you to hang onto the slim margin that enabled George Bush to continue the
aggression towards the world, that he represents..
>
> http://www.sorryeverybody.com/
Bill Walker
<587s...@temple.nul> wrote in message
news:t2k7o11gsr2a8hd2p...@4ax.com...
Steve R. has never claimed to be a veteran, far as I know.. However.. he
has boasted that he avoided the draft, just like Dick Cheney or Rush
Limbaugh.. He has however.. fabricated a "son" who he claims is a veteran
and has served in Iraq.. That is his claim to credibility to justify his
support of George W.Bush..
Other positions that he has declared, totally discredits his claims of
support and concern for the members of our armed services.. Steve R. is as
much of a fraud as Bush..
Bill Walker
Irving, Tx.
Bill Walker
> <tex_d...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>In article <1132674923....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>> "Max-he-must" <maxh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Patriotic Bush supporters saying that pulling out of Iraq would be
>>> shameful - that we'd be cutting and running and doing something that
>>> macho U.S. Marines would never do - is absolutely ridiculous.
>>
>>Firstly, support of Bush and support for our actions in the mideast are
>>not necessarily wed at the hip. It is possible to have voted for and
>>supported Clinton's relatively tough stance on Iraq (relative to the
>>UN's), and support Bush's actions there as well. At least it's a
>>consistent position.
>
> I think the support is for our troops, who can only
> follow what appear to be lawfully given orders. Even
> while we debate and question the underlying materials
> here at home, these discussions do not provide any
> basis for the military to believe that they have
> anything other than lawful orders to follow. Thus they
> deserve our support. We are told, that they are
> defending our country, and not engaging in an act of
> aggression. So, until the proper authorities find the
> fact of the matter, and issue orders therefore, the
> troops are doing their duty defending their country.
>
> Obwon
The office of the Commander in Chief of our military has been violated and
corrupted by Bush and his contingent in the White House.. Bush/Cheney have
added insult to injury when they attack and attempt to assassinate the
characters of Americans who challenge and oppose them.. They equally divided
this country to get into power..These men have an agenda that they hope will
be established before the American people can remove them from office and
return the power of our government to the people ..where it belongs..
The desperation that we are witnessing from Bush/Cheney are indications that
they realize the evenly divided country which they hijacked our country
with, is no longer evident.. The 34 % who now support or even believe these
faux leaders are becoming weaker with each exposure of them..
Bleak as it may seem, each time we get a casualty report .. there is light
at the end of the tunnel.. Regards, Obwon
Bill Walker
Irving, Tx..
Bill Walker
<587s...@temple.nul> wrote in message
news:mfk7o11sbdgom5i31...@4ax.com...
LOL... that's a waste of time..
Now then.. Sanders Kaufman and I usually are on much the same page.. We
share many views but on the postion that he assumes about our military and
some of the actions that have been exposed, I have to part company with
him..
Those are our own sons, daughters, fathers, nieces and nephews in the middle
of this conflict.. They are OURS and they are doing their jobs well, for the
most part.. They don't deserve being placed in this position with such
corrupt leadership, but they perform their duty for us ..
The desperation that is being demonstrated by Bush and Cheney . these past
few weeks is the perfect example of actions by perpetrators that are on the
edge of complete exposure for their corruption.. Remember that we have
important elections coming up in 2006.. Remember also, as evenly divided as
our country was in previous elections, which were questionable for
credibility in some areas.. Florida.. Ohio.. these sleazes recognize that
they've already been exposed so badly that their approval status is reduced
to the point that the loss of power for them is imminent..
The successful division of the nation worked so well in the previous
elections, but now, they realize that there is certainly going to be a loss
of the power..
The only possibility to hold on to the power is to create another division..
Our sons and daughters in uniform are pretty well locked in to the
committments of allegiance to our country, flag and Constitution.. See where
I'm going with this ? That number of votes could make the difference
between electoral victory and defeat.. Attacking the opposition and critics
the way they've been doing for the past few weeks is directed to assure that
our military will vote for them.. Divide and conquer .. again..
The undoing of this strategy is clear.. Take a look at the ones doing the
smearing.. then take a look at the men they are attacking.. Bush... evader
of his own military obligations.. Cheney.. a man who had other priorities..
etc.. etc.. They are anxious to assassinate the characters of the men who
stood up and performed as genuine patriots while they, themselves avoided
their responsibilities like cowards..
The object and hope for Bush, Cheney, Rove and company is that the military
voting block can make the difference for them.. Those men and women who are
serving in Iraq do not have the advantage of the rest of us.. Due to their
training and natural patriotism, they can easily be manipulated to vote in
favor of the president .. The multiple visits and missions to the area, by
various members of this administration, the Senate and the Congress should
be red flags for all of us..
The efforts of sleazy tactics to give the impression to our troops that the
critics of them, are somehow indicators that America doesn't support those
patriotic men and women in uniform mustn't be allowed.. Division .. again..
George Bush has failed to keep our country divided, and division between
Americans and military is a last resort to retain that power, they've
hijacked in our government..
Bill Walker
Irving, Tx...
>
Obwon
Too bad none of your answers comport with reality!
How many troops, after all these long years, are ready
to stand and fight on their own?
How will the public trust a military, whose uniforms
are being misused by militias?
Just how strong will be the will of the people to not
meld religious scripture with government?
How will the people deal with the Islamic
fundamentalist?
What will they be able to do to remove the taint of the
occupation from the mantle of their new found freedoms?
Obviously, these and questions with even more serious
conseqences haven't be either addressed or answered.
All that we're being told is that the people are
getting more compliant, quiet and peaceful. And that
that somehow translates into winning our objectives
and/or meeting our goals.
Should we believe that a surface veneer of civility
is going to protect us from Iraq turning into an enemy
state? If so, what do we do if it does? Remember,
this administration told us that they were doing many
things, many times, already, that they weren't. They
told us they had plans that they didn't have, and that
those plans were working went they weren't. So then,
why should we accept the risks of believing them now?
Obwon
SteveR
"Bill Walker" <bill.w...@verizon.com> wrote:
> <587s...@temple.nul> wrote in message
> news:t2k7o11gsr2a8hd2p...@4ax.com...
> > Steve's delusions about the virtue of the Iraq war is only exceeded by
> > his fantasy that he is a veteran when in real life, he and Dubya and
> > Cheney were all snorting the same powder on the American flag.
Oh, brother, here we go. Time for a little character assassination and
smears and lies. It's getting hard to keep up with Billy's spin.
> Steve R. has never claimed to be a veteran, far as I know.
You would be correct.
> However.. he
> has boasted that he avoided the draft
Define "boast".
All I said is that I got a high draft number, it was the last year of
the lottery, the war was de-escalating, they didn't call me up. If I
"avoided" the draft, it was passively, not actively - and the result of
US Government decision, not mine.
That is what is known as "stating fact", not "boasting".
> just like Dick Cheney or Rush
> Limbaugh..
There is no similarity whatsoever in their experiences or actions at the
time with my experience or action at the time. You see, *I took no
action whatsoever to actively avoid the draft*, as you allege. Next,
you'll invent some tale that will have me hiding from the draft board in
Cambodia during Christmas, it's probably "seared" in your memory, eh?
Now, let's see what else Bill comes up with in attempts do discredit,
which is all the ammo the old bou has when it comes to debating the
issues...
> He has however.. fabricated a "son" who he claims is a veteran
> and has served in Iraq.. That is his claim to credibility to justify his
> support of George W.Bush..
I need not fabricate a thing to bolster my arguments in favor of our
actions in the mid-east, I stick to facts and opinions based on those
facts. In answer, you just trot out the time-worn personal attacks and
screams of "LIAR".
The reason is obvious, you cannot carry on a reasonable back-and-forth
on the issue because you are so busy hating Bush, you don't pay
attention the the world around you, I do. As a result, I'm always
better-informed than you on the issue. When you have no facts to
counter, fall back on the winning strategy of blabbering irrelevant
nonsense.
> Other positions that he has declared, totally discredits his claims of
> support and concern for the members of our armed services.. Steve R. is as
> much of a fraud as Bush..
I won't ask you to provide cites, proof of your assertion, because there
aren't any. In your mind, supporting Bush's efforts in the mid-east is
de facto absolute proof that I offer no support or concern for the
military. How can I argue that? Your mind is made up.
Which leads me (and you) back to that same old conundrum you've never
been able to reconcile: What of the veteran or active military that
support the efforts, or support Bush? Explain how *they* have no support
nor concern for *themselves*. This is where you hit a brick wall, Bill.
Splat. It has squat to do with my kid, I only offer him as an example -
it has to do with how you try to spin your way out of illogical
conclusions. And, you can't, so you attack me. You. Lose.
Obwon
<bill.w...@verizon.com> wrote:
Bill? I've been following "LegisScam", you know the
Abramoff/DeLay led K-street project that was supposed
to deliver a one party gov't to us.
In the course of following SunCruize, I've noted
that very strange look on Abramoffs face, it's way too
contorted to be derived from just this "minimal"
scandal of having forged a financial instrument. In
fact, even the murder of Boulis doesn't seem to be
driven by either the business, the forgery or anything
else that surrounds it.
Consider that even by murdering Boulis, they don't
cover the fraud. The only way to do that, and remember
these people are high powered lawyers and knowledgeable
freaks, is to pay off the loan. But there's no
apparent plan that will allow them to do so...
But then, enter a subtle little artifact, and
everything seems to become much more clear.
Atta apparantly visited several SunCruize ships and
gambled big money there. So now, that provides for a
few "what if's", that make the murder more desperately
necessary than not.
What if: Gus Boulis actually saw Mohammad Atta on
the ship gambling? What if he further happened to
see, or somehow managed to figure out, that this
bumbling big mouthed broke-O, making 8 and 900 dollar
bets at the roulette wheel, was somehow connected with
Abramoff or Kidan or Wally Hilliard [the guy who owned
the flight training school where Atta trained]. What
if Boulis saw or learned somehow, that these people
were connected? It could have been something as simple
as a look of recognition across a crowded room.
Then, while Gus wouldn't know what he'd stumbled
upon at that time. Abramoff and the "Boys", would
know that after 9-11 he'd understand what he'd come to
know. And that had to be the worlds biggest NO-NO, if
it had happened. It would have been something so, so
very serious, that he would have had to be killed.
For that kind of information could have connected
people all the way up to the whitehouse with 9-11.
Don't know that this kind of thing happened, but
it's "available" to have happened, because of the
strange proximity of Atta to SunCruize. Which, of
course, was run and owned by the money laundering
Abramoff, through a scam purchase and non-performing
loans. There is also the matter of money being paid
out of SunCruize's treasury, that isn't accounted for.
Could Boulis have figured that Atta wasn't gambling his
own money? Who knows.
But this scandal bears serious watching. Abramoff is
due to appear in court in January. And DeLay is
struggling desperately to get his old job back and
fast!
Obwon
George Kerby
On 11/24/05 10:54 AM, in article
tex_driver-48814...@comcast.dca.giganews.com, "SteveR"
<tex_d...@comcast.net> wrote:
Steve, you wasting too much time with this senile silly bastard.
They let him use the computer at the Rest Home only on holidays, and at all
other times, he is too medicated to make any sense. Somehow, a couple of
weeks ago, he snuck out and started posting here while under the effects of
the drugs.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
SteveR
"Bill Walker" <bill.w...@verizon.com> wrote:
> "SteveR" <tex_d...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:tex_driver-A9D33...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> > In article <1132674923....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Max-he-must" <maxh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Patriotic Bush supporters saying that pulling out of Iraq would be
> >> shameful - that we'd be cutting and running and doing something that
> >> macho U.S. Marines would never do - is absolutely ridiculous.
> >
> > Firstly, support of Bush and support for our actions in the mideast are
> > not necessarily wed at the hip. It is possible to have voted for and
> > supported Clinton's relatively tough stance on Iraq (relative to the
> > UN's), and support Bush's actions there as well. At least it's a
> > consistent position.
> >
> > Secondly, the basis for keeping on course is to complete the stated
> > mission. It doesn't have as much to do with "macho US Marines" as it
> > does with the Islamist view of weak horse/strong horse and global
> > perception.
>
> Which one of those "stated missions" are you referring to ?
The big one: Remove Saddam from power, let the Iraqis replace a
Totalitarian regime with a system of self-determination.
> > We have choices, pull out prematurely with a chance of chaos and
> > slaughter because internal security structure is incomplete. The result
> > would be a great boon to the radical minority of Islam - they
> > desperately need a clear victory of some kind to boost their sagging
> > poll numbers and growing resentment from the majority of Islam.
>
> "Sagging poll numbers in the middle east isn't the concern of the middle
> east.. Those sagging poll numbers and opposition to Bush/Cheney are the
> motivation .. Americans are coming to recognize the corruption of George
> Bush and company..
You casually dismiss the gist, which is the PR problems al Qaida is
experiencing because of their tactics - and try to swing the debate back
to your warm and fuzzy best argument: "I hate Bush".
Fact is, Bubba - whether or not you hate Bush, whether or not his poll
numbers are high or low has *nothing to do with the issue*. The issue,
as you'll note in the paragraph you "rebutted" is *al Qaida and Islam*.
> Approximately one third of Americans do not believe anyone in leadership of
> this administration.. Right, Wrong or Indifferent .. that is a fact..
> Americans are beginning to make their voices heard all over this country..
Do you just keep this sort of stuff in a handy Word doc, so you can
copy/paste it in response to *any* debate on the mid-east?. I get the
feeling you would paste your standard description of the crumbling Bush
regime into a discussion centered on the merits of automatic
transmissions vs. standard transmissions.
One-trick pony. Rode hard, put up wet.
> > Or, we pull out at a time that the Iraqis have their house in order, or
> > at least appear to in the eyes of the world.
> >
> > If the established government fails, if civil war erupts, it's less
> > likely to happen immediately on our departure - presumably what ever
> > security structure is created, it can last a whole 12 months.
> >
> > If the result is the same in the end, the focus will on Islam, not the
> > US. It will be hard to blame us if we're not there, let them have their
> > civil war if they choose, I think there's a great chance of that, but if
> > we bail now, we get a two-fer, the weak horse Infadel whom can't be
> > trusted to back the majority liberals and moderates, and we get to
> > witness a slaughter like we did in Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam.
> >
> > This will be the beginning of a downward spiral in global influence, we
> > will never be trusted by anyone ever again, and Islamists? Payday!
>
> Better take a look at the image of America around the world, today
I have, Bill, and I posted cites to illustrate that it is *improving*,
while approval of al Qaida is *lessening*. It's called an "upward
trend", but you just blithely toss out a CW, which the cite I provided
shows opposite what you seem to suggest.
> Bush
> has diminished, if not destroyed the image of OUR country to the point that
> we are no longer considered credible
Well, then, the best way to counter that is to pull out of Iraq without
fulfilling our stated goal - *that* will go far to counter our
reputation as the country of cut-and-run, won't it?
What you and the Sheehan's of the world are advocating is simply to hand
radical Islam the greatest gift they could possibly ask for. Your
Bush-centric view of every issue blinds you to *any* consequences of
that policy.
Your enemy is not al Qaida, China, or anyone else on this globe, your
enemy is Bush, and that's where your perspective begins and ends.
> His failures in the recent weeks are
> the indicators of Americas stature in the world.. They fear us as a super
> power .. They don't trust Bush as president nor do they trust Rice as
> Secretary of State..
If you would focus on the nature and geopolitical/philosophical nature
of the great majority of those angry with Bush, you'll find that it is
simply a manifestation of long-held anti-American, or anti-western, or
anti-capitalism groups with a new target. IOW, the usual suspects one
would expect to take to the streets every time the US sneezes.
It's a good thing when your enemies stand up to be counted, so we and
the world can see who they are and what they represent.
Maybe you feel comfortable with your Queen going to Argentina to rub
elbows with every anti-American entity imaginable in order to denounce
Bush - and the US, and you want to go to Crawford to pay homage to her -
but to me, that is simply support for anti-American groups.
They're just using her, and you, as little foot soldiers of the moment,
exploiting your singular hatred of Bush for their greater anti-American
agenda. That's right, Bill, your obsession with one man is being used by
your own enemies to further their agenda against *you*.
You're a lap-dog for your own enemies. How can you stand to breath the
same air as goons from ANSWER? Are you a Communist as well?
> > For the Iraqis, the pre-war period had two important issues. Vietnam,
> > and the post GW1 period. In both cases, we didn't look good in their
> > eyes. Can you blame them?
> >
> > If we do it again, then all of Islam have no choice but to say "Osama
> > was right".
> >
> > This is going to be long war, fought globally - Iraq and Afghanistan
> > are key early battles. To abandon when we have more forward momentum
> > than the enemy is about as stupid a tactical move one could make, given
> > the stakes and the nature of the enemy.
> >>
> >> The invasion was a huge mistake.
> >
> > Why? The elections? The constitutions? A chance at transitioning from a
> > dictatorship to self-determination?
> >
> > This is Islam's last chance. We will, as usual, give our treasure to
> > liberate - but if the liberated don't carry the ball when we leave, then
> > they will go down with their warmongering minority. It's time for the
> > liberal and moderate majority to modernize. They have their best shot
> > yet with Bush in the WH, they better use it.
>
> LOL. George Bush has already established himself as a lunatic..
Certain people consider him a very effective lunatic. Osama and Saddam
come to mind, as well as yourself and every ant-American group on the
globe. Nice company you keep, Bill.
> in the eyes
> of other legitimate world leaders.. He's led America into a war that has
> never been considered legitimate other than by Tony Blair, who led Great
> Britain into the same disaster.. Both of these leaders are hysterically
> scrambling to recover from the Downing Street Memos and other exposures of
> their collusion in this illegitimate catastrophy..
You left out Australia and all the others who's governments approved
and/or lent support to the mission.
I think perhaps your problem is that F,G&R - while acknowledging the key
issues concerning Saddam - did not want to upset the apple cart out of
strictly financial self-interest and nothing else. These are your great
moral examples?
You've been had. You kneel to nations who's policies are to support
abusive totalitarian regimes, in this case a regime that has been at
war, or suffering the effects of war for the entirety of its tenure.
That is a very questionable moral stance IMHO.
> >> It was justified with deception.
> >
> > At it's root, the war has driven chiefly by Saddam's deceptions, and
> > no-one else's.
>
> Regardless of Saddam Hussein's corruption and ruthlessness
Yeah, first let's brush aside 3 decades of aggression and the results.
Nothing to see here, let's get back to *the real enemy*...
> as it turns
> out he's the only one who told the truth in all this
You can say that with certainty? How?
How do you know what went on pre-invasion in regards to proscribed
weaponry?
Is it possible that Saddam, with a long history of nothing but lies and
power grabs, aggression and oppression, may have lied... again?
Bottom line, you give Saddam every benefit of the doubt, you apparently
accept him at his word, no questions asked, no conspiracy theories about
what may have happened to known weaponry which is still unaccounted for.
Nope, not a glimmer of skepticism.
One workable definition of "patriot", Bill, is to give your country the
benefit of the doubt in cases like this (espescially considering the
nature of our current enemies).
Under this parameter, you are a "patriot" for the Baathist regime, not
the US. IOW, your willingness to accept anything Saddam states at face
value makes you a witness for the defense, a Saddam apologist, and a
fool.
> When he told the
> world that he had no WMD's and his stockpiles of chemical and biological
> stockpiles were long since expired .. he told the truth
You have absolutely no way to know that. You simply accept it at face
value. You exhibit blind faith in Saddam's honesty, while wildly
berating Bush's motives, character, tactics and successes.
The more you reveal your views of Saddam, one can start to compare with
your views of Bush - riddled with false statements, worst-case
suppositions, conspiracy theories about "purposefully destroying the US"
and the like.
Simple, logical analysis of your comparative positions might lead one to
conclude you're on *the other side*.
> Bush and Blairs
> lies about those weapons have been exposed and are common knowledge with
> those exposures.. Saddam Hussein is a corrupt and blustering bully
Wow, you sure hit him hard. Simply a Corrupt and blustering bully
(though an honest one in your eyes) perhaps, *but*...
> George
> Bush is motivated by the same ambitions as Saddam Hussein, only more
> dangerous
Off-the-deep-end rhetorical rant alert.
Tell me bill, Do you actually believe Bush is a totalitarian with an
intent to subjugate the Iraqi people to his personal police state? Next,
I suppose you'll reveal that he's bought a palace/ranch just outside of
Baghdad, to which he will retire in '09 to assume his role as ruler of
Iraq.
> After all, he is the leader of a super power nation, with the
> capability that Saddam Hussein only fantacized about..
And actively attempted to aquire, BTW.
But essentially, he was an honest man, so...
> > Look at the history of his regime.
>
> Why ? The world is well aware of that cesspool of a government.. Better
> advise would be to thoroughly examine the "regime" of George Bush.. That one
> is critical to the United States and all Americans..
Why? because one must look at *both sides* in order to draw conclusions.
You apparently have done so, and given the choice, you've picked your
side. Somehow believing that to attack him when we're at war is the best
thing for the country.
Notice I didn't say "question policy" or any other moderate term, you
"attack" with lies and vitriol. You *seethe* with hatred, and it's
making you blind.
And the rhetoric, you, Sheehan, Durban, Reid, Kennedy, Gore et al, if
translated into Arabic, would be just another Islamist statement issued
on an Islamist web site, or broadcast on al-Jazeera on a loop.
You are judged by the company you keep. Taken in it's entirety, the
effective message you send is that you are an enemy of your own country,
not just Bush.
That, in a nutshell (no pun intended), is why I simply do not care for
you. You zealots are damaging my country, making things harder and more
dangerous for our military in thee field, and lending aid and support to
the enemy at a time of war.
LIke it or not, Bubba, you are "The Accidental Traitor"
On that level, I not only dislike you, I loathe you, and have absolutely
zero respect for your position, rhetoric, or aims.
> > The man had his constituency either involved in aggressor war, or
> > suffering from the aftermath of those wars for the *entirety of his
> > tenure*.
>
> ROTFL.. that one is hilarious. Which nation is the aggressor in Iraq ?
Read the statement again, moron. It is inarguably factually correct.
Now try and form a credible argument against. You know you can't do
that, so you throw out something totally unrelated to the fact presented.
But in answer to your non-answer question. Presently, it appears the
chief aggressors in Iraq right now are former Baathists, Islamists and
others who have one common goal - totalitarian control of Iraq, its
resources, and its people.
We want to stabilize the country, prop up its security, and get out.
Which side are *you* on?
> > I don't even think he signed the Kyoto agreement!
> >
> >> The invasion should NEVER have been.
> >
> > Too late. But you can atone:
>
> Yup.. The starting place for that "atonement" is in the White House
Elections, Bill. Just like Iraq. Try winning one, but I gotta tell you,
I sure as hell wouldn't a blustering, lying, flamethrowing crackpot on
my side in an election. I'd pay you to shut the hell up, actually.
You hate Republicans, but the nature of your efforts are more likely to
keep them in office - you are your own worst enemy, the democrats are
welcome to you. I hope they put you on National TV. I hope your voice is
heard across the land, loud and clear.
As I said, one thing I like about Bush is that he tends to bring
cockroaches out in the light, where they can be either stomped, or used
as a tool against themselves, and their ant-American agenda.
If Saddam can use you as a tool, then so can I.
> That
> "atonement" could have commenced in 2004, but there were enough idiots like
> you to hang onto the slim margin that enabled George Bush to continue the
> aggression towards the world, that he represents..
Freedom will march on no matter how wildly you howl, dinosaur.
SteveR
Obwon <obl...@att.net> wrote:
> Too bad none of your answers comport with reality!
Try rebutting them inline.
> How many troops, after all these long years, are ready
> to stand and fight on their own?
After 2.5 years, I actually have io hard numbers. Do you.
It's the nature of military training to create a level A batallion, then
split them into lower-level battalions so the experience is ahared, so
it's hard to quantify, since that dynamic is fluid.
>
> How will the public trust a military, whose uniforms
> are being misused by militias?
Not sure. Not sure this will be an uissue.
But, I don't think the issue of uniforms will cause the Iraqi public to
submit to Zarqawi.
> Just how strong will be the will of the people to not
> meld religious scripture with government?
Not sure. There seems toi be resistance ti Iranian-style theocracy for
the most part, from the polls and Iraqi blogs i read.
> How will the people deal with the Islamic
> fundamentalist?
Currently, they seem to want them to go home. They're tired of being
targeted.
And, the Iraqis have never liked the Arabs much anyway.
> What will they be able to do to remove the taint of the
> occupation from the mantle of their new found freedoms?
They'll get over it and move on, like the Germans, French, Koreans and
Japanese.
>
> Obviously, these and questions with even more serious
> conseqences haven't be either addressed or answered.
Yes they have, by more informed folks than you, or I.
> All that we're being told is that the people are
> getting more compliant, quiet and peaceful. And that
> that somehow translates into winning our objectives
> and/or meeting our goals.
That's a good indicator, like safer elections. It indicates forward
momentum.
> Should we believe that a surface veneer of civility
> is going to protect us from Iraq turning into an enemy
> state? If so, what do we do if it does?
Glass 'em. We gave them a chance. If they blow it, well... we do what we
gotta do.
> Remember,
> this administration told us that they were doing many
> things, many times, already, that they weren't. They
> told us they had plans that they didn't have,
Like the invasion, the elections, the Constitution? What?
> and that
> those plans were working went they weren't. So then,
> why should we accept the risks of believing them now?
Because actually, a lot of the stated goals have been/ are being met.
SteveR
George Kerby <ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Steve, you wasting too much time with this senile silly bastard.
It may seem that way, but it doesn't take all that much time to
deconstruct Bill, and i don't mean by his standards, i.e. post a one
line reply to 87,000 words with 'ROFAMALLLAAOO" or whatever.
I figger it takes him about 87 minutes to come up with that one, while
that which he "rebuts" probably took about 7.7 minutes. Do the math,
he's going to run out of words and/or time before the other team.
If you wanna eliminate the neighbor's pit bull, just spear some peanut
butter on his tail, and he'll run himself to death.
> They let him use the computer at the Rest Home only on holidays, and at all
> other times, he is too medicated to make any sense. Somehow, a couple of
> weeks ago, he snuck out and started posting here while under the effects of
> the drugs.
Or maybe they kicked him out with no script, I'll not speculate.
Bill is quite capable of reasonable debate. Until, of course, he gets
backed into logical corners and starts chasing the peanut butter.
George Kerby
On 11/24/05 7:12 PM, in article
tex_driver-A772A...@comcast.dca.giganews.com, "SteveR"
<tex_d...@comcast.net> wrote:
Keep it up!
Simply too damn funny.
BillyBob Irving is a frothing prune who has lost ALL regularity.
587s...@temple.nul
wrote:
Nice how the Republican hack dodges the issue that Cheney is a turd
for pulling strings to get all his deferments. Talking out of both
sides of his mouth and trying to have his cake and eat it too.
587s...@temple.nul
wrote:
Hold up there. You were painting these blogs as if they were front
line, cutting edge, day to day, see all the good things that are
happening in Iraq. Now you spin away from even that by admitting it
can be by those who are not in a current position to know. Thanks for
proving yourself a loon yet again by another "expert" chickenhawk
boast.
587s...@temple.nul
The difference between a Republican fighting in a war and a Democrat
is that the Republican can fight that war from the safety of his easy
chair, like Cheney. Reminds me of in the Ten Commandments where the
overseer Edward G. Robinson gets toppled from his mount when he
bitches that the people are moving too slowly in the desert.
Sanders Kaufman
news:fbfdo1p00pc6ck653...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 19:22:07 -0600, SteveR <tex_d...@comcast.net>
>>Uhhh... I see you don't read milblogs. Were you to actually do so, you'd
>>realize that they are *not all active military*.
>>Whoops, foot meet bullet. Y'all come back now when ya' heals up
>
> Hold up there. You were painting these blogs as if they were front
> line, cutting edge, day to day, see all the good things that are
> happening in Iraq. Now you spin away from even that by admitting it
> can be by those who are not in a current position to know. Thanks for
> proving yourself a loon yet again by another "expert" chickenhawk
> boast.
That's becoming a favorite tactic of the NeoChristian insurgency.
Accused of lying to promote their wars, they blame everyone else for taking
them at their word.
The biggest mistake anyone can make with these Televangelicals is to presume
the are in any way sincere.
They are not.
--
"The wackos get their information
through the Christian right, Christian radio,
mail, the internet and telephone trees.
Simply put, we want to bring out the
wackos to vote against something and
make sure the rest of the public lets the
whole thing slip past them."
- Michael Scanlon (Lobbyist for Bush)
Sanders Kaufman
news:q7fdo11ucb2fueicf...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:54:38 -0600, SteveR <tex_d...@comcast.net>
>>There is no similarity whatsoever in their experiences or actions at the
>>time with my experience or action at the time. You see, *I took no
>>action whatsoever to actively avoid the draft*, as you allege. Next,
>>you'll invent some tale that will have me hiding from the draft board in
>>Cambodia during Christmas, it's probably "seared" in your memory, eh?
>
> Nice how the Republican hack dodges the issue that Cheney is a turd
> for pulling strings to get all his deferments. Talking out of both
> sides of his mouth and trying to have his cake and eat it too.
Yeah - bring up their lack of service to their fellow man and right away
they want to change the subject.
Mike Smith
<bu...@kaufman.net> wrote:
>
>The biggest mistake anyone can make with these Televangelicals is to presume
>the are in any way sincere.
>They are not.
Bullshit! They are as sincere as they can be. They desperately need
your money so they can be on TV again, next week. That is about as
sincere as you can get. {for TV personalities}
Seriously, does anyone "think" rather, brocow, and jennings were worth
over $4,000,000 a year? There's HUGE money to be made on TV.
Mike Smith
Obwon
<tex_d...@comcast.net> wrote:
>In article <r8qbo1d39b9ho4sbl...@4ax.com>,
> Obwon <obl...@att.net> wrote:
>
>> Too bad none of your answers comport with reality!
>
>
>Try rebutting them inline.
>
Okay... Let's see what you have:
>
>> How many troops, after all these long years, are ready
>> to stand and fight on their own?
>
>After 2.5 years, I actually have io hard numbers. Do you.
Let's see them then. I don't remember any good news
being presented to the Congress lately, on just how
many troops/divisions are ready. In fact I've heard
just the opposite, that even the two divisions they
previously said were ready weren't. If you want a cite
I'll be happy to provide it, but for now, I don't want
to clutter up a post that I believe will lead nowhere.
Obwon
>It's the nature of military training to create a level A batallion, then
>split them into lower-level battalions so the experience is ahared, so
>it's hard to quantify, since that dynamic is fluid.
Which says exactly nothing! The question is "What do
you have today?" Not "What can be done, or what are
you trying to do."
>
>>
>> How will the public trust a military, whose uniforms
>> are being misused by militias?
>
>Not sure. Not sure this will be an uissue.
In a nation torn by militias, groups with diverse
loyalties, not represented adequately in gov't or by
the new constitution, you don't think that credibility
will be an issue for troops in uniforms that may or may
not identify them reliably??? Hmmm...
>But, I don't think the issue of uniforms will cause the Iraqi public to
>submit to Zarqawi.
>
I don't think pulling out will cause that to happen
either. I don't think these people want Zarqawi as a
leader. I think they're just "enjoying" his harassment
of our troops, hoping we'll have enough of it and
leave... You know, like the British did several
decades ago.
>> Just how strong will be the will of the people to not
>> meld religious scripture with government?
>
>Not sure. There seems toi be resistance ti Iranian-style theocracy for
>the most part, from the polls and Iraqi blogs i read.
And I guess that our appointment of Chalablis is
supposed to help avert any alliance with Iran?
>
>> How will the people deal with the Islamic
>> fundamentalist?
>
>Currently, they seem to want them to go home. They're tired of being
>targeted.
Not true, Islamic Fundamentalist are Iraqi's too.
They are home! And they aren't targeting anyone, as
far as I know, they're just religious clerics biding
their time. After all, they already have the attention
of a wide and popular following. It only takes about
20 percent of the population to create an authoritarian
theocracy.
>
>And, the Iraqis have never liked the Arabs much anyway.
>
You say they never liked themselves? Odd.
>> What will they be able to do to remove the taint of the
>> occupation from the mantle of their new found freedoms?
>
>
>They'll get over it and move on, like the Germans, French, Koreans and
>Japanese.
Hardly, or did I miss some new industrial resources
and educational training we've managed to succeed in
giving the populace? Did we somehow change the Iraqi
culture while I wasn't looking?
>> Obviously, these and questions with even more serious
>> conseqences haven't be either addressed or answered.
>
>Yes they have, by more informed folks than you, or I.
>
I'm giving you the answers that "folks more informed
than you or I", have been giving us. You're saying
that you haven't been listening or reading?
>
>> All that we're being told is that the people are
>> getting more compliant, quiet and peaceful. And that
>> that somehow translates into winning our objectives
>> and/or meeting our goals.
>
>That's a good indicator, like safer elections. It indicates forward
>momentum.
>
Elections are meaningless if people don't know what
they're voting for. But these elections, you refer to,
have not been either fair or open. There has been NO
campaigning, no debates, no discussions of the various
issues or even anyone staking out postions. Therefore
the "elections" were merely a facade, a charade, an
empty exercise in futility signifying nothing.
>> Should we believe that a surface veneer of civility
>> is going to protect us from Iraq turning into an enemy
>> state? If so, what do we do if it does?
>
>Glass 'em. We gave them a chance. If they blow it, well... we do what we
>gotta do.
>
We did now give them a chance! To do that we'd have
had to speak to them about what their choices were and
try to find ways to help them implement their own
choices. Instead we imposed our own choices upon them,
choices which they have resoundingly rejected, when
they felt they safely could. When they didn't feel
safe, rejecting our vision for their future, they went
to Egypt and announced their opposition from there.
>> Remember,
>> this administration told us that they were doing many
>> things, many times, already, that they weren't. They
>> told us they had plans that they didn't have,
>
>Like the invasion, the elections, the Constitution? What?
>
>
>> and that
>> those plans were working went they weren't. So then,
>> why should we accept the risks of believing them now?
>
>Because actually, a lot of the stated goals have been/ are being met.
Like I said at the begining, you don't have anything
worth discussing.
Regards
Obwon
<tex_d...@comcast.net> wrote:
>In article <uzkhf.5917$Dx3.1660@trnddc07>,
> "Bill Walker" <bill.w...@verizon.com> wrote:
>
>> "SteveR" <tex_d...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:tex_driver-A9D33...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>> > In article <1132674923....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>> > "Max-he-must" <maxh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Patriotic Bush supporters saying that pulling out of Iraq would be
>> >> shameful - that we'd be cutting and running and doing something that
>> >> macho U.S. Marines would never do - is absolutely ridiculous.
>> >
>> > Firstly, support of Bush and support for our actions in the mideast are
>> > not necessarily wed at the hip. It is possible to have voted for and
>> > supported Clinton's relatively tough stance on Iraq (relative to the
>> > UN's), and support Bush's actions there as well. At least it's a
>> > consistent position.
>> >
>> > Secondly, the basis for keeping on course is to complete the stated
>> > mission. It doesn't have as much to do with "macho US Marines" as it
>> > does with the Islamist view of weak horse/strong horse and global
>> > perception.
>>
>> Which one of those "stated missions" are you referring to ?
>
>The big one: Remove Saddam from power, let the Iraqis replace a
>Totalitarian regime with a system of self-determination.
>
>
Hmmm.... Did you know that the Whitehouse has stated
that their intention, after the invasion, was to
install Chalablis and his gov't in exile into power and
leave? Have you factored this information into your
understanding of what has transpired to date yet?
Mike Smith
> Elections are meaningless if people don't know what
>they're voting for. But these elections, you refer to,
>have not been either fair or open. There has been NO
>campaigning, no debates, no discussions of the various
>issues or even anyone staking out postions. Therefore
>the "elections" were merely a facade, a charade, an
>empty exercise in futility signifying nothing.
>
Folks, this is all you need to know about this buffoon.
Yes, he is dumb enough to believe that millions of Iraqis would go
vote and have their finger stained purple, giving the terrorists a
great visual of their opposition, for a facade of an election.
From CNN, regarding Iraqi voters:
"We are defeating the terrorists as we are coming here," a voter named
Saad said, proudly displaying his ink-stained finger.
Further north in the Kurdish town of Sulaimaniya, CNN's Nic Robertson
reported seeing a 90-year-old woman being taken to a voting booth in a
wheelbarrow. Others came on crutches to cast their ballot.
In the southern city of Basra, ITN correspondent Juliet Bremner
reported that turnout was almost 90 percent. She said voting was
peaceful and orderly, with elated Shiites -- oppressed for decades
under Saddam -- "determined to cast their votes in their desire for
freedom, peace and food."
<end CNN quote>
The bozo, Obwon, "thinks" the Iraqi people are completely stupid,.
That makes him stupid, and a typical liberal.
Mike Smith
SteveR
587s...@temple.nul wrote:
..
>
> The difference between a Republican fighting in a war and a Democrat
> is that the Republican can fight that war from the safety of his easy
> chair....
You can do some research to support this contention. Survey which
political group is most represented in combat troops, then do the same
for support positions, i.e. cooks, administrative personnel, mechanics,
etc.
The results will surprise you.
SteveR
Obwon <obl...@att.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 16:16:59 -0600, SteveR
> <tex_d...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <r8qbo1d39b9ho4sbl...@4ax.com>,
> > Obwon <obl...@att.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Too bad none of your answers comport with reality!
> >
> >
> >Try rebutting them inline.
> >
> Okay... Let's see what you have:
> >
> >> How many troops, after all these long years, are ready
> >> to stand and fight on their own?
> >
> >After 2.5 years, I actually have io hard numbers. Do you.
>
> Let's see them then.
Sorry - typo. "io" should have been "no".
> I don't remember any good news
> being presented to the Congress lately, on just how
> many troops/divisions are ready. In fact I've heard
> just the opposite, that even the two divisions they
> previously said were ready weren't.
As batallions reach A status, they are integrated with B groups. The
process is clear.
And are we there yet? No.
Will we be? Well, the fact that we're not there yet pretty much proves
we'll never get there.
You know this, I know this, which is why we never make it to the
supermarket. Damn, I'm hungry!
> If you want a cite
> I'll be happy to provide it, but for now, I don't want
> to clutter up a post that I believe will lead nowhere.
Don't bother, if I need a cite, Ill ask for one. Chances are, anything
you've read I read prior :)
> >It's the nature of military training to create a level A batallion, then
> >split them into lower-level battalions so the experience is ahared, so
> >it's hard to quantify, since that dynamic is fluid.
>
> Which says exactly nothing! The question is "What do
> you have today?" Not "What can be done, or what are
> you trying to do."
We have no battle-ready Iraqi troops. None. Zero.
That is why, when we gave them the major job of security during the last
Iraqi election, violence escalated to the point that the elections
weren't held.
Seriously though, we are not there yet, I agree.
Hang in there.
> >> How will the public trust a military, whose uniforms
> >> are being misused by militias?
> >
> >Not sure. Not sure this will be an uissue.
>
> In a nation torn by militias, groups with diverse
> loyalties, not represented adequately in gov't or by
> the new constitution, you don't think that credibility
> will be an issue for troops in uniforms that may or may
> not identify them reliably??? Hmmm...
I'm beginning to see your point. The fact that there are opposing
camps/tribes/political groups makes peace in a democracy impossible.
Look at our own country, we can't even control 100% of our own princies!
US out of S. Central LA!!
We really need to consider becoming a totalitarian police state, then we
could be just as viable a nation as Iraq was under Saddam.
> >But, I don't think the issue of uniforms will cause the Iraqi public to
> >submit to Zarqawi.
> >
> I don't think pulling out will cause that to happen
> either. I don't think these people want Zarqawi as a
> leader. I think they're just "enjoying" his harassment
> of our troops, hoping we'll have enough of it and
> leave... You know, like the British did several
> decades ago.
Look at Zarqawi's "body count". US troops ares somewhat
under-represented in comparison to non-comatant Iraqis.
Either Zarqawi's boys have really bad aim or intel, but they seem to hit
the wrong group, the people who's "hearts and minds" they are trying to
capture.
> >> Just how strong will be the will of the people to not
> >> meld religious scripture with government?
> >
> >Not sure. There seems toi be resistance ti Iranian-style theocracy for
> >the most part, from the polls and Iraqi blogs i read.
>
> And I guess that our appointment of Chalablis is
> supposed to help avert any alliance with Iran?
Repeat: Iraq is becoming democratic, the great majority wants nothing to
do with Iran or its structure of governance.
There are many libertarians in the US, but not all that many have made
it to the White House or Conngress.
> >> How will the people deal with the Islamic
> >> fundamentalist?
> >
> >Currently, they seem to want them to go home. They're tired of being
> >targeted.
>
> Not true, Islamic Fundamentalist are Iraqi's too.
> They are home!
And their tactics are equally despised as those of the imports.
> And they aren't targeting anyone, as
> far as I know, they're just religious clerics biding
> their time. After all, they already have the attention
> of a wide and popular following. It only takes about
> 20 percent of the population to create an authoritarian
> theocracy.
Yep, unless the 80% has big guns.
US military is a rather big gun, and is highly mobile. We'll be watching.
> >And, the Iraqis have never liked the Arabs much anyway.
> >
> You say they never liked themselves? Odd.
All Iraqi Arabs are Arabs, not all Iraqis are Arab.
I'm referring to their Arab neighbors, and Persian neighbors for that
matter.
> >> What will they be able to do to remove the taint of the
> >> occupation from the mantle of their new found freedoms?
> >
> >
> >They'll get over it and move on, like the Germans, French, Koreans and
> >Japanese.
>
> Hardly, or did I miss some new industrial resources
> and educational training we've managed to succeed in
> giving the populace?
Yes, you have. You've missed quite a bit evidently. Read some milblogs,
Iraqi blogs, you'll get the picture.
As the saying goes "Democracy is a process, not an event" If you are
looking for an event, you'll not see the process.
> Did we somehow change the Iraqi
> culture while I wasn't looking?
To a degree. They vote now. They demonstrate against terrorism. They
join the army and police force to kill AQ.
And, the majority of provinces are becoming more stable by the day.
Patience, grasshopper.
> >> Obviously, these and questions with even more serious
> >> conseqences haven't be either addressed or answered.
> >
> >Yes they have, by more informed folks than you, or I.
> >
> I'm giving you the answers that "folks more informed
> than you or I", have been giving us. You're saying
> that you haven't been listening or reading?
You've given me a classic defeatist argument, some facts I already knew,
etc..
Every argument you make was made prior to, during, and subsequent to WW1
and WW2, Revolutionary war, civil war... every war.
Like a stopped clock...
But, you're not there yet. Best of luck.
But
--
"You can't say you love your country and hate your government."
- Bill Clinton, 1995
SteveR
Obwon <obl...@att.net> wrote:
Regardless of method, intent was the same, and clear.
Free Iraq, leave a democratic process.
You were not deceived.
SteveR
587s...@temple.nul wrote:
Here are all the reasons for my deep concern over Cheney's draft issues:
SteveR
587s...@temple.nul wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 19:22:07 -0600, SteveR <tex_d...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <m20ao1luh9kiicabh...@4ax.com>,
> > 587s...@temple.nul wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 15:05:32 -0600, SteveR <tex_d...@comcast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >
> >> >Good debate though, It's refreshing to discuss the issue without being
> >> >called a liar, or worse.
> >>
> >> As far as your "100% Mission Accomplished"
> >
> >I didn't assert that at all, ventriloquist.
> >
> >Out of courtesy to any readers, I snipped the gazillion words you didn't
> >for your one-paragraph, one-legged response, but it's still out there
> >for you to copy and paste something to back up what you claim. Go for it.
> >
> >> military blogs are
> >> concerned, I'm sure plenty of soldiers are willing to risk court
> >> martial posting criticism of Dubya. NOT.
> >
> >Uhhh... I see you don't read milblogs. Were you to actually do so, you'd
> >realize that they are *not all active military*.
> >
> >Whoops, foot meet bullet. Y'all come back now when ya' heals up
>
> Hold up there. You were painting these blogs as if they were front
> line, cutting edge, day to day, see all the good things that are
> happening in Iraq.
I said "read milblogs"
> Now you spin away from even that by admitting it
> can be by those who are not in a current position to know.
I said "read milblogs". You're entering spin mode again.
> Thanks for
> proving yourself a loon yet again by another "expert" chickenhawk
> boast.
Read milblogs, fool. It would give you a needed perspective.
SteveR
George Kerby <ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Unfortunately, we no longer have Bill to kick around anymore.
It is with sincere regret and deep sorrow that I must pass on the news I
just discovered, and I must say, I will miss him. RIP
587s...@temple.nul
wrote:
Amazingly, after Cheney used up his last deferment, his wife magically
immediately got pregnant and 9 months later, another deferment was
born. That must be why country club Republicans are so against
abortion: it's their last chance to make some moron's son go serve in
Iraq in their place. Meanwhile, Kerry was a TRAITOR because he didn't
seek a deferment and instead went to war while Dubya snorted cocaine.
587s...@temple.nul
Vice President of Torture Cheney gave his attitude towards Americans:
"Go fuck yourself."
587s...@temple.nul
If they put Dubya's War Crime's Against Humanity trial, conviction and
execution on Pay-Per-View, over 70% of America will pay to watch Dubya
shooting bottle rockets out of his ass spelling out "Mission
Accomplished."
587s...@temple.nul
wrote:
Undoubtedly, they are full of posts from ignorant chickenhawks like
you proclaiming how America has accomplished all its mission, suffered
zero casualties, yet we must still stay for Jesus. More accurately
are the blogs showing soldiers posting their sex pics with each other
in between sodomizing small boys for Freedom.
587s...@temple.nul
>On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 14:38:01 GMT, Obwon <obl...@att.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Elections are meaningless if people don't know what
>>they're voting for. But these elections, you refer to,
>>have not been either fair or open. There has been NO
>>campaigning, no debates, no discussions of the various
>>issues or even anyone staking out postions. Therefore
>>the "elections" were merely a facade, a charade, an
>>empty exercise in futility signifying nothing.
>>
>
>Folks, this is all you need to know about this buffoon.
>
>Yes, he is dumb enough to believe that millions of Iraqis would go
>vote and have their finger stained purple, giving the terrorists a
>great visual of their opposition, for a facade of an election.
Saddam Hussein always received 100% of the votes of 100% of Iraqi's.
New boss, same as the old boss. Mike lives in a wet dream.
587s...@temple.nul
wrote:
http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=240296
"I was there and I voted for Kerry. None of my buds want that monger
in office anymore. I wouldn't care if Al Sharpton got elected, as long
as Bush was gone.
~SGT. Cook
51st Sig Bn (Airborne) "
One blogger claimed that many in the military voted for Bush because
they were scared that Kerry would cut funding for vests. How ironic
that it was Bush and the Republicans who stabbed the soldiers in the
vets by doing exactly that.
I'm not surprised by this story:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/2004-09-21-voterreg-block_x.htm
Pentagon Restricts Overseas Voters
Tue Sep 21, 3:05 AM ET Add Politics - AP to My Yahoo!
By JOHN LEICESTER, Associated Press Writer
PARIS - Americans abroad, whose votes could be crucial if the Nov. 2
presidential election proves close, are being denied access to a U.S.
Department of Defense (news - web sites) Web site designed to make it
easier for them to cast absentee ballots...
SteveR
587s...@temple.nul wrote:
Iraqis forced to vote for Saddam under the threat of death vs. Iraqis
freely voting in spite of the threat of death.
There's a slight difference.
SteveR
587s...@temple.nul wrote:
That settles it then US out of Iraq NOW!
SteveR
587s...@temple.nul wrote:
All who hold a view opposite yours are ignorant, this much we know.
> proclaiming how America has accomplished all its mission, suffered
> zero casualties
I'm afraid you're mis-representing the argument rather wildly.
> yet we must still stay for Jesus.
Moses, not Jesus. Afghanistan was for Jesus.
> More accurately
> are the blogs showing soldiers posting their sex pics with each other
> in between sodomizing small boys for Freedom.
Is that how you gained your freedom?
BTW, this guy has some great shots of him buggering your wife:
Bill Walker
<587s...@temple.nul> wrote in message
news:333go15i4gsthhq8j...@4ax.com...
LMAO... Steve R. is very sympathetic to Dick Cheney... Him and Cheney used
the same excuse for avoiding service.. "other priorities".. hmmm or was it
the old "pimple on the ass" dodge that another one of those used.. Not for
sure, but what he said or didn't say in his response was that him and Cheney
both folded when it was their turn..
Bill Walker
Bill Walker
"Mike Smith" <m...@wt.net> wrote in message
news:sb2eo19sdlght2ef5...@4ax.com...
Wrong thread.. bedwetter.. Your bedwetting buddy, just showed up this
morning, also.. He's on another thread .. That's not good scheduling on you
guys part.. hmmm.. Maybe you clowns are surfing for the thread that has got
a little girl you can jump on.. I don't think she's on this one.. FYI..
J.C.
"Bill Walker" <bill.w...@verizon.com> wrote in message
news:3V0if.7906$%w2.7016@trnddc07...
How come it is that you can't prove your military exploits, Bill?
--
Pimping for politicians and their political
parties is a fools game played by suckers.
J. C.
Bill Walker
"Obwon" <obl...@att.net> wrote in message
news:j4rbo1tpc2mnbng31...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 15:16:49 GMT, "Bill Walker"
> <bill.w...@verizon.com> wrote:
>
>
> Bill? I've been following "LegisScam", you know the
> Abramoff/DeLay led K-street project that was supposed
> to deliver a one party gov't to us.
>
> In the course of following SunCruize, I've noted
> that very strange look on Abramoffs face, it's way too
> contorted to be derived from just this "minimal"
> scandal of having forged a financial instrument. In
> fact, even the murder of Boulis doesn't seem to be
> driven by either the business, the forgery or anything
> else that surrounds it.
>
> Consider that even by murdering Boulis, they don't
> cover the fraud. The only way to do that, and remember
> these people are high powered lawyers and knowledgeable
> freaks, is to pay off the loan. But there's no
> apparent plan that will allow them to do so...
>
> But then, enter a subtle little artifact, and
> everything seems to become much more clear.
> Atta apparantly visited several SunCruize ships and
> gambled big money there. So now, that provides for a
> few "what if's", that make the murder more desperately
> necessary than not.
>
> What if: Gus Boulis actually saw Mohammad Atta on
> the ship gambling? What if he further happened to
> see, or somehow managed to figure out, that this
> bumbling big mouthed broke-O, making 8 and 900 dollar
> bets at the roulette wheel, was somehow connected with
> Abramoff or Kidan or Wally Hilliard [the guy who owned
> the flight training school where Atta trained]. What
> if Boulis saw or learned somehow, that these people
> were connected? It could have been something as simple
> as a look of recognition across a crowded room.
>
> Then, while Gus wouldn't know what he'd stumbled
> upon at that time. Abramoff and the "Boys", would
> know that after 9-11 he'd understand what he'd come to
> know. And that had to be the worlds biggest NO-NO, if
> it had happened. It would have been something so, so
> very serious, that he would have had to be killed.
> For that kind of information could have connected
> people all the way up to the whitehouse with 9-11.
>
> Don't know that this kind of thing happened, but
> it's "available" to have happened, because of the
> strange proximity of Atta to SunCruize. Which, of
> course, was run and owned by the money laundering
> Abramoff, through a scam purchase and non-performing
> loans. There is also the matter of money being paid
> out of SunCruize's treasury, that isn't accounted for.
> Could Boulis have figured that Atta wasn't gambling his
> own money? Who knows.
>
> But this scandal bears serious watching. Abramoff is
> due to appear in court in January. And DeLay is
> struggling desperately to get his old job back and
> fast!
>
> Obwon
hmmm.. I must admit that I've not spent much time on the Abramnoff issue,
other than his connection to DeLay and Scanlon.. You just may have made some
connections that have been missed by the ones who are investigating .. Our
Texas DA who indicted DeLay is focused on violations of state law, the one
who negotiated the plea bargain of Scanlon is focused on that matter, etc..
Hopefully these guys will communicate with each in comparing notes.. Nothing
I'd enjoy more than connecting all the dots and linking these corrupt
gangsters to each other..
I intend to do a little bit of digging around on my own and you can rest
assured, that if I can substantiate in my own mind your conclusions, I will
be presenting it to the closest pol that will get it into the hands of DA
Earle.. Thanks for the heads up and the lead.. Regards, Obwon
Bill Walker
Irving
Obwon
<tex_d...@comcast.net> wrote:
Oh? I wasn't deceived? Would you mind telling just
how it came to be that Saddam was not the dangerous
person with a weapons program that threatened the U.S.
and the world, with wmd's that he didn't have?
You're saying that even though Bush knew, was told,
that information that Saddam was trying to purchase
Yellow cake, shouldn't be used in making his case for
war. That it shouldn't mean anything at all to me,
that he went ahead and used that information anyway?
I mean, even though that false information, was going
to lead me to falsely believe that I was facing a
possible nuclear attack, being planned by a Madman?
I don't remember where I learned that people could
tell whatever lies they believe suits their fancy, to
mislead people into making the decisions they want.
But I do know that it can happen, I do know that it is
done. What I don't expect is that our President would
do such things, especially not to lead us into, what
would otherwise be an unnecessary sacrifice of American
lives.
He did say: "Containment won't work". And what do
you suppose he meant by that statement? Do you suspect
that by it, he meant to inform us that his information
was so good, so well supported, so found, known and
agreed upon by our intelligence experts, that there
was NO question but that we faced certain danger?
What did it mean when Donald Rumsfeld said "...And we
know where they are", when replying to qestions about
weather or not it was true that Saddam really had such
a fearsome store of wmd's? Was it not misleading to
let us think that he did in fact know where they were?
The President did not come back and say that even
thought it was false, that we didn't actually have
knowledge of the where abouts of the wmd's, that he
still believed they were there. Of course, to do that
would have undercut his already weak case, eh?
So he let us think that all of the "pro war"
information was unquestionable and sound, and not let
us know that the people who had reported it,
themselves had serious doubts about it's veracity.
If that's not misleading, I don't know what it is you
consider misleading. Tell me, how many times does
someone have to tell you things that turn out to be
untrue, before you begin to disbelieve them, Huh?
J.C.
Abramoff and Scanlin are outright crooks and thieves. I would find it hard
to believe that Delay was dumb enough to accept illegal bribes from them
though. Now, legal bribes like campaign contributions and issue and attitude
money is another story. As for Delay getting his old job back, I bet it's
his if he wants it, if he stays out of jail. That fellow has a lot of IOUs
floating around out there.
Bill Walker
<587s...@temple.nul> wrote in message
news:aq3go1hfbk4bl15mg...@4ax.com...
Question might well be "who is these "folks" he's addressing.? The "wet
dream" mostly involves someone's pre teen daughter that he's attacking with
insults.. Occasionally . Mike Smith ventures into insulting someone's
deceased mother.. etc. etc. He does get on well with Steve R.. and one other
creep named George Kerby who normally joins Mike Smith in the attacks on
kids or dead mothers.. Noticeably .. he addresses "folks" quite often..
The upside with Mike Smith is that he cons his way into a job with property
management companies ... works his way through the ranks from make ready man
to asst. leasing agent.. never higher, because by the time he makes it
there, he's usually caught using company computers for posting on a
newsgroup and they fire his fat ass... Then he don't post any more until he
finds another job..
pssst.. Here comes the boss (damn, what's he doing here on Thanksgiving
Saturday, anyway) Sure hope old MIke has a current resume.. here we go
again.. <chuckle>
Regards..
Bill Walker
Irving
Obwon
<m...@wt.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 14:38:01 GMT, Obwon <obl...@att.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Elections are meaningless if people don't know what
>>they're voting for. But these elections, you refer to,
>>have not been either fair or open. There has been NO
>>campaigning, no debates, no discussions of the various
>>issues or even anyone staking out postions. Therefore
>>the "elections" were merely a facade, a charade, an
>>empty exercise in futility signifying nothing.
>>
>
>Folks, this is all you need to know about this buffoon.
And this is all we need to know about you!
>Yes, he is dumb enough to believe that millions of Iraqis would go
>vote and have their finger stained purple, giving the terrorists a
>great visual of their opposition, for a facade of an election.
What you are calling an "election", is voting for a
list of names of people, put together by men in a
room. No statements of their positions, eh? Isn't
that what we complained about the Soviet Unions
"elections"? Or, is it your postion that just voting
alone, without knowing what or who you are voting for,
is somehow a free and fair election? Geeze, you
really are prone to being led to support a totalitarian
regime. You don't seem to like the idea of self gov't,
nor do you appear to be impressed with the idea of
people deciding issues themselves.
Are you an American? Or just an expatriot? Living in
fear of deportation, if you should get caught
questioning our fearless leader?
>From CNN, regarding Iraqi voters:
>"We are defeating the terrorists as we are coming here," a voter named
>Saad said, proudly displaying his ink-stained finger.
Yes, they are mouthing the Coalition line, perhaps
saving a place in Abu G. for someone else who would
question the worth of the exercise, eh?
>
>Further north in the Kurdish town of Sulaimaniya, CNN's Nic Robertson
>reported seeing a 90-year-old woman being taken to a voting booth in a
>wheelbarrow. Others came on crutches to cast their ballot.
>In the southern city of Basra, ITN correspondent Juliet Bremner
>reported that turnout was almost 90 percent. She said voting was
>peaceful and orderly, with elated Shiites -- oppressed for decades
>under Saddam -- "determined to cast their votes in their desire for
>freedom, peace and food."
><end CNN quote>
>
>The bozo, Obwon, "thinks" the Iraqi people are completely stupid,.
>That makes him stupid, and a typical liberal.
>
>Mike Smith
No, Obwon thinks that the Iraqi people are deathly
afraid of the Coalition, and I believe we have seen on
the news, some very good reasons why they should be!
Or do you think you're likely to see people, living
under totalitarian rule, coming out and openly
protesting? You seem to think that these people
would find it acceptable, to protest on tv, and risk
having themselve labled "insurgents" or "terrorists".
That would mean nothing at all to them as far as you
can see, eh?
But, could you explain what particular laws would
protect them from being arrested, taken away to prison
and "questioned" at length, for being considered an
insurgent? Do they even tolerate "dissenters"? Or do
they call all dissenters "Insurgents" and "terrorists"
depending on the current news climate?
George Kerby
On 11/26/05 10:44 AM, in article
tex_driver-97FE5...@comcast.dca.giganews.com, "SteveR"
<tex_d...@comcast.net> wrote:
Not to mention the idiot's quote about abortion:
>> That must be why country club Republicans are so against
>> abortion: it's their last chance to make some moron's son go serve in
>> Iraq in their place.
The dumbassed shit-for-brains thinks that there are still Draft
deferments!!! Way too much drug indulgence. LOL!
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
George Kerby
On 11/26/05 11:35 AM, in article
g11if.17832$xd2....@fe03.news.easynews.com, "J.C." <jcsp...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
It's allin BillyBob Irving's mind. That's proof enough for him...
J.C.
"George Kerby" <ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BFAE0332.1FF06%ghost_...@hotmail.com...
Yep, I do believe you're right about that.
Bill Walker
"J.C." <jcsp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jR1if.26961$vw5....@fe01.news.easynews.com...
What "exploits" are you talking about, sparky ? You and George Kerby work
it out.. Seems to me that you are the one that keeps blowing smoke about
your "military exploits".. hmmm Didn't we discuss all this a year or so
ago ? ROTFL..
J.C.
Bill Walker
Which exploits are you talking about, you disgusting piece of shit ? I
think that one of my best "exploits" was exposing your sorry ass on usenet..
Soon as you can google up which exploit, we might get somewhere.. Meantime
you already know how to look over my DD 214.. hmmm..It's right here on my
desk along with hard copies of both my discharges.. They'll all stay right
there, that's where you can look at them all you want to..
<evil grin> hmmmm.. I've even got wheelchair access, but you'll have to
leave all that oxygen shit outside.. I smoke Luckies.. ROTFL..
n...@money.old
wrote:
There were in 1959. Ask your mama to explain the big words to you,
cocksucker.
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=48151
Cheney's Five Draft Deferments During the Vietnam Era Emerge as a
Campaign Issue Source: New York Times
WASHINGTON, April 30 — It was 1959 when Dick Cheney, then a student at
Yale University, turned 18 and became eligible for the draft.
Eventually, like 16 million other young men of that era, Mr. Cheney
sought deferments. By the time he turned 26 in January 1967 and was no
longer eligible for the draft, he had asked for and received five
deferments, four because he was a student and one for being a new
father.
Although President Richard M. Nixon stopped the draft in 1973 and the
war itself ended 29 years ago on Friday, the issue of service remains
a personally sensitive and politically potent touchstone in the
biographies of many politicians from that era.
For much of Mr. Cheney's political career, his deferments have largely
been a nonissue.
In an increasingly vituperative political campaign, Mr. Cheney this
week again questioned the credentials of Senator John Kerry and his
ability to be commander in chief. Mr. Kerry, who was decorated in
Vietnam and has made his service there a central element of his
campaign, fired back.
Putting Mr. Cheney's record in the spotlight, Mr. Kerry said that he
"got every deferment in the world and decided he had better things to
do."
Steve Schmidt, a spokesman for the Bush-Cheney campaign, dismissed the
criticism, saying that Mr. Kerry was delving into a subject that he
had said he would not touch. Mr. Schmidt said that Mr. Kerry was
trying to divert attention from what the spokesman said was Mr.
Kerry's reversals on other topics.
While Mr. Cheney's deferment history was briefly an issue when George
W. Bush picked him as his running mate in 2000, the Democrats did not
focus on it after Al Gore, the Democratic presidential nominee, who
had served in Vietnam, picked as his running mate Senator Joseph
Lieberman, who also had not served.
The issue also received little attention during Mr. Cheney's Senate
confirmation hearings as defense secretary in 1989 under the first
President Bush, largely because the Armed Services Committee had just
completed a bitter and protracted battle over the president's original
choice, John G. Tower. Mr. Tower had faced questions about
philandering, drinking and conflicts over defense contracts before he
was rejected.
Senators of both parties were so eager to confirm Mr. Cheney quickly
that they were relatively undemanding, not pressing him on the draft
but merely asking him if he had anything to say about it.
He said he "never served" because of deferments to finish a college
career that lasted six years rather than four, which he attributed to
subpar academic performance and the fact that he had to work to pay
for his education.
He added that he "would have obviously been happy to serve had I been
called."
Away from the hearing room, he told the Washington Post that he had
sought his deferments because "I had other priorities in the 60's than
military service."
"I don't regret the decisions I made," he added. "I complied fully
with all the requirements of the statutes, registered with the draft
when I turned 18. Had I been drafted, I would have been happy to
serve."
But others contend that Mr. Cheney appeared to go to some length to
avoid the draft.
"Five deferments seems incredible to me," said David Curry, a
professor at the University of Missouri in St. Louis who has written
extensively about the draft, including a 1985 book, "Sunshine
Patriots: Punishment and the Vietnam Offender."
"That's a lot of times for the draft board to say O.K.," Mr. Curry
said.
In February 1962, when Mr. Cheney was classified as 1-A — available
for service — he was doing poorly at Yale. But the military was taking
only older men at that point, and like others who were in college at
the time, Mr. Cheney seemed to have little concern about being
drafted.
In June, he left Yale. After returning home to Casper, a small city in
east-central Wyoming, he worked as a lineman for a power company.
At that point, the Vietnam War was still just a glimmer on the
horizon. In 1962, only 82,060 men were inducted into the service, the
fewest since 1949. Mr. Cheney was eligible for the draft but, as he
said during his confirmation hearings in 1989, he was not called up
because the Selective Service System was taking only older men.
But by 1963, ferment in Vietnam was rising. Mr. Cheney enrolled in
Casper Community College in January 1963 — he turned 22 that month —
and sought his first student deferment on March 20, according to
records from the Selective Service System. After transferring to the
University of Wyoming at Laramie, he sought his second student
deferment on July 23, 1963.
On Aug. 7, 1964, Congress approved the Gulf of Tonkin resolution,
which allowed President Lyndon B. Johnson to use unlimited military
force in Vietnam. The war escalated rapidly from there.
Just 22 days later, Mr. Cheney married his high school sweetheart,
Lynne. He sought his third student deferment on Oct. 14, 1964.
In May 1965, Mr. Cheney graduated from college and his draft status
changed to 1-A. But he was married, which offered him some protection.
In July, President Johnson announced that he was doubling the number
of men drafted. The number of inductions soared, to 382,010 in 1966
from 230,991 in 1965 and 112,386 in 1964.
Mr. Cheney obtained his fourth deferment when he started graduate
school at the University of Wyoming on Nov. 1, 1965.
On Oct. 6, 1965, the Selective Service lifted its ban against drafting
married men who had no children. Nine months and two days later, Mr.
Cheney's first daughter, Elizabeth, was born. On Jan. 19, 1966, when
his wife was about 10 weeks pregnant, Mr. Cheney applied for 3-A
status, the "hardship" exemption, which excluded men with children or
dependent parents. It was granted.
In January 1967, Mr. Cheney turned 26 and was no longer eligible for
the draft.
Of the 26.8 million men who were eligible for the draft between 1964
and 1973, only 2.2 million were drafted while 8.7 million joined
voluntarily, according to "Chance and Circumstance: the Draft, the
War, and the Vietnam Generation," a 1978 book by Lawrence M. Baskir
and William A. Strauss. Mr. Cheney was among the vast majority of 16
million men — about 60 percent of those eligible — who avoided the
draft by legal means.
The deferment process proved controversial, discriminating against men
who were black or poor, and a lottery was introduced in 1969.
President Nixon did away with student deferments in 1971 and the draft
ended in 1973.
But the deferments left such a bitter after-effect that the Selective
Service says on its Web site (www.sss.gov) that if a draft were
reinstituted, it would be conducted much differently and there would
be fewer excuses for people to get out of it.
At the time of his confirmation hearings as defense secretary, Mr.
Cheney said that he had not taken any action either for or against the
military during the Vietnam War. But, he told an interviewer at the
time, "I think those who did in fact serve deserve to be honored for
their service."
Of American involvement in Vietnam, he said: "Was it a noble cause?
Yes, indeed, I think it was."
n...@money.old
JC and George Kerby both played the gay card to get their deferments.
Similarly enough, HeadRush Limbaugh got his by anal cysts.
HA HA HA HA HA BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
smokey
Why do you suppose they are called "Luckies"?
J.C.
That's where all the phonies claim their 214s are. Right there on that desk.
What's the matter old phony? You afraid to put them on the ng so people can
see them? Or, is it that you just don't have any? That's probably the truth
of the matter.
J.C.
Bill Walker
<n...@money.old> wrote in message
news:n7gio19j2hc4gt9j1...@4ax.com...
I don't know about all that but you can be sure, both of them have tried
hard to run their bluffs on usenet..
J.C.
Lying old fart.
George Kerby
On 11/26/05 11:14 PM, in article atfio1lda1b0936oc...@4ax.com,
"n...@money.old" <n...@money.old> wrote:
AGAIN, you simple sack of hammered shit, let me say this slllowwlly:
We are in the PRESENT. You however, due to massive quantities of illegal
pharmaceuticals, cannot get out of the PAST.
George Kerby
On 11/27/05 7:40 AM, in article UGiif.2650$4r.2610@trndny01, "smokey"
<smokey...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I would guess that one that smokes those coffin nails is LUCKY to get as old
as our feeble BillyBob Irving, and without "all that oxygen shit".
George Kerby
On 11/27/05 8:38 AM, in article Mxjif.42276$ap7....@fe11.news.easynews.com, "J.C." <jcsp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<n...@money.old <mailto:n...@money.old> > wrote in message news:n7gio19j2hc4gt9j1...@4ax.com <news:n7gio19j2hc4gt9j1...@4ax.com> ...
> On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 01:56:59 GMT, "Bill Walker"
> <bill.w...@verizon.com <mailto:bill.w...@verizon.com> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"J.C." <jcsp...@hotmail.com <mailto:jcsp...@hotmail.com> > wrote in message
> >news:s87if.32224$dZ.3...@fe02.news.easynews.com...
> >>
> >> "Bill Walker" <bill.w...@verizon.com <mailto:bill.w...@verizon.com> > wrote in message
> >> news:rT4if.8228$%w2.4168@trnddc07 <news:rT4if.8228$%w2.4168@trnddc07> ...
> >>>
> >>> "J.C." <jcsp...@hotmail.com <mailto:jcsp...@hotmail.com> > wrote in message
> >>> news:jR1if.26961$vw5....@fe01.news.easynews.com <news:jR1if.26961$vw5....@fe01.news.easynews.com> ...
> >>> >
> >>> > "George Kerby" <ghost_...@hotmail.com <mailto:ghost_...@hotmail.com> > wrote in message
> >>> > news:BFAE0332.1FF06%ghost_...@hotmail.com <news:BFAE0332.1FF06%ghost_...@hotmail.com> ...
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On 11/26/05 11:35 AM, in article
> >>> >> g11if.17832$xd2....@fe03.news.easynews.com <mailto:g11if.17832$xd2....@fe03.news.easynews.com> , "J.C."
> >>> > <jcsp...@hotmail.com <mailto:jcsp...@hotmail.com> >
> >>> >> wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > "Bill Walker" <bill.w...@verizon.com <mailto:bill.w...@verizon.com> > wrote in message
> >>> >> > news:3V0if.7906$%w2.7016@trnddc07 <news:3V0if.7906$%w2.7016@trnddc07> ...
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> <587s...@temple.nul <mailto:587s...@temple.nul> > wrote in message
> >>> >> >> news:333go15i4gsthhq8j...@4ax.com <news:333go15i4gsthhq8j...@4ax.com> ...
> >>> >> >>> On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:33:13 -0600, SteveR
> >>> >> >>> <tex_d...@comcast.net <mailto:tex_d...@comcast.net> >
> >>> >> >>> wrote:
> >>> >> >>>
> >>> >> >>>> In article <q7fdo11ucb2fueicf...@4ax.com <mailto:q7fdo11ucb2fueicf...@4ax.com> >,
> >>> >> >>>> 587s...@temple.nul <mailto:587s...@temple.nul> wrote:
> >>> >> >>>>
> >>> >> >>>>> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:54:38 -0600, SteveR
> >> <tex_d...@comcast.net <mailto:tex_d...@comcast.net> >
> >>> >> >>>>> wrote:
> >>> >> >>>>>
> >>> >> >>>>>> In article <VDkhf.5919$Dx3.1732@trnddc07 <mailto:VDkhf.5919$Dx3.1732@trnddc07> >,
> >>> >> >>>>>> "Bill Walker" <bill.w...@verizon.com <mailto:bill.w...@verizon.com> > wrote:
> >>> >> >>>>>>
> >>> >> >>>>>>> <587s...@temple.nul <mailto:587s...@temple.nul> > wrote in message
> >>> >> >>>>>>> news:t2k7o11gsr2a8hd2p...@4ax.com <news:t2k7o11gsr2a8hd2p...@4ax.com> ...
It will just morph back in another form. Like cocksuck, er – cockroaches they are inbreeding new handles every day...
George Kerby
On 11/27/05 8:39 AM, in article uyjif.8968$F73.5323@trnddc03, "Bill Walker"
<bill.w...@verizon.com> wrote:
You have to admit that your new "friend" here is BIG on anal fantasy, tho.
I'd not give him your addy, BillyBob. He may just try to run up that
wheelchair ramp that you brag about carrying a big jar of Vaseline. Don't
open your door without checking first!
SteveR
587s...@temple.nul wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:02:53 -0600, SteveR <tex_d...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <ngfdo1dbmndtqps9v...@4ax.com>,
> > 587s...@temple.nul wrote:
> >
> >..
> >>
> >> The difference between a Republican fighting in a war and a Democrat
> >> is that the Republican can fight that war from the safety of his easy
> >> chair....
> >
> >You can do some research to support this contention. Survey which
> >political group is most represented in combat troops, then do the same
> >for support positions, i.e. cooks, administrative personnel, mechanics,
> >etc.
> >
> >
> >The results will surprise you.
Thanks for the opinions posted, but it is in no way relative to my
contenion.
>
> http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=240296
>
> "I was there and I voted for Kerry. None of my buds want that monger
> in office anymore. I wouldn't care if Al Sharpton got elected, as long
> as Bush was gone.
>
> ~SGT. Cook
> 51st Sig Bn (Airborne) "
>
>
>
> One blogger claimed that many in the military voted for Bush because
> they were scared that Kerry would cut funding for vests. How ironic
> that it was Bush and the Republicans who stabbed the soldiers in the
> vets by doing exactly that.
>
>
> I'm not surprised by this story:
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/2004-09-21-voterreg-block_x.htm
> Pentagon Restricts Overseas Voters
> Tue Sep 21, 3:05 AM ET Add Politics - AP to My Yahoo!
>
> By JOHN LEICESTER, Associated Press Writer
>
> PARIS - Americans abroad, whose votes could be crucial if the Nov. 2
> presidential election proves close, are being denied access to a U.S.
> Department of Defense (news - web sites) Web site designed to make it
> easier for them to cast absentee ballots...
--
"You can't say you love your country and hate your government."
- Bill Clinton, 1995
SteveR
"Bill Walker" <bill.w...@verizon.com> wrote:
>
> LMAO... Steve R. is very sympathetic to Dick Cheney... Him and Cheney used
> the same excuse for avoiding service.. "other priorities"
Liar.
Bill Walker
ROTFL.. Want to see my DD 214's .. You know where they are, now.. (you knew
before) <evil grin> But.. they are here and you can look them over for a
little bit.. before I throw your ass out in the middle of that Oakdale
blvd.. wheelchair and all.. whoops..
Bill Walker
You are the one who posted it.. Now.. eat it..
SteveR
Obwon <obl...@att.net> wrote:
"I think the world is far safer with the disappearance and the removal
of Saddam Hussein.... I actually think this may be one of those cases
where it was even more dangerous than we thought.... After 1998, it became
a regime that was totally corrupt.... And in a world where we know others
are seeking WMD, the likelihood at some point in the future of a seller
and a buyer meeting up would have made that a far more dangerous
country." - David Kay
>
> You're saying that even though Bush knew, was told,
> that information that Saddam was trying to purchase
> Yellow cake, shouldn't be used in making his case for
> war. That it shouldn't mean anything at all to me,
> that he went ahead and used that information anyway?
> I mean, even though that false information, was going
> to lead me to falsely believe that I was facing a
> possible nuclear attack, being planned by a Madman?
**Reality: On July 14, 2004after a nearly half-year investigationa
special panel reported to the British Parliament that British
intelligence had indeed concluded that Saddam Hussein was seeking to buy
uranium from Africa.
The Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction, chaired by
Lord Butler, summarized: It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi
officials visited Niger in 1999. The British government had intelligence
from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the
purpose of acquiring uranium....
The statement in President Bushs State of the Union Address of 28
January 2003 that The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein
recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa was
well-founded.
In the U.S., the Report on the U.S. Intelligence Communitys Prewar
Intelligence Assessments on Iraq ***revealed that the CIA considered it
important that the Nigerian officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation
had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerian Prime Minister
believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium***, because
this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.
The Select Committee on Intelligence also noted that the CIA reviewed
and cleared the Presidents State of the Union address....
>
> I don't remember where I learned that people could
> tell whatever lies they believe suits their fancy, to
> mislead people into making the decisions they want.
> But I do know that it can happen, I do know that it is
> done. What I don't expect is that our President would
> do such things, especially not to lead us into, what
> would otherwise be an unnecessary sacrifice of American
> lives.
You've been suckered, but not by Bush.
>
> He did say: "Containment won't work". And what do
> you suppose he meant by that statement? Do you suspect
> that by it, he meant to inform us that his information
> was so good, so well supported, so found, known and
> agreed upon by our intelligence experts, that there
> was NO question but that we faced certain danger?
"We must act before the treat becomes imminent"
Study those words until you undesrtand what they mean.
> What did it mean when Donald Rumsfeld said "...And we
> know where they are", when replying to qestions about
> weather or not it was true that Saddam really had such
> a fearsome store of wmd's? Was it not misleading to
> let us think that he did in fact know where they were?
No chance Saddam could move or destroy. No chance at all.
That is what you have to believe to smear your own country when we're at
war - you have to have complete trust in Saddam.
> The President did not come back and say that even
> thought it was false, that we didn't actually have
> knowledge of the where abouts of the wmd's, that he
> still believed they were there. Of course, to do that
> would have undercut his already weak case, eh?
Gotta trust Saddam.
> So he let us think that all of the "pro war"
> information was unquestionable and sound, and not let
> us know that the people who had reported it,
> themselves had serious doubts about it's veracity.
Not all of it. For the most part, not until after the invasion.
> If that's not misleading, I don't know what it is you
> consider misleading. Tell me, how many times does
> someone have to tell you things that turn out to be
> untrue, before you begin to disbelieve them, Huh?
Trust Saddam, he never would have played any games. The guy is
straight-up on this one, he found Jesus or something.
Best of luck with the trial.
SteveR
"Bill Walker" <bill.w...@verizon.com> wrote:
> "SteveR" <tex_d...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:tex_driver-0934E...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> > In article <3V0if.7906$%w2.7016@trnddc07>,
> > "Bill Walker" <bill.w...@verizon.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >> LMAO... Steve R. is very sympathetic to Dick Cheney... Him and Cheney
> >> used
> >> the same excuse for avoiding service.. "other priorities"
> >
> > Liar.
>
> You are the one who posted it.. Now.. eat it..
Not volunteering for the Navy is not "avoiding service". If so, the
greatly huge vast number of people in the US were doing it at the time,
Cricket.
n...@money.old
wrote:
Bush should be impeached TODAY. And you need to pull your head out of
his ass TODAY. The only one living in the PAST is you, reliving
Watergate through Dubya. You fucking moron.
n...@money.old
wrote:
>
>
>
You pathetic Republicans are clinging to anything while your leaders
all go to jail. Keep humiliating yourself.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHA
n...@money.old
<bill.w...@verizon.com> wrote:
Be careful or that PUSSY JC will plonk you like the cowardly
cocksucker, he is. Oh, the loss.
n...@money.old
wrote:
>In article <u64go155halbo3sut...@4ax.com>,
> 587s...@temple.nul wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:02:53 -0600, SteveR <tex_d...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <ngfdo1dbmndtqps9v...@4ax.com>,
>> > 587s...@temple.nul wrote:
>> >
>> >..
>> >>
>> >> The difference between a Republican fighting in a war and a Democrat
>> >> is that the Republican can fight that war from the safety of his easy
>> >> chair....
>> >
>> >You can do some research to support this contention. Survey which
>> >political group is most represented in combat troops, then do the same
>> >for support positions, i.e. cooks, administrative personnel, mechanics,
>> >etc.
>> >
>> >
>> >The results will surprise you.
>
>Thanks for the opinions posted, but it is in no way relative to my
>contenion.
Reality is no way relative to your contentions either.
SteveR
horror@hg.com Kurtz
"Obwon" <obl...@att.net> wrote in message
news:j4rbo1tpc2mnbng31...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 15:16:49 GMT, "Bill Walker"
> <bill.w...@verizon.com> wrote:
>
>
> Bill? I've been following "LegisScam", you know the
> Abramoff/DeLay led K-street project that was supposed
> to deliver a one party gov't to us.
>
> In the course of following SunCruize, I've noted
> that very strange look on Abramoffs face, it's way too
> contorted to be derived from just this "minimal"
> scandal of having forged a financial instrument. In
> fact, even the murder of Boulis doesn't seem to be
> driven by either the business, the forgery or anything
> else that surrounds it.
>
> Consider that even by murdering Boulis, they don't
> cover the fraud. The only way to do that, and remember
> these people are high powered lawyers and knowledgeable
> freaks, is to pay off the loan. But there's no
> apparent plan that will allow them to do so...
>
> But then, enter a subtle little artifact, and
> everything seems to become much more clear.
> Atta apparantly visited several SunCruize ships and
> gambled big money there. So now, that provides for a
> few "what if's", that make the murder more desperately
> necessary than not.
>
> What if: Gus Boulis actually saw Mohammad Atta on
> the ship gambling? What if he further happened to
> see, or somehow managed to figure out, that this
> bumbling big mouthed broke-O, making 8 and 900 dollar
> bets at the roulette wheel, was somehow connected with
> Abramoff or Kidan or Wally Hilliard [the guy who owned
> the flight training school where Atta trained]. What
> if Boulis saw or learned somehow, that these people
> were connected? It could have been something as simple
> as a look of recognition across a crowded room.
>
> Then, while Gus wouldn't know what he'd stumbled
> upon at that time. Abramoff and the "Boys", would
> know that after 9-11 he'd understand what he'd come to
> know. And that had to be the worlds biggest NO-NO, if
> it had happened. It would have been something so, so
> very serious, that he would have had to be killed.
> For that kind of information could have connected
> people all the way up to the whitehouse with 9-11.
>
> Don't know that this kind of thing happened, but
> it's "available" to have happened, because of the
> strange proximity of Atta to SunCruize. Which, of
> course, was run and owned by the money laundering
> Abramoff, through a scam purchase and non-performing
> loans. There is also the matter of money being paid
> out of SunCruize's treasury, that isn't accounted for.
> Could Boulis have figured that Atta wasn't gambling his
> own money? Who knows.
>
> But this scandal bears serious watching. Abramoff is
> due to appear in court in January. And DeLay is
> struggling desperately to get his old job back and
> fast!
>
> Obwon
Sorry to jump in soooo late, but....
Perhaps Rudi Dekker is mixed in with the boys ending up on the boat.....
Here's another loose thread ready to be pulled: One person that seems to be
a common thread between Abramoff and the wonderful wacky world of the
Tugocracy is Susan B. Ralston. She connects all of the dots, and will have
the bad luck of being forced to testify in the upcoming Rove
indictment.....( Go Fitz, Go! )
Rove's former personal assistant, Susan B. Ralston -- who was also a special
assistant to President Bush -- testified in August about why Cooper's call
to Rove was not logged. Ralston said it occurred because Cooper had phoned
in through the White House switchboard and was then transferred to Rove's
office as opposed to calling Rove's office directly. As Rove's assistant,
Ralston screened Rove's calls.
Strange? Consider....Ralston is the former personal secretary for Jack
Abramoff!
Oh, and.....
Ralston told
(http://www.asianfortune.com/aug04/Articles/PROFILE%20Susan%20RALSTON.htm)
Jennie L. Ilustre in a pre-presidential election 2004 interview for Asian
Fortune that she was then "the White House Liaison to the Bush-Cheney '04
(BC'04) campaign. As such, she has been very much involved in the reelection
campaign. 'I work on the coordination of all activities between the campaign
and the White House, including the Republican National Convention,... I
spend 95 per cent of my physical time at the White House, but do go over to
the campaign headquarters for meetings.'"
That girl gets around. A girl with the bad luck to be the Girl Friday to the
BC 04 campaign, and secretary to both JackA and KKKarl should be locked up
for her own protection.
'Big Tony', 'Little Tony', and 'Pudgy' are off the streets, but.....I wonder
if she was on that plane that suddenly had to land recently?
Thanks Obwon: I'm watching closely, too.
And thanks to Bill, too! Keep hammerin' these bastards til the walls
crumble.
We now have the momentum.
The horror, the horror...
> 0[ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ]0
> Liars share with those they deceive
> the desire not to be deceived.
> --Sissela Bok
> 0[ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ]0
Mike Smith
>On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 16:30:06 GMT, Mike Smith
><m...@wt.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 14:38:01 GMT, Obwon <obl...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Elections are meaningless if people don't know what
>>>they're voting for. But these elections, you refer to,
>>>have not been either fair or open. There has been NO
>>>campaigning, no debates, no discussions of the various
>>>issues or even anyone staking out postions. Therefore
>>>the "elections" were merely a facade, a charade, an
>>>empty exercise in futility signifying nothing.
>>>
>>
>>Folks, this is all you need to know about this buffoon.
>
>And this is all we need to know about you!
>
>>Yes, he is dumb enough to believe that millions of Iraqis would go
>>vote and have their finger stained purple, giving the terrorists a
>>great visual of their opposition, for a facade of an election.
>
> What you are calling an "election", is voting for a
>list of names of people, put together by men in a
>room. No statements of their positions, eh? Isn't
>that what we complained about the Soviet Unions
>"elections"?
Bullshit.
> Or, is it your postion that just voting
>alone, without knowing what or who you are voting for,
>is somehow a free and fair election?
Nope.... And that did not happen in Iraq, despite your fantasy that
"thinks" it did.
>Geeze, you
>really are prone to being led to support a totalitarian
>regime. You don't seem to like the idea of self gov't,
>nor do you appear to be impressed with the idea of
>people deciding issues themselves.
And you post more proof of your fantasizing... Thanks.
>
>Are you an American? Or just an expatriot? Living in
>fear of deportation, if you should get caught
>questioning our fearless leader?
Based on your clearly stupid mis-interpretation of what happened and
is happening in Iraq, I'd say you're way too dumb to even begin to
comprehend whatever rant you are mimicking.
>
>>From CNN, regarding Iraqi voters:
>>"We are defeating the terrorists as we are coming here," a voter named
>>Saad said, proudly displaying his ink-stained finger.
>
> Yes, they are mouthing the Coalition line, perhaps
>saving a place in Abu G. for someone else who would
>question the worth of the exercise, eh?
Your fantasy is showing, again.
>
>>
>>Further north in the Kurdish town of Sulaimaniya, CNN's Nic Robertson
>>reported seeing a 90-year-old woman being taken to a voting booth in a
>>wheelbarrow. Others came on crutches to cast their ballot.
>
>>In the southern city of Basra, ITN correspondent Juliet Bremner
>>reported that turnout was almost 90 percent. She said voting was
>>peaceful and orderly, with elated Shiites -- oppressed for decades
>>under Saddam -- "determined to cast their votes in their desire for
>>freedom, peace and food."
>><end CNN quote>
>>
>>The bozo, Obwon, "thinks" the Iraqi people are completely stupid,.
>>That makes him stupid, and a typical liberal.
>>
>>Mike Smith
>
> No, Obwon thinks that the Iraqi people are deathly
>afraid of the Coalition, and I believe we have seen on
>the news, some very good reasons why they should be!
OK, thanks for letting everyone know you are hopelessly devoid of any
useful skills when it comes to "thinking".
>Or do you think you're likely to see people, living
>under totalitarian rule, coming out and openly
>protesting? You seem to think that these people
>would find it acceptable, to protest on tv, and risk
>having themselve labled "insurgents" or "terrorists".
>That would mean nothing at all to them as far as you
>can see, eh?
Your fantasy is showing, again.
>
> But, could you explain what particular laws would
>protect them from being arrested, taken away to prison
>and "questioned" at length, for being considered an
>insurgent? Do they even tolerate "dissenters"? Or do
>they call all dissenters "Insurgents" and "terrorists"
>depending on the current news climate?
>
You do have a strong fantasy... It usually helps if there is some
basis in reality.... Get someone who understands "reality" to explain
it to you.
Good luck with that...
Mike Smith
n...@money.old
>On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 18:04:48 GMT, Obwon <obl...@att.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 16:30:06 GMT, Mike Smith
>><m...@wt.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 14:38:01 GMT, Obwon <obl...@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Elections are meaningless if people don't know what
>>>>they're voting for. But these elections, you refer to,
>>>>have not been either fair or open. There has been NO
>>>>campaigning, no debates, no discussions of the various
>>>>issues or even anyone staking out postions. Therefore
>>>>the "elections" were merely a facade, a charade, an
>>>>empty exercise in futility signifying nothing.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Folks, this is all you need to know about this buffoon.
>>
>>And this is all we need to know about you!
>>
>>>Yes, he is dumb enough to believe that millions of Iraqis would go
>>>vote and have their finger stained purple, giving the terrorists a
>>>great visual of their opposition, for a facade of an election.
>>
>> What you are calling an "election", is voting for a
>>list of names of people, put together by men in a
>>room. No statements of their positions, eh? Isn't
>>that what we complained about the Soviet Unions
>>"elections"?
>
>Bullshit.
That one word not only sums up Dubya but Mike, too.
n...@money.old
wrote:
Shuffle to the right, chickenhawk.
Mike Smith
Yes, folks... this buffoon is that stupid. He could not even begin to
refute anything I posted, so he jumps, head-first, into an empty pool.
Mike Smith
Obwon
Here's my list of names so far, collected but
many unresearched as yet. What I want to do is
create a short synopsis for each name, you know,
state, party affiliation, positions and what
indescretions/scandals they're connected to. That will
do for a start, it'll be a pretty long document when
it's finished, but it will probably circle the world
really fast.
Obwon
Obwon
Susan B. Ralston
Richard E. Rainwater
Amanda Keller (atta's american girl friend)
Stephanie Frederickson lived next door to atta in fla.
Atta’s emails are reprinted in "Welcome to Terrorland's
40-page Appendix
Joseph Polidore
Hani Hanjour
Nawaf Alhazmi
Rob Tiller
James Billie
Marwan al-Shehhi
Patricia Idrissi
Miami subs
Jim Shore
Yasin al-Qadi
hosres
David Grosh
Donald Aronow
Michael Aquino
Edgar Bentain
Wally Hilliard <--
Huffman Aviation
Rudi Dekkers
Kenneth Jossart
Chris Paciello
Robin Vanderwall
Conrad Burns
Ryan Thomas
Shawn Vasell
Michael Aquino
Edgar Bentain
Rosario Spadaro
Sami Shemtov
THE SECRET WORLD OF 9.11
Bill Bersch
The Pasco County Sheriff's Office
Paradise of Port Richey
Stephen Babus
Schmuel Ben Zvi
CONGRESS
---------
Will M. Brooke
Ryan Thomas
Saginaw Chippewas of Michigan
Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.)
Interior Appropriations subcommittee
Ryan Thomas
Will Brooke
Shawn Vasell
John Cornyn
Conrad Burns
David Addington
OHIO
----
Lucas County Commissioner Maggie
Thurber, and his wife, Bernadette
Brian Hicks
Cherie Carroll
Hicks Partners
H. Douglas Talbott
Tom Noe
Robert Cone
Duke Under a Cloud
In late 2003, when Cunningham decided to sell his Del
Mar, CA, home, he didn't rely on the market. Instead,
Cunningham -- who sits on the defense appropriations
subcommittee -- turned to a defense contractor.
Lester Crawford
Ken Mehlman and
Collister "Coddy" Johnson
Sheriff Larry Stewart
Lt Mike Amos
Terry McEachern
Jay Sekulow
ACLJ
Thomas Monaghan
Gary Sekulow his wife, Pam; and his son Jordan
Pat Robertson
Kim Sekulow
C. Boyden Gray
Leonard Leo
Edwin Meese III
Tim Goeglein
CASE
PGMS
Regency Productions
T.D. Jakes
Locke Liddell
Russell Erxleben
Austin Forex
Brian Stearns
Brian L. Goolsby
Timothy E. Flanigan
Ben Waldman
U.S. Rep. Nick J. Rahall
Bob Gould Lopez
Mr. Strauss
Sen. Donna Boley
Gouldies
Manchin
Thomas L. Pepper
Anthony Ferrari
David Lapin
Daniel Lapin
Jennifer Moscatiello
Gran-Sons Inc
Adam Kidan
Warren RoBold
Danielle DeLay Ferro
Anthony Moscatiello
Anthony Ferrari
James Fiorillo
Tony Rudy
Karl Gallant
J.D. Hayworth
Jim Ellis James Walter
John Colyandro
Mike Meece
Ripon Educational Fund
Ripon Society
Susan Molinari
Richard Kessler
Americans for Tax Reform
House Speaker Dennis Hastert's former spokesman
Roy Blunt
David Brooks
Michael Oxley
Grover Norquist
K Street Project
Rick Santorum
Michael Scanlon
House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.
John D. Ashcroft (R-Mo.)
Gregg Hartley Cassidy & Associates
House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.)
Ed Gillespie
Mark Isakowitz
Samantha Poole
Lyle Beckwith
Ralph Hellmann
Mike Rogers
Kenneth J. Kies
Karl Gallan Alexander Strategy Group
Rely on Your Beliefs Fund (ROYB Fund)
Roseann Blunt
Abigail Perlman
Matt Blunt
Tracy Graves
Todd Bartles
Rick Santorum
Rod Chandler
PhRMA
K Street Project
Ed Gillespie
Frank Keating
Joseph Kelliher
Spencer Abraham
Rep. Michael Oxley (R-Ohio)
Newt Gingrich
Marc Lampkin
Roger Tamraz
Johnny Chung
Haley Barbour
Quinn Gillespie
Dick Armey
Kerry Knott
Robert Zoellick
Paul O’Neill
Don Evans
Gordon P. Connor
David Keene
Claude Stuart
Joe Allbaugh
Ed Rogers
New Bridge Strategies
Timothy Mills
Patton Boggs
Bart Fisher
U.S. Iraq Business Council
Paul R.S. Gebhard
George Mitchell
Dick Armey
John Zentay
Tom Foley
BearingPoint
Darrell Issa
Stewart Simonson
Tommy Thompson
Michael Leavitt
Dan Himmelfarb
Todd Akin
Laura Gosselin
Marc Racicot
Susan Hirschmann
Jonathan Baron
Red Sea LLC
Club for Growth
International Republican Institute
International Republican Institute
National Right to Life Committee
Home School Legal Defense Association
Traditional Values Coalition
Concerned Women for America
Patricia Brink
John Boehner
Hirschmann
US Family Network (usfn)
Americans for Economic Growth (AEG)
Republican Majority Issues Committee
Robert Mills
Tom Davis
Leadership Forum
Celebrations for Children
Texans for a Republican Majority (trmpac)
John Colyandro
Warren Robold
Chris Perkins
American Conservative Union
Paul Weyrich
James Dobson
Focus on the Family
TRMPAC
Texans for a Republican Majority
Political Action Committee
Linda Shultz
Edwin A. Buckham
Ralph Reed
Jim Backlin
Republican Study
Committee
Rev.Billy McCormack
Roberta Combs
Michael Scanlon
James Dobson
Tom Reynolds
John Boehner
Rob Portman
Edward Stewart
Tony Rudy
Karl Gallant
Mark Souder
J.D. Hayworth
Drew Maloney
Patricia Brink
John Boehner
armpac
Robert Mills
Brian H. Darling
"Big Tony" Moscatiello
"Little Tony" Ferrari
Wayne Nicholson
Gus Boulis
Sen. Conrad Burns
Paul M. Weyrich
* Elliott Abrams (PNAC)
* Ken Adelman
* Richard Armitage (PNAC)
* John David Ashcroft
* Fred Barnes
* Gary Bauer
* William J. Bennett (PNAC)
* Jeffrey Bergner (PNAC)
* John Bolton (PNAC)
* Max Boot
* Ellen Bork
* Paul Bremer Lewis Paul "Jerry" Bremer III
* David Brooks
* Shoshana Bryen
* Stephen D. Bryen
* Zbigniew Brzezinski
* Stephen A. Cambone
* Eliot A. Cohen
* Midge Decter
* Paula J. Dobriansky (PNAC)
* Thomas Donnelly
* John Doolittle
* Douglas Jay Feith
* David Frum
* Francis Fukuyama (PNAC)
* Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. (PNAC)
* Reuel Marc Gerecht (PNAC)
* Newt Gingrich
* Joshua Goldberg
* Owen Harries
* Bruce P. Jackson
* Michael Johns
* Robert Kagan (PNAC)
* Zalmay Khalilzad (PNAC)
* Jeane Kirkpatrick
* Henry Kissinger
* Neal Kozodoy
* Charles Krauthammer
* Irving Kristol
* William Kristol (PNAC)
* Michael Arthur Ledeen
* Jay Lefkowitz
* I. Lewis Libby a.k.a. "Scooter"
* Michael H. Mobbs
* Joshua Muravchik
* Rupert Murdoch
* Richard J. Neuhaus
* Michael Novak
* Martin Peretz
* Richard N. Perle (PNAC)
* Daniel Pipes
* Norman Podhoretz
* Howard Raines
* Peter W. Rodman (PNAC)
* Karl Rove
* Donald H. Rumsfeld (PNAC)
* Richard Mellon Scaife
* Gary J. Schmitt
* William Schneider, Jr. (PNAC)
* Abram N. Shulsky
* Robert W. Tucker
* Harlan Ullman
* Vin Weber (PNAC)
* Paul Dundes Wolfowitz (PNAC)
* R. James Woolsey, Jr. (PNAC)
* David Wurmser
* Meyrav Wurmser
* Dov Zakheim
* Karl Zinsmeister
* Robert B. Zoellick
http://www.swingstateproject.com/topics/scandals/index.php?page=2
http://www.democrats.org/a/national/honest_government/abuse_of_power/
http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/gopscorecard.htm
good guys
The ICI
Domenick Hence
Democracy 21
Done (bad guys)
Gregg Hartley
Christine Delay
Ed Buckham
Edward Stewart
Greg C. Walker
Tim Berry
Moon Over Miami Beach
Rabbi Daniel Lapin
Toward Tradition
Bill Walker
"Kurtz" <the hor...@HG.com> wrote in message
news:4DLif.27731$tV6...@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
You got it, pard.. The only breakdown could be that our fellow Americans
allow another joke of an investigation like the 911 Commission .. Seems that
all the impanelled committees that I've witnessed will ask the question ..
The one questioned will be allowed to waltz all over the place and never
give an answer.. The questioner then allows the non-answer to become a part
of the record without so much as a follow up.. much less a challenge to that
superfluous response.. Condoleeza Rice is a master of the art..
Americans deserve and should demand to know the answers to the tough
questions..
Obwon, you and others who've glimpsed inside this corruption will hopefully
be able to fill in the blanks for many of us .. Many thanks for you response
in this discussion.. Now .. I've got even more information to present ..
Regards
Bill Walker
Irving, Tx.
Bill Walker
"Mike Smith" <m...@wt.net> wrote in message
news:g7koo1li347asj9g2...@4ax.com...
LOL.. What's to "refute" lardass.. While you refuted all his comments with
the substantive "fantasy" argument, without addressin any of his comments ..
again.. what's to "refute".. OK. I get it, I'll refute by an easy little
response.. "I've never had a fantasy in my life".. lol.. Now .. you prove
that I have..
Again.. after all your fantasy refutes or whatever the usual Mike Smith
conclusion was addressed to "folks".. Who the hell are these "folks" you
keep addressing, lardass.?. You've never answered such an easy question, as
many time as you've been asked...
Bill Walker
<n...@money.old> wrote in message
news:eftko1lvun7sradjj...@4ax.com...
Here is just an idication of Steve R's reality.. It's no way relevant to
your discussion with him and may be of no interest to you.. For benefit of
all the contributors to this group, outside of Texas.. who have no interest
in such trivia.. FYI.. a couple of days ago, Steve R commented that his
residence is in Arlington, Tx. which is a suburb city of Ft.Worth.. I threw
out the fictitous name of a newspaper, here in the metroplex.. while I was
referring to the front page feature that weekend..
Steve R. immediately responded .. claiming the name of the Ft.Worth
publication was some kind of "Picayne" something.. LOL.. Aside from the
little local rags which do community interest stuff, we only have two
syndicated newspapers in the Dallas/Ft.Worth metroplex.. Ft.Worth Star
Telegram and the Dallas Morning News..
Something is tragically amiss with this Steve R. character .. Just a little
aside for you.. Regards
Bill Walker
Irving, Tx.
horror@hg.com Kurtz
Yer a Moran, Shit Jockey! A wee bit of thought ( I know, it's too hard for
you...) and a bit of research will show that the 'elections' were not like
anything you would recognize as an fair electorial process. But your
Rethuglican version of a 'fair election' is a farce, too.
Maybe they will have elections in the Bunker: you can still be the
assistant-fuhrer if you start bribing your dead-ender buddies today. Scrub
out a few toilets, vacuum a few thread-bare carpets, spray a little
Febreeze, and they MIGHT let you be on the ballot. Then you will have to
campaign a bit......( shudder....)
Paper ballots, and hand counts NOW!!!!!
INDICT - IMPEACH - IMPRISON
SteveR
horror@hg.com Kurtz
Thanks. I will have to get more tacks and yarn for my VRWC / PNAC matrix.
I wonder if it's time to begin the movement toward the formation of an
American version of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
When this house of cards falls, we will need a mechanism to handle the
fall-out.
Court ordered Rethuglican ReHab, or perhaps something a little more
Cambodian?
When the sleeping Americans finally get the wake-up call and the bill, they
might want to engage in un-civil disobediance. If they see real justice
being administered, perhaps we forestall truly ugly times........