OT: Rummy admits that U.S. troops could be in Iraq more than a decade...

Religions > Atheism > OT: Rummy admits that U.S. troops could be in Iraq more than a decade...

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 7 of 8

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Andres64"
Date:	26 Jun 2005 03:31:20 PM
Object:	OT: Rummy admits that U.S. troops could be in Iraq more than a decade...

Rumsfeld: Insurgency Could Last for Years By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated
Press Writer
19 minutes ago
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Sunday he is bracing for even
more violence in Iraq and acknowledged that the insurgency "could go on
for any number of years."
Defeating the insurgency may take as long as 12 years, he said, with
Iraqi security forces, not U.S. and foreign troops, taking the lead and
finishing the job.
The assessment comes on the heels of the latest Associated Press-Ipsos
poll showing public doubts about the war reaching a high point - with
more than half saying that invading Iraq was a mistake.
The top U.S. commander in the Middle East appealed for public support
of the soldiers and their mission. "We don't need to fight this war
looking over our shoulder worrying about the support back home," Gen.
John Abizaid told CNN's "Late Edition."
In a deadly week for U.S. forces, an ambush on a convoy carrying female
troops killed four Marines, including at least one woman. At least
1,735 members of the U.S. military have died since the war started in
March 2003, according to an AP count.
On Sunday, bombings in Mosul and elsewhere in Iraq killed at least 38
people.
Rumsfeld, making the rounds of the Sunday talk shows, said insurgents
want to disrupt the democratic transformation as Iraqi leaders draft a
constitution and plan for elections in December to choose a full-term
government.
"I would anticipate you're going to see an escalation of violence
between now and the December elections," the Pentagon chief told NBC's
"Meet the Press." And after then, it will take a long time to drive out
insurgents.
"Insurgencies tend to go on five, six, eight, 10, 12 years," Rumsfeld
said on "Fox News Sunday."
"Coalition forces, foreign forces are not going to repress that
insurgency. We're going to create an environment that the Iraqi people
and the Iraqi security forces can win against that insurgency," he
said.
A British newspaper reported Sunday that American officials recently
met secretly with Iraqi insurgent commanders north of Baghdad to try to
negotiate an end to the bloodshed.
Speaking generally, Rumsfeld said those kind of meetings "go on all the
time" and that Iraqis "will decide what their relationships with
various elements of insurgents will be. We facilitate those from time
to time."
Abizaid said U.S. and Iraqi officials "are looking for the right people
in the Sunni community to talk to ... and clearly we know that the vast
majority of the insurgents are from the Sunni Arab community. It makes
sense to talk to them."
Echoing Rumsfeld, Abizaid made clear that "we're not going to
compromise" with Iraq's most-wanted terrorist, Jordanian-born Abu Musab
al-Zarqawi.
The contacts, the Pentagon leaders said, were intended to make it
easier for the Shiite-led government to reach out to minority Sunnis.
The strength of the violent opposition to the U.S.-led coalition since
the invasion in March 2003 has raised questions about whether the Bush
administration understood that such a sustained reaction was possible.
Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich., stressed that he
and other critics of Bush's Iraq policy are determined to show their
support for American soldiers in Iraq. At the same time, "we're also
determined to be constructive critics of the policies which not only
sent them there, as unequipped, and without international support, and
without plans for the aftermath," he said.
Before the war, Vice President ***** Cheney predicted that Iraqis freed
from Saddam Hussein's rule would greet American troops as liberators.
Rumsfeld said Sunday he gave President Bush a list of about 15 things
"that could go terribly, terribly wrong before the war started."
He said they included Iraq's oil wells being set on fire; mass refugees
and relocations; blown-up bridges; and a moat of oil around Baghdad,
the capital.
"So a great many of the bad things that could have happened did not
happen," Rumsfeld said.
Asked if his list included the possibility of such a strong insurgency,
Rumsfeld said: "I don't remember whether that was on there, but
certainly it was discussed."
Rumsfeld said Iraq's security forces have gained respect among Iraqis.
He suggested insurgents' ability to kill in large numbers did not
indicate a decline in public support for efforts by the U.S. and Iraqi
governments, or that political, economic and security progress has been
lacking.
"It doesn't take a genius to go blow up a restaurant or attack a police
station, a suicide bomber. You can kill - a kid with a suicide vest
can kill a lot of people," Rumsfeld said.
"Does that mean that the population is 'going south' and there's no
plan and no progress? No, it doesn't mean that at all," he said.
Rumsfeld defended Cheney's recent statement that the insurgents are in
their "last throes," saying there are many ways to measure their
strength.
"If you look up 'last throes,' it can mean a violent last throe,"
Rumsfeld said on ABC's "This Week." Violence may escalate, he said,
because insurgents "have so much to lose between now and December." he
said.
With some lawmakers urging the president to set a timetable for
bringing U.S. troops home, Abizaid said Americans "need to be patient."
In both Afghanistan and Iraq, Abizaid said, each country's security
forces will take on more of the burden as they become more capable. He
predicted that Iraqi security forces would take the lead in fighting
insurgents by next spring or summer.
"That doesn't mean that I'm saying we'll come home by then," Abizaid
told CBS' "Face the Nation."
"We'll have to judge how they're doing, how the political process is,
how the situation is abroad," he added.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050626/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq&printer=1;_ylt=AqTPSlCsaRzPhf60FLPi6zYUewgF;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: OT: Rummy admits that U.S. troops could be in Iraq more thana decade...	07 Jul 2005 08:07:41 AM

Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in
news:30vpc11o0ocne6h12r57cmiog8dllk3rog@4ax.com:

On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 18:51:59 -0500, "LoneStar"
<ewyatt_del_me@excite.com> wrote:

That's right, if terrorists kill 3000 Americans (aka, 9-11) in an
unprovoked attack,

I wonder.

What, in your world, constitutes "provocation"?

Blowing up an embassy or two, attacking a warship, attempting to
assassinate a president...

and we don't fight back, then they they can continue to do so,
according to your perverted view of the world.

But those America harms, must not fight back, because "it is for their
own good"; Is that right?

Let them fight.

America has spent half a century, interfering in other country's
internal affairs, and killed tens, probably hundreds, of thousands.

I wouldn't call that, "unprovoked"

You forgot to mention that many of those countries were interfering in
*other* countries internal affairs, under the direction of the USSR.
When the Cold War ended, the US took action to remove the worst of the
dictators that we had previously supported.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Metaphysics is almost always an attempt to prove
the incredible by an appeal to the unintelligible."
[H.L. Mencken, "Prejudices"]
.

User: "Bill Bonde by a commodius vicus of"
Title: Re: OT: Rummy admits that U.S. troops could be in Iraq more thanadecade...	05 Jul 2005 03:20:08 PM

Gary DeWaay wrote:

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')'s at
prepend@postpend.net.ru wisdom:

More like no limit to our sophisticated analysis. There is no doubt that
Indians committed terrorist acts against American settlers. I'm
surprised you find this news.

That's pretty much like saying "There is no doubt that many rape victims
wore provacative clothing thus got what they deserved."

I'm not at all sure what you think you are saying. No matter what a
woman wears, it is no excuse for rape.

So if the Indians didn't commit any terrorist acts, and simply submitted
to our plundering and slaughter, you would feel sympathy for them?

I have sympathy for them. Terrorist acts were also committed by whites
against the Indians.
--
"What do you value in your bulldogs? Gripping, is it not? It's their
nature? It's why you breed them? It's so with men. I will not give in
because I oppose it. Not my pride, not my spleen, nor any other of my
appetites, but *I* do. Is there in the midst of all this muscle no
single sinew that serves no appetite of Norfolk's but is just Norfolk?
Give that some exercise. Because, as you stand, you'll go before your
Maker ill-conditioned. He'll think that somewhere along your pedigree, a
***** got over the wall."
-+Paul Scofield, "A Man For All Seasons"
.

User: "Mark K. Bilbo"
Title: Re: OT: Rummy admits that U.S. troops could be in Iraq more thana decade...	05 Jul 2005 07:23:28 AM

In our last episode
<1120514395.e42ed7714f95dd09c0f08b229ee4fb05@teranews>, Bill Bonde ('by a
commodius vicus of recirculation') pirouetted gracefully and with great
fanfare proclaimed:

Gary DeWaay wrote:

Fred Stone's at

wisdom:

I would think we would be considered the terrorists here.

The Indians used plenty of terror tactics.

While we were stealing their land and slaughtering them by the tens of
thousands. I see how your mind works now.

What difference does it make if they were losing "their" land? Terrorism
is terrorism. Attacking women and children is wrong.

Terrorism is the use of violence in a non-military situation to try to
influence the policies of a government. Self-defense is *not terrorism no
matter how horrific it may be. The right to self-defense is absolute.
If a foreign power landed on our shores and started killing US citizens
and taking US lands and you were not willing to do whatever was necessary
to repel them, even being an out and out brutal *****, then you, sir,
are a TRAITOR.
Funny how quick so called "conservatives" are to abandon principles such
as the right of self-defense when the profit is to them...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.

User: "Mark K. Bilbo"
Title: Re: OT: Rummy admits that U.S. troops could be in Iraq more thana decade...	05 Jul 2005 07:25:55 AM

In our last episode <MPG.1d3355b269f2c9a98a3a1@news.midco.net>, Gary
DeWaay pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:

Fred Stone's at

wisdom:

US vs. native americans.

I would think we would be considered the terrorists here.

Watch how fast these "conservatives" abandon their principles when you
bring up the American genocide. Suddenly self-defense will become "wrong."
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.

User: "Bill Bonde by a commodius vicus of"
Title: Re: OT: Rummy admits that U.S. troops could be in Iraq more thanadecade...	04 Jul 2005 12:28:07 PM

Gary DeWaay wrote:

Fred Stone's at

wisdom:

Gary DeWaay <dewaay2spikeNOT@sio.midco.net> wrote in
news:MPG.1d3309d4d04906c698a39e@news.midco.net:

Fred Stone's at

wisdom:

Do you think the terrorists will leave us alone if we pull out?

Why would it be more likely if we didn't?

Because we can kill them.

Killing terrorists will make them leave us alone?

Duh. I have never heard of a dead terrorist attacking anybody.

No. But their friends and family almost certainly will. Like duh.

Do you have any evidence for a we're Gregory Peck in "The Gunfighter"
syndrome?

Even if we kill bin Ladin, you don't think there is a network already set
up to replace him?

I think that's the point. Pretending like this is about one man, bin
Laden, and ignoring where the terrorism comes from, the Middle East, is
own-goaling for al Qaeda.

*****. We already demonstrated the mightiness of our new toys in Gulf
War I. What we demonstrated now is how our military CAN be defeated. We
fell into a trap in Iraq. A trap that Bush has no intentions of getting
out of, according to his speeches today.

If our toys can't really win a war, then what's the point? Al Qaeda
believes that the US cannot stick to anything where there are
casualties. Are they correct?

They cannot figure out that we can defeat any other countries military
(you know, the tanks and planes and troops that fight "fair" like in
all the gung-ho military movies you watch and form your world outlook
with) but we can never defeat an enemy that is indistinquishable from
common citizens.

That "never" flies in the face of history.

Oh really? Which military power has won a war against terrorist
activities historically? Are you going to use Isreal as an example or
something?

This should be good.

How do you define a 'win' against terrorists? The British destroyed the
Thugs in India.
--
"He's asking if you killed Freddie Miles and then killed Dickie
Greenleaf."
"No, I did not kill Freddie Miles and then kill Dickie Greenleaf."
-+Thomas Ripley using Bill Clinton logic, "The Talented Mr Ripley"
.

User: "Gary DeWaay"
Title: Re: OT: Rummy admits that U.S. troops could be in Iraq more thana decade...	04 Jul 2005 03:07:37 PM

[This followup was posted to alt.radio.talk.dr-laura and a copy was sent
to the cited author.]
Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')'s at
prepend@postpend.net.ru wisdom:

Gary DeWaay wrote:

Fred Stone's at

wisdom:

Gary DeWaay <dewaay2spikeNOT@sio.midco.net> wrote in
news:MPG.1d3309d4d04906c698a39e@news.midco.net:

Fred Stone's at

wisdom:

Do you think the terrorists will leave us alone if we pull out?

Why would it be more likely if we didn't?

Because we can kill them.

Killing terrorists will make them leave us alone?

Duh. I have never heard of a dead terrorist attacking anybody.

No. But their friends and family almost certainly will. Like duh.

Do you have any evidence for a we're Gregory Peck in "The Gunfighter"
syndrome?

Even if we kill bin Ladin, you don't think there is a network already set
up to replace him?

I think that's the point. Pretending like this is about one man, bin
Laden, and ignoring where the terrorism comes from, the Middle East, is
own-goaling for al Qaeda.

My point is exactly the opposite Bill (gee imagine that?) Terrorists are
like the Borg, they cannot be defeated by killing one of them at a time
(for every one you kill, there will be three more wanting revenge in his
name) and it is nearly impossible to kill them all unless we want to
simply nuke the entire Middle East.

If our toys can't really win a war, then what's the point?

Exactly!
Al Qaeda

believes that the US cannot stick to anything where there are
casualties. Are they correct?

Al Qaeda knows we fell into their trap. They have the upper hand.
If you stepped into a trap, would you cut your foot off to save your life,
or would you pretend the trap doesn't exist and beat your chest and shake
your fist until you die?

That "never" flies in the face of history.

Oh really? Which military power has won a war against terrorist
activities historically? Are you going to use Isreal as an example or
something?

This should be good.

How do you define a 'win' against terrorists? The British destroyed the
Thugs in India.

Didn't Ghandi get the British thugs thrown out? How did he do that again?
I forget.
--
Gary
"Raising fuel efficiency standards by 7.6 mpg would save enough to
eliminate 100% of our gulf oil imports into this country."
.

User: "Katt"
Title: Re: OT: Rummy admits that U.S. troops could be in Iraq more thana decade...	04 Jul 2005 04:10:06 PM

"Gary DeWaay" <dewaay2spikeNOT@sio.midco.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d3353056b31042498a3a0@news.midco.net...

[This followup was posted to alt.radio.talk.dr-laura and a copy was sent
to the cited author.]

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')'s at
prepend@postpend.net.ru wisdom:

How do you define a 'win' against terrorists? The British destroyed the
Thugs in India.

Didn't Ghandi get the British thugs thrown out? How did he do that again?
I forget.

You know, I really can't believe that you think this damaged cretin worth
'debating' with: anyone who tries to pretend, as this Bonde now does, that
the Indian 'Thuggee' were analogous to modern 'terrorists' is someone with
*a really fucking serious problem* that *you won't be able to help with*.
For the record (and anyone who's interested in the real world...) the
Thuggee were an hereditary cult; they specialised in murder accompanied by
robbery; they preferred to do their violent work without anyone observing
it; they were utterly without a justifying political grievance; they had no
supporting base within the wider population; and they were apt to invest
their murderous activities with a pronouncedly religious significance. All
in all, then, they seem to resemble the robber barons and military agents of
*US neo-conservatism* rather more than they resemble today's pseudo-Islamist
and anti-Coalition 'terrorists'...
Katt.
.

User: "Bill Bonde by a commodius vicus of"
Title: Re: OT: Rummy admits that U.S. troops could be in Iraq more thanadecade...	04 Jul 2005 04:00:19 PM

Gary DeWaay wrote:

[This followup was posted to alt.radio.talk.dr-laura and a copy was sent
to the cited author.]

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')'s at
prepend@postpend.net.ru wisdom:

Gary DeWaay wrote:

Fred Stone's at

wisdom:

Gary DeWaay <dewaay2spikeNOT@sio.midco.net> wrote in
news:MPG.1d3309d4d04906c698a39e@news.midco.net:

Fred Stone's at

wisdom:

Do you think the terrorists will leave us alone if we pull out?

Why would it be more likely if we didn't?

Because we can kill them.

Killing terrorists will make them leave us alone?

Duh. I have never heard of a dead terrorist attacking anybody.

No. But their friends and family almost certainly will. Like duh.

Do you have any evidence for a we're Gregory Peck in "The Gunfighter"
syndrome?

Even if we kill bin Ladin, you don't think there is a network already set
up to replace him?

I think that's the point. Pretending like this is about one man, bin
Laden, and ignoring where the terrorism comes from, the Middle East, is
own-goaling for al Qaeda.

This hasn't been the case in the past. The Nazis and the Japs gave up
after their wars. Sure there are still people who hate over there but
that doesn't mean it matters much or even at all in the big picture.
We have to co-opt the situation by selling the idea that Arabs can
define their own destinies, that things are not hopeless, that the
despots don't have to run the show, waste all the oil revenues on war
and suppression.

If our toys can't really win a war, then what's the point?

Exactly!

My point is that then there is no point in even having our military.

Al Qaeda

believes that the US cannot stick to anything where there are
casualties. Are they correct?

Al Qaeda knows we fell into their trap. They have the upper hand.

If you stepped into a trap, would you cut your foot off to save your life,
or would you pretend the trap doesn't exist and beat your chest and shake
your fist until you die?

I think that if we run away from Iraq, that will be our failing. Yes
this is tough, but exactly tough is what they said America couldn't do.
Were they right? If so, we might as well start memorizing the Quran.

That "never" flies in the face of history.

Oh really? Which military power has won a war against terrorist
activities historically? Are you going to use Isreal as an example or
something?

This should be good.

How do you define a 'win' against terrorists? The British destroyed the
Thugs in India.

Didn't Ghandi get the British thugs thrown out? How did he do that again?
I forget.

The Thugs, Gary. If you don't want to deal with the actual example and
instead want to insult the British or change the subject, I can't stop
you.
--
"He's asking if you killed Freddie Miles and then killed Dickie
Greenleaf."
"No, I did not kill Freddie Miles and then kill Dickie Greenleaf."
-+Thomas Ripley using Bill Clinton logic, "The Talented Mr Ripley"
.

User: "Gary DeWaay"
Title: Re: OT: Rummy admits that U.S. troops could be in Iraq more thana decade...	04 Jul 2005 04:06:16 PM

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')'s at
prepend@postpend.net.ru wisdom:

Gary DeWaay wrote:

[This followup was posted to alt.radio.talk.dr-laura and a copy was sent
to the cited author.]

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')'s at
prepend@postpend.net.ru wisdom:

Gary DeWaay wrote:

Fred Stone's at

wisdom:

Gary DeWaay <dewaay2spikeNOT@sio.midco.net> wrote in
news:MPG.1d3309d4d04906c698a39e@news.midco.net:

Fred Stone's at

wisdom:

Do you think the terrorists will leave us alone if we pull out?

Why would it be more likely if we didn't?

Because we can kill them.

Killing terrorists will make them leave us alone?

Duh. I have never heard of a dead terrorist attacking anybody.

No. But their friends and family almost certainly will. Like duh.

Do you have any evidence for a we're Gregory Peck in "The Gunfighter"
syndrome?

Even if we kill bin Ladin, you don't think there is a network already set
up to replace him?

I think that's the point. Pretending like this is about one man, bin
Laden, and ignoring where the terrorism comes from, the Middle East, is
own-goaling for al Qaeda.

This hasn't been the case in the past. The Nazis and the Japs gave up
after their wars.

These were regular armies we defeated. You are missing the point. I am
bored.
Sure there are still people who hate over there but

that doesn't mean it matters much or even at all in the big picture.

We have to co-opt the situation by selling the idea that Arabs can
define their own destinies, that things are not hopeless, that the
despots don't have to run the show, waste all the oil revenues on war
and suppression.

....And we'll kill every last one of them until they get this idea.

If our toys can't really win a war, then what's the point?

Exactly!

My point is that then there is no point in even having our military.

Being a super power means understanding the burden of restraint. Bush and
his neocon supporters like yourself are not smart or mature enough to
understand this.

Al Qaeda

believes that the US cannot stick to anything where there are
casualties. Are they correct?

Al Qaeda knows we fell into their trap. They have the upper hand.

If you stepped into a trap, would you cut your foot off to save your life,
or would you pretend the trap doesn't exist and beat your chest and shake
your fist until you die?

Bumper-sticker Bill strikes again!

That "never" flies in the face of history.

Oh really? Which military power has won a war against terrorist
activities historically? Are you going to use Isreal as an example or
something?

This should be good.

How do you define a 'win' against terrorists? The British destroyed the
Thugs in India.

Didn't Ghandi get the British thugs thrown out? How did he do that again?
I forget.

The Thugs, Gary. If you don't want to deal with the actual example and
instead want to insult the British or change the subject, I can't stop
you.

You gave me an example of a government replacing some thugs with their own
thugs... is that what you want in Iraq?
--
Gary
"Raising fuel efficiency standards by 7.6 mpg would save enough to
eliminate 100% of our gulf oil imports into this country."
.

User: "Bill Bonde by a commodius vicus of"
Title: Re: OT: Rummy admits that U.S. troops could be in Iraq more thanadecade...	04 Jul 2005 05:09:49 PM

Gary DeWaay wrote:

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')'s at
prepend@postpend.net.ru wisdom:

Gary DeWaay wrote:

[This followup was posted to alt.radio.talk.dr-laura and a copy was sent
to the cited author.]

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')'s at
prepend@postpend.net.ru wisdom:

Gary DeWaay wrote:

Fred Stone's at

wisdom:

Gary DeWaay <dewaay2spikeNOT@sio.midco.net> wrote in
news:MPG.1d3309d4d04906c698a39e@news.midco.net:

Fred Stone's at

wisdom:

Do you think the terrorists will leave us alone if we pull out?

Why would it be more likely if we didn't?

Because we can kill them.

Killing terrorists will make them leave us alone?

Duh. I have never heard of a dead terrorist attacking anybody.

No. But their friends and family almost certainly will. Like duh.

Do you have any evidence for a we're Gregory Peck in "The Gunfighter"
syndrome?

Even if we kill bin Ladin, you don't think there is a network already set
up to replace him?

I think that's the point. Pretending like this is about one man, bin
Laden, and ignoring where the terrorism comes from, the Middle East, is
own-goaling for al Qaeda.

This hasn't been the case in the past. The Nazis and the Japs gave up
after their wars.

These were regular armies we defeated. You are missing the point. I am
bored.

I can't help you being bored but after the regular armies were defeated,
like after Saddam's regular armies were defeated, the Japs and the
Germans could've continued the fight.

Sure there are still people who hate over there but

...And we'll kill every last one of them until they get this idea.

You are just absurd. Almost all of the Iraqis are fighting to build a
new democracy in Iraq, on the same side as the Americans.

If our toys can't really win a war, then what's the point?

Exactly!

My point is that then there is no point in even having our military.

Being a super power means understanding the burden of restraint. Bush and
his neocon supporters like yourself are not smart or mature enough to
understand this.

I don't know what "neocon" means. In any case, we've figured out that
not using force is what got us into 9/11 and this time the problems over
there will be dealt with.

Al Qaeda

believes that the US cannot stick to anything where there are
casualties. Are they correct?

Al Qaeda knows we fell into their trap. They have the upper hand.

If you stepped into a trap, would you cut your foot off to save your life,
or would you pretend the trap doesn't exist and beat your chest and shake
your fist until you die?

Bumper-sticker Bill strikes again!

What are you trying to say, that you cannot refute what I said and wish
you could give up and put it on a bumper sticker?

That "never" flies in the face of history.

Oh really? Which military power has won a war against terrorist
activities historically? Are you going to use Isreal as an example or
something?

This should be good.

How do you define a 'win' against terrorists? The British destroyed the
Thugs in India.

Didn't Ghandi get the British thugs thrown out? How did he do that again?
I forget.

The Thugs, Gary. If you don't want to deal with the actual example and
instead want to insult the British or change the subject, I can't stop
you.

You gave me an example of a government replacing some thugs with their own
thugs... is that what you want in Iraq?

Gary, the Thugs, capitalized, the terrorist group that had been
terrorizing northern India for *centuries*. Certainly you've heard of
them. I think you are just trying to deflect the subject to whatever bad
things you can pin on the Brits because you know I'm right again.
--
"He's asking if you killed Freddie Miles and then killed Dickie
Greenleaf."
"No, I did not kill Freddie Miles and then kill Dickie Greenleaf."
-+Thomas Ripley using Bill Clinton logic, "The Talented Mr Ripley"
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: OT: Rummy admits that U.S. troops could be in Iraq more thana decade...	04 Jul 2005 05:34:37 PM

"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')"
<prepend@postpend.net.ru> wrote in
news:1120514713.62d51388932285a8ced976f44e76cf29@teranews:

Gary DeWaay wrote:

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')'s at
prepend@postpend.net.ru wisdom:

Gary DeWaay wrote:

[This followup was posted to alt.radio.talk.dr-laura and a copy
was sent to the cited author.]

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')'s at
prepend@postpend.net.ru wisdom:

Gary DeWaay wrote:

Fred Stone's at

wisdom:

Gary DeWaay <dewaay2spikeNOT@sio.midco.net> wrote in
news:MPG.1d3309d4d04906c698a39e@news.midco.net:

Fred Stone's at

wisdom:

Do you think the terrorists will leave us alone if we
pull out?

Why would it be more likely if we didn't?

Because we can kill them.

Killing terrorists will make them leave us alone?

Duh. I have never heard of a dead terrorist attacking
anybody.

No. But their friends and family almost certainly will.
Like duh.

Do you have any evidence for a we're Gregory Peck in "The
Gunfighter" syndrome?

Even if we kill bin Ladin, you don't think there is a network
already set up to replace him?

I think that's the point. Pretending like this is about one
man, bin Laden, and ignoring where the terrorism comes from,
the Middle East, is own-goaling for al Qaeda.

My point is exactly the opposite Bill (gee imagine that?)
Terrorists are like the Borg, they cannot be defeated by killing
one of them at a time (for every one you kill, there will be
three more wanting revenge in his name) and it is nearly
impossible to kill them all unless we want to simply nuke the
entire Middle East.

This hasn't been the case in the past. The Nazis and the Japs gave
up after their wars.

These were regular armies we defeated. You are missing the point. I
am bored.

I can't help you being bored but after the regular armies were
defeated, like after Saddam's regular armies were defeated, the Japs
and the Germans could've continued the fight.

In fact some Germans did continue to fight.

Sure there are still people who hate over there but

that doesn't mean it matters much or even at all in the big
picture.

We have to co-opt the situation by selling the idea that Arabs can
define their own destinies, that things are not hopeless, that the
despots don't have to run the show, waste all the oil revenues on
war and suppression.

...And we'll kill every last one of them until they get this idea.

You are just absurd. Almost all of the Iraqis are fighting to build a
new democracy in Iraq, on the same side as the Americans.

He's too deeply in denial to allow that fact to enter his consciousness.

*****. We already demonstrated the mightiness of our new
toys in Gulf War I. What we demonstrated now is how our
military CAN be defeated. We fell into a trap in Iraq. A
trap that Bush has no intentions of getting out of, according
to his speeches today.

If our toys can't really win a war, then what's the point?

Exactly!

My point is that then there is no point in even having our
military.

Being a super power means understanding the burden of restraint.
Bush and his neocon supporters like yourself are not smart or mature
enough to understand this.

I don't know what "neocon" means. In any case, we've figured out that
not using force is what got us into 9/11 and this time the problems
over there will be dealt with.

Al Qaeda

believes that the US cannot stick to anything where there are
casualties. Are they correct?

Al Qaeda knows we fell into their trap. They have the upper
hand.

If you stepped into a trap, would you cut your foot off to save
your life, or would you pretend the trap doesn't exist and beat
your chest and shake your fist until you die?

I think that if we run away from Iraq, that will be our failing.
Yes this is tough, but exactly tough is what they said America
couldn't do. Were they right? If so, we might as well start
memorizing the Quran.

Bumper-sticker Bill strikes again!

What are you trying to say, that you cannot refute what I said and
wish you could give up and put it on a bumper sticker?

They cannot figure out that we can defeat any other
countries military (you know, the tanks and planes and
troops that fight "fair" like in all the gung-ho military
movies you watch and form your world outlook
with) but we can never defeat an enemy that is
indistinquishable from common citizens.

That "never" flies in the face of history.

Oh really? Which military power has won a war against
terrorist activities historically? Are you going to use
Isreal as an example or something?

This should be good.

How do you define a 'win' against terrorists? The British
destroyed the Thugs in India.

Didn't Ghandi get the British thugs thrown out? How did he do
that again? I forget.

The Thugs, Gary. If you don't want to deal with the actual example
and instead want to insult the British or change the subject, I
can't stop you.

You gave me an example of a government replacing some thugs with
their own thugs... is that what you want in Iraq?

Also known as the Thuggee, a sect of Kali worshipers.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Metaphysics is almost always an attempt to prove
the incredible by an appeal to the unintelligible."
[H.L. Mencken, "Prejudices"]
.

User: "Gary DeWaay"
Title: Re: OT: Rummy admits that U.S. troops could be in Iraq more thana decade...	04 Jul 2005 05:14:00 PM

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')'s at
prepend@postpend.net.ru wisdom:

You gave me an example of a government replacing some thugs with their own
thugs... is that what you want in Iraq?

And Bill wins another arguement! I'm done Bill... off to golf instead.
Less boring.
--
Gary
"Raising fuel efficiency standards by 7.6 mpg would save enough to
eliminate 100% of our gulf oil imports into this country."
.

User: "Gary DeWaay"
Title: Re: OT: Rummy admits that U.S. troops could be in Iraq more thana decade...	04 Jul 2005 03:21:25 PM

Gary DeWaay's at

wisdom:

[This followup was posted to alt.radio.talk.dr-laura and a copy was sent
to the cited author.]

If this happened, it was by accident.
--
Gary
"Raising fuel efficiency standards by 7.6 mpg would save enough to
eliminate 100% of our gulf oil imports into this country."
.

User: "Bill Bonde by a commodius vicus of"
Title: Re: OT: Rummy admits that U.S. troops could be in Iraq more than adecade...	28 Jun 2005 12:18:36 PM

Enkidu the Atheist wrote:

"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')"
<prepend@postpend.net.ru> wrote in
news:1119899033.b8c1518766a55062a65e28e5ae07883d@teranews:

[snip]

You are excusing Clinton for things that are demonstrably worse
than what you claim Bush did.

Cite please.

It's what we were just talking about. Clinton had his people testify
that we'd be in the Balkans for a year. We are still there. Bush
didn't have his people testify that we'd be in Iraq for a year. In
fact, he never said how long this would take, and in fact stated that
it would be difficult and there would be good days and there would be
bad days.

Clinton did not lie about why we went into the Balkans,

Why did he send America there? He said that the mission would be a year
long effort.

while Bush did
lie about why we went into Iraq.

No he didn't.

As a result, we were largely successful
in the Balkans, and there is no way anyone with a grasp on reality can
claim we are largely successful in Iraq, and no reason to believe we ever
will be.

Let's see, Saddam is out of power and captured. A new elected government
is in Baghdad representing all factions of the Iraqi population. They
are currently working on a constitution and other political documents in
order to have another election. A free and fair election in an Arab
country should be considered an amazing thing.
There are, of course, difficulties. These include insurgent IED activity
and insurgent attacks on civilians and infrastructure including the
pipelines which carry the oil which will ultimately be needed to fund
further reconstruction of Iraq.
--
"What do you value in your bulldogs? Gripping, is it not? It's their
nature? It's why you breed them? It's so with men. I will not give in
because I oppose it. Not my pride, not my spleen, nor any other of my
appetites, but *I* do. Is there in the midst of all this muscle no
single sinew that serves no appetite of Norfolk's but is just Norfolk?
Give that some exercise. Because, as you stand, you'll go before your
Maker ill-conditioned. He'll think that somewhere along your pedigree, a
***** got over the wall."
-+Paul Scofield, "A Man For All Seasons"
.

User: "Glorious Guardian of Good"
Title: Re: OT: Rummy admits that U.S. troops could be in Iraq more thana decade...	28 Jun 2005 12:42:09 PM

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:

Enkidu the Atheist wrote:

"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')"
<prepend@postpend.net.ru> wrote in
news:1119899033.b8c1518766a55062a65e28e5ae07883d@teranews:

[snip]

You are excusing Clinton for things that are demonstrably worse
than what you claim Bush did.

Cite please.

Clinton did not lie about why we went into the Balkans,

Why did he send America there? He said that the mission would be a year
long effort.

while Bush did
lie about why we went into Iraq.

No he didn't.

Guess it depends on your definition of "lie."
Cooking up intelligence, silencing those who were skeptical about the
possibility of WMD (I don't really have to provide cites for this, do
I?), telling Americans that there was imminent danger (Ok, that was
Cheney) unless we invaded RIGHT THIS VERY MOMENT--I guess you might get
away with saying he didn't lie.
But he distorted, dodged, and IMHO betrayed our trust.

As a result, we were largely successful
in the Balkans, and there is no way anyone with a grasp on reality can
claim we are largely successful in Iraq, and no reason to believe we ever
will be.

Let's see, Saddam is out of power and captured. A new elected government
is in Baghdad representing all factions of the Iraqi population.

I think the millions of Sunnis who didn't get to vote in the election
might feel differently about that.

They
are currently working on a constitution and other political documents in
order to have another election. A free and fair election in an Arab
country should be considered an amazing thing.

Hardly free: it's cost us 200 billion dollars.

There are, of course, difficulties. These include insurgent IED activity
and insurgent attacks on civilians and infrastructure including the
pipelines which carry the oil which will ultimately be needed to fund
further reconstruction of Iraq.

Tell that to "Fred Stone" upthread; he thinks the oil lines are snug as
a bug in a rug.
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: OT: Rummy admits that U.S. troops could be in Iraq more than a decade...	28 Jun 2005 02:03:31 PM

Glorious Guardian of Good <maryhartman@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:42c18bca$1_2@x-privat.org:

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:

Enkidu the Atheist wrote:

"Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')"
<prepend@postpend.net.ru> wrote in
news:1119899033.b8c1518766a55062a65e28e5ae07883d@teranews:

[snip]

You are excusing Clinton for things that are demonstrably worse
than what you claim Bush did.

Cite please.

It's what we were just talking about. Clinton had his people testify
that we'd be in the Balkans for a year. We are still there. Bush
didn't have his people testify that we'd be in Iraq for a year. In
fact, he never said how long this would take, and in fact stated
that it would be difficult and there would be good days and there
would be bad days.

Clinton did not lie about why we went into the Balkans,

Why did he send America there? He said that the mission would be a
year long effort.

while Bush did
lie about why we went into Iraq.

No he didn't.

Guess it depends on your definition of "lie."

Cooking up intelligence, silencing those who were skeptical about the
possibility of WMD (I don't really have to provide cites for this, do
I?), telling Americans that there was imminent danger (Ok, that was
Cheney) unless we invaded RIGHT THIS VERY MOMENT--I guess you might
get away with saying he didn't lie.

Yes, saying that Bush did all those things meets my definition of "lie".

But he distorted, dodged, and IMHO betrayed our trust.

You never trusted him in the first place, now you're just making
excuses.

As a result, we were largely successful
in the Balkans, and there is no way anyone with a grasp on reality
can claim we are largely successful in Iraq, and no reason to believe
we ever will be.

Let's see, Saddam is out of power and captured. A new elected
government is in Baghdad representing all factions of the Iraqi
population.

I think the millions of Sunnis who didn't get to vote in the election
might feel differently about that.

They deliberately boycotted the election.

They
are currently working on a constitution and other political documents
in order to have another election. A free and fair election in an
Arab country should be considered an amazing thing.

Hardly free: it's cost us 200 billion dollars.

Cute.

There are, of course, difficulties. These include insurgent IED
activity and insurgent attacks on civilians and infrastructure
including the pipelines which carry the oil which will ultimately be
needed to fund further reconstruction of Iraq.

Tell that to "Fred Stone" upthread; he thinks the oil lines are snug
as a bug in a rug.

I didn't say that.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Metaphysics is almost always an attempt to prove
the incredible by an appeal to the unintelligible."
[H.L. Mencken, "Prejudices"]
.

User: "Glorious Guardian of Good"
Title: Re: OT: Rummy admits that U.S. troops could be in Iraq more thana decade...	28 Jun 2005 03:21:04 PM

Fred Stone wrote:

Tell that to "Fred Stone" upthread; he thinks the oil lines are snug
as a bug in a rug.

I didn't say that.

Well, excuse me, mister literalist. Here was the exchange:
Me: How about those oil pipe lines? They secure yet?
You: Yes.
Sounds pretty snug to me.
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: OT: Rummy admits that U.S. troops could be in Iraq more than a decade...	28 Jun 2005 04:42:55 PM

Glorious Guardian of Good <maryhartman@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:42c1b104_3@x-privat.org:

Fred Stone wrote:

Tell that to "Fred Stone" upthread; he thinks the oil lines are snug
as a bug in a rug.

I didn't say that.

Well, excuse me, mister literalist. Here was the exchange:

Me: How about those oil pipe lines? They secure yet?

You: Yes.

Sounds pretty snug to me.

There is no such thing as perfect security anywhere.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Metaphysics is almost always an attempt to prove
the incredible by an appeal to the unintelligible."
[H.L. Mencken, "Prejudices"]
.

User: "Glorious Guardian of Good"
Title: Re: OT: Rummy admits that U.S. troops could be in Iraq more thana decade...	28 Jun 2005 07:50:55 PM

Fred Stone wrote:

Glorious Guardian of Good <maryhartman@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:42c1b104_3@x-privat.org:

Fred Stone wrote:

Tell that to "Fred Stone" upthread; he thinks the oil lines are snug
as a bug in a rug.

I didn't say that.

Well, excuse me, mister literalist. Here was the exchange:

Me: How about those oil pipe lines? They secure yet?

You: Yes.

Sounds pretty snug to me.

There is no such thing as perfect security anywhere.

And you couldn't just acknowledge as much before? It was so very
important to act like a ***** instead?
BTW, regarding one especially annoying comment you'd made earlier:
"You never trusted [Bush] in the first place, now you're just making
excuses."
You don't know me. Do not presume to tell me who I trusted. I supported
the Iraq invasion. As recently as last year I defended it (different
screen name, but that's me, as anyone at artd-l can attest):
<http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.sports.baseball.atlanta-braves/msg/c684ad0c6f664670?dmode=source&hl=en>
Given what I've learned in the meantime about what this Administration
has done, I'm certainly entitled to say that my trust *has* been betrayed.
.

User: "Andres64"
Title: Re: OT: Rummy admits that U.S. troops could be in Iraq more than a decade...	27 Jun 2005 02:17:26 PM

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:

Andres64 wrote:

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:

Andres64 wrote:

Fred Stone wrote:

"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1119850861.941995.217870@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:

Andres64 wrote:

So that sounds like the honest assessment vs the Clinton claim that
the US would be on the ground in the Balkans for one year, it's still
there.

Typical Repug response: "But Clinton..."

Typical Dhimmicrat response: "don't remind us that we're hypocrites".

Ok, smart boy. Tell me how I'm being a hypocrite?

You are excusing Clinton for things that are demonstrably worse than
what you claim Bush did.

Cite please.

It's what we were just talking about.

1) No it wasn't. The thread is about how long the US troops are going
to be in Iraq. Then, as usual, you tried to change the subject and
whine about Clinton.
2) Still waiting for that cite
....snip irrelevant Clinton diversion tactics...

In point of fact, you won't even discuss Clinton era policy without bringing
up his penis as both your sword and your shield.

Cite please.

I'm not sure what you are asking for.

I'm asking for you to back-up your assertion that I can't discuss
Clinton without "bringing
up his penis as both your sword and your shield" <waiting...>

Prove you can discuss Clinton era policy without resorting to bringing up the Monica Lewinsky > mess.

*YOU* brought-up Clinton, not me.
He knows so little and knows it so fluently.
-- Ellen Glasgow
.

User: "Bill Bonde by a commodius vicus of"
Title: Re: OT: Rummy admits that U.S. troops could be in Iraq more than adecade...	27 Jun 2005 02:26:50 PM

Andres64 wrote:

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:

Andres64 wrote:

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:

Andres64 wrote:

Fred Stone wrote:

"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1119850861.941995.217870@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:

Andres64 wrote:

So that sounds like the honest assessment vs the Clinton claim that
the US would be on the ground in the Balkans for one year, it's still
there.

Typical Repug response: "But Clinton..."

Typical Dhimmicrat response: "don't remind us that we're hypocrites".

Ok, smart boy. Tell me how I'm being a hypocrite?

You are excusing Clinton for things that are demonstrably worse than
what you claim Bush did.

Cite please.

It's what we were just talking about.

1) No it wasn't. The thread is about how long the US troops are going
to be in Iraq. Then, as usual, you tried to change the subject and
whine about Clinton.

No, you were on another implied rant about how Bush supposedly "lied"
about how long the US would be in Iraq and I was pointing out that the
real liar is the person who lied about how long we'd be in the Balkans.

2) Still waiting for that cite

...snip irrelevant Clinton diversion tactics...

In point of fact, you won't even discuss Clinton era policy without bringing
up his penis as both your sword and your shield.

Cite please.

I'm not sure what you are asking for.

I'm asking for you to back-up your assertion that I can't discuss
Clinton without "bringing
up his penis as both your sword and your shield" <waiting...>

Prove you can discuss Clinton era policy without resorting to bringing up the Monica Lewinsky > mess.

*YOU* brought-up Clinton, not me.

I compared the policy actions of the current administration to the
previous one. Whenever I do that, Liberals bring up Clinton's penis.
Clinton's penis is irrelevant to the policies of his administration,
which are relevantly fair game when talking about current administration
policies.
--
"He's asking if you killed Freddie Miles and then killed Dickie
Greenleaf."
"No, I did not kill Freddie Miles and then kill Dickie Greenleaf."
-+Thomas Ripley using Bill Clinton logic, "The Talented Mr Ripley"
.

User: "Andres64"
Title: Re: OT: Rummy admits that U.S. troops could be in Iraq more than a decade...	27 Jun 2005 02:37:47 PM

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:

Andres64 wrote:

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:

Andres64 wrote:

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:

Andres64 wrote:

Fred Stone wrote:

"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1119850861.941995.217870@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:

Andres64 wrote:

So that sounds like the honest assessment vs the Clinton claim that
the US would be on the ground in the Balkans for one year, it's still
there.

Typical Repug response: "But Clinton..."

Typical Dhimmicrat response: "don't remind us that we're hypocrites".

Ok, smart boy. Tell me how I'm being a hypocrite?

You are excusing Clinton for things that are demonstrably worse than
what you claim Bush did.

Cite please.

It's what we were just talking about.

1) No it wasn't. The thread is about how long the US troops are going
to be in Iraq. Then, as usual, you tried to change the subject and
whine about Clinton.

No, you were on another implied rant about how Bush supposedly "lied"
about how long the US would be in Iraq

Wrong. I was noting the contradiction between Rummy saying that the
insurgency is in its "last throes" just last week, and now admitting
that U.S. troops may have to stay in Iraq over a decade.

and I was pointing out that the
real liar is the person who lied about how long we'd be in the Balkans.

You were using the typical Repug response 'But Clinton..."

2) Still waiting for that cite

*Still* waiting.

...snip irrelevant Clinton diversion tactics...

In point of fact, you won't even discuss Clinton era policy without bringing
up his penis as both your sword and your shield.

Cite please.

I'm not sure what you are asking for.

I'm asking for you to back-up your assertion that I can't discuss
Clinton without "bringing
up his penis as both your sword and your shield" <waiting...>

Prove you can discuss Clinton era policy without resorting to bringing up the Monica
Lewinsky mess.

*YOU* brought-up Clinton, not me.

I compared the policy actions of the current administration to the
previous one.

And policy has what exactly to do with a BJ?

Whenever I do that, Liberals bring up Clinton's penis.

Cite please.

Clinton's penis is irrelevant to the policies of his administration,
which are relevantly fair game when talking about current administration
policies.

Sure. If you can't defend Shrub, attack Clinton.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: OT: Rummy admits that U.S. troops could be in Iraq more than a decade...	27 Jun 2005 07:08:49 PM

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:

Andres64 wrote:

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:

Andres64 wrote:

snipage

When issues are discussed, only you and other conservatives
raise Clinton's penis. I guess most of you are repressed
homosexuals.
Larry
.

User: "Bill Bonde by a commodius vicus of"
Title: Re: OT: Rummy admits that U.S. troops could be in Iraq more than adecade...	28 Jun 2005 12:17:05 PM

wrote:

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:

Andres64 wrote:

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:

Andres64 wrote:

snipage

When issues are discussed, only you and other conservatives
raise Clinton's penis.

Discussing Clinton era policies isn't bringing up Clinton's penis.
Invariably when a Conservative tries to compare Clinton era policies
with current administration policies, a reasonable thing to do, the
Liberal will bring up Clinton's penis.

I guess most of you are repressed
homosexuals.

So now we've got to the point where talking about Clinton era policies
is talking about Clinton's penis means you are gay? What is it about
Clinton that makes even his policies off limits for discussion? Was he
that bad of a president?
--
"What do you value in your bulldogs? Gripping, is it not? It's their
nature? It's why you breed them? It's so with men. I will not give in
because I oppose it. Not my pride, not my spleen, nor any other of my
appetites, but *I* do. Is there in the midst of all this muscle no
single sinew that serves no appetite of Norfolk's but is just Norfolk?
Give that some exercise. Because, as you stand, you'll go before your
Maker ill-conditioned. He'll think that somewhere along your pedigree, a
***** got over the wall."
-+Paul Scofield, "A Man For All Seasons"
.

User: ""
Title: Re: OT: Rummy admits that U.S. troops could be in Iraq more than a decade...	28 Jun 2005 04:18:18 PM

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:

lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu wrote:

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:

Andres64 wrote:

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:

Andres64 wrote:

snipage

When issues are discussed, only you and other conservatives
raise Clinton's penis.

Take a look at this thread and try to figure out
who first used the word "penis", (hint, it was not
a liberal)

I guess most of you are repressed
homosexuals.

So now we've got to the point where talking about Clinton era policies
is talking about Clinton's penis means you are gay?

snipage
Why else would you keep bringing up Clinton's penis?
Larry
.

User: "Bill Bonde by a commodius vicus of"
Title: Re: OT: Rummy admits that U.S. troops could be in Iraq more than adecade...	28 Jun 2005 04:55:14 PM

wrote:

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:

wrote:

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:

Andres64 wrote:

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:

Andres64 wrote:

snipage

When issues are discussed, only you and other conservatives
raise Clinton's penis.

Take a look at this thread and try to figure out
who first used the word "penis", (hint, it was not
a liberal)

Are you new to usenet? I didn't write this: "Typical Repug response:
'But Clinton...'"

I guess most of you are repressed
homosexuals.

So now we've got to the point where talking about Clinton era policies
is talking about Clinton's penis means you are gay?

snipage

Why else would you keep bringing up Clinton's penis?

I'm discussing Clinton era policy comparing it to current policy.
Liberals than use Clinton's penis as both their sword and their shield.
--
"What do you value in your bulldogs? Gripping, is it not? It's their
nature? It's why you breed them? It's so with men. I will not give in
because I oppose it. Not my pride, not my spleen, nor any other of my
appetites, but *I* do. Is there in the midst of all this muscle no
single sinew that serves no appetite of Norfolk's but is just Norfolk?
Give that some exercise. Because, as you stand, you'll go before your
Maker ill-conditioned. He'll think that somewhere along your pedigree, a
***** got over the wall."
-+Paul Scofield, "A Man For All Seasons"
.

User: ""
Title: Re: OT: Rummy admits that U.S. troops could be in Iraq more than a decade...	29 Jun 2005 11:54:44 PM

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:

lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu wrote:

snipage

Are you new to usenet? I didn't write this: "Typical Repug response:
'But Clinton...'"

I will cite:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.radio.talk.dr-laura/msg/970d5dd8515ae28e?dmode=source&hl=en
Where you will find the following:
Andres64 wrote:

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:

Andres64 wrote:

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:

Andres64 wrote:

Thus we see that we can identify your writing by the fact that
it is preceded by exactly four carrots.
Next we find the following

In point of fact, you won't even discuss Clinton era policy without bringing
up his penis as both your sword and your shield.

A search of the cited web page reveals that this is the
first mention of penis and the four carrots indicate you
are the one who wrote it.
Larry
.

User: "Bill Bonde by a commodius vicus of"
Title: Re: OT: Rummy admits that U.S. troops could be in Iraq more than adecade...	27 Jun 2005 02:53:55 PM

Andres64 wrote:

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:

Andres64 wrote:

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:

Andres64 wrote:

Fred Stone wrote:

"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in
news:1119850861.941995.217870@g47g2000cwa.googl