| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"dapra" |
| Date: |
03 Sep 2007 12:22:11 PM |
| Object: |
Sneaking to Baghdad. |
What a pathetic, cowered man, President Bush is!
If he can't go openly to Iraq after 4 1/2 years of occupation, and 1/2 a
$ trillion spent on his imperial aggression, he would do better to hide
in the bomb shelter of the WH. He should not sneak to Iraq to display
his incompetence to the whole world see.
.
|
|
| User: "EW" |
|
| Title: Re: Sneaking to Baghdad. |
03 Sep 2007 04:33:50 PM |
|
|
"dapra" <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:bOqdna5gi9ln30HbnZ2dnUVZ_q6hnZ2d@comcast.com...
What a pathetic, cowered man, President Bush is!
If he can't go openly to Iraq after 4 1/2 years of occupation, and 1/2 a $
Nothing, NOTHING will please assholes like you! The President goes to Iraq
to shore up people and the gov't there, and you don't like it. If he didn't
go, you wouldn't like it. If he pulled ALL the military out NOW, you
wouldn't like it (it's too late!) and if he cured cancer, you'd *****.
***** You.
EW
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Sneaking to Baghdad. |
04 Sep 2007 04:36:57 PM |
|
|
"EW" <ewyatt_del_me-@excite.com> wrote in message
news:46dc7dbb$0$47124$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
"dapra" <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:bOqdna5gi9ln30HbnZ2dnUVZ_q6hnZ2d@comcast.com...
What a pathetic, cowered man, President Bush is!
If he can't go openly to Iraq after 4 1/2 years of occupation, and 1/2 a
$
Nothing, NOTHING will please assholes like you! The President goes to
Iraq
to shore up people and the gov't there, and you don't like it. If he
didn't
go, you wouldn't like it. If he pulled ALL the military out NOW, you
wouldn't like it (it's too late!) and if he cured cancer, you'd *****.
***** You.
These fucking idiots didn't even get the location right (he didn't go to
Baghdad), and the deep significance of it. The article below is a great
exposition on the significance of this visit. The Sunni's are on board and
AQ is on the run! Progress in Iraq, both military and more importantly
political is tangible, broad and decisive. It's a little long and no doubt
wasted on the BDS-stricken moonbats who haunt Usenet, but it sounds like you
might appreciate it.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MGM2YWI4ODI0MDA1ZjczOTFjNDNkMGQzMzM0MGQ4Mjg=
<quote>
The Gettysburg of This War
This Bush visit could well mark a key turning point in the war in Iraq and
the war on terror.
By Frederick W. Kagan
President Bush's Labor Day visit to Iraq should have surprised no one
who was paying attention. At such a critical point in the debate over Iraq
policy, it was almost inconceivable that he would fly to and from Australia
without stopping in Iraq. What was surprising was the precise location and
nature of the visit. Instead of flying into Baghdad and surrounding himself
with his generals and the Iraqi government, Bush flew to al Asad airfield,
west of Ramadi, the capital of Anbar Province. He brought with him his
secretaries of State and Defense, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
and the commander of U.S. Central Command. He was met at al Asad by General
David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, as well as Iraqi Prime Minister
Nuri Kemal al Maliki, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, and Vice Presidents
Adel Abdul Mehdi and Tariq al Hashemi. In other words, Bush called together
all of the leading political and military figures in his administration and
the Iraqi government in the heart of Anbar Province. If ever there was a
sign that we have turned a corner in the fight against both al Qaeda in Iraq
and the Sunni insurgency, this was it.
Anbar, as everyone knows, has been one of the hotbeds and the most
important base for both the Sunni rejectionist insurgency and al Qaeda in
Iraq since 2003. It has been one of the most violent provinces in Iraq, and
one of the most dangerous for American soldiers and Marines, until recently.
Now it is one of the safest - safe enough for the war cabinet of the United
States of America to meet there with the senior leadership of the government
of Iraq to discuss strategy. Instead of talking about how to convince the
Anbaris that the Sunni will not retake power in Iraq any time soon, Bush,
Maliki, Petraeus, Talabani, and Crocker talked about how to get American and
Iraqi aid and reconstruction money flowing more rapidly to the province as a
reward for its dramatic and decisive turn against AQI and against the Sunni
rejectionist insurgency. In any other war, with any other president, this
event would be recognized for what it is: the sign of a crucial victory over
two challenges that had seemed both unconquerable and fatal. It should be
recognized as at least the Gettysburg of this war, to the extent that
counterinsurgencies can have such turning points. Less than a year ago, it
was common wisdom and the conclusion of the Marine intelligence community in
Anbar that the province and its people were hopelessly lost. Now the Anbaris
are looking to the Americans and the government of Iraq for legitimacy, for
protection, and for inclusion in a political process they have spurned for
years. What is that if not a major victory in this war?
Critics of the war have done everything in their power to denigrate
the significance of Anbar's turn against the takfiris and nationalist
insurgents. Their arguments include:
Anbar's tribal structure is unique, and therefore this "awakening"
cannot be replicated elsewhere in Iraq.
The "Anbar Awakening" happened before the "surge" and independently
of it, and will continue whether or not U.S. forces remain.
The movements in Anbar are local and mean nothing because they will
not translate into reconciliation at the national level.
The government of Iraq distrusts these "awakening" movements and will
alienate them, driving them back into the arms of the insurgents and
takfiris.
The Anbaris are just operating on the principle of "the enemy of my
enemy is my friend," and will turn on us and/or the Iraqi government at the
drop of a hat.
We are setting the preconditions for a horrible civil war by "arming"
local Sunni movements like that in Anbar.
None of these arguments holds much water, and all miss both the
dynamics of the movement within the Sunni community and its significance for
Iraq and the region.
Anbar's Uniqueness
Anbar is, indeed, a unique province in Iraq. Its population is almost
entirely Sunni, and tribal structures remain unusually strong in a country
where they have generally been weakened by years of secular, totalitarian
rule. There is little or no "sectarian" violence in Anbar, and the only real
Shia threat the province faces comes from the central government in Baghdad
and its security forces. These facts are now used to explain away the "Anbar
Awakening" by "proving" that the movement will not gain traction outside
this unusual area. One might note in passing that all of these facts have
been true since 2003, yet the area was not what one might call friendly to
the Coalition until recently, so whatever the uniqueness of the province,
clearly something has happened worth noting.
It might be possible to demonstrate in principle that the Anbar
Awakening movement could spread outside of the province, but it is not
necessary, because it has already done so. Although some media outlets
continue to portray this spread as speculative or potential, it is, in fact,
well documented. Australian counterinsurgency expert David Kilcullen
recently described it in detail in a post on the Small Wars Journal website;
Michael Gordon described it in even greater detail in The New York Times
Magazine this weekend, and U.S. military and political officials have been
briefing on it for many weeks. Local Sunni Arabs all throughout Central Iraq
have come forward to volunteer for service in the Iraqi Security Forces in
order to fight al Qaeda in Iraq and bring peace to their war-torn lands.
This movement has gained great traction in Diyala Province - another area
that was so heavily infested with AQI and Shia militias that many had given
it up for lost - where it helped secure the gains of recent U.S.-ISF
operations that cleared its capital, Baqubah. It is growing rapidly in the
areas south of Baghdad (which Michael Gordon wrote about), including in the
area formerly known as the "triangle of death" and serious al Qaeda safe
havens in the Arab Jabour area. It has spread into Abu Ghraib, where more
than 2,400 Sunni young men volunteered to join the ISF, and over 1,700 have
been accepted by the Iraqi government. And it has even spread into Baghdad
itself, where "concerned citizens groups" are helping U.S. forces track down
and eliminate AQI fighters and leaders and to secure their neighborhoods.
Movements are starting to grow even in Salah-ad-Din Province, site of Saddam's
hometown of Tikrit and Samarra, and also a major base for Sunni
rejectionists and AQI fighters. The evidence of the spread of these
movements is absolutely irrefutable. Anbar may be unique - and many of the
local movements outside the province have ostentatiously refused to call
themselves "awakenings" or to model themselves after the Anbar movement -
but the Iraqis themselves are aggressively adopting the Anbar model to suit
local circumstances in order to work with the Coalition and the Iraqi
government against terrorists and militias to secure their homes.
Anbar and the Surge
The tribal leaders in Anbar began to turn against al Qaeda in Iraq
last year, largely due to unspeakable atrocities committed by the terrorists
against their own hosts. Many analysts and observers have seized upon this
fact to argue that the movement in Anbar had nothing to do with the surge,
began before the surge did, and would continue even without the surge. This
argument is invalid. Anbari tribal leaders did begin to turn against AQI in
their areas last year before the surge began, but not before Colonel Sean
MacFarland began to apply in Ramadi the tactics and techniques that are the
basis of the current strategy in Baghdad. His soldiers and Marines fought
tenaciously to establish a foothold in Anbar's capital, which was then a
terrorist stronghold, and thereby demonstrated to the local leaders that
they could count on American support as they began to fight their erstwhile
allies. Even so, the movement proceeded slowly and fitfully for most of 2006
and, indeed, into 2007. But when Colonel John Charlton's brigade relieved
MacFarland's in Ramadi and was joined by two additional Marine battalions
(part of the surge) elsewhere in Anbar, the "awakening" began to accelerate
very rapidly. At the start of 2007 there were only a handful of Anbaris in
the local security forces. By the summer there were over 14,000. Before the
surge, Ramadi was one of the most dangerous cities in Iraq; now it is
possible for Americans to walk through its market with limited security
details and without body armor. David Kilcullen describes the relationship
between the surge and the movement very well in his Small Wars Journal
posting, and I have also addressed the issue in detail in a recent Weekly
Standard article . The fact is that neither the surge nor the turn of the
tribal leaders would in itself have been enough to turn Anbar around - both
were necessary, and will remain so for some time.
Anbar and National Reconciliation
One major problem with the current discussions about Iraq in
Washington is that they focus so heavily on the congressionally mandated
"benchmarks," initially discussed in 2006 by the Bush Administration. Those
benchmarks address the Iraqi central government, and particularly the
Council of Representatives - the Iraqi parliament - almost exclusively. As a
result, political developments that occur outside the CoR tend to be
discounted in this debate, and so the shift in Anbar itself has been
devalued inappropriately as it does not seem likely to lead rapidly to the
passage of legislation in Baghdad.
But the turn of Anbar is not simply an isolated local phenomenon with
no significance in the larger political struggle in Iraq. On the contrary,
it is an event that may well have profound long-term consequences even more
important than the passage of any given piece of legislation. The Anbari
rejection of AQI deprived Anbar's leaders of the single most effective
fighting force they had in attacking the Shia-led Iraqi government and
attacking or defending against its militias. If the Anbaris had thereupon
asked for the creation of a local, autonomous or semi-autonomous security
force that would be a de facto tribal militia, there would have been cause
for concern about their intentions. But they did not. Instead, Anbar's
tribal leaders have been offering their sons by the thousands as volunteers
in the Iraqi police army. An entirely new training center was built in a
couple of months in Habbaniyah, near Fallujah, which has just graduated its
first couple of classes of Anbari recruits to join the ISF. The Anbari
police will naturally stay in their areas, but they will not have the
technical or tactical ability to project force outside of Anbar - they
cannot become an effective Sunni "coup force." Anbaris joining the Iraqi
army, on the other hand, are joining a heavily Shia institution that they
will not readily be able to seize control of and turn against the Shia
government. In other words, the turn in Anbar is dramatically reducing the
ability of the Anbaris to fight the Shia, and committing them ever more
completely to the success of Iraq as a whole.
This commitment will have consequences. It remains true that Anbar's leaders
are now more reasonable and probably more committed to the political success
of Iraq than the Sunni parties in the Council of Representatives. Those
parties were chosen at a time when most Iraqi Sunnis really did reject the
notion of accepting a lesser role in Iraq, and many Sunni parliamentarians
have continued to press for a maximalist version of Sunni aims. Local
elections would help, although scheduling them is very complicated for a
wide variety of reasons have nothing to do with any putative unwillingness
of the Maliki government to "empower" Sunnis, but another event looms on the
horizon of greater significance: Iraq will hold new parliamentary elections
in 2009. As those elections approach, unreasonable Sunni parliamentarians
will face the classic politician's dilemma: tack more closely to their
pragmatic base, or lose their seats to more pragmatic leaders. Either way,
it is extraordinarily unlikely that the turn in Anbar will not have a
profound effect on the political dynamics of the central government in
Baghdad within a few years if not sooner.
Anbar and Shia Mistrust
The Maliki government is unquestionably twitchy about working with many of
the Sunni grassroots movements, and with good reason. A lot of the new Sunni
volunteers for the ISF were insurgents, and Iraq's Shia, still traumatized
by four years of Sunni attacks, are naturally nervous about taking former
insurgents into their security forces. Nevertheless, they are doing so. The
creation of the new training center at Habbaniyah, the acceptance of 1,700
Sunni recruits in Abu Ghraib - a very touchy issue because of the proximity
of Abu Ghraib to Baghdad - efforts to repair sectarian imbalances within the
two Iraqi Army divisions in Anbar itself, the Iraqi government's acceptance
of the establishment of "concerned citizens" groups all around Central Iraq,
including in Baghdad, and a variety of other initiatives all indicate a
surprising degree of willingness by the current Iraqi government to work and
talk with former enemies.
The Sunni, of course, don't trust the Maliki government any more than it
trusts them, and herein lies a key point for American strategy. Right now,
American forces are serving as the "honest broker," the bridge between Sunni
and Shia. Both sides trust us more or less, and are willing to work with us;
neither trusts the other completely. If we remove this bridge now, it is
unlikely that the Iraqis will be able to continue on a path to real
reconciliation. But we are working hard every day to help them create their
own independent reconciliation structure that will be able to stand on its
own. President Bush's visit to Anbar was a statement. Maliki, Talabani, and
Adel Mehdi's joining him there was a statement. The promise of additional
U.S. aid to Anbar is a statement. So is the promise of additional Iraqi aid.
This is a process that is ongoing and will take time to work, but it depends
unequivocally on the continued presence of American forces and a continued
American commitment to Iraq.
Anbar and "My Enemy's Enemy."
The Anbaris have certainly not reached out to American forces or the Maliki
government because they have suddenly decided that they like us or them.
Their turn has been based entirely on self-interest - which is why it is
likely to be durable and meaningful. If Anbari leaders were now espousing
their longing for Jeffersonian democracy or their enthusiasm for Shia rule,
one would have to be highly suspicious of their motives. They are not. They
turned toward us initially because they needed allies against AQI. They are
joining the ISF rather than working to establish their own militias for
similarly self-interested reasons. For instance, the Iraqi Army has always
been held in high regard in Iraq and still is, for all its problems. Young
Anbaris, who feel defeated by the Americans and the Shia in their quest to
regain control of Iraq, need a way to regain honor in Iraqi society. Joining
a militia won't accomplish that goal - we've all spent four years telling
them that militias are bad. Joining the Iraqi army does accomplish that
goal - it gives them an honored place not just in Anbari, but in Iraqi
society. It also gives them a reliable paycheck, which offers them the hope
of being able to afford to get married, raise children, and so on - armies
tend to be much more reliable than militias in this regard. The Anbari
leaders are happy for their sons to make these decisions - indeed, are
pressing them to do so - because it suits their own self-interest. We
support their enlistment, but would oppose the establishment of militias. We
promise to reward them with aid and prestige for taking this step, but would
censure and dishonor them if they chose the militia path. Reluctant as it
might be, the Iraqi government has made clear that it will accept Sunnis in
the ISF, but that it will not accept Sunni militias. The wonderful thing
about this movement, and the thing that makes it potentially so stable, is
that it follows the line of everyone's self-interest rather than relying
upon commitment to ideologies or abstract principles.
Could the Anbaris turn against the U.S.? They might, but they would face a
number of problems in doing so. All recruits into the ISF and even into
"concerned citizens groups" have to provide U.S. forces with biometric data,
including fingerprints and retina scans, and with the serial numbers of
their weapons. All of this information strips them of their anonymity - a
key asset for insurgents and terrorists. It would make it much easier for
U.S. forces to locate turncoats and demonstrate their crimes. And even if
they did turn, we would hardly be worse off than before - most of these guys
were insurgents, remember. They had been fighting against us; now they're
fighting for us. Even if they turn back, we're in no worse position than we
had been before.
Anbar and the Danger of Civil War
Last is the argument that by "arming" former insurgents U.S. forces are
setting the conditions for a terrible civil war if they turn against the
Iraqi government at a future date. To begin with, despite a variety of media
reports to the contrary, U.S. forces are not arming former insurgents in
Iraq. The American command has been explicit and consistent on this point
many times, I observed it for myself on a trip at the end of July, and
Michael Gordon also addressed it after a longer and more extensive trip from
which he recently returned. One of the characteristics of an insurgent is to
be armed. By Iraqi law, every household is entitled to possess one AK-47.
Almost everyone in Iraq is armed. The last thing former insurgents need is
weapons. And, as noted above, not only do we not give them weapons, but we
take the serial numbers of the weapons they do have. Whatever else is going
on, the U.S. forces are not arming the Sunni in preparation for a civil war.
Nor are we helping them to organize in preparation for fighting such a civil
war. Another characteristic of insurgents is that they were already
organized to fight. The new organization is based heavily on Iraqi Security
Forces and groups partnered with American troops - hardly a solid basis for
fighting a sectarian civil war. Finally, if a civil war developed in Iraq -
most likely as the result of a premature American withdrawal - does anyone
imagine that the Sunni would fail to organize and arm themselves to fight
it? On the contrary, by helping the Sunni community establish a legitimate
local security force tied into the central government and both supported and
advised by American troops, we are helping to establish the basis of
long-term stability at the local level. Fear of Shia genocide has been a
powerful force behind Sunni rejectionism. Local Sunni security forces help
alleviate that fear. Fear of Sunni revanchism has been a strong motivation
for Shia intransigence. Incorporating Sunni into the ISF mitigates that
fear. Local developments in Anbar and beyond are far more likely to be
elements of long-term stability and political progress than to be dangers -
as long as the U.S. continues the right strategy.
BACK TO WASHINGTON
Much depends on what America does. Progress in Anbar and throughout the
Sunni community has depended heavily on a skillful balance between military
force and political efforts at the local level. Neither alone would have
been successful, as commanders on the ground readily attest. Stripping the
U.S. effort of the forces needed to continue this strategy, as some in
Washington and elsewhere are demanding, will most likely destroy the
progress already made and lay the groundwork for collapse in Iraq and the
destabilization of the region. President Bush clearly understands this fact,
as his choice of venue in Iraq demonstrates. We should all understand the
significance of the president's presence in Anbar. With a little good
fortune and the continued pursuit of a successful strategy, this visit could
well mark a key turning point in the war in Iraq and the war on terror.
- Frederick W. Kagan is a military historian and a resident scholar at the
American Enterprise Institute.
</quote>
begin 666 bullet_blue.gif
M1TE&.#EA$ `.`)$``" @(*ZNK@```/___R'Y! ``````+ `````0``X```(?
AG(^IR^T/XPI @.""V!NSREE-R#4@!S1:Z#&4U4I,`0`[
`
end
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Sneaking to Baghdad. |
04 Sep 2007 05:06:04 PM |
|
|
Fester wrote:
These fucking idiots didn't even get the location right (he didn't go to
Baghdad), and the deep significance of it.
That's the White House's fault. Dana Perino told a bunch of reporters
that Bush was going to "Baghdad".
Like so many other Americans, one in five apparently, she can't find
certain countries on a map because she doesn't own one.
You have to forgive her, though. She's just a bible-bimbo temp who
accidentally landed this job when everyone above her quit Bush's White
House.
The article below is a great
exposition on the significance of this visit. The Sunni's are on board and
AQ is on the run!
"Al Quaeda in Iraq" is not "al Quaeda" any more than the "New Republic"
is the Republican party.
Al Quaeda is based in Pakistan - so trying to wipe them out by killing
Iraqis is pretty fucking stupid.
All that does is make MORE of 'em.
.
|
|
|
| User: "redc1c4" |
|
| Title: Re: Sneaking to Baghdad. |
04 Sep 2007 05:25:52 PM |
|
|
Sanders Kaufman wrote:
Fester wrote:
These fucking idiots didn't even get the location right (he didn't go to
Baghdad), and the deep significance of it.
That's the White House's fault. Dana Perino told a bunch of reporters
that Bush was going to "Baghdad".
it's good OPSEC to provide false information to the enemy.
the fact that the reporters were too st00pid to verify anything speaks volumes
about their abilities.
(remainder of deranged alleged squid ranting sniped)
redc1c4,
remember the good old days when UMA had *good* trolls? %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."
Army Officer's Guide
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Sneaking to Baghdad. |
04 Sep 2007 10:07:27 PM |
|
|
redc1c4 wrote:
Sanders Kaufman wrote:
That's the White House's fault. Dana Perino told a bunch of reporters
that Bush was going to "Baghdad".
it's good OPSEC to provide false information to the enemy.
Yeah - that's what it was - a security measure.
HA!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "dapra" |
|
| Title: Re: Sneaking to Baghdad. |
03 Sep 2007 05:19:30 PM |
|
|
EW wrote:
"dapra" <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:bOqdna5gi9ln30HbnZ2dnUVZ_q6hnZ2d@comcast.com...
What a pathetic, cowered man, President Bush is!
If he can't go openly to Iraq after 4 1/2 years of occupation, and 1/2 a $
Nothing, NOTHING will please assholes like you! The President goes to Iraq
to shore up people and the gov't there, and you don't like it. If he didn't
go, you wouldn't like it. If he pulled ALL the military out NOW, you
wouldn't like it (it's too late!) and if he cured cancer, you'd *****.
***** You.
EW
Bush turned America into a state sponsored, terrorist rogue nation,
hated by the international community.
Sending Bush and his war criminal cohorts to The Hague would please me,
and it would rehabilitate the American people's reputation.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: Sneaking to Baghdad. |
03 Sep 2007 08:43:19 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 3 Sep 2007 16:33:50 -0500, "EW" <ewyatt_del_me-@excite.com>
wrote:
"dapra" <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:bOqdna5gi9ln30HbnZ2dnUVZ_q6hnZ2d@comcast.com...
What a pathetic, cowered man, President Bush is!
If he can't go openly to Iraq after 4 1/2 years of occupation, and 1/2 a $
Nothing, NOTHING will please assholes like you! The President goes to Iraq
to shore up people and the gov't there, and you don't like it. If he didn't
go, you wouldn't like it. If he pulled ALL the military out NOW, you
wouldn't like it (it's too late!) and if he cured cancer, you'd *****.
At the risk of being repetitious, I'll say it again: the hallmark of
mismanagement is that we are left with _no_ good choices. After
Bush's best effforts, whether we stay in Iraq or leave, it will be a
disaster. Staying _will_ yield a larger crop of American dead and
wounded, though.
It will also put more money in Halliburton's coffers, so I suppose you
think it is worth the bodies.
WOA* #2278
If you can't be a dirty old man, what is the point of being an old man?
Through a jaundiced eye darkly--rheum with a view.
The Squeeky Wheel
http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
__________
*Wicked Old Atheist
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Sneaking to Baghdad. |
03 Sep 2007 09:00:09 PM |
|
|
"Don Martin" <drdonmartin@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:7qdpd3hm7oasboij1fp4ssti2on4dngphb@4ax.com...
On Mon, 3 Sep 2007 16:33:50 -0500, "EW" <ewyatt_del_me-@excite.com>
wrote:
"dapra" <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:bOqdna5gi9ln30HbnZ2dnUVZ_q6hnZ2d@comcast.com...
What a pathetic, cowered man, President Bush is!
If he can't go openly to Iraq after 4 1/2 years of occupation, and 1/2 a
$
Nothing, NOTHING will please assholes like you! The President goes to
Iraq
to shore up people and the gov't there, and you don't like it. If he
didn't
go, you wouldn't like it. If he pulled ALL the military out NOW, you
wouldn't like it (it's too late!) and if he cured cancer, you'd *****.
At the risk of being repetitious, I'll say it again: the hallmark of
mismanagement is that we are left with _no_ good choices. After
Bush's best effforts, whether we stay in Iraq or leave, it will be a
disaster. Staying _will_ yield a larger crop of American dead and
wounded, though.
It will also put more money in Halliburton's coffers, so I suppose you
think it is worth the bodies.
The moonbat motto, "If at first you don't succeed, blame it on some big,
greedy corporation."
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kope" |
|
| Title: Re: Sneaking to Baghdad. |
03 Sep 2007 05:32:33 PM |
|
|
i am a radical muslim please read my blog read how islam will win the
clash of civilization.
http://www.xanga.com/hfghj23458654fgha
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Sneaking to Baghdad. |
03 Sep 2007 07:45:26 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 15:32:33 -0700, Kope <kope22222@yahoo.com> wrote:
i am a radical muslim please read my blog
Please shut the ***** up.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jack Granade" |
|
| Title: Re: Sneaking to Baghdad. |
03 Sep 2007 08:00:12 PM |
|
|
"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:lkapd3llok4pllhi404h4tl85b0as0lqg3@4ax.com...
On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 15:32:33 -0700, Kope <kope22222@yahoo.com> wrote:
i am a radical muslim please read my blog
Please shut the ***** up.
He has the right to have a Blog and we have the right to tell him to pound
sand.
.
|
|
|
| User: "dapra" |
|
| Title: Re: Sneaking to Baghdad. |
03 Sep 2007 08:14:31 PM |
|
|
Jack Granade wrote:
"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:lkapd3llok4pllhi404h4tl85b0as0lqg3@4ax.com...
On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 15:32:33 -0700, Kope <kope22222@yahoo.com> wrote:
i am a radical muslim please read my blog
Please shut the ***** up.
He has the right to have a Blog and we have the right to tell him to pound
sand.
He is just railing against revealing garments of woman. Any fundamental
christian religious nut could have posted something similar.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stalker" |
|
| Title: Re: Sneaking to Baghdad. |
04 Sep 2007 03:59:13 PM |
|
|
dapra wrote:
Jack Granade wrote:
"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:lkapd3llok4pllhi404h4tl85b0as0lqg3@4ax.com...
On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 15:32:33 -0700, Kope <kope22222@yahoo.com> wrote:
i am a radical muslim please read my blog
Please shut the ***** up.
He has the right to have a Blog and we have the right to tell him to
pound sand.
He is just railing against revealing garments of woman. Any fundamental
christian religious nut could have posted something similar.
For someone so opposed to revealing clothes he sure has a lot of
pictures of half naked women.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Horvath" |
|
| Title: Re: Sneaking to Baghdad. |
04 Sep 2007 05:49:23 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 10:15:26 +0930, Michael Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote this crap:
On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 15:32:33 -0700, Kope <kope22222@yahoo.com> wrote:
i am a radical muslim please read my blog
Please shut the ***** up.
He's not going to listen to you.
This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe.
.
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Sneaking to Baghdad. |
04 Sep 2007 11:39:54 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 06:49:23 -0400, Horvath wrote:
On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 10:15:26 +0930, Michael Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote this crap:
On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 15:32:33 -0700, Kope <kope22222@yahoo.com> wrote:
i am a radical muslim please read my blog
Please shut the ***** up.
He's not going to listen to you.
George_Z@Horvath.net
This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe.
HA! The ability to destroy a planet is *nothing* compared to the power of
"The Force!"
--
MarkA
(My OTHER sig line is clever)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jack Granade" |
|
| Title: Re: Sneaking to Baghdad. |
03 Sep 2007 12:40:24 PM |
|
|
"dapra" <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:bOqdna5gi9ln30HbnZ2dnUVZ_q6hnZ2d@comcast.com...
What a pathetic, cowered man, President Bush is!
If he can't go openly to Iraq after 4 1/2 years of occupation, and 1/2 a $
trillion spent on his imperial aggression, he would do better to hide in
the bomb shelter of the WH. He should not sneak to Iraq to display his
incompetence to the whole world see.
What a pathetic posting from a left wing trash spammer. The President as
Commander and Chief is doing his duty and showing respect for our troops
and respect is something you lack.
.
|
|
|
| User: "dapra" |
|
| Title: Re: Sneaking to Baghdad. |
03 Sep 2007 01:08:50 PM |
|
|
Jack Granade wrote:
"dapra" <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:bOqdna5gi9ln30HbnZ2dnUVZ_q6hnZ2d@comcast.com...
What a pathetic, cowered man, President Bush is!
If he can't go openly to Iraq after 4 1/2 years of occupation, and 1/2 a $
trillion spent on his imperial aggression, he would do better to hide in
the bomb shelter of the WH. He should not sneak to Iraq to display his
incompetence to the whole world see.
What a pathetic posting from a left wing trash spammer. The President as
Commander and Chief is doing his duty and showing respect for our troops
and respect is something you lack.
The President has never shown any respect for the troops. They, their
families carry all the burdens of the war, while Bush's cronies collect
the profits from the war, and the tax cuts Bush and the Republican
Congress have given to them.
The President showing his duty? No!! He is displaying his incompetence.
The 'leader of the world' had been reduced to sneak around like a wanted
criminal. Though, no jurisdiction branded him so, most of the world know
Bush is a war criminal.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Sneaking to Baghdad. |
03 Sep 2007 06:44:23 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 14:08:50 -0400, dapra <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote:
The President showing his duty? No!! He is displaying his incompetence.
The 'leader of the world' had been reduced to sneak around like a wanted
criminal. Though, no jurisdiction branded him so, most of the world know
Bush is a war criminal.
A growing number of Americans do also.
.
|
|
|
| User: "redc1c4" |
|
| Title: Re: Sneaking to Baghdad. |
30 Aug 2007 06:59:54 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 14:08:50 -0400, dapra <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote:
The President showing his duty? No!! He is displaying his incompetence.
The 'leader of the world' had been reduced to sneak around like a wanted
criminal. Though, no jurisdiction branded him so, most of the world know
Bush is a war criminal.
A growing number of Americans do also.
and all of you are wrong......
redc1c4,
pointing out the obvious, to the oblivious. %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."
Army Officer's Guide
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eris" |
|
| Title: Re: Sneaking to Baghdad. |
03 Sep 2007 07:47:22 PM |
|
|
On Aug 30, 7:59 pm, redc1c4 <redc...@drunkenbastards.org.ies> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 14:08:50 -0400, dapra <dap...@comcast.net> wrote:
The President showing his duty? No!! He is displaying his incompetence.
The 'leader of the world' had been reduced to sneak around like a wanted
criminal. Though, no jurisdiction branded him so, most of the world know
Bush is a war criminal.
A growing number of Americans do also.
and all of you are wrong......
redc1c4,
pointing out the obvious, to the oblivious. %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."
Army Officer's Guide
mind sharing some actual facts?
.
|
|
|
| User: "redc1c4" |
|
| Title: Re: Sneaking to Baghdad. |
30 Aug 2007 08:20:07 PM |
|
|
Eris wrote:
On Aug 30, 7:59 pm, redc1c4 <redc...@drunkenbastards.org.ies> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 14:08:50 -0400, dapra <dap...@comcast.net> wrote:
The President showing his duty? No!! He is displaying his incompetence.
The 'leader of the world' had been reduced to sneak around like a wanted
criminal. Though, no jurisdiction branded him so, most of the world know
Bush is a war criminal.
A growing number of Americans do also.
and all of you are wrong......
redc1c4,
pointing out the obvious, to the oblivious. %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."
Army Officer's Guide
mind sharing some actual facts?
sure: the fact is, no matter how much st00pid people like you claim Bush is a
"war criminal", none of you can proffer any evidence to sustain such a claim
in anything other than the "court of public opinion", & it lacks jurisdiction.
redc1c4,
pointing out the obvious, to the oblivious, as always. %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."
Army Officer's Guide
.
|
|
|
| User: "dapra" |
|
| Title: Re: Sneaking to Baghdad. |
03 Sep 2007 08:55:15 PM |
|
|
redc1c4 wrote:
Eris wrote:
On Aug 30, 7:59 pm, redc1c4 <redc...@drunkenbastards.org.ies> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 14:08:50 -0400, dapra <dap...@comcast.net> wrote:
The President showing his duty? No!! He is displaying his incompetence.
The 'leader of the world' had been reduced to sneak around like a wanted
criminal. Though, no jurisdiction branded him so, most of the world know
Bush is a war criminal.
A growing number of Americans do also.
and all of you are wrong......
redc1c4,
pointing out the obvious, to the oblivious. %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."
Army Officer's Guide
mind sharing some actual facts?
sure: the fact is, no matter how much st00pid people like you claim Bush is a
"war criminal", none of you can proffer any evidence to sustain such a claim
in anything other than the "court of public opinion", & it lacks jurisdiction.
You are right. The "court of public opinion" means very little, unless
the people storm the 'Winter Palace' or the 'Bastille'. Than mother Bush
could eat as much cake as Marie Antoinette's subjects, or the victims of
Kathrina.
redc1c4,
pointing out the obvious, to the oblivious, as always. %-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel" |
|
| Title: Re: Sneaking to Baghdad. |
05 Sep 2007 05:47:43 PM |
|
|
On Sep 3, 9:55 pm, dapra <dap...@comcast.net> wrote:
You are right. The "court of public opinion" means very little, unless
the people storm the 'Winter Palace' or the 'Bastille'. Than mother Bush
could eat as much cake as Marie Antoinette's subjects, or the victims of
Kathrina.
You libtard cowards aren't storming anything.......You spend all of
your time bitching and whining on Usenet....
Though it would be fun to get some of you libtard cowards in the gun
sights...
.
|
|
|
| User: "dapra" |
|
| Title: Re: Sneaking to Baghdad. |
05 Sep 2007 07:50:10 PM |
|
|
Daniel wrote:
On Sep 3, 9:55 pm, dapra <dap...@comcast.net> wrote:
You are right. The "court of public opinion" means very little, unless
the people storm the 'Winter Palace' or the 'Bastille'. Than mother Bush
could eat as much cake as Marie Antoinette's subjects, or the victims of
Kathrina.
You libtard cowards aren't storming anything.......You spend all of
your time bitching and whining on Usenet....
Though it would be fun to get some of you libtard cowards in the gun
sights...
Time is on our side. Boot licker mercenaries of the ruling class were
hanged, skinned alive in '56. I was happy to observe it.
You may end up the same way. Unless you switch sides in time. SS goons
were welcomed in the ranks of the Stasi, so were the developers of V-1,
V-2 to help the US space exploration.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "redc1c4" |
|
| Title: Re: Sneaking to Baghdad. |
30 Aug 2007 11:15:07 PM |
|
|
dapra wrote:
redc1c4 wrote:
Eris wrote:
On Aug 30, 7:59 pm, redc1c4 <redc...@drunkenbastards.org.ies> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 14:08:50 -0400, dapra <dap...@comcast.net> wrote:
The President showing his duty? No!! He is displaying his incompetence.
The 'leader of the world' had been reduced to sneak around like a wanted
criminal. Though, no jurisdiction branded him so, most of the world know
Bush is a war criminal.
A growing number of Americans do also.
and all of you are wrong......
redc1c4,
pointing out the obvious, to the oblivious. %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."
Army Officer's Guide
mind sharing some actual facts?
sure: the fact is, no matter how much st00pid people like you claim Bush is a
"war criminal", none of you can proffer any evidence to sustain such a claim
in anything other than the "court of public opinion", & it lacks jurisdiction.
You are right. The "court of public opinion" means very little, unless
the people storm the 'Winter Palace' or the 'Bastille'. Than mother Bush
could eat as much cake as Marie Antoinette's subjects, or the victims of
Kathrina.
"the people", on the whole, are well fed, prosperous and successful. only
whinny bullshitters and power hungry demagogues claim otherwise.
redc1c4,
(who isn't saying things are perfect, just comfortable for most. %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."
Army Officer's Guide
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Sneaking to Baghdad. |
04 Sep 2007 07:47:46 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 21:15:07 -0700 there was an Ancient redc1c4
<redc1c4@drunkenbastards.org.ies> who stoppeth one in alt.atheism
You are right. The "court of public opinion" means very little, unless
the people storm the 'Winter Palace' or the 'Bastille'. Than mother Bush
could eat as much cake as Marie Antoinette's subjects, or the victims of
Kathrina.
"the people", on the whole, are well fed, prosperous and successful. only
whinny bullshitters and power hungry demagogues claim otherwise.
Ah, "bread and circuses" eh?
The American Revolution that spawned that wonderful green machine you
and I both served in with pride was organized and led by well-fed,
prosperous, and successful people. I'm curious Red.. if it was 1775
would you be Tory or Patriot? Explain your answer in light of your
comments in this thread. After all, George III and Lord North were
decried as tyrants and criminals by those traitors Thomas Jefferson
and Patrick Henry.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eris" |
|
| Title: Re: Sneaking to Baghdad. |
04 Sep 2007 09:23:48 AM |
|
|
On Aug 31, 12:15 am, redc1c4 <redc...@drunkenbastards.org.ies> wrote:
dapra wrote:
redc1c4 wrote:
Eris wrote:
On Aug 30, 7:59 pm, redc1c4 <redc...@drunkenbastards.org.ies> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 14:08:50 -0400, dapra <dap...@comcast.net> wrote:
The President showing his duty? No!! He is displaying his incompetence.
The 'leader of the world' had been reduced to sneak around like a wanted
criminal. Though, no jurisdiction branded him so, most of the world know
Bush is a war criminal.
A growing number of Americans do also.
and all of you are wrong......
redc1c4,
pointing out the obvious, to the oblivious. %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."
Army Officer's Guide
mind sharing some actual facts?
sure: the fact is, no matter how much st00pid people like you claim Bush is a
"war criminal", none of you can proffer any evidence to sustain such a claim
in anything other than the "court of public opinion", & it lacks jurisdiction.
You are right. The "court of public opinion" means very little, unless
the people storm the 'Winter Palace' or the 'Bastille'. Than mother Bush
could eat as much cake as Marie Antoinette's subjects, or the victims of
Kathrina.
"the people", on the whole, are well fed, prosperous and successful. only
whinny bullshitters and power hungry demagogues claim otherwise.
redc1c4,
(who isn't saying things are perfect, just comfortable for most. %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."
Army Officer's Guide
Congratulations you finally got people to respond to one of your
idiotic posts.l
We are very !proud of you.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eris" |
|
| Title: Re: Sneaking to Baghdad. |
04 Sep 2007 04:03:42 PM |
|
|
On Aug 31, 12:15 am, redc1c4 <redc...@drunkenbastards.org.ies> wrote:
dapra wrote:
redc1c4 wrote:
Eris wrote:
On Aug 30, 7:59 pm, redc1c4 <redc...@drunkenbastards.org.ies> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 14:08:50 -0400, dapra <dap...@comcast.net> wrote:
The President showing his duty? No!! He is displaying his incompetence.
The 'leader of the world' had been reduced to sneak around like a wanted
criminal. Though, no jurisdiction branded him so, most of the world know
Bush is a war criminal.
A growing number of Americans do also.
and all of you are wrong......
redc1c4,
pointing out the obvious, to the oblivious. %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."
Army Officer's Guide
mind sharing some actual facts?
sure: the fact is, no matter how much st00pid people like you claim Bush is a
"war criminal", none of you can proffer any evidence to sustain such a claim
in anything other than the "court of public opinion", & it lacks jurisdiction.
You are right. The "court of public opinion" means very little, unless
the people storm the 'Winter Palace' or the 'Bastille'. Than mother Bush
could eat as much cake as Marie Antoinette's subjects, or the victims of
Kathrina.
"the people", on the whole, are well fed, prosperous and successful. only
whinny bullshitters and power hungry demagogues claim otherwise.
redc1c4,
(who isn't saying things are perfect, just comfortable for most. %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."
Army Officer's Guide
Number of uninsured has risen to 40,000,000, employees are getting
large pay and benefit cuts. But you have yours.
America seems to be rapidly becoming a two class society.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Campbell remove underscore" |
|
| Title: Re: Sneaking to Baghdad. |
04 Sep 2007 10:01:51 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 21:15:07 -0700, redc1c4
<redc1c4@drunkenbastards.org.ies> wrote:
dapra wrote:
You are right. The "court of public opinion" means very little, unless
the people storm the 'Winter Palace' or the 'Bastille'. Than mother Bush
could eat as much cake as Marie Antoinette's subjects, or the victims of
Kathrina.
"the people", on the whole, are well fed, prosperous and successful. only
whinny bullshitters and power hungry demagogues claim otherwise.
And the victims of Katrina should have elected a competent mayor and
governor.
Besides - while I was over there doing everything that was humanly
possible to help those people, all of the people criticizing did . . .
nothing.
I seem to recall asking darpa and his ilk what they were doing to help
the people in New Orleans while I was there - and got silence for an
answer.
--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Sneaking to Baghdad. |
05 Sep 2007 03:34:25 AM |
|
|
Colin Campbell wrote:
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.
Gosh, I won a game of solitaire just now - and nobody lost.
It seems your extremist justification for Jihad didn't pan out.
I haven't decided yet if I will have a cup of coffee, or a glass of
water - but I know that when I exercise that freedom - it will be
without anyone having to sacrifice anything.
All that loss suffering and sacrafice is just for religious freeks and
other low-lifes.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
