| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Mark K. Bilbo" |
| Date: |
30 Apr 2004 04:54:43 PM |
| Object: |
OT: Here it comes... |
The *next neo-con strategy (after getting rid of the WMDs that didn't
exist and liberating Iraq and whatever else it is this week) is on it's
way:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51732-2004Apr28.html
"But pursuit of that ideal can impede achievement of something tolerable:
a stable, perhaps illiberal, even authoritarian Iraq which cooperates in
the war against terrorism. Call this an exit strategy."
Hm... long as Iraq is "stable" and pro-American, we can stick a fork in it
and call it done!
Yeah, that's worked so well. I mean, look at how our support for the Shah
made for a stable, pro-American Iran...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism,
because it is a merger of State and corporate power."
- Mussolini
.
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Here it comes... |
01 May 2004 02:42:01 AM |
|
|
In article <pan.2004.04.30.21.54.41.922535@hoo.com-amikchi>,
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
The *next neo-con strategy (after getting rid of the WMDs that didn't
exist and liberating Iraq and whatever else it is this week) is on it's
way:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51732-2004Apr28.html
"But pursuit of that ideal can impede achievement of something tolerable:
a stable, perhaps illiberal, even authoritarian Iraq which cooperates in
the war against terrorism. Call this an exit strategy."
Hm... long as Iraq is "stable" and pro-American, we can stick a fork in it
and call it done!
Yeah, that's worked so well. I mean, look at how our support for the Shah
made for a stable, pro-American Iran...
According to several articles, contractors are building military bases
for the US that look like that they are meant to last ten years or more
and the fact that the American Embassy in Baghdad will be the largest in
the world, with over 1000 employees, lead me to believe that we will be
there for a long time.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Men become civilized not in their willingness to believe, but in
proportion to their readiness to doubt." - H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Here it comes... |
01 May 2004 05:34:17 PM |
|
|
"johac" <jhachm@ixpresremove.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-CB1AB3.00420101052004@news-60.giganews.com...
In article <pan.2004.04.30.21.54.41.922535@hoo.com-amikchi>,
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
The *next neo-con strategy (after getting rid of the WMDs that didn't
exist and liberating Iraq and whatever else it is this week) is on it's
way:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51732-2004Apr28.html
"But pursuit of that ideal can impede achievement of something
tolerable:
a stable, perhaps illiberal, even authoritarian Iraq which cooperates in
the war against terrorism. Call this an exit strategy."
Hm... long as Iraq is "stable" and pro-American, we can stick a fork in
it
and call it done!
Yeah, that's worked so well. I mean, look at how our support for the
Shah
made for a stable, pro-American Iran...
According to several articles, contractors are building military bases
for the US that look like that they are meant to last ten years or more
and the fact that the American Embassy in Baghdad will be the largest in
the world, with over 1000 employees, lead me to believe that we will be
there for a long time.
What you're not taking into account is the fact that the planning and
construction of those bases and the big embassy were begun last year,
when the USA was still working under its original, insanely optimistic
assumptions on how the occupation would turn out. In particular,
at this stage of the occupation, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were expecting
that we'd need only 30,000 troops to keep order. As it stands now, not
only are they incapable of keeping order with the 130,000 troops that
they currently have over there, they'd likely need a few hundred thousand
more to actually do the job( if one believes the prewar estimates of General
Shinseki), that's far more than the US military is actually even capable of
sending
over there.
Richard
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Here it comes... |
02 May 2004 01:58:41 AM |
|
|
In article <c718vb$og1$1@news.asu.edu>, <richard@nospam.edu> wrote:
"johac" <jhachm@ixpresremove.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-CB1AB3.00420101052004@news-60.giganews.com...
In article <pan.2004.04.30.21.54.41.922535@hoo.com-amikchi>,
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
The *next neo-con strategy (after getting rid of the WMDs that didn't
exist and liberating Iraq and whatever else it is this week) is on it's
way:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51732-2004Apr28.html
"But pursuit of that ideal can impede achievement of something
tolerable:
a stable, perhaps illiberal, even authoritarian Iraq which cooperates in
the war against terrorism. Call this an exit strategy."
Hm... long as Iraq is "stable" and pro-American, we can stick a fork in
it
and call it done!
Yeah, that's worked so well. I mean, look at how our support for the
Shah
made for a stable, pro-American Iran...
According to several articles, contractors are building military bases
for the US that look like that they are meant to last ten years or more
and the fact that the American Embassy in Baghdad will be the largest in
the world, with over 1000 employees, lead me to believe that we will be
there for a long time.
What you're not taking into account is the fact that the planning and
construction of those bases and the big embassy were begun last year,
when the USA was still working under its original, insanely optimistic
assumptions on how the occupation would turn out. In particular,
at this stage of the occupation, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were expecting
that we'd need only 30,000 troops to keep order. As it stands now, not
only are they incapable of keeping order with the 130,000 troops that
they currently have over there, they'd likely need a few hundred thousand
more to actually do the job( if one believes the prewar estimates of General
Shinseki), that's far more than the US military is actually even capable of
sending
over there.
Richard
Bush and his merry band of neocons has made it clear that they want a
permanent American presence in the Middle East. If not Iraq, then where?
Sadly to save face, they would be willing to throw good money good money
after bad, and waste more American lives to maintain their pipe dream. I
can see them sending more troops and although they deny it now, a draft
in the future is not out of the question.
I haven't heard the term 'escalate' used for a while.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Men become civilized not in their willingness to believe, but in
proportion to their readiness to doubt." - H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Here it comes... |
02 May 2004 01:38:52 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 01 May 2004 23:58:41 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com>
wrote:
In article <c718vb$og1$1@news.asu.edu>, <richard@nospam.edu> wrote:
"johac" <jhachm@ixpresremove.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-CB1AB3.00420101052004@news-60.giganews.com...
In article <pan.2004.04.30.21.54.41.922535@hoo.com-amikchi>,
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
The *next neo-con strategy (after getting rid of the WMDs that didn't
exist and liberating Iraq and whatever else it is this week) is on it's
way:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51732-2004Apr28.html
"But pursuit of that ideal can impede achievement of something
tolerable:
a stable, perhaps illiberal, even authoritarian Iraq which cooperates in
the war against terrorism. Call this an exit strategy."
Hm... long as Iraq is "stable" and pro-American, we can stick a fork in
it
and call it done!
Yeah, that's worked so well. I mean, look at how our support for the
Shah
made for a stable, pro-American Iran...
According to several articles, contractors are building military bases
for the US that look like that they are meant to last ten years or more
and the fact that the American Embassy in Baghdad will be the largest in
the world, with over 1000 employees, lead me to believe that we will be
there for a long time.
What you're not taking into account is the fact that the planning and
construction of those bases and the big embassy were begun last year,
when the USA was still working under its original, insanely optimistic
assumptions on how the occupation would turn out. In particular,
at this stage of the occupation, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were expecting
that we'd need only 30,000 troops to keep order. As it stands now, not
only are they incapable of keeping order with the 130,000 troops that
they currently have over there, they'd likely need a few hundred thousand
more to actually do the job( if one believes the prewar estimates of General
Shinseki), that's far more than the US military is actually even capable of
sending
over there.
Richard
Bush and his merry band of neocons has made it clear that they want a
permanent American presence in the Middle East. If not Iraq, then where?
Sadly to save face, they would be willing to throw good money good money
after bad, and waste more American lives to maintain their pipe dream. I
can see them sending more troops and although they deny it now, a draft
in the future is not out of the question.
I haven't heard the term 'escalate' used for a while.
We will soon be talking about "The light at the end of the tunnel".
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Here it comes... |
02 May 2004 06:37:04 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 02 May 2004 20:38:52 +0200 in episode
<l95a909fku1378ar0c2ofq2e54c15ofbb9@4ax.com> we saw our hero Thomas P.
<tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk>:
On Sat, 01 May 2004 23:58:41 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com> wrote:
In article <c718vb$og1$1@news.asu.edu>, <richard@nospam.edu> wrote:
"johac" <jhachm@ixpresremove.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-CB1AB3.00420101052004@news-60.giganews.com...
In article <pan.2004.04.30.21.54.41.922535@hoo.com-amikchi>,
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
The *next neo-con strategy (after getting rid of the WMDs that
didn't exist and liberating Iraq and whatever else it is this week)
is on it's way:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51732-2004Apr28.html
"But pursuit of that ideal can impede achievement of something
tolerable:
a stable, perhaps illiberal, even authoritarian Iraq which
cooperates in the war against terrorism. Call this an exit
strategy."
Hm... long as Iraq is "stable" and pro-American, we can stick a
fork in
it
and call it done!
Yeah, that's worked so well. I mean, look at how our support for
the
Shah
made for a stable, pro-American Iran...
According to several articles, contractors are building military
bases for the US that look like that they are meant to last ten years
or more and the fact that the American Embassy in Baghdad will be the
largest in the world, with over 1000 employees, lead me to believe
that we will be there for a long time.
What you're not taking into account is the fact that the planning and
construction of those bases and the big embassy were begun last year,
when the USA was still working under its original, insanely optimistic
assumptions on how the occupation would turn out. In particular, at
this stage of the occupation, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were expecting
that we'd need only 30,000 troops to keep order. As it stands now, not
only are they incapable of keeping order with the 130,000 troops that
they currently have over there, they'd likely need a few hundred
thousand more to actually do the job( if one believes the prewar
estimates of General Shinseki), that's far more than the US military is
actually even capable of sending
over there.
Richard
Bush and his merry band of neocons has made it clear that they want a
permanent American presence in the Middle East. If not Iraq, then where?
Sadly to save face, they would be willing to throw good money good money
after bad, and waste more American lives to maintain their pipe dream. I
can see them sending more troops and although they deny it now, a draft
in the future is not out of the question.
I haven't heard the term 'escalate' used for a while.
We will soon be talking about "The light at the end of the tunnel".
I'm waiting for us to find out about the secret bombing of, oh, Syria...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism,
because it is a merger of State and corporate power."
- Mussolini
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Here it comes... |
04 May 2004 12:18:29 AM |
|
|
In article <pan.2004.05.02.23.37.02.329185@hoo.com-amikchi>,
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
On Sun, 02 May 2004 20:38:52 +0200 in episode
<l95a909fku1378ar0c2ofq2e54c15ofbb9@4ax.com> we saw our hero Thomas P.
<tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk>:
On Sat, 01 May 2004 23:58:41 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com> wrote:
In article <c718vb$og1$1@news.asu.edu>, <richard@nospam.edu> wrote:
"johac" <jhachm@ixpresremove.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-CB1AB3.00420101052004@news-60.giganews.com...
In article <pan.2004.04.30.21.54.41.922535@hoo.com-amikchi>,
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
The *next neo-con strategy (after getting rid of the WMDs that
didn't exist and liberating Iraq and whatever else it is this week)
is on it's way:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51732-2004Apr28.html
"But pursuit of that ideal can impede achievement of something
tolerable:
a stable, perhaps illiberal, even authoritarian Iraq which
cooperates in the war against terrorism. Call this an exit
strategy."
Hm... long as Iraq is "stable" and pro-American, we can stick a
fork in
it
and call it done!
Yeah, that's worked so well. I mean, look at how our support for
the
Shah
made for a stable, pro-American Iran...
According to several articles, contractors are building military
bases for the US that look like that they are meant to last ten years
or more and the fact that the American Embassy in Baghdad will be the
largest in the world, with over 1000 employees, lead me to believe
that we will be there for a long time.
What you're not taking into account is the fact that the planning and
construction of those bases and the big embassy were begun last year,
when the USA was still working under its original, insanely optimistic
assumptions on how the occupation would turn out. In particular, at
this stage of the occupation, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were expecting
that we'd need only 30,000 troops to keep order. As it stands now, not
only are they incapable of keeping order with the 130,000 troops that
they currently have over there, they'd likely need a few hundred
thousand more to actually do the job( if one believes the prewar
estimates of General Shinseki), that's far more than the US military is
actually even capable of sending
over there.
Richard
Bush and his merry band of neocons has made it clear that they want a
permanent American presence in the Middle East. If not Iraq, then where?
Sadly to save face, they would be willing to throw good money good money
after bad, and waste more American lives to maintain their pipe dream. I
can see them sending more troops and although they deny it now, a draft
in the future is not out of the question.
I haven't heard the term 'escalate' used for a while.
We will soon be talking about "The light at the end of the tunnel".
I'm waiting for us to find out about the secret bombing of, oh, Syria...
I understand that the new American embassy in Baghdad if going to have
an extra large helopad on its roof.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Men become civilized not in their willingness to believe, but in
proportion to their readiness to doubt." - H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Here it comes... |
05 May 2004 08:19:50 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 03 May 2004 22:18:29 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com>,
Message ID: <jhachm-A56664.22182903052004@news-60.giganews.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
In article <pan.2004.05.02.23.37.02.329185@hoo.com-amikchi>,
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
On Sun, 02 May 2004 20:38:52 +0200 in episode
<l95a909fku1378ar0c2ofq2e54c15ofbb9@4ax.com> we saw our hero Thomas P.
<tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk>:
On Sat, 01 May 2004 23:58:41 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com> wrote:
In article <c718vb$og1$1@news.asu.edu>, <richard@nospam.edu> wrote:
"johac" <jhachm@ixpresremove.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-CB1AB3.00420101052004@news-60.giganews.com...
In article <pan.2004.04.30.21.54.41.922535@hoo.com-amikchi>,
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
The *next neo-con strategy (after getting rid of the WMDs that
didn't exist and liberating Iraq and whatever else it is this week)
is on it's way:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51732-2004Apr28.html
"But pursuit of that ideal can impede achievement of something
tolerable:
a stable, perhaps illiberal, even authoritarian Iraq which
cooperates in the war against terrorism. Call this an exit
strategy."
Hm... long as Iraq is "stable" and pro-American, we can stick a
fork in
it
and call it done!
Yeah, that's worked so well. I mean, look at how our support for
the
Shah
made for a stable, pro-American Iran...
According to several articles, contractors are building military
bases for the US that look like that they are meant to last ten years
or more and the fact that the American Embassy in Baghdad will be the
largest in the world, with over 1000 employees, lead me to believe
that we will be there for a long time.
What you're not taking into account is the fact that the planning and
construction of those bases and the big embassy were begun last year,
when the USA was still working under its original, insanely optimistic
assumptions on how the occupation would turn out. In particular, at
this stage of the occupation, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were expecting
that we'd need only 30,000 troops to keep order. As it stands now, not
only are they incapable of keeping order with the 130,000 troops that
they currently have over there, they'd likely need a few hundred
thousand more to actually do the job( if one believes the prewar
estimates of General Shinseki), that's far more than the US military is
actually even capable of sending
over there.
Richard
Bush and his merry band of neocons has made it clear that they want a
permanent American presence in the Middle East. If not Iraq, then where?
Sadly to save face, they would be willing to throw good money good money
after bad, and waste more American lives to maintain their pipe dream. I
can see them sending more troops and although they deny it now, a draft
in the future is not out of the question.
I haven't heard the term 'escalate' used for a while.
We will soon be talking about "The light at the end of the tunnel".
I'm waiting for us to find out about the secret bombing of, oh, Syria...
I understand that the new American embassy in Baghdad if going to have
an extra large helopad on its roof.
Along with roof top hangars for a dozen large choppers and three Spectre
gunships providing constant Combat Air Patrols.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Here it comes... |
06 May 2004 12:12:17 AM |
|
|
In article <3k4j90decra1advel4j48dunb2v7cimfbr@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Mon, 03 May 2004 22:18:29 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com>,
Message ID: <jhachm-A56664.22182903052004@news-60.giganews.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
In article <pan.2004.05.02.23.37.02.329185@hoo.com-amikchi>,
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
On Sun, 02 May 2004 20:38:52 +0200 in episode
<l95a909fku1378ar0c2ofq2e54c15ofbb9@4ax.com> we saw our hero Thomas P.
<tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk>:
On Sat, 01 May 2004 23:58:41 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com>
wrote:
In article <c718vb$og1$1@news.asu.edu>, <richard@nospam.edu> wrote:
"johac" <jhachm@ixpresremove.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-CB1AB3.00420101052004@news-60.giganews.com...
In article <pan.2004.04.30.21.54.41.922535@hoo.com-amikchi>,
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
The *next neo-con strategy (after getting rid of the WMDs that
didn't exist and liberating Iraq and whatever else it is this
week)
is on it's way:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51732-2004Apr28.html
"But pursuit of that ideal can impede achievement of something
tolerable:
a stable, perhaps illiberal, even authoritarian Iraq which
cooperates in the war against terrorism. Call this an exit
strategy."
Hm... long as Iraq is "stable" and pro-American, we can stick a
fork in
it
and call it done!
Yeah, that's worked so well. I mean, look at how our support for
the
Shah
made for a stable, pro-American Iran...
According to several articles, contractors are building military
bases for the US that look like that they are meant to last ten
years
or more and the fact that the American Embassy in Baghdad will be
the
largest in the world, with over 1000 employees, lead me to believe
that we will be there for a long time.
What you're not taking into account is the fact that the planning and
construction of those bases and the big embassy were begun last year,
when the USA was still working under its original, insanely optimistic
assumptions on how the occupation would turn out. In particular, at
this stage of the occupation, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were expecting
that we'd need only 30,000 troops to keep order. As it stands now, not
only are they incapable of keeping order with the 130,000 troops that
they currently have over there, they'd likely need a few hundred
thousand more to actually do the job( if one believes the prewar
estimates of General Shinseki), that's far more than the US military
is
actually even capable of sending
over there.
Richard
Bush and his merry band of neocons has made it clear that they want a
permanent American presence in the Middle East. If not Iraq, then where?
Sadly to save face, they would be willing to throw good money good money
after bad, and waste more American lives to maintain their pipe dream. I
can see them sending more troops and although they deny it now, a draft
in the future is not out of the question.
I haven't heard the term 'escalate' used for a while.
We will soon be talking about "The light at the end of the tunnel".
I'm waiting for us to find out about the secret bombing of, oh, Syria...
I understand that the new American embassy in Baghdad if going to have
an extra large helopad on its roof.
Along with roof top hangars for a dozen large choppers and three Spectre
gunships providing constant Combat Air Patrols.
Surrounded a high wall topped with electrified razor wire behind a wide
deep moat filled with hungry alligators.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Men become civilized not in their willingness to believe, but in
proportion to their readiness to doubt." - H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Here it comes... |
06 May 2004 04:44:22 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 05 May 2004 22:12:17 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com>,
Message ID: <jhachm-BCE26B.22121705052004@news-60.giganews.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
In article <3k4j90decra1advel4j48dunb2v7cimfbr@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Mon, 03 May 2004 22:18:29 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com>,
Message ID: <jhachm-A56664.22182903052004@news-60.giganews.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
In article <pan.2004.05.02.23.37.02.329185@hoo.com-amikchi>,
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
On Sun, 02 May 2004 20:38:52 +0200 in episode
<l95a909fku1378ar0c2ofq2e54c15ofbb9@4ax.com> we saw our hero Thomas P.
<tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk>:
On Sat, 01 May 2004 23:58:41 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com>
wrote:
In article <c718vb$og1$1@news.asu.edu>, <richard@nospam.edu> wrote:
"johac" <jhachm@ixpresremove.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-CB1AB3.00420101052004@news-60.giganews.com...
In article <pan.2004.04.30.21.54.41.922535@hoo.com-amikchi>,
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
The *next neo-con strategy (after getting rid of the WMDs that
didn't exist and liberating Iraq and whatever else it is this
week)
is on it's way:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51732-2004Apr28.html
"But pursuit of that ideal can impede achievement of something
tolerable:
a stable, perhaps illiberal, even authoritarian Iraq which
cooperates in the war against terrorism. Call this an exit
strategy."
Hm... long as Iraq is "stable" and pro-American, we can stick a
fork in
it
and call it done!
Yeah, that's worked so well. I mean, look at how our support for
the
Shah
made for a stable, pro-American Iran...
According to several articles, contractors are building military
bases for the US that look like that they are meant to last ten
years
or more and the fact that the American Embassy in Baghdad will be
the
largest in the world, with over 1000 employees, lead me to believe
that we will be there for a long time.
What you're not taking into account is the fact that the planning and
construction of those bases and the big embassy were begun last year,
when the USA was still working under its original, insanely optimistic
assumptions on how the occupation would turn out. In particular, at
this stage of the occupation, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were expecting
that we'd need only 30,000 troops to keep order. As it stands now, not
only are they incapable of keeping order with the 130,000 troops that
they currently have over there, they'd likely need a few hundred
thousand more to actually do the job( if one believes the prewar
estimates of General Shinseki), that's far more than the US military
is
actually even capable of sending
over there.
Richard
Bush and his merry band of neocons has made it clear that they want a
permanent American presence in the Middle East. If not Iraq, then where?
Sadly to save face, they would be willing to throw good money good money
after bad, and waste more American lives to maintain their pipe dream. I
can see them sending more troops and although they deny it now, a draft
in the future is not out of the question.
I haven't heard the term 'escalate' used for a while.
We will soon be talking about "The light at the end of the tunnel".
I'm waiting for us to find out about the secret bombing of, oh, Syria...
I understand that the new American embassy in Baghdad if going to have
an extra large helopad on its roof.
Along with roof top hangars for a dozen large choppers and three Spectre
gunships providing constant Combat Air Patrols.
Surrounded a high wall topped with electrified razor wire behind a wide
deep moat filled with hungry alligators.
hungry iraqi children? :\
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Here it comes... |
07 May 2004 01:11:17 AM |
|
|
In article <5dcl905t9gbekao8kp9mp168amm62e8k0i@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Wed, 05 May 2004 22:12:17 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com>,
Message ID: <jhachm-BCE26B.22121705052004@news-60.giganews.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
In article <3k4j90decra1advel4j48dunb2v7cimfbr@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Mon, 03 May 2004 22:18:29 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com>,
Message ID: <jhachm-A56664.22182903052004@news-60.giganews.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
In article <pan.2004.05.02.23.37.02.329185@hoo.com-amikchi>,
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
On Sun, 02 May 2004 20:38:52 +0200 in episode
<l95a909fku1378ar0c2ofq2e54c15ofbb9@4ax.com> we saw our hero Thomas P.
<tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk>:
On Sat, 01 May 2004 23:58:41 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com>
wrote:
In article <c718vb$og1$1@news.asu.edu>, <richard@nospam.edu> wrote:
"johac" <jhachm@ixpresremove.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-CB1AB3.00420101052004@news-60.giganews.com...
In article <pan.2004.04.30.21.54.41.922535@hoo.com-amikchi>,
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
The *next neo-con strategy (after getting rid of the WMDs that
didn't exist and liberating Iraq and whatever else it is this
week)
is on it's way:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51732-2004Apr28.h
tml
"But pursuit of that ideal can impede achievement of something
tolerable:
a stable, perhaps illiberal, even authoritarian Iraq which
cooperates in the war against terrorism. Call this an exit
strategy."
Hm... long as Iraq is "stable" and pro-American, we can stick a
fork in
it
and call it done!
Yeah, that's worked so well. I mean, look at how our support
for
the
Shah
made for a stable, pro-American Iran...
According to several articles, contractors are building military
bases for the US that look like that they are meant to last ten
years
or more and the fact that the American Embassy in Baghdad will be
the
largest in the world, with over 1000 employees, lead me to
believe
that we will be there for a long time.
What you're not taking into account is the fact that the planning
and
construction of those bases and the big embassy were begun last
year,
when the USA was still working under its original, insanely
optimistic
assumptions on how the occupation would turn out. In particular, at
this stage of the occupation, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were expecting
that we'd need only 30,000 troops to keep order. As it stands now,
not
only are they incapable of keeping order with the 130,000 troops
that
they currently have over there, they'd likely need a few hundred
thousand more to actually do the job( if one believes the prewar
estimates of General Shinseki), that's far more than the US
military
is
actually even capable of sending
over there.
Richard
Bush and his merry band of neocons has made it clear that they want a
permanent American presence in the Middle East. If not Iraq, then
where?
Sadly to save face, they would be willing to throw good money good
money
after bad, and waste more American lives to maintain their pipe
dream. I
can see them sending more troops and although they deny it now, a
draft
in the future is not out of the question.
I haven't heard the term 'escalate' used for a while.
We will soon be talking about "The light at the end of the tunnel".
I'm waiting for us to find out about the secret bombing of, oh,
Syria...
I understand that the new American embassy in Baghdad if going to have
an extra large helopad on its roof.
Along with roof top hangars for a dozen large choppers and three Spectre
gunships providing constant Combat Air Patrols.
Surrounded a high wall topped with electrified razor wire behind a wide
deep moat filled with hungry alligators.
hungry iraqi children? :\
True, By then things would be so bad that the starving kids would be
desperate enough to eat the 'gators.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Men become civilized not in their willingness to believe, but in
proportion to their readiness to doubt." - H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Here it comes... |
11 May 2004 10:47:13 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 06 May 2004 23:11:17 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com>,
Message ID: <jhachm-56DDFB.23111706052004@news-60.giganews.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
In article <5dcl905t9gbekao8kp9mp168amm62e8k0i@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Wed, 05 May 2004 22:12:17 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com>,
Message ID: <jhachm-BCE26B.22121705052004@news-60.giganews.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
In article <3k4j90decra1advel4j48dunb2v7cimfbr@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Mon, 03 May 2004 22:18:29 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com>,
Message ID: <jhachm-A56664.22182903052004@news-60.giganews.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
In article <pan.2004.05.02.23.37.02.329185@hoo.com-amikchi>,
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
On Sun, 02 May 2004 20:38:52 +0200 in episode
<l95a909fku1378ar0c2ofq2e54c15ofbb9@4ax.com> we saw our hero Thomas P.
<tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk>:
On Sat, 01 May 2004 23:58:41 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com>
wrote:
In article <c718vb$og1$1@news.asu.edu>, <richard@nospam.edu> wrote:
"johac" <jhachm@ixpresremove.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-CB1AB3.00420101052004@news-60.giganews.com...
In article <pan.2004.04.30.21.54.41.922535@hoo.com-amikchi>,
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
The *next neo-con strategy (after getting rid of the WMDs that
didn't exist and liberating Iraq and whatever else it is this
week)
is on it's way:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51732-2004Apr28.h
tml
"But pursuit of that ideal can impede achievement of something
tolerable:
a stable, perhaps illiberal, even authoritarian Iraq which
cooperates in the war against terrorism. Call this an exit
strategy."
Hm... long as Iraq is "stable" and pro-American, we can stick a
fork in
it
and call it done!
Yeah, that's worked so well. I mean, look at how our support
for
the
Shah
made for a stable, pro-American Iran...
According to several articles, contractors are building military
bases for the US that look like that they are meant to last ten
years
or more and the fact that the American Embassy in Baghdad will be
the
largest in the world, with over 1000 employees, lead me to
believe
that we will be there for a long time.
What you're not taking into account is the fact that the planning
and
construction of those bases and the big embassy were begun last
year,
when the USA was still working under its original, insanely
optimistic
assumptions on how the occupation would turn out. In particular, at
this stage of the occupation, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were expecting
that we'd need only 30,000 troops to keep order. As it stands now,
not
only are they incapable of keeping order with the 130,000 troops
that
they currently have over there, they'd likely need a few hundred
thousand more to actually do the job( if one believes the prewar
estimates of General Shinseki), that's far more than the US
military
is
actually even capable of sending
over there.
Richard
Bush and his merry band of neocons has made it clear that they want a
permanent American presence in the Middle East. If not Iraq, then
where?
Sadly to save face, they would be willing to throw good money good
money
after bad, and waste more American lives to maintain their pipe
dream. I
can see them sending more troops and although they deny it now, a
draft
in the future is not out of the question.
I haven't heard the term 'escalate' used for a while.
We will soon be talking about "The light at the end of the tunnel".
I'm waiting for us to find out about the secret bombing of, oh,
Syria...
I understand that the new American embassy in Baghdad if going to have
an extra large helopad on its roof.
Along with roof top hangars for a dozen large choppers and three Spectre
gunships providing constant Combat Air Patrols.
Surrounded a high wall topped with electrified razor wire behind a wide
deep moat filled with hungry alligators.
hungry iraqi children? :\
True, By then things would be so bad that the starving kids would be
desperate enough to eat the 'gators.
Which is acceptable...-madeline albright.
(albright. oxymoron)
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Here it comes... |
05 May 2004 08:20:12 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 02 May 2004 18:37:04 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi>,
Message ID: <pan.2004.05.02.23.37.02.329185@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote in
alt.atheism;
On Sun, 02 May 2004 20:38:52 +0200 in episode
<l95a909fku1378ar0c2ofq2e54c15ofbb9@4ax.com> we saw our hero Thomas P.
<tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk>:
On Sat, 01 May 2004 23:58:41 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com> wrote:
In article <c718vb$og1$1@news.asu.edu>, <richard@nospam.edu> wrote:
"johac" <jhachm@ixpresremove.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-CB1AB3.00420101052004@news-60.giganews.com...
In article <pan.2004.04.30.21.54.41.922535@hoo.com-amikchi>,
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
The *next neo-con strategy (after getting rid of the WMDs that
didn't exist and liberating Iraq and whatever else it is this week)
is on it's way:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51732-2004Apr28.html
"But pursuit of that ideal can impede achievement of something
tolerable:
a stable, perhaps illiberal, even authoritarian Iraq which
cooperates in the war against terrorism. Call this an exit
strategy."
Hm... long as Iraq is "stable" and pro-American, we can stick a
fork in
it
and call it done!
Yeah, that's worked so well. I mean, look at how our support for
the
Shah
made for a stable, pro-American Iran...
According to several articles, contractors are building military
bases for the US that look like that they are meant to last ten years
or more and the fact that the American Embassy in Baghdad will be the
largest in the world, with over 1000 employees, lead me to believe
that we will be there for a long time.
What you're not taking into account is the fact that the planning and
construction of those bases and the big embassy were begun last year,
when the USA was still working under its original, insanely optimistic
assumptions on how the occupation would turn out. In particular, at
this stage of the occupation, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were expecting
that we'd need only 30,000 troops to keep order. As it stands now, not
only are they incapable of keeping order with the 130,000 troops that
they currently have over there, they'd likely need a few hundred
thousand more to actually do the job( if one believes the prewar
estimates of General Shinseki), that's far more than the US military is
actually even capable of sending
over there.
Richard
Bush and his merry band of neocons has made it clear that they want a
permanent American presence in the Middle East. If not Iraq, then where?
Sadly to save face, they would be willing to throw good money good money
after bad, and waste more American lives to maintain their pipe dream. I
can see them sending more troops and although they deny it now, a draft
in the future is not out of the question.
I haven't heard the term 'escalate' used for a while.
We will soon be talking about "The light at the end of the tunnel".
I'm waiting for us to find out about the secret bombing of, oh, Syria...
Shirley, you're not Syrious..........
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Here it comes... |
05 May 2004 08:18:33 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 02 May 2004 20:38:52 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk>, Message ID:
<l95a909fku1378ar0c2ofq2e54c15ofbb9@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
On Sat, 01 May 2004 23:58:41 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com>
wrote:
In article <c718vb$og1$1@news.asu.edu>, <richard@nospam.edu> wrote:
"johac" <jhachm@ixpresremove.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-CB1AB3.00420101052004@news-60.giganews.com...
In article <pan.2004.04.30.21.54.41.922535@hoo.com-amikchi>,
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
The *next neo-con strategy (after getting rid of the WMDs that didn't
exist and liberating Iraq and whatever else it is this week) is on it's
way:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51732-2004Apr28.html
"But pursuit of that ideal can impede achievement of something
tolerable:
a stable, perhaps illiberal, even authoritarian Iraq which cooperates in
the war against terrorism. Call this an exit strategy."
Hm... long as Iraq is "stable" and pro-American, we can stick a fork in
it
and call it done!
Yeah, that's worked so well. I mean, look at how our support for the
Shah
made for a stable, pro-American Iran...
According to several articles, contractors are building military bases
for the US that look like that they are meant to last ten years or more
and the fact that the American Embassy in Baghdad will be the largest in
the world, with over 1000 employees, lead me to believe that we will be
there for a long time.
What you're not taking into account is the fact that the planning and
construction of those bases and the big embassy were begun last year,
when the USA was still working under its original, insanely optimistic
assumptions on how the occupation would turn out. In particular,
at this stage of the occupation, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were expecting
that we'd need only 30,000 troops to keep order. As it stands now, not
only are they incapable of keeping order with the 130,000 troops that
they currently have over there, they'd likely need a few hundred thousand
more to actually do the job( if one believes the prewar estimates of General
Shinseki), that's far more than the US military is actually even capable of
sending
over there.
Richard
Bush and his merry band of neocons has made it clear that they want a
permanent American presence in the Middle East. If not Iraq, then where?
Sadly to save face, they would be willing to throw good money good money
after bad, and waste more American lives to maintain their pipe dream. I
can see them sending more troops and although they deny it now, a draft
in the future is not out of the question.
I haven't heard the term 'escalate' used for a while.
We will soon be talking about "The light at the end of the tunnel".
/caterwauling
"This is the tunnel that never ends....."
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Here it comes... |
05 May 2004 08:17:54 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 01 May 2004 23:58:41 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com>,
Message ID: <jhachm-CC5278.23584101052004@news-60.giganews.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
In article <c718vb$og1$1@news.asu.edu>, <richard@nospam.edu> wrote:
"johac" <jhachm@ixpresremove.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-CB1AB3.00420101052004@news-60.giganews.com...
In article <pan.2004.04.30.21.54.41.922535@hoo.com-amikchi>,
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
The *next neo-con strategy (after getting rid of the WMDs that didn't
exist and liberating Iraq and whatever else it is this week) is on it's
way:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51732-2004Apr28.html
"But pursuit of that ideal can impede achievement of something
tolerable:
a stable, perhaps illiberal, even authoritarian Iraq which cooperates in
the war against terrorism. Call this an exit strategy."
Hm... long as Iraq is "stable" and pro-American, we can stick a fork in
it
and call it done!
Yeah, that's worked so well. I mean, look at how our support for the
Shah
made for a stable, pro-American Iran...
According to several articles, contractors are building military bases
for the US that look like that they are meant to last ten years or more
and the fact that the American Embassy in Baghdad will be the largest in
the world, with over 1000 employees, lead me to believe that we will be
there for a long time.
What you're not taking into account is the fact that the planning and
construction of those bases and the big embassy were begun last year,
when the USA was still working under its original, insanely optimistic
assumptions on how the occupation would turn out. In particular,
at this stage of the occupation, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were expecting
that we'd need only 30,000 troops to keep order. As it stands now, not
only are they incapable of keeping order with the 130,000 troops that
they currently have over there, they'd likely need a few hundred thousand
more to actually do the job( if one believes the prewar estimates of General
Shinseki), that's far more than the US military is actually even capable of
sending
over there.
Richard
Bush and his merry band of neocons has made it clear that they want a
permanent American presence in the Middle East. If not Iraq, then where?
Sadly to save face, they would be willing to throw good money good money
after bad, and waste more American lives to maintain their pipe dream. I
can see them sending more troops and although they deny it now, a draft
in the future is not out of the question.
I haven't heard the term 'escalate' used for a while.
Not until after Herr Shrub is re-appointed....that will be the last
'election.' From there we can look forward to the government throwing a
Old Soviet style party at every polling station to get people to come in
to 'vote' for the approved single 'candidate' for each 'elected'
position.
The 'shingle' will read 'Only rabid christian fundamentalist republicans
need apply.'
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Here it comes... |
01 May 2004 09:51:56 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 01 May 2004 00:42:01 -0700 in episode
<jhachm-CB1AB3.00420101052004@news-60.giganews.com> we saw our hero johac
<jhachm@ixpresremove.com>:
In article <pan.2004.04.30.21.54.41.922535@hoo.com-amikchi>,
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
The *next neo-con strategy (after getting rid of the WMDs that didn't
exist and liberating Iraq and whatever else it is this week) is on it's
way:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51732-2004Apr28.html
"But pursuit of that ideal can impede achievement of something
tolerable: a stable, perhaps illiberal, even authoritarian Iraq which
cooperates in the war against terrorism. Call this an exit strategy."
Hm... long as Iraq is "stable" and pro-American, we can stick a fork in
it and call it done!
Yeah, that's worked so well. I mean, look at how our support for the
Shah made for a stable, pro-American Iran...
According to several articles, contractors are building military bases for
the US that look like that they are meant to last ten years or more and
the fact that the American Embassy in Baghdad will be the largest in the
world, with over 1000 employees, lead me to believe that we will be there
for a long time.
Every time I hear the squawking about "exit plan" on the TV, I can't help
yelling back "simple, we ain't leavin'!"
(PNAC et al were pretty damn clear on that)
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism,
because it is a merger of State and corporate power."
- Mussolini
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Here it comes... |
02 May 2004 02:06:01 AM |
|
|
In article <pan.2004.05.01.14.51.55.944261@hoo.com-amikchi>,
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
On Sat, 01 May 2004 00:42:01 -0700 in episode
<jhachm-CB1AB3.00420101052004@news-60.giganews.com> we saw our hero johac
<jhachm@ixpresremove.com>:
In article <pan.2004.04.30.21.54.41.922535@hoo.com-amikchi>,
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
The *next neo-con strategy (after getting rid of the WMDs that didn't
exist and liberating Iraq and whatever else it is this week) is on it's
way:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51732-2004Apr28.html
"But pursuit of that ideal can impede achievement of something
tolerable: a stable, perhaps illiberal, even authoritarian Iraq which
cooperates in the war against terrorism. Call this an exit strategy."
Hm... long as Iraq is "stable" and pro-American, we can stick a fork in
it and call it done!
Yeah, that's worked so well. I mean, look at how our support for the
Shah made for a stable, pro-American Iran...
According to several articles, contractors are building military bases for
the US that look like that they are meant to last ten years or more and
the fact that the American Embassy in Baghdad will be the largest in the
world, with over 1000 employees, lead me to believe that we will be there
for a long time.
Every time I hear the squawking about "exit plan" on the TV, I can't help
yelling back "simple, we ain't leavin'!"
(PNAC et al were pretty damn clear on that)
Imperial powers don't cut and run. I mean, where would the British,
French, or Russian empires be today?
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Men become civilized not in their willingness to believe, but in
proportion to their readiness to doubt." - H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Here it comes... |
02 May 2004 08:55:44 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 02 May 2004 00:06:01 -0700 in episode
<jhachm-10B2E5.00060102052004@news-60.giganews.com> we saw our hero johac
<jhachm@ixpresremove.com>:
In article <pan.2004.05.01.14.51.55.944261@hoo.com-amikchi>,
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
On Sat, 01 May 2004 00:42:01 -0700 in episode
<jhachm-CB1AB3.00420101052004@news-60.giganews.com> we saw our hero
johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com>:
In article <pan.2004.04.30.21.54.41.922535@hoo.com-amikchi>,
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
The *next neo-con strategy (after getting rid of the WMDs that didn't
exist and liberating Iraq and whatever else it is this week) is on
it's way:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51732-2004Apr28.html
"But pursuit of that ideal can impede achievement of something
tolerable: a stable, perhaps illiberal, even authoritarian Iraq which
cooperates in the war against terrorism. Call this an exit strategy."
Hm... long as Iraq is "stable" and pro-American, we can stick a fork
in it and call it done!
Yeah, that's worked so well. I mean, look at how our support for the
Shah made for a stable, pro-American Iran...
According to several articles, contractors are building military bases
for the US that look like that they are meant to last ten years or
more and the fact that the American Embassy in Baghdad will be the
largest in the world, with over 1000 employees, lead me to believe
that we will be there for a long time.
Every time I hear the squawking about "exit plan" on the TV, I can't
help yelling back "simple, we ain't leavin'!"
(PNAC et al were pretty damn clear on that)
Imperial powers don't cut and run. I mean, where would the British,
French, or Russian empires be today?
With so many examples of successful empire, I'm sure we'll get it right...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism,
because it is a merger of State and corporate power."
- Mussolini
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Here it comes... |
04 May 2004 12:10:52 AM |
|
|
In article <pan.2004.05.02.13.55.43.790413@hoo.com-amikchi>,
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
On Sun, 02 May 2004 00:06:01 -0700 in episode
<jhachm-10B2E5.00060102052004@news-60.giganews.com> we saw our hero johac
<jhachm@ixpresremove.com>:
In article <pan.2004.05.01.14.51.55.944261@hoo.com-amikchi>,
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
On Sat, 01 May 2004 00:42:01 -0700 in episode
<jhachm-CB1AB3.00420101052004@news-60.giganews.com> we saw our hero
johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com>:
In article <pan.2004.04.30.21.54.41.922535@hoo.com-amikchi>,
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
The *next neo-con strategy (after getting rid of the WMDs that didn't
exist and liberating Iraq and whatever else it is this week) is on
it's way:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51732-2004Apr28.html
"But pursuit of that ideal can impede achievement of something
tolerable: a stable, perhaps illiberal, even authoritarian Iraq which
cooperates in the war against terrorism. Call this an exit strategy."
Hm... long as Iraq is "stable" and pro-American, we can stick a fork
in it and call it done!
Yeah, that's worked so well. I mean, look at how our support for the
Shah made for a stable, pro-American Iran...
According to several articles, contractors are building military bases
for the US that look like that they are meant to last ten years or
more and the fact that the American Embassy in Baghdad will be the
largest in the world, with over 1000 employees, lead me to believe
that we will be there for a long time.
Every time I hear the squawking about "exit plan" on the TV, I can't
help yelling back "simple, we ain't leavin'!"
(PNAC et al were pretty damn clear on that)
Imperial powers don't cut and run. I mean, where would the British,
French, or Russian empires be today?
With so many examples of successful empire, I'm sure we'll get it right...
Just like we did in the Philippines.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Men become civilized not in their willingness to believe, but in
proportion to their readiness to doubt." - H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Here it comes... |
04 May 2004 07:27:15 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 03 May 2004 22:10:52 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com>
wrote:
With so many examples of successful empire, I'm sure we'll get it right...
Just like we did in the Philippines.
That reminds me. After the US liberated them from the evil Spanish,
the Pino "bandits" were rather ignorant: the standard issue .38
revolver didn't quite convince them to hold their peace forever.
That is why the Colt Government in .45 was developed.
I wonder what will replace the Barretta... perhaps a minigun?
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Here it comes... |
05 May 2004 12:13:20 AM |
|
|
In article <95qe90dtuutpkhqnpmm1mqqc9ia8canoo5@4ax.com>,
Jos Flachs <'wcruise'@ksc15.th.com> wrote:
On Mon, 03 May 2004 22:10:52 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com>
wrote:
With so many examples of successful empire, I'm sure we'll get it right...
Just like we did in the Philippines.
That reminds me. After the US liberated them from the evil Spanish,
the Pino "bandits" were rather ignorant: the standard issue .38
revolver didn't quite convince them to hold their peace forever.
That is why the Colt Government in .45 was developed.
I wonder what will replace the Barretta... perhaps a minigun?
Poison gas? Nah, we'd never do it. Why if we used WMDs like that, next
thing you know we'd be torturing prisoners.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Men become civilized not in their willingness to believe, but in
proportion to their readiness to doubt." - H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Here it comes... |
06 May 2004 04:13:17 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 04 May 2004 22:13:20 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com>
wrote:
In article <95qe90dtuutpkhqnpmm1mqqc9ia8canoo5@4ax.com>,
Jos Flachs <'wcruise'@ksc15.th.com> wrote:
On Mon, 03 May 2004 22:10:52 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com>
wrote:
With so many examples of successful empire, I'm sure we'll get it right...
Just like we did in the Philippines.
That reminds me. After the US liberated them from the evil Spanish,
the Pino "bandits" were rather ignorant: the standard issue .38
revolver didn't quite convince them to hold their peace forever.
That is why the Colt Government in .45 was developed.
I wonder what will replace the Barretta... perhaps a minigun?
Poison gas? Nah, we'd never do it. Why if we used WMDs like that, next
thing you know we'd be torturing prisoners.
Don't give GW Scumbag ideas! His idol, Benito Mussolini, did use
poisong gas against the natives...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Here it comes... |
06 May 2004 05:54:09 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 06 May 2004 16:13:17 +0700, Jos Flachs
<'wcruise'@ksc15.th.com> wrote:
On Tue, 04 May 2004 22:13:20 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com>
wrote:
In article <95qe90dtuutpkhqnpmm1mqqc9ia8canoo5@4ax.com>,
Jos Flachs <'wcruise'@ksc15.th.com> wrote:
On Mon, 03 May 2004 22:10:52 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com>
wrote:
With so many examples of successful empire, I'm sure we'll get it right...
Just like we did in the Philippines.
That reminds me. After the US liberated them from the evil Spanish,
the Pino "bandits" were rather ignorant: the standard issue .38
revolver didn't quite convince them to hold their peace forever.
That is why the Colt Government in .45 was developed.
I wonder what will replace the Barretta... perhaps a minigun?
Poison gas? Nah, we'd never do it. Why if we used WMDs like that, next
thing you know we'd be torturing prisoners.
Don't give GW Scumbag ideas! His idol, Benito Mussolini, did use
poisong gas against the natives...
So did Winston Churchill. In Iraq among other places.
That didn't win hearts and minds either.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Here it comes... |
06 May 2004 04:43:37 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 06 May 2004 16:13:17 +0700, Jos Flachs <'wcruise'@ksc15.th.com>,
Message ID: <j44j90dgd30g0qh75gid1c2c2alqpemicm@4ax.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
On Tue, 04 May 2004 22:13:20 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com>
wrote:
In article <95qe90dtuutpkhqnpmm1mqqc9ia8canoo5@4ax.com>,
Jos Flachs <'wcruise'@ksc15.th.com> wrote:
On Mon, 03 May 2004 22:10:52 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com>
wrote:
With so many examples of successful empire, I'm sure we'll get it right...
Just like we did in the Philippines.
That reminds me. After the US liberated them from the evil Spanish,
the Pino "bandits" were rather ignorant: the standard issue .38
revolver didn't quite convince them to hold their peace forever.
That is why the Colt Government in .45 was developed.
I wonder what will replace the Barretta... perhaps a minigun?
Poison gas? Nah, we'd never do it. Why if we used WMDs like that, next
thing you know we'd be torturing prisoners.
Don't give GW Scumbag ideas! His idol, Benito Mussolini, did use
poisong gas against the natives...
Where?
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Here it comes... |
07 May 2004 01:20:23 AM |
|
|
In article <lbcl90dlkdlhjj6jqol55jtbe4arqanf1q@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Thu, 06 May 2004 16:13:17 +0700, Jos Flachs <'wcruise'@ksc15.th.com>,
Message ID: <j44j90dgd30g0qh75gid1c2c2alqpemicm@4ax.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
On Tue, 04 May 2004 22:13:20 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com>
wrote:
In article <95qe90dtuutpkhqnpmm1mqqc9ia8canoo5@4ax.com>,
Jos Flachs <'wcruise'@ksc15.th.com> wrote:
On Mon, 03 May 2004 22:10:52 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com>
wrote:
With so many examples of successful empire, I'm sure we'll get it
right...
Just like we did in the Philippines.
That reminds me. After the US liberated them from the evil Spanish,
the Pino "bandits" were rather ignorant: the standard issue .38
revolver didn't quite convince them to hold their peace forever.
That is why the Colt Government in .45 was developed.
I wonder what will replace the Barretta... perhaps a minigun?
Poison gas? Nah, we'd never do it. Why if we used WMDs like that, next
thing you know we'd be torturing prisoners.
Don't give GW Scumbag ideas! His idol, Benito Mussolini, did use
poisong gas against the natives...
Where?
Ethiopia, which Mussolini invaded in 1935. I wonder if Benito thought
that Haile Selassie was hiding WMDs?
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Men become civilized not in their willingness to believe, but in
proportion to their readiness to doubt." - H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Here it comes... |
11 May 2004 10:46:05 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 06 May 2004 23:20:23 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com>,
Message ID: <jhachm-DE56D4.23202306052004@news-60.giganews.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
In article <lbcl90dlkdlhjj6jqol55jtbe4arqanf1q@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Thu, 06 May 2004 16:13:17 +0700, Jos Flachs <'wcruise'@ksc15.th.com>,
Message ID: <j44j90dgd30g0qh75gid1c2c2alqpemicm@4ax.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
On Tue, 04 May 2004 22:13:20 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com>
wrote:
In article <95qe90dtuutpkhqnpmm1mqqc9ia8canoo5@4ax.com>,
Jos Flachs <'wcruise'@ksc15.th.com> wrote:
On Mon, 03 May 2004 22:10:52 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com>
wrote:
With so many examples of successful empire, I'm sure we'll get it
right...
Just like we did in the Philippines.
That reminds me. After the US liberated them from the evil Spanish,
the Pino "bandits" were rather ignorant: the standard issue .38
revolver didn't quite convince them to hold their peace forever.
That is why the Colt Government in .45 was developed.
I wonder what will replace the Barretta... perhaps a minigun?
Poison gas? Nah, we'd never do it. Why if we used WMDs like that, next
thing you know we'd be torturing prisoners.
Don't give GW Scumbag ideas! His idol, Benito Mussolini, did use
poisong gas against the natives...
Where?
Ethiopia, which Mussolini invaded in 1935. I wonder if Benito thought
that Haile Selassie was hiding WMDs?
Thank you.
WMD....weapons of mass delusion.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Here it comes... |
01 May 2004 06:49:29 AM |
|
|
johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com> wrote in
news:jhachm-CB1AB3.00420101052004@news-60.giganews.com:
In article <pan.2004.04.30.21.54.41.922535@hoo.com-amikchi>,
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
The *next neo-con strategy (after getting rid of the WMDs that didn't
exist and liberating Iraq and whatever else it is this week) is on
it's way:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51732-2004Apr28.html
"But pursuit of that ideal can impede achievement of something
tolerable: a stable, perhaps illiberal, even authoritarian Iraq which
cooperates in the war against terrorism. Call this an exit strategy."
Hm... long as Iraq is "stable" and pro-American, we can stick a fork
in it and call it done!
Yeah, that's worked so well. I mean, look at how our support for the
Shah made for a stable, pro-American Iran...
According to several articles, contractors are building military bases
for the US that look like that they are meant to last ten years or
more and the fact that the American Embassy in Baghdad will be the
largest in the world, with over 1000 employees, lead me to believe
that we will be there for a long time.
No, really? I mean, who'da thunkit?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Here it comes... |
02 May 2004 02:19:27 AM |
|
|
In article <Xns94DC4F9A580D4fstone69@207.69.154.203>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com> wrote in
news:jhachm-CB1AB3.00420101052004@news-60.giganews.com:
In article <pan.2004.04.30.21.54.41.922535@hoo.com-amikchi>,
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
The *next neo-con strategy (after getting rid of the WMDs that didn't
exist and liberating Iraq and whatever else it is this week) is on
it's way:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51732-2004Apr28.html
"But pursuit of that ideal can impede achievement of something
tolerable: a stable, perhaps illiberal, even authoritarian Iraq which
cooperates in the war against terrorism. Call this an exit strategy."
Hm... long as Iraq is "stable" and pro-American, we can stick a fork
in it and call it done!
Yeah, that's worked so well. I mean, look at how our support for the
Shah made for a stable, pro-American Iran...
According to several articles, contractors are building military bases
for the US that look like that they are meant to last ten years or
more and the fact that the American Embassy in Baghdad will be the
largest in the world, with over 1000 employees, lead me to believe
that we will be there for a long time.
No, really? I mean, who'da thunkit?
We were told that the cheering Iraqis were going to greet us with
flowers and sweets, and everything was going to be cool by June 30th of
this year when the Iraqis get their sovereignty ( under our guidance and
watchful eye, of course.)
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Men become civilized not in their willingness to believe, but in
proportion to their readiness to doubt." - H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Here it comes... |
02 May 2004 08:51:55 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 02 May 2004 00:19:27 -0700 in episode
<jhachm-17E71C.00192702052004@news-60.giganews.com> we saw our hero johac
<jhachm@ixpresremove.com>:
In article <Xns94DC4F9A580D4fstone69@207.69.154.203>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com> wrote in
news:jhachm-CB1AB3.00420101052004@news-60.giganews.com:
In article <pan.2004.04.30.21.54.41.922535@hoo.com-amikchi>,
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
The *next neo-con strategy (after getting rid of the WMDs that didn't
exist and liberating Iraq and whatever else it is this week) is on
it's way:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51732-2004Apr28.html
"But pursuit of that ideal can impede achievement of something
tolerable: a stable, perhaps illiberal, even authoritarian Iraq which
cooperates in the war against terrorism. Call this an exit strategy."
Hm... long as Iraq is "stable" and pro-American, we can stick a fork
in it and call it done!
Yeah, that's worked so well. I mean, look at how our support for the
Shah made for a stable, pro-American Iran...
According to several articles, contractors are building military bases
for the US that look like that they are meant to last ten years or
more and the fact that the American Embassy in Baghdad will be the
largest in the world, with over 1000 employees, lead me to believe
that we will be there for a long time.
No, really? I mean, who'da thunkit?
We were told that the cheering Iraqis were going to greet us with flowers
and sweets, and everything was going to be cool by June 30th of this year
when the Iraqis get their sovereignty ( under our guidance and watchful
eye, of course.)
It's a funny kind of sovereignty where we control everything.
(Okay, we let them pick a flag)
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism,
because it is a merger of State and corporate power."
- Mussolini
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Here it comes... |
04 May 2004 12:07:32 AM |
|
|
In article <pan.2004.05.02.13.51.55.16250@hoo.com-amikchi>,
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
On Sun, 02 May 2004 00:19:27 -0700 in episode
<jhachm-17E71C.00192702052004@news-60.giganews.com> we saw our hero johac
<jhachm@ixpresremove.com>:
In article <Xns94DC4F9A580D4fstone69@207.69.154.203>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm@ixpresremove.com> wrote in
news:jhachm-CB1AB3.00420101052004@news-60.giganews.com:
In article <pan.2004.04.30.21.54.41.922535@hoo.com-amikchi>,
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
The *next n | | | | | |
