| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Fred Stone" |
| Date: |
20 Jan 2005 08:54:11 PM |
| Object: |
Iraq Exit Strategy |
In response to Barbara Boxer's claim that the administration hasn't
presented any exit strategy from Iraq, the State Department has just
released the following:
http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/iraqexitstrategy.jpg
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Support bacteria! That's all the culture many people will ever have.
.
|
|
| User: "Raptor514" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq Exit Strategy |
21 Jan 2005 12:22:08 AM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95E4DED76AC00fstone69@205.188.138.161...
In response to Barbara Boxer's claim that the administration hasn't
presented any exit strategy from Iraq, the State Department has just
released the following:
http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/iraqexitstrategy.jpg
This would be funnier if I didn't have the sneaking suspicion that it's
true.
Raptor514
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Support bacteria! That's all the culture many people will ever have.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq Exit Strategy |
21 Jan 2005 12:36:45 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
In response to Barbara Boxer's claim that the administration hasn't
presented any exit strategy from Iraq, the State Department has just
released the following:
ransack a country for its oil, kill as many opponents as possible,
force whats left of a mass murdered oppressed population to vote,
install a puppet regime after a scam vote and call it deomcracy, take
the fast train to Iran and do the same.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq Exit Strategy |
21 Jan 2005 03:11:16 PM |
|
|
wrote in news:1106332605.838828.148330
@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
In response to Barbara Boxer's claim that the administration hasn't
presented any exit strategy from Iraq, the State Department has just
released the following:
ransack a country for its oil, kill as many opponents as possible,
force whats left of a mass murdered oppressed population to vote,
Aww, the poor babies, they're being *forced* to vote!
Seems like the ones trying to blow people up want them *not* to vote.
install a puppet regime after a scam vote
No, sorry, we won't have a Jimmy Carter-approved "election" like they
did in Venezuela.
and call it deomcracy, take
the fast train to Iran and do the same.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Support bacteria! That's all the culture many people will ever have.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq Exit Strategy |
21 Jan 2005 03:24:09 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote
No, sorry, we won't have a Jimmy Carter-approved
"election" like they did in Venezuela.
Bush's "issue" with Venezuela isn't that the election
was a shame -- Bush's own 2000 "election" was a
true shame -- but that Venezuela 1) decided to
nationalize more oil profits and 2) won't agree to
stop selling oil to Cuba.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq Exit Strategy |
21 Jan 2005 10:58:38 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 16:24:09 -0500, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> said
in alt.atheism:
Bush's "issue" with Venezuela isn't that the election
was a shame -- Bush's own 2000 "election" was a
true shame -- but that Venezuela 1) decided to
nationalize more oil profits and 2) won't agree to
stop selling oil to Cuba.
So who do we invade first? Iran? N. Korea? Or Venezuela?
--
There are three kinds of men:
The ones that learn by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence.
- (Will Rogers)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq Exit Strategy |
22 Jan 2005 03:09:27 AM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
So who do we invade first? Iran?
This is the war we should have been fighting
all along.
N. Korea?
If it weren't for the *Huge* civilian casualties,
we would have fought this war years ago.
Believe it or not, it's not all hype. And, it's not
all a hold-over from the cold war.
Communist China & even Russia's Communist
party both denouce north Korea in harsher terms
than the U.S. government does.
The USS Pueblo is a floating museum in north
Korea, a "trophy". It was attacked & seized by
north Korea in 1968. We would have gone to
war back then except for two reasons.
The first & most obvious was that we were
already heavily invested in Vietnam. The
second is the *Huge* number of casualties
that a war would have inflicted on the
south Koreans, mostly civilian casualties.
Today the number of civilian casualties
would be even higher, given improvements
in technology these past 40 years.
Oh. Without prior warning, they're talking
tens of thousands all the way up to a
million CIVILIAN south Korean casualties,
on the first HOURS of a war.
If south Korean population centers weren't
be held hostage by masses of artillery &
rockets, we would have gone to war years
ago, and we would have been supported
by the entire region.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jwk" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq Exit Strategy |
22 Jan 2005 03:12:55 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
So who do we invade first? Iran?
This is the war we should have been fighting
all along.
N. Korea?
If it weren't for the *Huge* civilian casualties,
we would have fought this war years ago.
Believe it or not, it's not all hype. And, it's not
all a hold-over from the cold war.
Communist China & even Russia's Communist
party both denouce north Korea in harsher terms
than the U.S. government does.
The USS Pueblo is a floating museum in north
Korea, a "trophy". It was attacked & seized by
north Korea in 1968. We would have gone to
war back then except for two reasons.
The first & most obvious was that we were
already heavily invested in Vietnam. The
second is the *Huge* number of casualties
that a war would have inflicted on the
south Koreans, mostly civilian casualties.
Today the number of civilian casualties
would be even higher, given improvements
in technology these past 40 years.
Oh. Without prior warning, they're talking
tens of thousands all the way up to a
million CIVILIAN south Korean casualties,
on the first HOURS of a war.
If south Korean population centers weren't
be held hostage by masses of artillery &
rockets, we would have gone to war years
ago, and we would have been supported
by the entire region.
I don't think we should put boots on the ground in Iran, yet. I think
a selective bombing campaign is called for. We might even be able to
win over the Iranian people if too many of them don't die in the
bombing. After all, they have had their Islamic republic, and many now
regret it. If we could wipe out a significant portion of their Islamic
radicals, the Iranians might straighten things out themselves.
My ideas on this are at least as well thought out as Bush's were on
Iraq. :)
jwk
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq Exit Strategy |
22 Jan 2005 04:14:44 PM |
|
|
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote
I don't think we should put boots on the ground
in Iran, yet. I think a selective bombing
campaign is called for. We might even be
able to win over the Iranian people if too
many of them don't die in the bombing.
After all, they have had their Islamic republic,
and many now regret it. If we could wipe out
a significant portion of their Islamic radicals,
the Iranians might straighten things out
themselves.
Without commenting on the ideas themselves, I want
to thank you.
One thing we've been missing from the Republicans
at least since Clinton took office was an honest,
fact-based debate on policies.
If Bush had invaded Iran using THE EXACT SAME
rational for invading Iraq, we could argue policy,
we could argue strategy but we couldn't call him
a liar.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq Exit Strategy |
22 Jan 2005 05:04:28 PM |
|
|
On 22 Jan 2005 13:12:55 -0800, "jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> said in
alt.atheism:
I don't think we should put boots on the ground in Iran, yet. I think
a selective bombing campaign is called for.
Since Iran, as a country, can't do more than call us names, maybe a
selective deafness campaign is what's called for.
We might even be able to
win over the Iranian people if too many of them don't die in the
bombing. After all, they have had their Islamic republic, and many now
regret it. If we could wipe out a significant portion of their Islamic
radicals, the Iranians might straighten things out themselves.
My ideas on this are at least as well thought out as Bush's were on
Iraq. :)
Better thought out than his, but better than negative infinity is
still pretty negative.
--
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq Exit Strategy |
23 Jan 2005 10:37:22 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
Since Iran, as a country, can't do more than
call us names, maybe a selective deafness
campaign is what's called for.
Iranian-backed terrorist groups have already
killed hundreds of Americans.
Iran never made it a secret that they are exporting
their Islamic revoution.
But, I sincerely doubt that Bush has any intentions
against Iran. They're buddies. The Republicans
have been in bed with Iran since 1980. They're
close.
The "Threat" the administration supposedly made
was in warning that *Israel* may respond to
Iran's nuclear program, that *Israel* might bomb
them.
Hardly threatening, given how Israel did just
that to Iraq's nuclear program...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq Exit Strategy |
24 Jan 2005 12:35:35 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 23:37:22 -0500, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> said
in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
Since Iran, as a country, can't do more than
call us names, maybe a selective deafness
campaign is what's called for.
Iranian-backed terrorist groups have already
killed hundreds of Americans.
And invading Iran would stop that exactly how?
Hint: It would cause MORE Iranians to be willing to die to bring the
US down.
--
"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my
contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him, the
spinal cord would fully suffice."
- Albert Einstein
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq Exit Strategy |
24 Jan 2005 01:00:03 AM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote
Iranian-backed terrorist groups have already
killed hundreds of Americans.
And invading Iran would stop that exactly how?
Hint: It would cause MORE Iranians to be willing
to die to bring the US down.
I myself concluded -- even before Condi Rice wrote
her now famous position paper -- that the issue is
governments and not the terrorist.
I mean, really! Exactly what percentage of C4 and
AK-47s in the hands of terrorist were produced by
the terrorists themselves?
Whose been trying to stop the trafficking of such
weapons? Whose been attacking their financial
assets and stockpiles?
Saudi Arabia? Egypt? Syria? Iran?
Please.
Terrorism on the scale we are looking at requires
nothing less than passive acceptance. But don't
be mistaken, the "nothing less" does not mean we
are limited here to nothing more than passive
acceptance. We're not. Iran has been actively
exporting it's Islamic Revolution for decades now,
arming/financing numerous terrorist groups.
Without the blind eye -- and in many cases, support --
of governments, the terrorist would be nothing more
than a widely dispersed group of grumpy people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq Exit Strategy |
24 Jan 2005 02:44:58 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 02:00:03 -0500, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> said
in alt.atheism:
Terrorism on the scale we are looking at requires
nothing less than passive acceptance. But don't
be mistaken, the "nothing less" does not mean we
are limited here to nothing more than passive
acceptance. We're not. Iran has been actively
exporting it's Islamic Revolution for decades now,
arming/financing numerous terrorist groups.
Without the blind eye -- and in many cases, support --
of governments, the terrorist would be nothing more
than a widely dispersed group of grumpy people.
And the thing that binds them together - the main thing - is their
hatred of the Christian West. Which grows every time we invade, or
even threaten to invade, a Moslem country.
So we "do the right thing" - fight terrorism - and, by doing "the
right thing", we CAUSE terrorism. If we had stayed out of the middle
east in the first place we wouldn't be having wars in the middle east,
and we wouldn't be having middle eastern terrorists attacking us.
--
"Damn. Looks like all of usenet agrees that you don't have the logical
faculties to prove the statement 'dogshit is not peanut butter' if we
gave you a jar of each and a box of crackers" - John Hattan to Tichy
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "jwk" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq Exit Strategy |
25 Jan 2005 08:22:55 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 02:00:03 -0500, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
said
in alt.atheism:
Terrorism on the scale we are looking at requires
nothing less than passive acceptance. But don't
be mistaken, the "nothing less" does not mean we
are limited here to nothing more than passive
acceptance. We're not. Iran has been actively
exporting it's Islamic Revolution for decades now,
arming/financing numerous terrorist groups.
Without the blind eye -- and in many cases, support --
of governments, the terrorist would be nothing more
than a widely dispersed group of grumpy people.
And the thing that binds them together - the main thing - is their
hatred of the Christian West. Which grows every time we invade, or
even threaten to invade, a Moslem country.
So we "do the right thing" - fight terrorism - and, by doing "the
right thing", we CAUSE terrorism. If we had stayed out of the middle
east in the first place we wouldn't be having wars in the middle
east,
and we wouldn't be having middle eastern terrorists attacking us.
Oh, I agree. If we invaded Iran it would just make things worse.
However I am sure that we could arrack their terrorist training
facilities, with planes, and not invade. We could bomb that nuclear
production site as well, and not affect very many of the common
Iranian. Hell, the regiem over there is so repressive that many of the
citizens would like to see it go. The Mullahs know this. That is why
they keep ignorant country-boy militias stationed in the cities - to
suppress any anti-islamic activity. These ignorant militimen do not
mix with the city folk however. They are there to be "God's" whip. We
should add their training facilities to the bombing list as well.
jwk
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq Exit Strategy |
25 Jan 2005 04:32:29 PM |
|
|
On 25 Jan 2005 06:22:55 -0800, "jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> said in
alt.atheism:
Oh, I agree. If we invaded Iran it would just make things worse.
However I am sure that we could arrack their terrorist training
facilities, with planes, and not invade.
The results would be the same.
We could bomb that nuclear
production site as well, and not affect very many of the common
Iranian.
The results would be the same.
Hell, the regiem over there is so repressive that many of the
citizens would like to see it go.
But not taken out by us. THAT'S what most people here don't
understand. When WE eliminate the Muslim oppressors, WE'RE seen as
the enemy.
Cops know how it works. If a husband and wife are hitting each other
with frying pans you don't interfere - or they'll BOTH start hitting
YOU.
--
Zymurgist # 2
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "jwk" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq Exit Strategy |
27 Jan 2005 08:18:53 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On 25 Jan 2005 06:22:55 -0800, "jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> said in
alt.atheism:
Oh, I agree. If we invaded Iran it would just make things worse.
However I am sure that we could arrack their terrorist training
facilities, with planes, and not invade.
The results would be the same.
We could bomb that nuclear
production site as well, and not affect very many of the common
Iranian.
The results would be the same.
Hell, the regiem over there is so repressive that many of the
citizens would like to see it go.
But not taken out by us. THAT'S what most people here don't
understand. When WE eliminate the Muslim oppressors, WE'RE seen as
the enemy.
You are correct. Then it becomes a choice of where our best interests
lie. If we think that the danger is great enough, we should hit them
and Iranian feelings about us be damned. Otherwise, no. Since we have
tolerated them for this long the administration would have to have some
evidence of esculation to justify military action. I'd prefer we
subvert them to bomb them.
Saw a piece on the news the other day where they said that the islamic
militia was letting up some. Used to be they would beat any woman
caught outside the home without a male relative. (Or holding a
no-relatives hand, or showing any of her hair, etc.) Now apparently
they turn a blind eye to some hand holding and girls showing a few
whisps of hair in the mall. They still bust teenage parties, but they
use it as an excuse to shake them down. The last I heard (a scant few
years ago) they would jail them/beat them/kill them. I guess that's
*some kind of progress. I wonder if poisoning a few of the worst
mullas would help.
jwk
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq Exit Strategy |
27 Jan 2005 11:14:31 AM |
|
|
On 27 Jan 2005 06:18:53 -0800, "jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 25 Jan 2005 06:22:55 -0800, "jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> said in
alt.atheism:
Oh, I agree. If we invaded Iran it would just make things worse.
However I am sure that we could arrack their terrorist training
facilities, with planes, and not invade.
The results would be the same.
We could bomb that nuclear
production site as well, and not affect very many of the common
Iranian.
The results would be the same.
Hell, the regiem over there is so repressive that many of the
citizens would like to see it go.
But not taken out by us. THAT'S what most people here don't
understand. When WE eliminate the Muslim oppressors, WE'RE seen as
the enemy.
You are correct. Then it becomes a choice of where our best interests
lie. If we think that the danger is great enough, we should hit them
and Iranian feelings about us be damned. Otherwise, no. Since we have
tolerated them for this long the administration would have to have some
evidence of esculation to justify military action. I'd prefer we
subvert them to bomb them.
Saw a piece on the news the other day where they said that the islamic
militia was letting up some. Used to be they would beat any woman
caught outside the home without a male relative. (Or holding a
no-relatives hand, or showing any of her hair, etc.) Now apparently
they turn a blind eye to some hand holding and girls showing a few
whisps of hair in the mall. They still bust teenage parties, but they
use it as an excuse to shake them down. The last I heard (a scant few
years ago) they would jail them/beat them/kill them. I guess that's
*some kind of progress. I wonder if poisoning a few of the worst
mullas would help.
Allah is good........
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq Exit Strategy |
22 Jan 2005 10:22:56 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 04:58:38 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 16:24:09 -0500, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> said
in alt.atheism:
Bush's "issue" with Venezuela isn't that the election
was a shame -- Bush's own 2000 "election" was a
true shame -- but that Venezuela 1) decided to
nationalize more oil profits and 2) won't agree to
stop selling oil to Cuba.
So who do we invade first? Iran? N. Korea? Or Venezuela?
Yes.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq Exit Strategy |
21 Jan 2005 03:54:51 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
wildbluskies@hotmail.com wrote in news:1106332605.838828.148330
@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
In response to Barbara Boxer's claim that the administration
hasn't
presented any exit strategy from Iraq, the State Department has
just
released the following:
ransack a country for its oil, kill as many opponents as possible,
force whats left of a mass murdered oppressed population to vote,
Aww, the poor babies, they're being *forced* to vote!
Seems like the ones trying to blow people up want them *not* to vote.
how can a nation of people have a fair and legitimate election when
the people in that nation are continously being squeezed between a rock
and a hard place and threatened and killed by military forces on all
sides, it's a sham election however you look at it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq Exit Strategy |
21 Jan 2005 05:21:47 PM |
|
|
wrote in
news:1106344491.277831.305970@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
wrote in news:1106332605.838828.148330
@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
In response to Barbara Boxer's claim that the administration
hasn't
presented any exit strategy from Iraq, the State Department has
just
released the following:
ransack a country for its oil, kill as many opponents as possible,
force whats left of a mass murdered oppressed population to vote,
Aww, the poor babies, they're being *forced* to vote!
Seems like the ones trying to blow people up want them *not* to vote.
how can a nation of people have a fair and legitimate election when
the people in that nation are continously being squeezed between a
rock and a hard place and threatened and killed by military forces on
all sides, it's a sham election however you look at it.
But that isn't the actual situation in Iraq. The vast majority of Iraqis
are not being threatened. The "insurgency" is pressuring the Sunni; the
Shia and Kurdish areas are quite calm.
http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/qndguide/default.asp?target=IRAQ.HTM
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Support bacteria! That's all the culture many people will ever have.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq Exit Strategy |
21 Jan 2005 10:17:03 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
wildbluskies@hotmail.com wrote in
news:1106344491.277831.305970@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
wildbluskies@hotmail.com wrote in news:1106332605.838828.148330
@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
In response to Barbara Boxer's claim that the administration
hasn't
presented any exit strategy from Iraq, the State Department has
just
released the following:
ransack a country for its oil, kill as many opponents as possible,
force whats left of a mass murdered oppressed population to vote,
Aww, the poor babies, they're being *forced* to vote!
Seems like the ones trying to blow people up want them *not* to vote.
how can a nation of people have a fair and legitimate election when
the people in that nation are continously being squeezed between a
rock and a hard place and threatened and killed by military forces on
all sides, it's a sham election however you look at it.
But that isn't the actual situation in Iraq. The vast majority of Iraqis
are not being threatened. The "insurgency" is pressuring the Sunni; the
Shia and Kurdish areas are quite calm.
http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/qndguide/default.asp?target=IRAQ.HTM
You really are clueless.
Maybe you should pray....to the lord god america.
(Small caps)
--
Jez
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
NFS Underground2, Americas Army And MOH-PA
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq Exit Strategy |
22 Jan 2005 12:35:58 PM |
|
|
Jez <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMpipex.com> wrote in
news:4OqdnS15FZskTmzcRVnysA@pipex.net:
Fred Stone wrote:
wildbluskies@hotmail.com wrote in
news:1106344491.277831.305970@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
wildbluskies@hotmail.com wrote in news:1106332605.838828.148330
@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
In response to Barbara Boxer's claim that the administration
hasn't
presented any exit strategy from Iraq, the State Department has
just
released the following:
ransack a country for its oil, kill as many opponents as possible,
force whats left of a mass murdered oppressed population to vote,
Aww, the poor babies, they're being *forced* to vote!
Seems like the ones trying to blow people up want them *not* to
vote.
how can a nation of people have a fair and legitimate election when
the people in that nation are continously being squeezed between a
rock and a hard place and threatened and killed by military forces on
all sides, it's a sham election however you look at it.
But that isn't the actual situation in Iraq. The vast majority of
Iraqis are not being threatened. The "insurgency" is pressuring the
Sunni; the Shia and Kurdish areas are quite calm.
http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/qndguide/default.asp?
target=IRAQ.HTM
You really are clueless.
Maybe you should pray....to the lord god america.
(Small caps)
Let's see *your* citations.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Support bacteria! That's all the culture many people will ever have.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq Exit Strategy |
22 Jan 2005 02:21:06 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
Jez <iced_spear@NODAMNSPAMpipex.com> wrote in
news:4OqdnS15FZskTmzcRVnysA@pipex.net:
Fred Stone wrote:
wildbluskies@hotmail.com wrote in
news:1106344491.277831.305970@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
wildbluskies@hotmail.com wrote in news:1106332605.838828.148330
@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
In response to Barbara Boxer's claim that the administration
hasn't
presented any exit strategy from Iraq, the State Department has
just
released the following:
ransack a country for its oil, kill as many opponents as possible,
force whats left of a mass murdered oppressed population to vote,
Aww, the poor babies, they're being *forced* to vote!
Seems like the ones trying to blow people up want them *not* to
vote.
how can a nation of people have a fair and legitimate election when
the people in that nation are continously being squeezed between a
rock and a hard place and threatened and killed by military forces on
all sides, it's a sham election however you look at it.
But that isn't the actual situation in Iraq. The vast majority of
Iraqis are not being threatened. The "insurgency" is pressuring the
Sunni; the Shia and Kurdish areas are quite calm.
http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/qndguide/default.asp?
target=IRAQ.HTM
You really are clueless.
Maybe you should pray....to the lord god america.
(Small caps)
Let's see *your* citations.
Why ?
http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/215797.top
--
Jez
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
NFS Underground2, Americas Army And MOH-PA
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Yang, AthD h.c, Kicking AWOLs Cocaine Snorting Ass" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq Exit Strategy |
22 Jan 2005 03:36:56 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 21:11:16 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
No, sorry, we won't have a Jimmy Carter-approved "election" like they
did in Venezuela.
No, we have a Bush-approved coup like the one they tried to pull off
in Venezuela.
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec (aka aka Yang's little poltregeist *****)
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.6 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -1370 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "jwk" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq Exit Strategy |
21 Jan 2005 10:03:06 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
In response to Barbara Boxer's claim that the administration hasn't
presented any exit strategy from Iraq, the State Department has just
released the following:
http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/iraqexitstrategy.jpg
LOL
If we were going to mess around over there, we should have started with
*that one.
jwk
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq Exit Strategy |
21 Jan 2005 03:08:01 PM |
|
|
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1106323386.771044.141810@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
In response to Barbara Boxer's claim that the administration hasn't
presented any exit strategy from Iraq, the State Department has just
released the following:
http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/iraqexitstrategy.jpg
LOL
If we were going to mess around over there, we should have started
with *that one.
So you'll support an invasion of Iran?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Support bacteria! That's all the culture many people will ever have.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq Exit Strategy |
21 Jan 2005 03:22:13 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote
So you'll support an invasion of Iran?
Better question: Is their anything Bush could
do that you wouldn't support?
If so, give us three realistic examples.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "jwk" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq Exit Strategy |
22 Jan 2005 03:04:33 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1106323386.771044.141810@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
In response to Barbara Boxer's claim that the administration
hasn't
presented any exit strategy from Iraq, the State Department has
just
released the following:
http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/iraqexitstrategy.jpg
LOL
If we were going to mess around over there, we should have started
with *that one.
So you'll support an invasion of Iran?
I hate Iran with a passion. And I believe that the people of Iran,
those over 40, got exactly what they deserved in that despotic rule.
More to the point, Iran is the kind of terrorist training and support
regime that Jr *claimed Iraq was. However I wouldn't support an
invasion, especially if Bush was (mis)managing it. I wouldn't mind
seeing stealth bombers hit their nuclear facilities, terrorist training
camps and those schools where they are training the next generation of
muslim extremist terrorist.
Did you think I was a pacifist Fred?
jwk
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq Exit Strategy |
22 Jan 2005 06:05:56 PM |
|
|
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1106427873.852488.69070@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1106323386.771044.141810@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
In response to Barbara Boxer's claim that the administration
hasn't
presented any exit strategy from Iraq, the State Department has
just
released the following:
http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/iraqexitstrategy.jpg
LOL
If we were going to mess around over there, we should have started
with *that one.
So you'll support an invasion of Iran?
I hate Iran with a passion. And I believe that the people of Iran,
those over 40, got exactly what they deserved in that despotic rule.
More to the point, Iran is the kind of terrorist training and support
regime that Jr *claimed Iraq was. However I wouldn't support an
invasion, especially if Bush was (mis)managing it. I wouldn't mind
seeing stealth bombers hit their nuclear facilities, terrorist
training camps and those schools where they are training the next
generation of muslim extremist terrorist.
Did you think I was a pacifist Fred?
I'm never quite sure. And of course "starting with Iran" wouldn't have
been as easy as it is now that we have Iraq for a base.
To your other point, bombing probably wouldn't be any more effective
there than it was elsewhere under Clinton. We just don't have enough
accurate targeting info to hit *all* their facilities, and some of them
are probably hardened enough to require nuclear bunker-busters.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Support bacteria! That's all the culture many people will ever have.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jwk" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq Exit Strategy |
25 Jan 2005 08:26:08 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1106427873.852488.69070@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1106323386.771044.141810@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
In response to Barbara Boxer's claim that the administration
hasn't
presented any exit strategy from Iraq, the State Department has
just
released the following:
http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/iraqexitstrategy.jpg
LOL
If we were going to mess around over there, we should have
started
with *that one.
So you'll support an invasion of Iran?
I hate Iran with a passion. And I believe that the people of Iran,
those over 40, got exactly what they deserved in that despotic
rule.
More to the point, Iran is the kind of terrorist training and
support
regime that Jr *claimed Iraq was. However I wouldn't support an
invasion, especially if Bush was (mis)managing it. I wouldn't mind
seeing stealth bombers hit their nuclear facilities, terrorist
training camps and those schools where they are training the next
generation of muslim extremist terrorist.
Did you think I was a pacifist Fred?
I'm never quite sure. And of course "starting with Iran" wouldn't
have
been as easy as it is now that we have Iraq for a base.
To your other point, bombing probably wouldn't be any more effective
there than it was elsewhere under Clinton. We just don't have enough
accurate targeting info to hit *all* their facilities, and some of
them
are probably hardened enough to require nuclear bunker-busters.
If you are thinking about the cruise-missle bombing in Afghanistan, I
am afraid we just didn't put enough effort into that. And the target
was warned, they cleared out. I like the use of air power in Bosnia
better.
We have bunker-busting bombs now that are pretty good. I don't think
nuclear is necessary. Especially if we really pound them.
jwk
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
