| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Craig Chilton" |
| Date: |
24 Aug 2003 08:39:43 AM |
| Object: |
The Iraq Fiasco: "Bush's Folly" |
Get us the hell OUT of there!
NOW!!!!
It's been a fiasco from the start.
What a WASTE!!!
Demand that our ignoramus Warmonger-in-Thief to END it
and bring ALL our troops home from there. Immediately.
-- Craig Chilton
.
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: The Iraq Fiasco: "Bush's Folly" |
24 Aug 2003 09:13:55 AM |
|
|
"Craig Chilton" <> wrote in message
news:3f48beb5.26996537@netnews.mchsi.com...
Get us the hell OUT of there!
NOW!!!!
It's been a fiasco from the start.
What a WASTE!!!
Demand that our ignoramus Warmonger-in-Thief to END it
and bring ALL our troops home from there. Immediately.
-- Craig Chilton
You want us to leave the region unstable?
You want Saddam to come back into power and be even harder to control than
before?
You want the lives that were lost liberating the Iraqi people and ridding
the world of a threat to be in vein?
You want to give the terrorist and the states that sponsor terrorism more
power?
That is what would happen if we left now.
No, we need to finish the job and make sure that this never happens again.
Leaving now would be the WORST thing that we could do.
.
|
|
|
| User: "steve2000" |
|
| Title: Re: The Iraq Fiasco: "Bush's Folly" |
30 Aug 2003 01:45:39 AM |
|
|
" > -- Craig Chilton
You want us to leave the region unstable?
You want Saddam to come back into power and be even harder to control than
before?
You want the lives that were lost liberating the Iraqi people and ridding
the world of a threat to be in vein?
You want to give the terrorist and the states that sponsor terrorism more
power?
That is what would happen if we left now.
No, we need to finish the job and make sure that this never happens again.
Leaving now would be the WORST thing that we could do.
Got one for for you -- Vietnam.
steve
.
|
|
|
| User: "T.Carr" |
|
| Title: Re: The Iraq Fiasco: "Bush's Folly" |
30 Aug 2003 07:33:07 AM |
|
|
(steve2000) wrote in message news:<9b1e5a4.0308292245.21fde420@posting.google.com>...
" > -- Craig Chilton
You want us to leave the region unstable?
You want Saddam to come back into power and be even harder to control than
before?
You want the lives that were lost liberating the Iraqi people and ridding
the world of a threat to be in vein?
You want to give the terrorist and the states that sponsor terrorism more
power?
That is what would happen if we left now.
No, we need to finish the job and make sure that this never happens again.
Leaving now would be the WORST thing that we could do.
(steve2000
Got one for for you -- Vietnam.
8+ years does not equal less than 8 months
50,000+ dead does not equal less than 300 dead
Try again
T.Carr
steve
.
|
|
|
| User: "steve2000" |
|
| Title: Re: The Iraq Fiasco: "Bush's Folly" |
30 Aug 2003 04:28:48 PM |
|
|
(T.Carr) wrote in message ne
No, we need to finish the job and make sure that this never happens again.
Leaving now would be the WORST thing that we could do.
stevespears@hotmail.com (steve2000
Got one for for you -- Vietnam.
8+ years does not equal less than 8 months
50,000+ dead does not equal less than 300 dead
Try again
T.Carr
300 dead. Gee, don't these pesky towelhead civilians count, O Mighty
Liberator of the People?
Ennyways, y'all hang round and "finish the job". It'll take a few
humdred billion dollars and more lives and all your Idiot POTUS will
have won is the loathing of the Arab World and most of the West.
steve -- "finish the job." Jesus, you fucking warheads are nuts.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T.Carr" |
|
| Title: Re: The Iraq Fiasco: "Bush's Folly" |
30 Aug 2003 08:26:23 PM |
|
|
(steve2000) wrote in message news:<9b1e5a4.0308301328.2ffcf9e1@posting.google.com>...
TCarr13397@aol.com (T.Carr) wrote in message ne
No, we need to finish the job and make sure that this never happens again.
Leaving now would be the WORST thing that we could do.
(steve2000
Got one for for you -- Vietnam.
8+ years does not equal less than 8 months
50,000+ dead does not equal less than 300 dead
Try again
T.Carr
(steve2000)
300 dead. Gee, don't these pesky towelhead civilians count, O Mighty
Liberator of the People?
Projection on your part.
Why not tell us the civilian deaths under Ho Chi Min, vs Saddam's
atrocities and the civilian deaths since Mar 2003.
Which one do you think will be lower?
Ennyways, y'all hang round and "finish the job". It'll take a few
humdred billion dollars and more lives and all your Idiot POTUS will
have won is the loathing of the Arab World and most of the West.
The "job" will be "finished" as soon as we exit Iraq..ASAP
The Arab world loathed us before 3/2003. Nothing changed there.
"Goodwill" didnt prevent the terrorist bombings in Africa, the
attack on the USS Cole, or 9/11/01
You may wish to place great stock in the "arab world "goodwill"
steve -- "finish the job." Jesus, you fucking warheads are nuts.
Still pronjecting I see "Steve"
Tell us again how Iraq = "Nam
T.Carr
.
|
|
|
| User: "steve2000" |
|
| Title: Re: The Iraq Fiasco: "Bush's Folly" |
31 Aug 2003 05:01:32 AM |
|
|
(T.Carr) wrote in message news:<8c213b2e.0308301726.30de769a@posting.google.com>...
stevespears@hotmail.com (steve2000) wrote in message news:<9b1e5a4.0308301328.2ffcf9e1@posting.google.com>...
(T.Carr) wrote in message ne
No, we need to finish the job and make sure that this never happens again.
Leaving now would be the WORST thing that we could do.
stevespears@hotmail.com (steve2000
Got one for for you -- Vietnam.
8+ years does not equal less than 8 months
50,000+ dead does not equal less than 300 dead
Try again
T.Carr
stevespears@hotmail.com (steve2000)
300 dead. Gee, don't these pesky towelhead civilians count, O Mighty
Liberator of the People?
Projection on your part.
Why not tell us the civilian deaths under Ho Chi Min, vs Saddam's
atrocities and the civilian deaths since Mar 2003.
Which one do you think will be lower?
Ennyways, y'all hang round and "finish the job". It'll take a few
humdred billion dollars and more lives and all your Idiot POTUS will
have won is the loathing of the Arab World and most of the West.
The "job" will be "finished" as soon as we exit Iraq..ASAP
The Arab world loathed us before 3/2003. Nothing changed there.
"Goodwill" didnt prevent the terrorist bombings in Africa, the
attack on the USS Cole, or 9/11/01
You may wish to place great stock in the "arab world "goodwill"
steve -- "finish the job." Jesus, you fucking warheads are nuts.
Still pronjecting I see "Steve"
Tell us again how Iraq = "Nam
T.Carr
Try agin, T. You're sounding Westmorelandish.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: The Iraq Fiasco: "Bush's Folly" |
30 Aug 2003 05:10:34 AM |
|
|
(steve2000) wrote in message news:<9b1e5a4.0308292245.21fde420@posting.google.com>...
" > -- Craig Chilton
You want us to leave the region unstable?
You want Saddam to come back into power and be even harder to control than
before?
You want the lives that were lost liberating the Iraqi people and ridding
the world of a threat to be in vein?
You want to give the terrorist and the states that sponsor terrorism more
power?
That is what would happen if we left now.
No, we need to finish the job and make sure that this never happens again.
Leaving now would be the WORST thing that we could do.
Got one for for you -- Vietnam.
steve
Yea? And?
Different era, Different circumstances, different hostilities, different enemy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "steve2000" |
|
| Title: Re: The Iraq Fiasco: "Bush's Folly" |
30 Aug 2003 04:36:25 PM |
|
|
(osprey) wrote in message news:<8912d58d.0308300210.
Got one word for for you -- Vietnam.
steve
Yea? And?
Different era, Different circumstances, different hostilities, different enemy.
That's true. In Vietnam you couldn't tell the enemy from the ordinary
population and them pesky gooks would ambush soldiers and blow ***** up
and melt back into the population and most of the civilised world
condemned you.
way different.
Still, "Bring em on", y'all!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lawson English" |
|
| Title: Re: The Iraq Fiasco: "Bush's Folly" |
30 Aug 2003 09:22:38 PM |
|
|
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:ER6cncDuPbfbt8yiXTWJiA@comcast.com...
[...]
Bush Jr. inherited a lot of the problems the previous 3 didn't handle.
There is absolutely no way in my mind, that anyone can put the blame of
9/11
on Bush. That was planned long before Bush took office in my opinion and
would have happened regardless whether Bush was in office or not.
Bush dismantled everything that Clinton was doing against Osama bin Laden.
He then started negotiating with OBL's son-in-law to build an oil pipeline
through Afghanistan and gave him money as a reward for destroying the opium
trade. Do you not wonder at possible the back-room deals there?
Don't tell me that 9/11 was inevitable. 28 pages of funding by Osama by a
"foreign government" have been declared classified. Who do you think funded
OBL? The Taliban? That would mean that we DIRECTLY gave him money for 9/11
since we gave them money only a few months before. More likely, Saudi Arabia
was the culprit, including many members of the royal family AND members of
OBL's immediate family, since likely not all of them are innocent
bystanders watching their black sheep brother ruin the family name.
People say, well if Gore was in office it wouldn't have happened. They
fail
to remember 1993 when they tried before with the WTC. Who was sitting in
the seat then? If that had been successful the outcome would have been
far
more deadly than 9/11
Bush was in office for 7 months before 9/11 started. See above for what he
dead about OBL. Clinton, on the other hand, was in office for 38 days before
the first WTC bombing. If you're suggesting that Clinton's inability to
prevent the WTC bombing 38 days after he took office is the same as Bush's
deliberate dismantling of our anti-OBL procedures and negotiating with OBL's
son-in-law, I suggest that you're not really an American.
Let's not forget the fact that Bush attended a conference 2 months before
9/11 where fears that OBL's people would crash planes into the conference
was so great (as brought to the attention of the Italians by the CIA) that
the Italians ringed the summit with anti-aircraft missiles to prevent this.
Somehow this possibility never registered with BUsh's Security Advisor since
she said that no-one ever dreamed that terrorists could crash airplanes as a
weapon. Surely Bush should have warned her when he got back? (snort).
Terrorist have been waiting for years, and I am sure that future attacks
are
likely to happen. Regardless of who is in office. Their goal is to bring
terror in the streets of America.
Actually, thats at least as much the Bush Administration's goal as OBL's.
Terror makes things like PATRIOT Act I and PATRIOT Act II easier to push
through Congress. Terror makes things like building genetically-targetted
bio-weapons easier to justify. Terror makes the "New American Century,"
based on the "pax america," more paletable to the American public.
Bush and our administration, despite the problems, are doing the best job
I
think we can possibly do right now. Are we handling it perfectly? No,
not
even close. However, who could handle it perfect?
They are doing the worst possible job. No US president that I can think of
has been so inept on so many levels (except lying).
We are facing a new kind of war, a different enemy, different times,
different tactics. We have to get our experience as we move along. It
isn't like something we have had experience in before.
Bull. Terrorism isn't new. Its been around in modern form since before the
founding of Israel.
No one here has the answers. Not you, not I, not anyone. We must, bottom
line, support our troops. That is the bottom line. We can leave the
politics behind and support the men and women who are involved in this.
Who says "don't support our troops?" How is it "supporting our troops" to
support failed foreign policies that were obviously going to fail from
before their implementation that very deliberately and knowingly put our
children in harm's way for what were known to be lies and half-truths?
Do I like seeing GI's being killed? No, not at all. It angers me just as
much as the next guy. However, I realize the deadly consiquences we would
face if we didn't finish the job.
What job do you think we are doing? How will we know when we finish it?
Personally, I pray that our leaders are doing the right job. I support
our
administration for the tough decisions they must make.
What tough decisions?
I am simply amazed at the politics some of these politicians are playing
right now, like Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton. It is to be expected I
guess, but I think in the long run it will anger Americans more than help
them.
So you think that people that object to what is going on are all playing
politics?
We don't want another Vietnam. That was handled wrong from the start.
And
it was ended wrong.
This was, in my opinion, handled right from the start. When it will end?
We don't know. Bush said it before, this is going to be a long war. And
it
probably will be.
In my opinion, your opinion is wrong. A "war" on terrorism is impossible. It
is not only impossible; it is self-defeating. Terrorism is a criminal act,
not a war-like act, no matter how many people end up getting hurt in a
specific incident. You fight terrorism using police, intelligence and
international cooperation, not with unilateral bombing of 3rd world nations
that happen to be strategically important due to oil and military
considerations.
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: The Iraq Fiasco: "Bush's Folly" |
31 Aug 2003 12:01:23 AM |
|
|
"Lawson English" <english7@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<OZc4b.2770$Lk5.1510@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:ER6cncDuPbfbt8yiXTWJiA@comcast.com...
[...]
Bush Jr. inherited a lot of the problems the previous 3 didn't handle.
There is absolutely no way in my mind, that anyone can put the blame of
9/11
on Bush. That was planned long before Bush took office in my opinion and
would have happened regardless whether Bush was in office or not.
Bush dismantled everything that Clinton was doing against Osama bin Laden.
Please list in detail everything "Bill Clinton" done against Osama Bin
Laden.
Then demonstrate, if they worked, how they worked.
He then started negotiating with OBL's son-in-law to build an oil pipeline
through Afghanistan and gave him money as a reward for destroying the opium
trade.
Credible source please?
Do you not wonder at possible the back-room deals there?
Don't tell me that 9/11 was inevitable. 28 pages of funding by Osama by a
"foreign government" have been declared classified.
Source?
Who do you think funded
OBL? The Taliban? That would mean that we DIRECTLY gave him money for 9/11
since we gave them money only a few months before.
Proof please?
More likely, Saudi Arabia
was the culprit, including many members of the royal family AND members of
OBL's immediate family, since likely not all of them are innocent
bystanders watching their black sheep brother ruin the family name.
Is that a guess or can you actually prove it?
People say, well if Gore was in office it wouldn't have happened. They
fail
to remember 1993 when they tried before with the WTC. Who was sitting in
the seat then? If that had been successful the outcome would have been
far
more deadly than 9/11
Bush was in office for 7 months before 9/11 started. See above for what he
dead about OBL. Clinton, on the other hand, was in office for 38 days before
the first WTC bombing.
How long was Clinton in office for the U.S.S. Cole and Embassy
bombings?
If you're suggesting that Clinton's inability to
prevent the WTC bombing 38 days after he took office is the same as Bush's
deliberate dismantling of our anti-OBL procedures and negotiating with OBL's
son-in-law, I suggest that you're not really an American.
Something tells me no matter what I or any republican says you are
going to suggest that regardless.
Now, what I would like to see is you provide a detailed list of all
the "anti-OBL procedures that Bush dismantled.
Demonstrate these procedures and how they supposably worked.
I would like some credible sources please that can prove your claims
so I can research them myself.
Let's not forget the fact that Bush attended a conference 2 months before
9/11 where fears that OBL's people would crash planes into the conference
was so great (as brought to the attention of the Italians by the CIA) that
the Italians ringed the summit with anti-aircraft missiles to prevent this.
Can you provide a source that can detail the contents of this
conference?
Somehow this possibility never registered with BUsh's Security Advisor since
she said that no-one ever dreamed that terrorists could crash airplanes as a
weapon. Surely Bush should have warned her when he got back? (snort).
Terrorist have been waiting for years, and I am sure that future attacks
are
likely to happen. Regardless of who is in office. Their goal is to bring
terror in the streets of America.
Actually, thats at least as much the Bush Administration's goal as OBL's.
Terror makes things like PATRIOT Act I and PATRIOT Act II easier to push
through Congress. Terror makes things like building genetically-targetted
bio-weapons easier to justify. Terror makes the "New American Century,"
based on the "pax america," more paletable to the American public.
Personally I think you sound kind of nutty with that statement, but
you are entitled to your opinion.
Bush and our administration, despite the problems, are doing the best job
I
think we can possibly do right now. Are we handling it perfectly? No,
not
even close. However, who could handle it perfect?
They are doing the worst possible job. No US president that I can think of
has been so inept on so many levels (except lying).
Again your opinion.
I would like to point out that while you are sitting in here
complaining and moaning about Bush, you could be going to Capitol Hill
and trying to show us how to do it correctly.
You are not just another arm chair expert are you?
We are facing a new kind of war, a different enemy, different times,
different tactics. We have to get our experience as we move along. It
isn't like something we have had experience in before.
Bull. Terrorism isn't new. Its been around in modern form since before the
founding of Israel.
I don't know where you got "terrorism is new" out of my statement. I
certainly did not say that.
No one here has the answers. Not you, not I, not anyone. We must, bottom
line, support our troops. That is the bottom line. We can leave the
politics behind and support the men and women who are involved in this.
Who says "don't support our troops?" How is it "supporting our troops" to
support failed foreign policies that were obviously going to fail from
before their implementation that very deliberately and knowingly put our
children in harm's way for what were known to be lies and half-truths?
I guess we are going to find out if you have the truth when and if you
can provide a credible list of all these anti-OBL procedures you were
talking about and can actually prove that Bush dismantled anything.
Please understand when I say, your word just isn't enough for me.
Do I like seeing GI's being killed? No, not at all. It angers me just as
much as the next guy. However, I realize the deadly consiquences we would
face if we didn't finish the job.
What job do you think we are doing? How will we know when we finish it?
I think we are doing the job of facing terrorism, nations that support
terrorism, and fighting back.
I don't konw how we will finish it or when.
I am not a expert on this matter. I am just discussing my opinion.
But apparently you must think you are.
Personally, I pray that our leaders are doing the right job. I support
our
administration for the tough decisions they must make.
What tough decisions?
You don't think that sending our troops into a war is tough?
I am simply amazed at the politics some of these politicians are playing
right now, like Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton. It is to be expected I
guess, but I think in the long run it will anger Americans more than help
them.
So you think that people that object to what is going on are all playing
politics?
I think a lot of this is politics and politicians trying to take the
"opportunity" to build something.
John Kerry for example. He recognized that Iraq was a threat in 1998.
He supposably supported the war. He is flip flopping. Imagine that,
a Democrat flip flopping.
I guess he is a "new" democrat. Of course every election year,
democrats say they are a "new" democrat.
We don't want another Vietnam. That was handled wrong from the start.
And
it was ended wrong.
This was, in my opinion, handled right from the start. When it will end?
We don't know. Bush said it before, this is going to be a long war. And
it
probably will be.
In my opinion, your opinion is wrong.
Oh well, life goes on doesn't it.
A "war" on terrorism is impossible. It
is not only impossible; it is self-defeating. Terrorism is a criminal act,
not a war-like act, no matter how many people end up getting hurt in a
specific incident. You fight terrorism using police, intelligence and
international cooperation, not with unilateral bombing of 3rd world nations
that happen to be strategically important due to oil and military
considerations.
Apparently your answer is
Wait until they attack, then get the police and go after them.
Sorry but I like the attitude of
Get them first before they get us.
.
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: The Iraq Fiasco: "Bush's Folly" |
31 Aug 2003 02:01:40 AM |
|
|
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:8912d58d.0308302101.63e74d97@posting.google.com...
"Lawson English" <english7@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:<OZc4b.2770$Lk5.1510@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:ER6cncDuPbfbt8yiXTWJiA@comcast.com...
[...]
Bush Jr. inherited a lot of the problems the previous 3 didn't handle.
There is absolutely no way in my mind, that anyone can put the blame
of
9/11
on Bush. That was planned long before Bush took office in my opinion
and
would have happened regardless whether Bush was in office or not.
Bush dismantled everything that Clinton was doing against Osama bin
Laden.
Please list in detail everything "Bill Clinton" done against Osama Bin
Laden.
Then demonstrate, if they worked, how they worked.
He then started negotiating with OBL's son-in-law to build an oil
pipeline
through Afghanistan and gave him money as a reward for destroying the
opium
trade.
Credible source please?
Do you not wonder at possible the back-room deals there?
Don't tell me that 9/11 was inevitable. 28 pages of funding by Osama by
a
"foreign government" have been declared classified.
Source?
Who do you think funded
OBL? The Taliban? That would mean that we DIRECTLY gave him money for
9/11
since we gave them money only a few months before.
Proof please?
More likely, Saudi Arabia
was the culprit, including many members of the royal family AND members
of
OBL's immediate family, since likely not all of them are innocent
bystanders watching their black sheep brother ruin the family name.
Is that a guess or can you actually prove it?
People say, well if Gore was in office it wouldn't have happened.
They
fail
to remember 1993 when they tried before with the WTC. Who was sitting
in
the seat then? If that had been successful the outcome would have
been
far
more deadly than 9/11
Bush was in office for 7 months before 9/11 started. See above for what
he
dead about OBL. Clinton, on the other hand, was in office for 38 days
before
the first WTC bombing.
How long was Clinton in office for the U.S.S. Cole and Embassy
bombings?
If you're suggesting that Clinton's inability to
prevent the WTC bombing 38 days after he took office is the same as
Bush's
deliberate dismantling of our anti-OBL procedures and negotiating with
OBL's
son-in-law, I suggest that you're not really an American.
Something tells me no matter what I or any republican says you are
going to suggest that regardless.
Now, what I would like to see is you provide a detailed list of all
the "anti-OBL procedures that Bush dismantled.
Demonstrate these procedures and how they supposably worked.
I would like some credible sources please that can prove your claims
so I can research them myself.
Let's not forget the fact that Bush attended a conference 2 months
before
9/11 where fears that OBL's people would crash planes into the
conference
was so great (as brought to the attention of the Italians by the CIA)
that
the Italians ringed the summit with anti-aircraft missiles to prevent
this.
Can you provide a source that can detail the contents of this
conference?
Somehow this possibility never registered with BUsh's Security Advisor
since
she said that no-one ever dreamed that terrorists could crash airplanes
as a
weapon. Surely Bush should have warned her when he got back? (snort).
Terrorist have been waiting for years, and I am sure that future
attacks
are
likely to happen. Regardless of who is in office. Their goal is to
bring
terror in the streets of America.
Actually, thats at least as much the Bush Administration's goal as
OBL's.
Terror makes things like PATRIOT Act I and PATRIOT Act II easier to push
through Congress. Terror makes things like building
genetically-targetted
bio-weapons easier to justify. Terror makes the "New American Century,"
based on the "pax america," more paletable to the American public.
Personally I think you sound kind of nutty with that statement, but
you are entitled to your opinion.
Bush and our administration, despite the problems, are doing the best
job
I
think we can possibly do right now. Are we handling it perfectly?
No,
not
even close. However, who could handle it perfect?
They are doing the worst possible job. No US president that I can think
of
has been so inept on so many levels (except lying).
Again your opinion.
I would like to point out that while you are sitting in here
complaining and moaning about Bush, you could be going to Capitol Hill
and trying to show us how to do it correctly.
You are not just another arm chair expert are you?
We are facing a new kind of war, a different enemy, different times,
different tactics. We have to get our experience as we move along.
It
isn't like something we have had experience in before.
Bull. Terrorism isn't new. Its been around in modern form since before
the
founding of Israel.
I don't know where you got "terrorism is new" out of my statement. I
certainly did not say that.
No one here has the answers. Not you, not I, not anyone. We must,
bottom
line, support our troops. That is the bottom line. We can leave the
politics behind and support the men and women who are involved in
this.
Who says "don't support our troops?" How is it "supporting our troops"
to
support failed foreign policies that were obviously going to fail from
before their implementation that very deliberately and knowingly put our
children in harm's way for what were known to be lies and half-truths?
I guess we are going to find out if you have the truth when and if you
can provide a credible list of all these anti-OBL procedures you were
talking about and can actually prove that Bush dismantled anything.
Please understand when I say, your word just isn't enough for me.
http://www.texasobserver.org/showArticle.asp?ArticleID=480
There's lots more but I'm too tired to hunt 'em all down... tomorrow maybe.
Do I like seeing GI's being killed? No, not at all. It angers me
just as
much as the next guy. However, I realize the deadly consiquences we
would
face if we didn't finish the job.
What job do you think we are doing? How will we know when we finish it?
I think we are doing the job of facing terrorism, nations that support
terrorism, and fighting back.
I don't konw how we will finish it or when.
I am not a expert on this matter. I am just discussing my opinion.
But apparently you must think you are.
Personally, I pray that our leaders are doing the right job. I
support
our
administration for the tough decisions they must make.
What tough decisions?
You don't think that sending our troops into a war is tough?
I am simply amazed at the politics some of these politicians are
playing
right now, like Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton. It is to be expected
I
guess, but I think in the long run it will anger Americans more than
help
them.
So you think that people that object to what is going on are all playing
politics?
I think a lot of this is politics and politicians trying to take the
"opportunity" to build something.
John Kerry for example. He recognized that Iraq was a threat in 1998.
He supposably supported the war. He is flip flopping. Imagine that,
a Democrat flip flopping.
I guess he is a "new" democrat. Of course every election year,
democrats say they are a "new" democrat.
We don't want another Vietnam. That was handled wrong from the start.
And
it was ended wrong.
This was, in my opinion, handled right from the start. When it will
end?
We don't know. Bush said it before, this is going to be a long war.
And
it
probably will be.
In my opinion, your opinion is wrong.
Oh well, life goes on doesn't it.
A "war" on terrorism is impossible. It
is not only impossible; it is self-defeating. Terrorism is a criminal
act,
not a war-like act, no matter how many people end up getting hurt in a
specific incident. You fight terrorism using police, intelligence and
international cooperation, not with unilateral bombing of 3rd world
nations
that happen to be strategically important due to oil and military
considerations.
Apparently your answer is
Wait until they attack, then get the police and go after them.
Sorry but I like the attitude of
Get them first before they get us.
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: The Iraq Fiasco: "Bush's Folly" |
31 Aug 2003 03:50:44 AM |
|
|
"--sexkitten--" <not@naddress.com> wrote in message news:<bis6h7$cfi1h$1@ID-163025.news.uni-berlin.de>...
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:8912d58d.0308302101.63e74d97@posting.google.com...
"Lawson English" <english7@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:<OZc4b.2770$Lk5.1510@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:ER6cncDuPbfbt8yiXTWJiA@comcast.com...
[...]
Bush Jr. inherited a lot of the problems the previous 3 didn't handle.
There is absolutely no way in my mind, that anyone can put the blame
of
9/11
on Bush. That was planned long before Bush took office in my opinion
and
would have happened regardless whether Bush was in office or not.
Bush dismantled everything that Clinton was doing against Osama bin
Laden.
Please list in detail everything "Bill Clinton" done against Osama Bin
Laden.
Then demonstrate, if they worked, how they worked.
He then started negotiating with OBL's son-in-law to build an oil
pipeline
through Afghanistan and gave him money as a reward for destroying the
opium
trade.
Credible source please?
Do you not wonder at possible the back-room deals there?
Don't tell me that 9/11 was inevitable. 28 pages of funding by Osama by
a
"foreign government" have been declared classified.
Source?
Who do you think funded
OBL? The Taliban? That would mean that we DIRECTLY gave him money for
9/11
since we gave them money only a few months before.
Proof please?
More likely, Saudi Arabia
was the culprit, including many members of the royal family AND members
of
OBL's immediate family, since likely not all of them are innocent
bystanders watching their black sheep brother ruin the family name.
Is that a guess or can you actually prove it?
People say, well if Gore was in office it wouldn't have happened.
They
fail
to remember 1993 when they tried before with the WTC. Who was sitting
in
the seat then? If that had been successful the outcome would have
been
far
more deadly than 9/11
Bush was in office for 7 months before 9/11 started. See above for what
he
dead about OBL. Clinton, on the other hand, was in office for 38 days
before
the first WTC bombing.
How long was Clinton in office for the U.S.S. Cole and Embassy
bombings?
If you're suggesting that Clinton's inability to
prevent the WTC bombing 38 days after he took office is the same as
Bush's
deliberate dismantling of our anti-OBL procedures and negotiating with
OBL's
son-in-law, I suggest that you're not really an American.
Something tells me no matter what I or any republican says you are
going to suggest that regardless.
Now, what I would like to see is you provide a detailed list of all
the "anti-OBL procedures that Bush dismantled.
Demonstrate these procedures and how they supposably worked.
I would like some credible sources please that can prove your claims
so I can research them myself.
Let's not forget the fact that Bush attended a conference 2 months
before
9/11 where fears that OBL's people would crash planes into the
conference
was so great (as brought to the attention of the Italians by the CIA)
that
the Italians ringed the summit with anti-aircraft missiles to prevent
this.
Can you provide a source that can detail the contents of this
conference?
Somehow this possibility never registered with BUsh's Security Advisor
since
she said that no-one ever dreamed that terrorists could crash airplanes
as a
weapon. Surely Bush should have warned her when he got back? (snort).
Terrorist have been waiting for years, and I am sure that future
attacks
are
likely to happen. Regardless of who is in office. Their goal is to
bring
terror in the streets of America.
Actually, thats at least as much the Bush Administration's goal as
OBL's.
Terror makes things like PATRIOT Act I and PATRIOT Act II easier to push
through Congress. Terror makes things like building
genetically-targetted
bio-weapons easier to justify. Terror makes the "New American Century,"
based on the "pax america," more paletable to the American public.
Personally I think you sound kind of nutty with that statement, but
you are entitled to your opinion.
Bush and our administration, despite the problems, are doing the best
job
I
think we can possibly do right now. Are we handling it perfectly?
No,
not
even close. However, who could handle it perfect?
They are doing the worst possible job. No US president that I can think
of
has been so inept on so many levels (except lying).
Again your opinion.
I would like to point out that while you are sitting in here
complaining and moaning about Bush, you could be going to Capitol Hill
and trying to show us how to do it correctly.
You are not just another arm chair expert are you?
We are facing a new kind of war, a different enemy, different times,
different tactics. We have to get our experience as we move along.
It
isn't like something we have had experience in before.
Bull. Terrorism isn't new. Its been around in modern form since before
the
founding of Israel.
I don't know where you got "terrorism is new" out of my statement. I
certainly did not say that.
No one here has the answers. Not you, not I, not anyone. We must,
bottom
line, support our troops. That is the bottom line. We can leave the
politics behind and support the men and women who are involved in
this.
Who says "don't support our troops?" How is it "supporting our troops"
to
support failed foreign policies that were obviously going to fail from
before their implementation that very deliberately and knowingly put our
children in harm's way for what were known to be lies and half-truths?
I guess we are going to find out if you have the truth when and if you
can provide a credible list of all these anti-OBL procedures you were
talking about and can actually prove that Bush dismantled anything.
Please understand when I say, your word just isn't enough for me.
http://www.texasobserver.org/showArticle.asp?ArticleID=480
There's lots more but I'm too tired to hunt 'em all down... tomorrow maybe.
I read the article.
I have questions. Main question is this
What makes this article credible?
What are the sources ANDREW WHEAT used?
How do we know if they are true?
How can we guarentee this isn't just some conspiracy?
Why isn't this information being brought public?
Now if any of these allegations had any merit the media would be all
over it. However the media isn't. Why?
I will be the first to say that if any of the alledged is actually
true then a investigation needs to be done. And if Bush is guilty of
any of the allegations he should be brought up on charges.
But first thing I want to make sure is not involved is partisanship.
This has to be unbiased, fair, and balanced.
There are too many Bush haters that would be willing to taint this all
in efforts to just have a victory over republicans.
I am all for a formal investigation on Bush and anyone involved if
there is any truth to the allegations.
Pardon me for being very skeptical but dealing with liberals as long
as I have, you learn to be VERY skeptical. Because too often the
stories you hear are based on EXTREME partisanship, hear say,
untruths, unsupported, information.
Do I like seeing GI's being killed? No, not at all. It angers me
just as
much as the next guy. However, I realize the deadly consiquences we
would
face if we didn't finish the job.
What job do you think we are doing? How will we know when we finish it?
I think we are doing the job of facing terrorism, nations that support
terrorism, and fighting back.
I don't konw how we will finish it or when.
I am not a expert on this matter. I am just discussing my opinion.
But apparently you must think you are.
Personally, I pray that our leaders are doing the right job. I
support
our
administration for the tough decisions they must make.
What tough decisions?
You don't think that sending our troops into a war is tough?
I am simply amazed at the politics some of these politicians are
playing
right now, like Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton. It is to be expected
I
guess, but I think in the long run it will anger Americans more than
help
them.
So you think that people that object to what is going on are all playing
politics?
I think a lot of this is politics and politicians trying to take the
"opportunity" to build something.
John Kerry for example. He recognized that Iraq was a threat in 1998.
He supposably supported the war. He is flip flopping. Imagine that,
a Democrat flip flopping.
I guess he is a "new" democrat. Of course every election year,
democrats say they are a "new" democrat.
We don't want another Vietnam. That was handled wrong from the start.
And
it was ended wrong.
This was, in my opinion, handled right from the start. When it will
end?
We don't know. Bush said it before, this is going to be a long war.
And
it
probably will be.
In my opinion, your opinion is wrong.
Oh well, life goes on doesn't it.
A "war" on terrorism is impossible. It
is not only impossible; it is self-defeating. Terrorism is a criminal
act,
not a war-like act, no matter how many people end up getting hurt in a
specific incident. You fight terrorism using police, intelligence and
international cooperation, not with unilateral bombing of 3rd world
nations
that happen to be strategically important due to oil and military
considerations.
Apparently your answer is
Wait until they attack, then get the police and go after them.
Sorry but I like the attitude of
Get them first before they get us.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lawson English" |
|
| Title: Re: The Iraq Fiasco: "Bush's Folly" |
31 Aug 2003 12:50:54 PM |
|
|
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
[...]
What are the sources ANDREW WHEAT used?
How do we know if they are true?
How can we guarentee this isn't just some conspiracy?
Why isn't this information being brought public?
Now if any of these allegations had any merit the media would be all
over it. However the media isn't. Why?
You DO know that news media in this country are allowed to lie, according to
the latest decision of a US appelate court. "Now, if any of these
allegations had any merit, the media would be all over it." In other words,
do you REALLY expect the US news media to report stuff if it isn't in the
interest of the owners? Do a google search for this incredible ruling and
see how many hits you get. Its only a handful. Given that the press won't
even let people know that they can lie to them without limit, why would you
expect the press to be honest about anything else?
http://www.2dca.org/february1403.htm
New World Communications of Tampa v. Akre
http://baltimorechronicle.com/lyingislegal_apr03.html
http://www.sierratimes.com/03/02/28/arpubmg022803.htm
http://www.organicconsumers.org/rbgh/akre022603.cfm
The actual court decision, quoted in full at the bottom of the page at the
last URL above says:
"While WTVT has raised a number of challenges to the judgment obtained by
Akre, we need not address each challenge because we find as a threshold
matter that Akre failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's
statute..
The portion of the whistle-blower's statute pertinent to this appeal
prohibits retaliation against employees who have "[d]isclosed, or threatened
to disclose," employer conduct that "is in violation of" a law, rule, or
regulation. § 448.102(1)(3). The statute defines a "law, rule or regulation"
as "includ[ing] any statute or . . . any rule or regulation adopted pursuant
to any federal, state, or local statute or ordinance applicable to the
employer and pertaining to the business." § 448.101(4), Fla. Stat. (1997).
We agree with WTVT that the FCC's policy against the intentional
falsification of the news ú which the FCC has called its "news distortion
policy" ú does not qualify as the required "law, rule, or regulation" under
section 448.102. "
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Holman" |
|
| Title: Re: The Iraq Fiasco: "Bush's Folly" |
31 Aug 2003 01:00:26 AM |
|
|
(osprey) wrote in
news:8912d58d.0308302101.63e74d97@posting.google.com:
"Lawson English" <english7@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:<OZc4b.2770$Lk5.1510@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:ER6cncDuPbfbt8yiXTWJiA@comcast.com...
[...]
Bush Jr. inherited a lot of the problems the previous 3 didn't
handle.
There is absolutely no way in my mind, that anyone can put the
blame of
9/11
on Bush. That was planned long before Bush took office in my
opinion and would have happened regardless whether Bush was in
office or not.
Bush dismantled everything that Clinton was doing against Osama bin
Laden.
Please list in detail everything "Bill Clinton" done against Osama Bin
Laden.
Then demonstrate, if they worked, how they worked.
He then started negotiating with OBL's son-in-law to build an oil
pipeline through Afghanistan and gave him money as a reward for
destroying the opium trade.
Credible source please?
Do you not wonder at possible the back-room deals there?
Don't tell me that 9/11 was inevitable. 28 pages of funding by Osama
by a "foreign government" have been declared classified.
Source?
Tue, July 29, 2003
White House won't declassify 28 pages
of 9-11 report on Saudi involvement
WASHINGTON (AP) - President George W. Bush refused to
declassify part of a congressional report on possible
links between Saudi government officials and the Sept.
11 hijackers, saying Tuesday that making the entire
document public "would help the enemy" by revealing
intelligence sources and methods.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2003/07/24/144556-ap.html
Who do you think funded
OBL? The Taliban? That would mean that we DIRECTLY gave him money for
9/11 since we gave them money only a few months before.
Proof please?
Bush's Faustian Deal With the Taliban
May 22, 2001 Los Angeles Times
Enslave your girls and women, harbor anti-U.S. terrorists,
destroy every vestige of civilization in your homeland, and
the Bush administration will embrace you. All that matters
is that you line up as an ally in the drug war, the only
international cause that this nation still takes seriously.
That's the message sent with the recent gift of $43 million
to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-
American violators of human rights in the world today. The
gift, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin
Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the U.S. the
main sponsor of the Taliban and rewards that "rogue regime"
for declaring that opium growing is against the will of God.
Never mind that Osama bin Laden still operates the leading
anti-American terror operation from his base in Afghanistan,
from which, among other crimes, he launched two bloody attacks
on American embassies in Africa in 1998.
Sadly, the Bush administration is cozying up to the Taliban
regime at a time when the United Nations, at U.S. insistence,
imposes sanctions on Afghanistan because the Kabul government
will not turn over Bin Laden.
http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcolumn/01_columns/052201.htm
More likely, Saudi Arabia
was the culprit, including many members of the royal family AND
members of OBL's immediate family, since likely not all of them are
innocent bystanders watching their black sheep brother ruin the
family name.
Is that a guess or can you actually prove it?
Check out the 28 pages from the Congressional
9/11 report. You know, the ones Bush censored because
they say too much.
People say, well if Gore was in office it wouldn't have happened.
They
fail
to remember 1993 when they tried before with the WTC. Who was
sitting in the seat then? If that had been successful the outcome
would have been
far
more deadly than 9/11
Bush was in office for 7 months before 9/11 started. See above for
what he dead about OBL. Clinton, on the other hand, was in office for
38 days before the first WTC bombing.
How long was Clinton in office for the U.S.S. Cole and Embassy
bombings?
How long was Reagan in office for the
Beirut barracks bombing? The Berlin disco
bombing? The Lockerbie PanAm bombing?
If you're suggesting that Clinton's inability to
prevent the WTC bombing 38 days after he took office is the same as
Bush's deliberate dismantling of our anti-OBL procedures and
negotiating with OBL's son-in-law, I suggest that you're not really
an American.
Something tells me no matter what I or any republican says you are
going to suggest that regardless.
Now, what I would like to see is you provide a detailed list of all
the "anti-OBL procedures that Bush dismantled.
Demonstrate these procedures and how they supposably worked.
I would like some credible sources please that can prove your claims
so I can research them myself.
Funny you should mention Bush and OBL.
Post for us how many times Bush attacked
OBL or EVEN MENTIONED HIM prior to 9/11.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gogarty" |
|
| Title: Re: The Iraq Fiasco: "Bush's Folly" |
31 Aug 2003 08:43:50 AM |
|
|
In article <OZc4b.2770$Lk5.1510@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
english7@mindspring.com says...
(Big snip)
Excellent post.
Bull. Terrorism isn't new. Its been around in modern form since before the
founding of Israel.
Anybody here ever read Joseph Conrad's "The Secret Agent?" It's an eye
opener.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: The Iraq Fiasco: "Bush's Folly" |
01 Sep 2003 01:22:59 PM |
|
|
In article <8912d58d.0308300210.6ac8200a@posting.google.com>,
says...
Subject: Re: The Iraq Fiasco: "Bush's Folly"
From: (osprey)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion, alt.politics, alt.politics.usa.republican, alt.politics.democrats.d, soc.culture.usa
stevespears@hotmail.com (steve2000) wrote in message news:<9b1e5a4.0308292245.21fde420@posting.google.com>...
" > -- Craig Chilton
You want us to leave the region unstable?
You want Saddam to come back into power and be even harder to control than
before?
You want the lives that were lost liberating the Iraqi people and ridding
the world of a threat to be in vein?
You want to give the terrorist and the states that sponsor terrorism more
power?
That is what would happen if we left now.
No, we need to finish the job and make sure that this never happens again.
Leaving now would be the WORST thing that we could do.
Got one for for you -- Vietnam.
steve
Yea? And?
Different era, Different circumstances, different hostilities, different enemy.
Same stupidity.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: The Iraq Fiasco: "Bush's Folly" |
24 Aug 2003 01:48:14 PM |
|
|
"Craig Chilton" <> wrote in message
news:3f48e31f.676801@netnews.mchsi.com...
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 10:13:55 -0400,
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Craig Chilton" < > wrote
Get us the hell OUT of there!
NOW!!!!
It's been a fiasco from the start.
What a WASTE!!!
Demand that our ignoramus Warmonger-in-Thief to END it
and bring ALL our troops home from there. Immediately.
You want us to leave the region unstable? You want Saddam to
come back into power and be even harder to control than before?
You want the lives that were lost liberating the Iraqi people and
ridding
the world of a threat to be in vain? You want to give the terrorist and
the states that sponsor terrorism more power?
That is what would happen if we left now.
No, we need to finish the job and make sure that this never
happens again.
Leaving now would be the WORST thing that we could do.
See "Iconoclast's" response to you. I've been to the Middle East
fairly recently (in 2000), and I couldn't have said it better than he
did.
-- Craig Chilton
And what he said is garbage Craig
We are fighting global terrorism. And like many experts have said, we
rather fight it there than fight it in our streets.
Which if we just left things alone, that is exactly what we would be doing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Nicholson" |
|
| Title: Re: The Iraq Fiasco: "Bush's Folly" |
24 Aug 2003 06:26:58 PM |
|
|
On 8/24/03 7:08 PM, in article
ee9cf366.0308241508.7f127043@posting.google.com, "bill casey"
<dotkc@webtv.net> wrote:
The answer is simple, QUIT SUPPORTING ISRAEL.
We are hated throughout the Muslim World because of our IDIOTIC
support of this Rotten Fucking Country.
In the Arab view (and Mine) The friend of my enemy is also my enemy.
Wake up America, The destruction of Israel will be our only salvation.
Sometime it's like being in high school. "The friend of my enemy is also my
enemy"?
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:<XYmcnUxvC773ldSiXTWJkA@comcast.com>...
"Craig Chilton" < > wrote in message
news:3f48e31f.676801@netnews.mchsi.com...
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 10:13:55 -0400,
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Craig Chilton" < > wrote
Get us the hell OUT of there!
NOW!!!!
It's been a fiasco from the start.
What a WASTE!!!
Demand that our ignoramus Warmonger-in-Thief to END it
and bring ALL our troops home from there. Immediately.
You want us to leave the region unstable? You want Saddam to
come back into power and be even harder to control than before?
You want the lives that were lost liberating the Iraqi people and
ridding
the world of a threat to be in vain? You want to give the terrorist and
the states that sponsor terrorism more power?
That is what would happen if we left now.
No, we need to finish the job and make sure that this never
happens again.
Leaving now would be the WORST thing that we could do.
See "Iconoclast's" response to you. I've been to the Middle East
fairly recently (in 2000), and I couldn't have said it better than he
did.
-- Craig Chilton
And what he said is garbage Craig
We are fighting global terrorism. And like many experts have said, we
rather fight it there than fight it in our streets.
Which if we just left things alone, that is exactly what we would be doing.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Iconoclast" |
|
| Title: Re: The Iraq Fiasco: "Bush's Folly" |
24 Aug 2003 09:41:01 AM |
|
|
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:ePCdneK7jI28VdWiXTWJgA@comcast.com...
"Craig Chilton" < > wrote in message
news:3f48beb5.26996537@netnews.mchsi.com...
Get us the hell OUT of there!
NOW!!!!
It's been a fiasco from the start.
What a WASTE!!!
Demand that our ignoramus Warmonger-in-Thief to END it
and bring ALL our troops home from there. Immediately.
-- Craig Chilton
You want us to leave the region unstable?
You want Saddam to come back into power and be even harder to control than
before?
You want the lives that were lost liberating the Iraqi people and ridding
the world of a threat to be in vein?
You want to give the terrorist and the states that sponsor terrorism more
power?
That is what would happen if we left now.
No, we need to finish the job and make sure that this never happens again.
Leaving now would be the WORST thing that we could do.
You want us to finish the job? You want us to clean it up so terrorists
won't take control. Kind of like we did in Viet Nam I guess, right? Screw
around for nine years, trying to fix things and, in the end, leaving with
out accomplishing what we set out to do. There's no way in hell we are going
to "fix" that part of the world short of Nuking them into oblivion. Israel
has been trying with the Palestinians for 50 years and things are as bad now
as they ever were. I guess that's what you want for the US, to be in Iraq
for 50 years and still not getting the job done. In the end, we are going to
leave and the Shias will take over. It's inevitable. You need to stop
listening to Bush's simplistic platitudes and study the history of the
middle east to see where this is going.
Icon
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: The Iraq Fiasco: "Bush's Folly" |
24 Aug 2003 01:47:02 PM |
|
|
"Iconoclast" <priapusx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1842b.5163$av4.1144@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:ePCdneK7jI28VdWiXTWJgA@comcast.com...
"Craig Chilton" < > wrote in message
news:3f48beb5.26996537@netnews.mchsi.com...
Get us the hell OUT of there!
NOW!!!!
It's been a fiasco from the start.
What a WASTE!!!
Demand that our ignoramus Warmonger-in-Thief to END it
and bring ALL our troops home from there. Immediately.
-- Craig Chilton
You want us to leave the region unstable?
You want Saddam to come back into power and be even harder to control
than
before?
You want the lives that were lost liberating the Iraqi people and
ridding
the world of a threat to be in vein?
You want to give the terrorist and the states that sponsor terrorism
more
power?
That is what would happen if we left now.
No, we need to finish the job and make sure that this never happens
again.
Leaving now would be the WORST thing that we could do.
You want us to finish the job? You want us to clean it up so terrorists
won't take control. Kind of like we did in Viet Nam I guess, right? Screw
around for nine years, trying to fix things and, in the end, leaving with
out accomplishing what we set out to do. There's no way in hell we are
going
to "fix" that part of the world short of Nuking them into oblivion. Israel
has been trying with the Palestinians for 50 years and things are as bad
now
as they ever were. I guess that's what you want for the US, to be in Iraq
for 50 years and still not getting the job done. In the end, we are going
to
leave and the Shias will take over. It's inevitable. You need to stop
listening to Bush's simplistic platitudes and study the history of the
middle east to see where this is going.
Icon
I rather see us fight terrorist over there, than in our streets.
Sorry you rather see it happen here
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: The Iraq Fiasco: "Bush's Folly" |
24 Aug 2003 03:46:09 PM |
|
|
"Iconoclast" <priapusx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MU82b.4622$Jp4.3973@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:nbadnY2KP468ldSiU-KYuA@comcast.com...
I rather see us fight terrorist over there, than in our streets.
Sorry you rather see it happen here
So, you're one of those that thinks that if we rebuild Iraq and even make
it
a democracy, Bin Laden, et al won't want to attack us here at home.
I think it lessens the chances, as long as we continue to fight terrorism,
not just in Iraq. But any country that harbors terrorism, supports and/or
finances.
What I don't think you get is,
terrorist can NOT be dealt with. They can NOT be negotiated with. And we
can NOT just turn away and pretend they will not attack.
I think that what Bush is doing is right. And I hope that if Bush is
re-elected which I think he probably will be, or who ever is elected
continues this fight.
That's
very interesting. Please explain the connection. Yeah, Al Qaeda really
wants
American influence, American values and American democracy in the middle
east and once established the're going to say, oh boy! America is great,
lets love them now. You guys sure have deluded yourselves with Bush's
simplistic crapola. Why don't you check into why Al Qaeda attacked us in
the
first place, Duh!
Icon
If you are such a expert
why are you here and not in intelligence?
Amazing
arm chair experts
.
|
|
|
| User: "Iconoclast" |
|
| Title: Re: The Iraq Fiasco: "Bush's Folly" |
24 Aug 2003 05:25:41 PM |
|
|
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:YcWdnY2sEKuTudSiU-KYuQ@comcast.com...
I think it lessens the chances, as long as we continue to fight terrorism,
not just in Iraq. But any country that harbors terrorism, supports and/or
finances.
What I don't think you get is,
terrorist can NOT be dealt with. They can NOT be negotiated with. And we
can NOT just turn away and pretend they will not attack.
I think that what Bush is doing is right. And I hope that if Bush is
re-elected which I think he probably will be, or who ever is elected
continues this fight.
If you are such a expert
why are you here and not in intelligence?
Amazing
arm chair experts
We've taken our eye off of the ball, namely finishing the job in
Afghanistan. The Taliban is regrouping as we speak and we control virtually
none of the country except Kabul. Al Qaeda is restructuring and is planning
more attacks. They've already struck twice in Indonesia and we get
continuous warnings that they may strike here. Is it orange or yellow today?
The point is that we have done nothing to reduce the threat despite two
wars. For everyone we kill two more pop out of the desert with that much
more hatred toward us. Look at Israel. There's no end to the Palestinians
after 50 years of reponding to their terrorism. I have no problem going
after the people who attacked us but that ain't Iraq. Iraq just makes
everything worse.
Icon
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dingleberry" |
|
| Title: Re: The Iraq Fiasco: "Bush's Folly" |
28 Aug 2003 04:43:51 PM |
|
|
"Iconoclast" <priapusx@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<FXa2b.5696$cU2.312@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>...
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:YcWdnY2sEKuTudSiU-KYuQ@comcast.com...
I think it lessens the chances, as long as we continue to fight terrorism,
not just in Iraq. But any country that harbors terrorism, supports and/or
finances.
What I don't think you get is,
terrorist can NOT be dealt with. They can NOT be negotiated with. And we
can NOT just turn away and pretend they will not attack.
I think that what Bush is doing is right. And I hope that if Bush is
re-elected which I think he probably will be, or who ever is elected
continues this fight.
If you are such a expert
why are you here and not in intelligence?
Amazing
arm chair experts
We've taken our eye off of the ball, namely finishing the job in
Afghanistan. The Taliban is regrouping as we speak and we control virtually
none of the country except Kabul.
The United States has not forgotten about Afghanistan. Not even close.
There are numerous operations going on there every day, but you don't
hear about them as much because now Iraq is in the spotlight. You need
to stop getting all your news from the mainstream media. They are
unreliable.
Al Qaeda is restructuring and is planning
more attacks. They've already struck twice in Indonesia and we get
continuous warnings that they may strike here. Is it orange or yellow today?
The point is that we have done nothing to reduce the threat despite two
wars.
Did you really expect the war on terrorism to be quick and painless?
You have no idea how much the threat has been reduced. You are not in
a position to comment on it.
For everyone we kill two more pop out of the desert with that much
more hatred toward us. Look at Israel. There's no end to the Palestinians
after 50 years of reponding to their terrorism.
Actually, if George Bush let Israel do what it needs to do regarding
the Palenstinian terrorists, they would wipe them out in no time. And
good riddance to them.
I have no problem going
after the people who attacked us but that ain't Iraq. Iraq just makes
everything worse.
Going after Iraq eliminated a friendly nation for terrorists and
liberated the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator to boot. Look at the
big picture. There are people who know a lot more than you and who are
a lot smarter than you running the show.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gogarty" |
|
| Title: Re: The Iraq Fiasco: "Bush's Folly" |
28 Aug 2003 06:43:57 PM |
|
|
In article <377dfa5a.0308281343.6a1c156f@posting.google.com>,
dingleberry@subdimension.com says...
everything worse.
Going after Iraq eliminated a friendly nation for terrorists and
liberated the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator to boot. Look at the
big picture. There are people who know a lot more than you and who are
a lot smarter than you running the show.
Brainwashed. If I have learned nothing in my life it is don't trust the
"experts." They usually have a vested interest.
And by the way, there are many people posting to this groups who appear to be
very well informed indeed. You are not one of them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sneechres" |
|
| Title: Re: The Iraq Fiasco: "Bush's Folly" |
30 Aug 2003 02:23:53 AM |
|
|
Gogarty <Gogarty@Dublin.edu> wrote in message news:<pEKdnZEhaLxBDtOiXTWJgA@bway.net>...
In article <377dfa5a.0308281343.6a1c156f@posting.google.com>,
dingleberry@subdimension.com says...
everything worse.
Going after Iraq eliminated a friendly nation for terrorists and
liberated the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator to boot. Look at the
big picture. There are people who know a lot more than you and who are
a lot smarter than you running the show.
Brainwashed. If I have learned nothing in my life it is don't trust the
"experts." They usually have a vested interest.
Yeah, everyone knows the average prole is a lot more competent.
And by the way, there are many people posting to this groups who appear to be
very well informed indeed.
Hm, I bet it's no coincidence that every last one of them agrees with you.
--S
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "James E. Morrow" |
|
| Title: Re: The Iraq Fiasco: "Bush's Folly" |
02 Sep 2003 10:14:17 PM |
|
|
In article <pEKdnZEhaLxBDtOiXTWJgA@bway.net>,
says...
In article <377dfa5a.0308281343.6a1c156f@posting.google.com>,
dingleberry@subdimension.com says...
everything worse.
Going after Iraq eliminated a friendly nation for terrorists and
liberated the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator to boot. Look at the
big picture. There are people who know a lot more than you and who are
a lot smarter than you running the show.
Brainwashed. If I have learned nothing in my life it is don't trust the
"experts." They usually have a vested interest.
And by the way, there are many people posting to this groups who appear to be
very well informed indeed. You are not one of them.
The removal of Saddam from power in Iraq means that terrorist will
have one less base of financial and logistic support. But that
leaves the other Baathist Party state, Syria. Unless Syria ceases to
support terrorist groups we, the United States must act to overthrow
the Assad regime in Syria. There must be no asylum for the terrorist
enemies of America anywhere on this earth.
--
James E. Morrow Email to: --
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to
do nothing."-- Edmund Burke
.
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: The Iraq Fiasco: "Bush's Folly" |
02 Sep 2003 10:29:16 PM |
|
|
"James E. Morrow" <> wrote in message
news:MPG.19bea5ccba1944149896ca@news.individual.net...
In article <pEKdnZEhaLxBDtOiXTWJgA@bway.net>,
says...
In article <377dfa5a.0308281343.6a1c156f@posting.google.com>,
dingleberry@subdimension.com says...
everything worse.
Going after Iraq eliminated a friendly nation for terrorists and
liberated the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator to boot. Look at the
big picture. There are people who know a lot more than you and who are
a lot smarter than you running the show.
Brainwashed. If I have learned nothing in my life it is don't trust the
"experts." They usually have a vested interest.
And by the way, there are many people posting to this groups who appear
to be
very well informed indeed. You are not one of them.
The removal of Saddam from power in Iraq means that terrorist will
have one less base of financial and logistic support. But that
leaves the other Baathist Party state, Syria. Unless Syria ceases to
support terrorist groups we, the United States must act to overthrow
the Assad regime in Syria. There must be no asylum for the terrorist
enemies of America anywhere on this earth.
And this will make terrorism go away *how* exactly?
Terrorists do not require an entire country to exist; however if we are to
try to invade Syria on that premise we might as well pack our bags and move
to Australia because it would finish America as a nation.
--
James E. Morrow Email to: --
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to
do nothing."-- Edmund Burke
.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
