It's Worse Than You Think



 Religions > Atheism > It's Worse Than You Think

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 1 of 2

1

 

2

 
Topic: Religions > Atheism
User: "Bill Case"
Date: 16 Sep 2004 07:05:57 PM
Object: It's Worse Than You Think
It's Worse Than You Think
As Americans debate Vietnam, the U.S. death toll tops 1,000 in Iraq. And the
insurgents are still getting stronger
By Scott Johnson and Babak Dehghanpisheh
Newsweek
Updated: 1:14 p.m. ET Sept. 12, 2004Sept. 20 issue -
Iraqis don't shock easily these days, but eyewitnesses could only blink in
disbelief as they recounted last Tuesday's broad-daylight kidnappings in
central Baghdad. At about 5 in the afternoon, on a quiet side street outside
the Ibn Haitham hospital, a gang armed with pistols, AK-47s and pump-action
shotguns raided a small house used by three Italian aid groups. The gunmen,
none of them wearing masks, took orders from a smooth-shaven man in a gray
suit; they called him "sir." When they drove off, the gunmen had four
hostages: two local NGO employees-one of them a woman who was dragged out of
the house by her headscarf-and two 29-year-old Italians, Simona Pari and
Simona Torretta, both members of the antiwar group A Bridge to Baghdad. The
whole job took less than 10 minutes. Not a shot was fired. About 15 minutes
afterward, an American Humvee convoy passed hardly a block away-headed in
the opposite direction.
Sixteen months after the war's supposed end, Iraq's insurgency is spreading.
Each successful demand by kidnappers has spawned more hostage-takings-to
make Philippine troops go home, to stop Turkish truckers from hauling
supplies into Iraq, to extort fat ransom payments from Kuwaitis. The few
relief groups that remain in Iraq are talking seriously about leaving. U.S.
forces have effectively ceded entire cities to the insurgents, and much of
the country elsewhere is a battleground. Last week the total number of U.S.
war dead in Iraq passed the 1,000 mark, reaching 1,007 by the end of
Saturday.
U.S. forces are working frantically to train Iraqis for the thankless job of
maintaining public order. The aim is to boost Iraqi security forces from
95,000 to 200,000 by sometime next year. Then, using a mixture of force and
diplomacy, the Americans plan to retake cities and install credible local
forces. That's the hope, anyway. But the quality of new recruits is
debatable. During recent street demonstrations in Najaf, police opened fire
on crowds, killing and injuring dozens. The insurgents, meanwhile, are
recruiting, too. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld once referred to
America's foes in Iraq as "dead-enders," then the Pentagon maintained they
probably numbered 5,000, and now senior military officials talk about
"dozens of regional cells" that could call upon as many as 20,000 fighters.
Yet U.S. officials publicly insist that Iraq will somehow hold national
elections before the end of January. The appointed council currently acting
as Iraq's government under interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi is to be
replaced by an elected constitutional assembly-if the vote takes place. "I
presume the election will be delayed," says the Iraqi Interior Ministry's
chief spokesman, Sabah Kadhim. A senior Iraqi official sees no chance of
January elections: "I'm convinced that it's not going to happen. It's just
not realistic. How is it going to happen?" Some Iraqis worry that America
will stick to its schedule despite all obstacles. "The Americans have
created a series of fictional dates and events in order to delude
themselves," says Ghassan Atiyya, director of the independent Iraq
Foundation for Development and Democracy, who recently met with Allawi and
American representatives to discuss the January agenda. "Badly prepared
elections, rather than healing wounds, will open them."
America has its own Election Day to worry about. For U.S. troops in Iraq,
one especially sore point is the stateside public's obsession with the
candidates' decades-old military service. "Stop talking about Vietnam," says
one U.S. official who has spent time in the Sunni Triangle. "People should
be debating this war, not that one." His point was not that America ought to
walk away from Iraq. Hardly any U.S. personnel would call that a sane
suggestion. But there's widespread agreement that Washington needs to
rethink its objectives, and quickly. "We're dealing with a population that
hovers between bare tolerance and outright hostility," says a senior U.S.
diplomat in Baghdad. "This idea of a functioning democracy here is crazy. We
thought that there would be a reprieve after sovereignty, but all hell is
breaking loose."
It's not only that U.S. casualty figures keep climbing. American
counterinsurgency experts are noticing some disturbing trends in those
statistics. The Defense Department counted 87 attacks per day on U.S. forces
in August-the worst monthly average since Bush's flight-suited visit to the
USS Abraham Lincoln in May 2003. Preliminary analysis of the July and August
numbers also suggests that U.S. troops are being attacked across a wider
area of Iraq than ever before. And the number of gunshot casualties
apparently took a huge jump in August. Until then, explosive devices and
shrapnel were the primary cause of combat injuries, typical of a "phase two"
insurgency, where sudden ambushes are the rule. (Phase one is the
recruitment phase, with most actions confined to sabotage. That's how things
started in Iraq.) Bullet wounds would mean the insurgents are standing and
fighting-a step up to phase three.
Another ominous sign is the growing number of towns that U.S. troops simply
avoid. A senior Defense official objects to calling them "no-go areas." "We
could go into them any time we wanted," he argues. The preferred term is
"insurgent enclaves." They're spreading. Counterinsurgency experts call it
the "inkblot strategy": take control of several towns or villages and expand
outward until the areas merge. The first city lost to the insurgents was
Fallujah, in April. Now the list includes the Sunni Triangle cities of Ar
Ramadi, Baqubah and Samarra, where power shifted back and forth between the
insurgents and American-backed leaders last week. "There is no security
force there [in Fallujah], no local government," says a senior U.S. military
official in Baghdad. "We would get attacked constantly. Forget about it."
U.S. military planners only wish they could. "What we see is a classic
progression," says Andrew Krepinevich, author of the highly respected study
"The Army and Vietnam." "What we also see is that the U.S. military is not
trained or organized to fight insurgencies. That was the deliberate choice
after Vietnam. Now we look to be paying the price." Americans aren't safe
even on the outskirts of a city like Fallujah. Early last week a suicide
bomber rammed his vehicle into two U.S. Humvees nine miles north of town on
the four-lane concrete bypass called Highway 10. Seven Americans died. It
was one of the deadliest blows against U.S. forces since June, when Iraqis
formally resumed control of their government.
As much as ordinary Iraqis may hate the insurgents, they blame the Americans
for creating the whole mess. Three months ago Iraqi troops and
U.S.-dominated "multinational forces" pulled out of Samarra, and insurgents
took over the place immediately. "The day the MNF left, people celebrated in
the streets," says Kadhim, the Interior spokesman. "But that same day, vans
arrived in town and started shooting. They came from Fallujah and other
places and they started blowing up houses." Local elders begged Allawi's
government to send help. "The leaders of the tribes come to see us and they
say, 'Really, we are scared, we don't like these people'," Kadhim continues.
"But we just don't have the forces at the moment to help them." Last week
negotiators reached a tentative peace deal, but it's not likely to survive
long. The Iraqi National Guard is the only homegrown security force that
people respect, and all available ING personnel are deployed elsewhere.
Will Iraq's troubles get even worse? "The insurgency can certainly sustain
what it's doing for a while," says a senior U.S. military official. Many
educated Iraqis aren't waiting to find out. Applicants mobbed the courtyard
of the Baghdad passport office last week, desperate for a chance to escape.
Police fired shots in the air, trying to control the crowd. "Every day there
is shooting, gunfire, people killed, headaches for lack of sleep," said Huda
Hussein, 34, a Ph.D. in computer science who has spent the past year and a
half looking for work. "I want to go to a calm place for a while." It's too
bad for Iraq-and for America-that the insurgents don't share that wish.
With John Barry in Washington
.

User: "Dave Gower"

Title: Re: It's Worse Than You Think 18 Sep 2004 07:44:56 PM
"Bill Case" <Billd548@Hotmail.com> wrote

Sixteen months after the war's supposed end, Iraq's insurgency is
spreading.

Attacks are getting more desperate as the new government starts to really
take over the country. The local thugs can kill people and hurt the economy,
but that only makes the population turn towards the Allawi government.
The big risk has always been civil war. That means that various sides would
square off in large blocks. There's little sign of that. The Baathists have
vanished as such. Shiite fundamentalism has failed to attract more that a
tiny fraction of the population. The Sunni insurgents have no common
organization or political direction, other than a desire to attack
"crusaders" and "collaborators". There is a lot of disagreement between
various insurgent factions, and in particular Iraqis resent foreign
terrorists.
As mentioned in the article, the insurgents are not popular. One sure sign
of that is that the U.S. forces are given a constant stream of targeting
information, which can only come from locals.
The fact that the U.S. command has declared a number of areas off-limits
simply reflects the fact that they are stepping back to allow the Iraqi
government space to assume its role. There really is no point in getting
into shooting wars in downtown Samara.
There are thousands of quiet victories every day. Children are taught free
of Saddam-era propaganda. Newspapers get published. People watch a variety
of TV shows and debate openly in coffee shops and on street corners. They
line up for jobs with the new government in spite of the risks. Police and
soldiers graduate from training schools every day.
The basic problem is that we see the blood and gore in the headlines, and
miss the real story which goes on behind the scenes.
.
User: "Bill Case"

Title: Re: It's Worse Than You Think 19 Sep 2004 05:09:49 PM
"Dave Gower" <davegow.removethis@magma.ca> wrote in message
news:VPCdne5mY9QNS9HcRVn-jw@magma.ca...


"Bill Case" <Billd548@Hotmail.com> wrote

Sixteen months after the war's supposed end, Iraq's insurgency is
spreading.


Attacks are getting more desperate as the new government starts to really
take over the country.

*****.
If you knew what you were talking about, you would know the rate of
incidence has been increasing and the TYPE of attack has started including
fire fights, in addition to IEDs. This is typical of a gathering,
strenghtening guerilla fight.
There are a number of think tanks, and the CIA, and journalism documenting
this - you don't know what you're talking about.
The local thugs can kill people and hurt the economy,

but that only makes the population turn towards the Allawi government.

The big risk has always been civil war. That means that various sides
would square off in large blocks. There's little sign of that. The
Baathists have vanished as such. Shiite fundamentalism has failed to
attract more that a tiny fraction of the population. The Sunni insurgents
have no common organization or political direction, other than a desire to
attack "crusaders" and "collaborators". There is a lot of disagreement
between various insurgent factions, and in particular Iraqis resent
foreign terrorists.

As mentioned in the article, the insurgents are not popular. One sure sign
of that is that the U.S. forces are given a constant stream of targeting
information, which can only come from locals.

The fact that the U.S. command has declared a number of areas off-limits
simply reflects the fact that they are stepping back to allow the Iraqi
government space to assume its role. There really is no point in getting
into shooting wars in downtown Samara.

There are thousands of quiet victories every day. Children are taught free
of Saddam-era propaganda. Newspapers get published. People watch a variety
of TV shows and debate openly in coffee shops and on street corners. They
line up for jobs with the new government in spite of the risks. Police and
soldiers graduate from training schools every day.

The basic problem is that we see the blood and gore in the headlines, and
miss the real story which goes on behind the scenes.

.

User: "Ray Fischer"

Title: Re: It's Worse Than You Think 19 Sep 2004 01:06:39 PM
Dave Gower <davegow.removethis@magma.ca> wrote:

"Bill Case" <Billd548@Hotmail.com> wrote

Sixteen months after the war's supposed end, Iraq's insurgency is
spreading.


Attacks are getting more desperate as the new government starts to really
take over the country.

Not "desperate".
Effective.

The local thugs can kill people and hurt the economy,
but that only makes the population turn towards the Allawi government.

WASHINGTON - A U.S. intelligence report prepared for President
Bush in July offered a gloomy outlook for Iraq through the end of
2005, with the worst scenario being a deterioration into civil
war, government officials said Thursday.
advertisement
The alarming possible future in Iraq as outlined in the classified
National Intelligence Estimate is in line with the view of many
analysts and members of Congress, and the Bush administration has
slowly begun to shift away from an optimistic tenor.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6016743/
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"

Title: Re: It's Worse Than You Think 19 Sep 2004 05:58:15 AM
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 20:44:56 -0400, "Dave Gower"
<davegow.removethis@magma.ca> wrote:


"Bill Case" <Billd548@Hotmail.com> wrote

Sixteen months after the war's supposed end, Iraq's insurgency is
spreading.


Attacks are getting more desperate as the new government starts to really
take over the country. The local thugs can kill people and hurt the economy,
but that only makes the population turn towards the Allawi government.

What are you smoking?
Look up "Quisling".
.
User: "Dave Gower"

Title: Re: It's Worse Than You Think 19 Sep 2004 01:06:57 PM
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote

Look up "Quisling".

I was studying the Second World War long before you were born. Allawi was a
consensus choice of the Governing Council in consultation with a variety of
local and religious leaders. He was not actually the first choice of the
U.S. administrators, but one they felt compelled to accept. By all accounts
he has exceeded expectations.
Your comparison with Quisling reveals your complete ignorance of both WW2
and the current situation in Iraq.
.
User: "Christopher A. Lee"

Title: Re: It's Worse Than You Think 19 Sep 2004 01:19:36 PM
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 14:06:57 -0400, "Dave Gower"
<davegow.removethis@magma.ca> wrote:


"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote

Look up "Quisling".


I was studying the Second World War long before you were born.

I doubt it.

Allawi was a
consensus choice of the Governing Council in consultation with a variety of
local and religious leaders.

And who appointed the governing council?

He was not actually the first choice of the
U.S. administrators, but one they felt compelled to accept. By all accounts
he has exceeded expectations.

Exceeded US expectations.

Your comparison with Quisling reveals your complete ignorance of both WW2
and the current situation in Iraq.

No. It reveals your your lack of understanding about the real world
and your presumption that people outside the USA (not just Iraqis) see
things with the US spin that deomestic newsmedia give.
.
User: "Dave Gower"

Title: Re: It's Worse Than You Think 19 Sep 2004 05:16:48 PM
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote

No. It reveals your your lack of understanding about the real world
and your presumption that people outside the USA (not just Iraqis) see
things with the US spin that deomestic newsmedia give.

Well let's look at the real world, genius. Hitler conquered a democratic
Norway, deposed its elected government, and appointed the head of the
Norwegian National Socialist Party to follow his orders. The U.S. invaded
Iraq and deposed a vicious dictator who had committed international
aggression, was in repeated and serious violation of U.N. declarations, and
was committing horrendous human rights abuses on his population. After the
conquest, which encountered no meaningful military opposition, the U.S., in
consolation with Iraqi exiles and various local civic and religious leaders,
selected a body which is widely recognized as representative of a broad
spectrum of Iraqi society, including groups that were previously excluded.
This council then went on to select its leaders, the final one up to now
being Allawi.
Agenda-driven dogmatists such as you may be able to equate these two
sequences, but most of the inhabitants of the "real world" can see a big
difference.
.
User: "Ray Fischer"

Title: Re: It's Worse Than You Think 19 Sep 2004 05:30:12 PM
Dave Gower <davegow.removethis@magma.ca> wrote:


"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote

No. It reveals your your lack of understanding about the real world
and your presumption that people outside the USA (not just Iraqis) see
things with the US spin that deomestic newsmedia give.


Well let's look at the real world, genius. Hitler conquered a democratic
Norway, deposed its elected government, and appointed the head of the
Norwegian National Socialist Party to follow his orders. The U.S. invaded
Iraq and deposed a vicious dictator who had committed international

Smirk. The victors write the history.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
User: "Paul J Gans"

Title: Re: It's Worse Than You Think 19 Sep 2004 10:42:08 PM
In alt.history.british Ray Fischer <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:

Dave Gower <davegow.removethis@magma.ca> wrote:


"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote

No. It reveals your your lack of understanding about the real world
and your presumption that people outside the USA (not just Iraqis) see
things with the US spin that deomestic newsmedia give.


Well let's look at the real world, genius. Hitler conquered a democratic
Norway, deposed its elected government, and appointed the head of the
Norwegian National Socialist Party to follow his orders. The U.S. invaded
Iraq and deposed a vicious dictator who had committed international

Smirk. The victors write the history.

Actually, the losers write it too. Which is why history
will not be kind.
----- Paul J. Gans
.
User: "Christopher A. Lee"

Title: Re: It's Worse Than You Think 23 Sep 2004 03:04:57 PM
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 03:42:08 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <gans@panix.com>
wrote:

In alt.history.british Ray Fischer <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:

Dave Gower <davegow.removethis@magma.ca> wrote:


"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote

No. It reveals your your lack of understanding about the real world
and your presumption that people outside the USA (not just Iraqis) see
things with the US spin that deomestic newsmedia give.


Well let's look at the real world, genius. Hitler conquered a democratic
Norway, deposed its elected government, and appointed the head of the
Norwegian National Socialist Party to follow his orders. The U.S. invaded
Iraq and deposed a vicious dictator who had committed international


Smirk. The victors write the history.


Actually, the losers write it too. Which is why history
will not be kind.

The poster doesn't seem to grasp that is irrelevant if he doesn't see
him as a Quisling. It's how the Iraqis view a puppet leader we have
given them.

----- Paul J. Gans

.



User: "Christopher A. Lee"

Title: Re: It's Worse Than You Think 19 Sep 2004 05:29:13 PM
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 18:16:48 -0400, "Dave Gower"
<davegow.removethis@magma.ca> wrote:


"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote

No. It reveals your your lack of understanding about the real world
and your presumption that people outside the USA (not just Iraqis) see
things with the US spin that deomestic newsmedia give.


Well let's look at the real world, genius. Hitler conquered a democratic
Norway, deposed its elected government, and appointed the head of the
Norwegian National Socialist Party to follow his orders. The U.S. invaded
Iraq and deposed a vicious dictator who had committed international
aggression, was in repeated and serious violation of U.N. declarations, and
was committing horrendous human rights abuses on his population. After the
conquest, which encountered no meaningful military opposition, the U.S., in
consolation with Iraqi exiles and various local civic and religious leaders,
selected a body which is widely recognized as representative of a broad
spectrum of Iraqi society, including groups that were previously excluded.
This council then went on to select its leaders, the final one up to now
being Allawi.

That's what the current administration would like you to believe. Why
do you imagine that they would accept a leader that we chose for them?

Agenda-driven dogmatists such as you may be able to equate these two
sequences, but most of the inhabitants of the "real world" can see a big
difference.

Do you honestly imagine that lying to me, about me, is going to
convince me of anything other than that you are a liar?
I have no agenda. I just see thiongs in a wider perspective than you
obviously do.
.
User: "Bobs Boyfriend"

Title: Re: It's Worse Than You Think 19 Sep 2004 06:47:23 PM
In article <lt1sk0981manbmob58g5e15ogutgpjad9t@4ax.com>,
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 18:16:48 -0400, "Dave Gower"
<davegow.removethis@magma.ca> wrote:


"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote

No. It reveals your your lack of understanding about the real world
and your presumption that people outside the USA (not just Iraqis) see
things with the US spin that deomestic newsmedia give.


Well let's look at the real world, genius. Hitler conquered a democratic
Norway, deposed its elected government, and appointed the head of the
Norwegian National Socialist Party to follow his orders. The U.S. invaded
Iraq and deposed a vicious dictator who had committed international
aggression, was in repeated and serious violation of U.N. declarations, and
was committing horrendous human rights abuses on his population. After the
conquest, which encountered no meaningful military opposition, the U.S., in
consolation with Iraqi exiles and various local civic and religious leaders,
selected a body which is widely recognized as representative of a broad
spectrum of Iraqi society, including groups that were previously excluded.
This council then went on to select its leaders, the final one up to now
being Allawi.


That's what the current administration would like you to believe. Why
do you imagine that they would accept a leader that we chose for them?

Agenda-driven dogmatists such as you may be able to equate these two
sequences, but most of the inhabitants of the "real world" can see a big
difference.


Do you honestly imagine that lying to me, about me, is going to
convince me of anything other than that you are a liar?

I have no agenda. I just see thiongs in a wider perspective than you
obviously do.

We all have an agenda. Expressing a different perspective IS an agenda.
.
User: "Christopher A. Lee"

Title: Re: It's Worse Than You Think 19 Sep 2004 07:58:31 PM
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 23:47:23 GMT, Bob's Boyfriend
<together@wyoming.com> wrote:

In article <lt1sk0981manbmob58g5e15ogutgpjad9t@4ax.com>,
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 18:16:48 -0400, "Dave Gower"
<davegow.removethis@magma.ca> wrote:


"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote

No. It reveals your your lack of understanding about the real world
and your presumption that people outside the USA (not just Iraqis) see
things with the US spin that deomestic newsmedia give.


Well let's look at the real world, genius. Hitler conquered a democratic
Norway, deposed its elected government, and appointed the head of the
Norwegian National Socialist Party to follow his orders. The U.S. invaded
Iraq and deposed a vicious dictator who had committed international
aggression, was in repeated and serious violation of U.N. declarations, and
was committing horrendous human rights abuses on his population. After the
conquest, which encountered no meaningful military opposition, the U.S., in
consolation with Iraqi exiles and various local civic and religious leaders,
selected a body which is widely recognized as representative of a broad
spectrum of Iraqi society, including groups that were previously excluded.
This council then went on to select its leaders, the final one up to now
being Allawi.


That's what the current administration would like you to believe. Why
do you imagine that they would accept a leader that we chose for them?

Agenda-driven dogmatists such as you may be able to equate these two
sequences, but most of the inhabitants of the "real world" can see a big
difference.


Do you honestly imagine that lying to me, about me, is going to
convince me of anything other than that you are a liar?

I have no agenda. I just see thiongs in a wider perspective than you
obviously do.


We all have an agenda. Expressing a different perspective IS an agenda.

Only if you redefine "agenda" into meaninglessness.
.
User: "Bobs Boyfriend"

Title: Re: It's Worse Than You Think 19 Sep 2004 08:42:46 PM
In article <uoask0dfcuuuksngll7nuan9lr7rcc6fa2@4ax.com>,
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 23:47:23 GMT, Bob's Boyfriend
<together@wyoming.com> wrote:

In article <lt1sk0981manbmob58g5e15ogutgpjad9t@4ax.com>,
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 18:16:48 -0400, "Dave Gower"
<davegow.removethis@magma.ca> wrote:


"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote

No. It reveals your your lack of understanding about the real world
and your presumption that people outside the USA (not just Iraqis) see
things with the US spin that deomestic newsmedia give.


Well let's look at the real world, genius. Hitler conquered a democratic
Norway, deposed its elected government, and appointed the head of the
Norwegian National Socialist Party to follow his orders. The U.S. invaded
Iraq and deposed a vicious dictator who had committed international
aggression, was in repeated and serious violation of U.N. declarations,
and
was committing horrendous human rights abuses on his population. After
the
conquest, which encountered no meaningful military opposition, the U.S.,
in
consolation with Iraqi exiles and various local civic and religious
leaders,
selected a body which is widely recognized as representative of a broad
spectrum of Iraqi society, including groups that were previously
excluded.
This council then went on to select its leaders, the final one up to now
being Allawi.


That's what the current administration would like you to believe. Why
do you imagine that they would accept a leader that we chose for them?

Agenda-driven dogmatists such as you may be able to equate these two
sequences, but most of the inhabitants of the "real world" can see a big
difference.


Do you honestly imagine that lying to me, about me, is going to
convince me of anything other than that you are a liar?

I have no agenda. I just see thiongs in a wider perspective than you
obviously do.


We all have an agenda. Expressing a different perspective IS an agenda.


Only if you redefine "agenda" into meaninglessness.

Perhaps, only if you define agenda as a negative concept. I have an
agenda every day. I carry an electronic agenda. I have an agenda every
time I walk into a meeting. I have an agenda every time that I
facilitate a group. I think of the term as being morally neutral. You
apparently see the word differently.
.
User: "Christopher A. Lee"

Title: Re: It's Worse Than You Think 20 Sep 2004 05:55:19 AM
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 01:42:46 GMT, Bob's Boyfriend
<together@wyoming.com> wrote:

In article <uoask0dfcuuuksngll7nuan9lr7rcc6fa2@4ax.com>,
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 23:47:23 GMT, Bob's Boyfriend
<together@wyoming.com> wrote:

In article <lt1sk0981manbmob58g5e15ogutgpjad9t@4ax.com>,
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 18:16:48 -0400, "Dave Gower"
<davegow.removethis@magma.ca> wrote:


"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote

No. It reveals your your lack of understanding about the real world
and your presumption that people outside the USA (not just Iraqis) see
things with the US spin that deomestic newsmedia give.


Well let's look at the real world, genius. Hitler conquered a democratic
Norway, deposed its elected government, and appointed the head of the
Norwegian National Socialist Party to follow his orders. The U.S. invaded
Iraq and deposed a vicious dictator who had committed international
aggression, was in repeated and serious violation of U.N. declarations,
and
was committing horrendous human rights abuses on his population. After
the
conquest, which encountered no meaningful military opposition, the U.S.,
in
consolation with Iraqi exiles and various local civic and religious
leaders,
selected a body which is widely recognized as representative of a broad
spectrum of Iraqi society, including groups that were previously
excluded.
This council then went on to select its leaders, the final one up to now
being Allawi.


That's what the current administration would like you to believe. Why
do you imagine that they would accept a leader that we chose for them?

Agenda-driven dogmatists such as you may be able to equate these two
sequences, but most of the inhabitants of the "real world" can see a big
difference.


Do you honestly imagine that lying to me, about me, is going to
convince me of anything other than that you are a liar?

I have no agenda. I just see thiongs in a wider perspective than you
obviously do.


We all have an agenda. Expressing a different perspective IS an agenda.


Only if you redefine "agenda" into meaninglessness.


Perhaps, only if you define agenda as a negative concept. I have an
agenda every day. I carry an electronic agenda. I have an agenda every
time I walk into a meeting. I have an agenda every time that I
facilitate a group. I think of the term as being morally neutral. You
apparently see the word differently.

I'm using it the normal way. I don't have have one. But your false
accusation has enabled you to use it as an ad-hominem excuse to ignore
my response above.
How about addressing it?
.
User: "Bobs Boyfriend"

Title: Re: It's Worse Than You Think 20 Sep 2004 08:36:09 AM
In article <6mdtk0psakcib5bajjqe1gpbehbe3iaisg@4ax.com>,
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 01:42:46 GMT, Bob's Boyfriend
<together@wyoming.com> wrote:

In article <uoask0dfcuuuksngll7nuan9lr7rcc6fa2@4ax.com>,
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 23:47:23 GMT, Bob's Boyfriend
<together@wyoming.com> wrote:

In article <lt1sk0981manbmob58g5e15ogutgpjad9t@4ax.com>,
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 18:16:48 -0400, "Dave Gower"
<davegow.removethis@magma.ca> wrote:


"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote

No. It reveals your your lack of understanding about the real world
and your presumption that people outside the USA (not just Iraqis)
see
things with the US spin that deomestic newsmedia give.


Well let's look at the real world, genius. Hitler conquered a
democratic
Norway, deposed its elected government, and appointed the head of the
Norwegian National Socialist Party to follow his orders. The U.S.
invaded
Iraq and deposed a vicious dictator who had committed international
aggression, was in repeated and serious violation of U.N.
declarations,
and
was committing horrendous human rights abuses on his population. After
the
conquest, which encountered no meaningful military opposition, the
U.S.,
in
consolation with Iraqi exiles and various local civic and religious
leaders,
selected a body which is widely recognized as representative of a
broad
spectrum of Iraqi society, including groups that were previously
excluded.
This council then went on to select its leaders, the final one up to
now
being Allawi.


That's what the current administration would like you to believe. Why
do you imagine that they would accept a leader that we chose for them?

Agenda-driven dogmatists such as you may be able to equate these two
sequences, but most of the inhabitants of the "real world" can see a
big
difference.


Do you honestly imagine that lying to me, about me, is going to
convince me of anything other than that you are a liar?

I have no agenda. I just see thiongs in a wider perspective than you
obviously do.


We all have an agenda. Expressing a different perspective IS an agenda.


Only if you redefine "agenda" into meaninglessness.


Perhaps, only if you define agenda as a negative concept. I have an
agenda every day. I carry an electronic agenda. I have an agenda every
time I walk into a meeting. I have an agenda every time that I
facilitate a group. I think of the term as being morally neutral. You
apparently see the word differently.


I'm using it the normal way. I don't have have one. But your false
accusation has enabled you to use it as an ad-hominem excuse to ignore
my response above.

How about addressing it?

Wow. I stated that your agenda was to present a different perspective.
You stated this as your agenda. And then, you return with calling it an
allegation.
My agenda is to show that you made a point and that I responded to it.
You stated that you didn't have an agenda. I stated that you did and
used where you wrote "to present a different perspective" to demonstrate
an agenda. Is stating, "I don't have an agenda" not a point?
.
User: "Christopher A. Lee"

Title: Re: It's Worse Than You Think 20 Sep 2004 08:47:58 AM
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 13:36:09 GMT, Bob's Boyfriend
<together@wyoming.com> wrote:

In article <6mdtk0psakcib5bajjqe1gpbehbe3iaisg@4ax.com>,
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 01:42:46 GMT, Bob's Boyfriend
<together@wyoming.com> wrote:

In article <uoask0dfcuuuksngll7nuan9lr7rcc6fa2@4ax.com>,
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 23:47:23 GMT, Bob's Boyfriend
<together@wyoming.com> wrote:

In article <lt1sk0981manbmob58g5e15ogutgpjad9t@4ax.com>,
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 18:16:48 -0400, "Dave Gower"
<davegow.removethis@magma.ca> wrote:


"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote

No. It reveals your your lack of understanding about the real world
and your presumption that people outside the USA (not just Iraqis)
see
things with the US spin that deomestic newsmedia give.


Well let's look at the real world, genius. Hitler conquered a
democratic
Norway, deposed its elected government, and appointed the head of the
Norwegian National Socialist Party to follow his orders. The U.S.
invaded
Iraq and deposed a vicious dictator who had committed international
aggression, was in repeated and serious violation of U.N.
declarations,
and
was committing horrendous human rights abuses on his population. After
the
conquest, which encountered no meaningful military opposition, the
U.S.,
in
consolation with Iraqi exiles and various local civic and religious
leaders,
selected a body which is widely recognized as representative of a
broad
spectrum of Iraqi society, including groups that were previously
excluded.
This council then went on to select its leaders, the final one up to
now
being Allawi.


That's what the current administration would like you to believe. Why
do you imagine that they would accept a leader that we chose for them?

Agenda-driven dogmatists such as you may be able to equate these two
sequences, but most of the inhabitants of the "real world" can see a
big
difference.


Do you honestly imagine that lying to me, about me, is going to
convince me of anything other than that you are a liar?

I have no agenda. I just see thiongs in a wider perspective than you
obviously do.


We all have an agenda. Expressing a different perspective IS an agenda.


Only if you redefine "agenda" into meaninglessness.


Perhaps, only if you define agenda as a negative concept. I have an
agenda every day. I carry an electronic agenda. I have an agenda every
time I walk into a meeting. I have an agenda every time that I
facilitate a group. I think of the term as being morally neutral. You
apparently see the word differently.


I'm using it the normal way. I don't have have one. But your false
accusation has enabled you to use it as an ad-hominem excuse to ignore
my response above.

How about addressing it?


Wow. I stated that your agenda was to present a different perspective.
You stated this as your agenda. And then, you return with calling it an
allegation.

My agenda is to show that you made a point and that I responded to it.
You stated that you didn't have an agenda. I stated that you did and
used where you wrote "to present a different perspective" to demonstrate
an agenda. Is stating, "I don't have an agenda" not a point?

Then you are doing a bait'n'switch from the normal meaning to a
personal one after the event. And have redefined it into
meaninglessness.
.
User: "Bobs Boyfriend"

Title: Re: It's Worse Than You Think 20 Sep 2004 09:08:25 AM
In article <9rntk0lhn8o46nosaquroroclilvjg5pl5@4ax.com>,
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 13:36:09 GMT, Bob's Boyfriend
<together@wyoming.com> wrote:

In article <6mdtk0psakcib5bajjqe1gpbehbe3iaisg@4ax.com>,
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 01:42:46 GMT, Bob's Boyfriend
<together@wyoming.com> wrote:

In article <uoask0dfcuuuksngll7nuan9lr7rcc6fa2@4ax.com>,
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 23:47:23 GMT, Bob's Boyfriend
<together@wyoming.com> wrote:

In article <lt1sk0981manbmob58g5e15ogutgpjad9t@4ax.com>,
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 18:16:48 -0400, "Dave Gower"
<davegow.removethis@magma.ca> wrote:


"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote

No. It reveals your your lack of understanding about the real
world
and your presumption that people outside the USA (not just
Iraqis)
see
things with the US spin that deomestic newsmedia give.


Well let's look at the real world, genius. Hitler conquered a
democratic
Norway, deposed its elected government, and appointed the head of
the
Norwegian National Socialist Party to follow his orders. The U.S.
invaded
Iraq and deposed a vicious dictator who had committed international
aggression, was in repeated and serious violation of U.N.
declarations,
and
was committing horrendous human rights abuses on his population.
After
the
conquest, which encountered no meaningful military opposition, the
U.S.,
in
consolation with Iraqi exiles and various local civic and religious
leaders,
selected a body which is widely recognized as representative of a
broad
spectrum of Iraqi society, including groups that were previously
excluded.
This council then went on to select its leaders, the final one up
to
now
being Allawi.


That's what the current administration would like you to believe.
Why
do you imagine that they would accept a leader that we chose for
them?

Agenda-driven dogmatists such as you may be able to equate these
two
sequences, but most of the inhabitants of the "real world" can see
a
big
difference.


Do you honestly imagine that lying to me, about me, is going to
convince me of anything other than that you are a liar?

I have no agenda. I just see thiongs in a wider perspective than you
obviously do.


We all have an agenda. Expressing a different perspective IS an
agenda.


Only if you redefine "agenda" into meaninglessness.


Perhaps, only if you define agenda as a negative concept. I have an
agenda every day. I carry an electronic agenda. I have an agenda every
time I walk into a meeting. I have an agenda every time that I
facilitate a group. I think of the term as being morally neutral. You
apparently see the word differently.


I'm using it the normal way. I don't have have one. But your false
accusation has enabled you to use it as an ad-hominem excuse to ignore
my response above.

How about addressing it?


Wow. I stated that your agenda was to present a different perspective.
You stated this as your agenda. And then, you return with calling it an
allegation.

My agenda is to show that you made a point and that I responded to it.
You stated that you didn't have an agenda. I stated that you did and
used where you wrote "to present a different perspective" to demonstrate
an agenda. Is stating, "I don't have an agenda" not a point?


Then you are doing a bait'n'switch from the normal meaning to a
personal one after the event. And have redefined it into
meaninglessness.

No, I check the dictionary and did a google search on the meaning of the
word. It seems that I used it correctly.
.

User: "Bill Case"

Title: Re: It's Worse Than You Think 20 Sep 2004 09:24:01 PM
Tell the moron to go bob on his boyfriend.
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:9rntk0lhn8o46nosaquroroclilvjg5pl5@4ax.com...

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 13:36:09 GMT, Bob's Boyfriend
<together@wyoming.com> wrote:

In article <6mdtk0psakcib5bajjqe1gpbehbe3iaisg@4ax.com>,
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 01:42:46 GMT, Bob's Boyfriend
<together@wyoming.com> wrote:

In article <uoask0dfcuuuksngll7nuan9lr7rcc6fa2@4ax.com>,
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 23:47:23 GMT, Bob's Boyfriend
<together@wyoming.com> wrote:

In article <lt1sk0981manbmob58g5e15ogutgpjad9t@4ax.com>,
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 18:16:48 -0400, "Dave Gower"
<davegow.removethis@magma.ca> wrote:


"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote

No. It reveals your your lack of understanding about the real
world
and your presumption that people outside the USA (not just
Iraqis)
see
things with the US spin that deomestic newsmedia give.


Well let's look at the real world, genius. Hitler conquered a
democratic
Norway, deposed its elected government, and appointed the head of
the
Norwegian National Socialist Party to follow his orders. The U.S.
invaded
Iraq and deposed a vicious dictator who had committed
international
aggression, was in repeated and serious violation of U.N.
declarations,
and
was committing horrendous human rights abuses on his population.
After
the
conquest, which encountered no meaningful military opposition,
the
U.S.,
in
consolation with Iraqi exiles and various local civic and
religious
leaders,
selected a body which is widely recognized as representative of a
broad
spectrum of Iraqi society, including groups that were previously
excluded.
This council then went on to select its leaders, the final one up
to
now
being Allawi.


That's what the current administration would like you to believe.
Why
do you imagine that they would accept a leader that we chose for
them?

Agenda-driven dogmatists such as you may be able to equate these
two
sequences, but most of the inhabitants of the "real world" can
see a
big
difference.


Do you honestly imagine that lying to me, about me, is going to
convince me of anything other than that you are a liar?

I have no agenda. I just see thiongs in a wider perspective than
you
obviously do.


We all have an agenda. Expressing a different perspective IS an
agenda.


Only if you redefine "agenda" into meaninglessness.


Perhaps, only if you define agenda as a negative concept. I have an
agenda every day. I carry an electronic agenda. I have an agenda every
time I walk into a meeting. I have an agenda every time that I
facilitate a group. I think of the term as being morally neutral. You
apparently see the word differently.


I'm using it the normal way. I don't have have one. But your false
accusation has enabled you to use it as an ad-hominem excuse to ignore
my response above.

How about addressing it?


Wow. I stated that your agenda was to present a different perspective.
You stated this as your agenda. And then, you return with calling it an
allegation.

My agenda is to show that you made a point and that I responded to it.
You stated that you didn't have an agenda. I stated that you did and
used where you wrote "to present a different perspective" to demonstrate
an agenda. Is stating, "I don't have an agenda" not a point?


Then you are doing a bait'n'switch from the normal meaning to a
personal one after the event. And have redefined it into
meaninglessness.

.
User: "Bobs Boyfriend"

Title: Re: It's Worse Than You Think 20 Sep 2004 09:26:31 PM
In article <5hM3d.1114$g42.589@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Bill Case" <Billd548@Hotmail.com> wrote:

Tell the moron to go bob on his boyfriend.

Now there is cogent argument in response to the thread.

"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:9rntk0lhn8o46nosaquroroclilvjg5pl5@4ax.com...

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 13:36:09 GMT, Bob's Boyfriend
<together@wyoming.com> wrote:

In article <6mdtk0psakcib5bajjqe1gpbehbe3iaisg@4ax.com>,
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 01:42:46 GMT, Bob's Boyfriend
<together@wyoming.com> wrote:

In article <uoask0dfcuuuksngll7nuan9lr7rcc6fa2@4ax.com>,
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 23:47:23 GMT, Bob's Boyfriend
<together@wyoming.com> wrote:

In article <lt1sk0981manbmob58g5e15ogutgpjad9t@4ax.com>,
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 18:16:48 -0400, "Dave Gower"
<davegow.removethis@magma.ca> wrote:


"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote

No. It reveals your your lack of understanding about the real
world
and your presumption that people outside the USA (not just
Iraqis)
see
things with the US spin that deomestic newsmedia give.


Well let's look at the real world, genius. Hitler conquered a
democratic
Norway, deposed its elected government, and appointed the head of
the
Norwegian National Socialist Party to follow his orders. The U.S.
invaded
Iraq and deposed a vicious dictator who had committed
international
aggression, was in repeated and serious violation of U.N.
declarations,
and
was committing horrendous human rights abuses on his population.
After
the
conquest, which encountered no meaningful military opposition,
the
U.S.,
in
consolation with Iraqi exiles and various local civic and
religious
leaders,
selected a body which is widely recognized as representative of a
broad
spectrum of Iraqi society, including groups that were previously
excluded.
This council then went on to select its leaders, the final one up
to
now
being Allawi.


That's what the current administration would like you to believe.
Why
do you imagine that they would accept a leader that we chose for
them?

Agenda-driven dogmatists such as you may be able to equate these
two
sequences, but most of the inhabitants of the "real world" can
see a
big
difference.


Do you honestly imagine that lying to me, about me, is going to
convince me of anything other than that you are a liar?

I have no agenda. I just see thiongs in a wider perspective than
you
obviously do.


We all have an agenda. Expressing a different perspective IS an
agenda.


Only if you redefine "agenda" into meaninglessness.


Perhaps, only if you define agenda as a negative concept. I have an
agenda every day. I carry an electronic agenda. I have an agenda every
time I walk into a meeting. I have an agenda every time that I
facilitate a group. I think of the term as being morally neutral. You
apparently see the word differently.


I'm using it the normal way. I don't have have one. But your false
accusation has enabled you to use it as an ad-hominem excuse to ignore
my response above.

How about addressing it?


Wow. I stated that your agenda was to present a different perspective.
You stated this as your agenda. And then, you return with calling it an
allegation.

My agenda is to show that you made a point and that I responded to it.
You stated that you didn't have an agenda. I stated that you did and
used where you wrote "to present a different perspective" to demonstrate
an agenda. Is stating, "I don't have an agenda" not a point?


Then you are doing a bait'n'switch from the normal meaning to a
personal one after the event. And have redefined it into
meaninglessness.



.
User: "Bill Case"

Title: Re: It's Worse Than You Think 21 Sep 2004 02:29:33 PM
"Bob's Boyfriend" <together@wyoming.com> wrote in message
news:together-321092.22264620092004@nntp.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...

In article <5hM3d.1114$g42.589@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Bill Case" <Billd548@Hotmail.com> wrote:

Tell the moron to go bob on his boyfriend.


Now there is cogent argument in response to the thread.

Thank you. Now go bob on your little boyfriend
.













User: "Igtheist"

Title: Re: It's Worse Than You Think 19 Sep 2004 03:36:25 PM
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<phpqk0hb4kj7vr2or2vttm8lkbih92al14@4ax.com>...

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 20:44:56 -0400, "Dave Gower"
<davegow.removethis@magma.ca> wrote:


"Bill Case" <Billd548@Hotmail.com> wrote

Sixteen months after the war's supposed end, Iraq's insurgency is
spreading.


Attacks are getting more desperate as the new government starts to really
take over the country. The local thugs can kill people and hurt the economy,
but that only makes the population turn towards the Allawi government.


What are you smoking?

"Who do you believe" in each case:
http://cicada.typepad.com/cicada/2004/09/heres_a_classic.html
http://cicada.typepad.com/cicada/2004/09/part_ii_of_who_.html
I see a press spinning this way worse than it is from a military
perspective.
My main objections to Iraq were the way they were handling prisoners.
Also, perhaps they could be a little more concerned about the lives
of american soldiers and less about pagan religious shrines. But
perhaps I'm thats my atheist bias. Everything else seems to be going
swimmingly considering what we are dealing with.
Abu Giriab: I can't tell for sure if it was policy, or idiots. I was
so pissed when I first heard about this I wanted Rumsfields head and
was not too happy with Bush either. Later I learned that the fellow
who turned in the photos , Joe Darby, had specifically said that these
things were going on behind commands back. In fact, he reported them
through normal channels and they were being corrected. One of the
accused sent photos to a relative and tried to blackmail his way out
of charges. You charge me and the photos will be released. That
was not indicated in the main stream media. In fact they went out of
their way to try to implicate the highest levels of government
immediately. They said there was a coverup. That was the message I
got and I was pissed. How stupid.
However, I'm coming to really distrust the mainstream media. CBS was
behind some of the coverage of the prison stuff. It's the same staff
that went with the forgeries. Is it really the policy that "torture
isn't torture if your only doing it for fun and not to extract
information"? Finding that some lawyer idiot suggested that
interpretation then had is "great idea" shot down does not implicate
anyone.
Knowing more about it now I am totally pissed at the actual people
involved in the Abu-Girab torture. Not only are they sick slime bags
but they are traitors in that they are willing to destroy the entire
nations reputation in order to save their butts. There are a few
MPs and a couple of MI guys involved in this and that was it. There
was obviously mismanagement at the prison. As to inadequate
"training", who the ***** needs training to know you don't do that to
prisoners.
The problem is that the media painted this as obviously the fault of
Bush and just plain American lawlessness.

Look up "Quisling".

Dave Gower doesn't sound like an Iraqi name, does it? Or, are you
saying the US is like the Nazi's? I don't get it.
.
User: "Bill Case"

Title: Re: It's Worse Than You Think 19 Sep 2004 05:17:02 PM
"Igtheist" <igtheist_N_O_S_P_A_M@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ec75c602.0409191236.401fed6f@posting.google.com...

Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:<phpqk0hb4kj7vr2or2vttm8lkbih92al14@4ax.com>...

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 20:44:56 -0400, "Dave Gower"
<davegow.removethis@magma.ca> wrote:


"Bill Case" <Billd548@Hotmail.com> wrote

Sixteen months after the war's supposed end, Iraq's insurgency is
spreading.


Attacks are getting more desperate as the new government starts to
really
take over the country. The local thugs can kill people and hurt the
economy,
but that only makes the population turn towards the Allawi government.


What are you smoking?


"Who do you believe" in each case:
http://cicada.typepad.com/cicada/2004/09/heres_a_classic.html
http://cicada.typepad.com/cicada/2004/09/part_ii_of_who_.html

I see a press spinning this way worse than it is from a military
perspective.

No, the press is prone to exaggerating bad news, but it's not just them.
Heavy weight analysts like Cordesman (for some time) and now the CIA are
sending signals that this insurgency is gaining, not holding steady or
decreasing. Christ, even the Iraqi soccer team said it hates the US
And we already know that, indirectly. Massive unemployment, chronic fear the
populace is living under, little reconstruction, divided loyalties and fear
of police and army from doing their duties etc.


My main objections to Iraq were the way they were handling prisoners.
Also, perhaps they could be a little more concerned about the lives
of american soldiers and less about pagan religious shrines. But
perhaps I'm thats my atheist bias. Everything else seems to be going
swimmingly considering what we are dealing with.

Abu Giriab: I can't tell for sure if it was policy, or idiots. I was
so pissed when I first heard about this I wanted Rumsfields head and
was not too happy with Bush either. Later I learned that the fellow
who turned in the photos , Joe Darby, had specifically said that these
things were going on behind commands back. In fact, he reported them
through normal channels and they were being corrected. One of the
accused sent photos to a relative and tried to blackmail his way out
of charges. You charge me and the photos will be released. That
was not indicated in the main stream media. In fact they went out of
their way to try to implicate the highest levels of government
immediately. They said there was a coverup. That was the message I
got and I was pissed. How stupid.

However, I'm coming to really distrust the mainstream media. CBS was
behind some of the coverage of the prison stuff. It's the same staff
that went with the forgeries. Is it really the policy that "torture
isn't torture if your only doing it for fun and not to extract
information"? Finding that some lawyer idiot suggested that
interpretation then had is "great idea" shot down does not implicate
anyone.

Knowing more about it now I am totally pissed at the actual people
involved in the Abu-Girab torture. Not only are they sick slime bags
but they are traitors in that they are willing to destroy the entire
nations reputation in order to save their butts. There are a few
MPs and a couple of MI guys involved in this and that was it. There
was obviously mismanagement at the prison. As to inadequate
"training", who the ***** needs training to know you don't do that to
prisoners.

The problem is that the media painted this as obviously the fault of
Bush and just plain American lawlessness.

Look up "Quisling".


Dave Gower doesn't sound like an Iraqi name, does it? Or, are you
saying the US is like the Nazi's? I don't get it.

.




User: "Tim W"

Title: Re: It's Worse Than You Think 17 Sep 2004 05:27:23 AM
"Bill Case" <Billd548@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:FTp2d.2186$0i5.949@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...

It's Worse Than You Think
As Americans debate Vietnam, the U.S. death toll tops 1,000 in Iraq. And

the

insurgents are still getting stronger

Yes, it's much much worse than we thought - Iraq turns out to be crawling
with terrorists. Lucky we went in there to deal with them all! - LOL
Tim W
.
User: "Bill Case"

Title: Re: It's Worse Than You Think 17 Sep 2004 04:34:49 PM
"Tim W" <tim.whittinghamnom@ilvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:YoWdnZOnBrtVJtfcRVn-rA@brightview.com...


"Bill Case" <Billd548@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:FTp2d.2186$0i5.949@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...

It's Worse Than You Think
As Americans debate Vietnam, the U.S. death toll tops 1,000 in Iraq. And

the

insurgents are still getting stronger

Yes, it's much much worse than we thought - Iraq turns out to be crawling
with terrorists. Lucky we went in there to deal with them all! - LOL

Tim W

Are you being ironic, or are you stupid enough to think the insurgency in
Iraq is from people who would have been a problem to the US even if there
were no insurgency?



.
User: "ian maclure"

Title: Re: It's Worse Than You Think 17 Sep 2004 06:38:45 PM
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 21:34:49 +0000, Bill Case wrote:


"Tim W" <tim.whittinghamnom@ilvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:YoWdnZOnBrtVJtfcRVn-rA@brightview.com...


"Bill Case" <Billd548@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:FTp2d.2186$0i5.949@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...

It's Worse Than You Think
As Americans debate Vietnam, the U.S. death toll tops 1,000 in Iraq. And

the

insurgents are still getting stronger

Yes, it's much much worse than we thought - Iraq turns out to be crawling
with terrorists. Lucky we went in there to deal with them all! - LOL

Tim W


Are you being ironic, or are you stupid enough to think the insurgency in
Iraq is from people who would have been a problem to the US even if there
were no insurgency?

Well there's this.
A "C", maestro!
<sings>
Kill them all
Kill them all
Kill the long and the short and the tall
Kill Ayatollahs and Hojatoleslams.
Make sure that the message gets home to Iran
When we're done we'll make there's ***** all
left standing not even a wall.
In the end its all worth it.
Don't stand there, go to it
And cheer up my lads kill them all.
</sings>
Thank you...
Thank you very much....
No, you're too kind..
Really...
IBM
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

.
User: "Bill Case"

Title: Re: It's Worse Than You Think 17 Sep 2004 06:49:37 PM
"ian maclure" <ibm@svpal.org> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.09.17.23.38.43.3634@svpal.org...

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 21:34:49 +0000, Bill Case wrote:


"Tim W" <tim.whittinghamnom@ilvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:YoWdnZOnBrtVJtfcRVn-rA@brightview.com...


"Bill Case" <Billd548@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:FTp2d.2186$0i5.949@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...

It's Worse Than You Think
As Americans debate Vietnam, the U.S. death toll tops 1,000 in Iraq.
And

the

insurgents are still getting stronger

Yes, it's much much worse than we thought - Iraq turns out to be
crawling
with terrorists. Lucky we went in there to deal with them all! - LOL

Tim W


Are you being ironic, or are you stupid enough to think the insurgency in
Iraq is from people who would have been a problem to the US even if there
were no insurgency?


Well there's this.
A "C", maestro!

<sings>
Kill them all
Kill them all
Kill the long and the short and the tall
Kill Ayatollahs and Hojatoleslams.
Make sure that the message gets home to Iran
When we're done we'll make there's ***** all
left standing not even a wall.
In the end its all worth it.
Don't stand there, go to it
And cheer up my lads kill them all.
</sings>

Thank you...
Thank you very much....
No, you're too kind..
Really...

IBM

Said like the troll you are.
Why don't you go over there and get after killing them instead of wasting
the air and water you're consuming here?
.




User: "catcher"

Title: Re: It's Worse Than You Think 16 Sep 2004 10:05:36 PM
Iraqi civilian body count is now over 14,000 http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
"Bill Case" <Billd548@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:FTp2d.2186$0i5.949@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...

It's Worse Than You Think
As Americans debate Vietnam, the U.S. death toll tops 1,000 in Iraq. And

the

insurgents are still getting stronger

By Scott Johnson and Babak Dehghanpisheh
Newsweek
Updated: 1:14 p.m. ET Sept. 12, 2004Sept. 20 issue -

Iraqis don't shock easily these days, but eyewitnesses could only blink in
disbelief as they recounted last Tuesday's broad-daylight kidnappings in
central Baghdad. At about 5 in the afternoon, on a quiet side street

outside

the Ibn Haitham hospital, a gang armed with pistols, AK-47s and

pump-action

shotguns raided a small house used by three Italian aid groups. The

gunmen,

none of them wearing masks, took orders from a smooth-shaven man in a gray
suit; they called him "sir." When they drove off, the gunmen had four
hostages: two local NGO employees-one of them a woman who was dragged out

of

the house by her headscarf-and two 29-year-old Italians, Simona Pari and
Simona Torretta, both members of the antiwar group A Bridge to Baghdad.

The

whole job took less than 10 minutes. Not a shot was fired. About 15

minutes

afterward, an American Humvee convoy passed hardly a block away-headed in
the opposite direction.


Sixteen months after the war's supposed end, Iraq's insurgency is

spreading.

Each successful demand by kidnappers has spawned more hostage-takings-to
make Philippine troops go home, to stop Turkish truckers from hauling
supplies into Iraq, to extort fat ransom payments from Kuwaitis. The few
relief groups that remain in Iraq are talking seriously about leaving.

U.S.

forces have effectively ceded entire cities to the insurgents, and much of
the country elsewhere is a battleground. Last week the total number of

U.S.

war dead in Iraq passed the 1,000 mark, reaching 1,007 by the end of
Saturday.

U.S. forces are working frantically to train Iraqis for the thankless job

of

maintaining public order. The aim is to boost Iraqi security forces from
95,000 to 200,000 by sometime next year. Then, using a mixture of force

and

diplomacy, the Americans plan to retake cities and install credible local
forces. That's the hope, anyway. But the quality of new recruits is
debatable. During recent street demonstrations in Najaf, police opened

fire

on crowds, killing and injuring dozens. The insurgents, meanwhile, are
recruiting, too. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld once referred to
America's foes in Iraq as "dead-enders," then the Pentagon maintained they
probably numbered 5,000, and now senior military officials talk about
"dozens of regional cells" that could call upon as many as 20,000

fighters.



Yet U.S. officials publicly insist that Iraq will somehow hold national
elections before the end of January. The appointed council currently

acting

as Iraq's government under interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi is to be
replaced by an elected constitutional assembly-if the vote takes place. "I
presume the election will be delayed," says the Iraqi Interior Ministry's
chief spokesman, Sabah Kadhim. A senior Iraqi official sees no chance of
January elections: "I'm convinced that it's not going to happen. It's just
not realistic. How is it going to happen?" Some Iraqis worry that America
will stick to its schedule despite all obstacles. "The Americans have
created a series of fictional dates and events in order to delude
themselves," says Ghassan Atiyya, director of the independent Iraq
Foundation for Development and Democracy, who recently met with Allawi and
American representatives to discuss the January agenda. "Badly prepared
elections, rather than healing wounds, will open them."

America has its own Election Day to worry about. For U.S. troops in Iraq,
one especially sore point is the stateside public's obsession with the
candidates' decades-old military service. "Stop talking about Vietnam,"

says

one U.S. official who has spent time in the Sunni Triangle. "People should
be debating this war, not that one." His point was not that America ought

to

walk away from Iraq. Hardly any U.S. personnel would call that a sane
suggestion. But there's widespread agreement that Washington needs to
rethink its objectives, and quickly. "We're dealing with a population that
hovers between bare tolerance and outright hostility," says a senior U.S.
diplomat in Baghdad. "This idea of a functioning democracy here is crazy.

We

thought that there would be a reprieve after sovereignty, but all hell is
breaking loose."

It's not only that U.S. casualty figures keep climbing. American
counterinsurgency experts are noticing some disturbing trends in those
statistics. The Defense Department counted 87 attacks per day on U.S.

forces

in August-the worst monthly average since Bush's flight-suited visit to

the

USS Abraham Lincoln in May 2003. Preliminary analysis of the July and

August

numbers also suggests that U.S. troops are being attacked across a wider
area of Iraq than ever before. And the number of gunshot casualties
apparently took a huge jump in August. Until then, explosive devices and
shrapnel were the primary cause of combat injuries, typical of a "phase

two"

insurgency, where sudden ambushes are the rule. (Phase one is the
recruitment phase, with most actions confined to sabotage. That's how

things

started in Iraq.) Bullet wounds would mean the insurgents are standing and
fighting-a step up to phase three.

Another ominous sign is the growing number of towns that U.S. troops

simply

avoid. A senior Defense official objects to calling them "no-go areas."

"We

could go into them any time we wanted," he argues. The preferred term is
"insurgent enclaves." They're spreading. Counterinsurgency experts call it
the "inkblot strategy": take control of several towns or villages and

expand

outward until the areas merge. The first city lost to the insurgents was
Fallujah, in April. Now the list includes the Sunni Triangle cities of Ar
Ramadi, Baqubah and Samarra, where power shifted back and forth between

the

insurgents and American-backed leaders last week. "There is no security
force there [in Fallujah], no local government," says a senior U.S.

military

official in Baghdad. "We would get attacked constantly. Forget about it."

U.S. military planners only wish they could. "What we see is a classic
progression," says Andrew Krepinevich, author of the highly respected

study

"The Army and Vietnam." "What we also see is that the U.S. military is not
trained or organized to fight insurgencies. That was the deliberate choice
after Vietnam. Now we look to be paying the price." Americans aren't safe
even on the outskirts of a city like Fallujah. Early last week a suicide
bomber rammed his vehicle into two U.S. Humvees nine miles north of town

on

the four-lane concrete bypass called Highway 10. Seven Americans died. It
was one of the deadliest blows against U.S. forces since June, when Iraqis
formally resumed control of their government.

As much as ordinary Iraqis may hate the insurgents, they blame the

Americans

for creating the whole mess. Three months ago Iraqi troops and
U.S.-dominated "multinational forces" pulled out of Samarra, and

insurgents

took over the place immediately. "The day the MNF left, people celebrated

in

the streets," says Kadhim, the Interior spokesman. "But that same day,

vans

arrived in town and started shooting. They came from Fallujah and other
places and they started blowing up houses." Local elders begged Allawi's
government to send help. "The leaders of the tribes come to see us and

they

say, 'Really, we are scared, we don't like these people'," Kadhim

continues.

"But we just don't have the forces at the moment to help them." Last week
negotiators reached a tentative peace deal, but it's not likely to survive
long. The Iraqi National Guard is the only homegrown security force that
people respect, and all available ING personnel are deployed elsewhere.

Will Iraq's troubles get even worse? "The insurgency can certainly sustain
what it's doing for a while," says a senior U.S. military official. Many
educated Iraqis aren't waiting to find out. Applicants mobbed the

courtyard

of the Baghdad passport office last week, desperate for a chance to

escape.

Police fired shots in the air, trying to control the crowd. "Every day

there

is shooting, gunfire, people killed, headaches for lack of sleep," said

Huda

Hussein, 34, a Ph.D. in computer science who has spent the past year and a
half looking for work. "I want to go to a calm place for a while." It's

too

bad for Iraq-and for America-that the insurgents don't share that wish.

With John Barry in Washington


.
User: "Frank Dwyer"

Title: Re: It's Worse Than You Think 17 Sep 2004 10:35:06 AM
catcher wrote:

Iraqi