| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Fred Stone" |
| Date: |
27 May 2007 05:30:36 PM |
| Object: |
Suddenly, the wind shifts |
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/world/middleeast/27withdraw.html
WASHINGTON, May 26 — There is one matter on which American military
commanders, many Iraqis and some of the Bush administration’s staunchest
Congressional critics agree: if the United States withdrew its forces
from Baghdad’s streets this fall, the murder and mayhem would increase.
But that is where the agreement ends. The wrangling in Washington over
war financing, still fierce despite the Democrats’ decision to forgo for
now withdrawal deadlines, has obscured a more fundamental debate over
what Iraq’s future might look like without American troops.
Would the pullback of American forces unleash an even bloodier round of
civil conflict that would lead to the implosion of the Iraqi government?
Or would it put pressure on Iraqi politicians to finally reconcile their
differences? More bluntly: how bad would things get?
Those questions loom as the administration debates how and when to wind
down its troop increase in Iraq, as Iraqis weigh the trade-offs between
autonomy and security, and as Congressional Democrats, frustrated by
this week’s compromise with the White House, vow to hold a tougher line
on future war financing.
To address the issue, The New York Times interviewed more than 40 Iraqi
politicians and citizens and consulted recent surveys of public opinion
in Iraq. The views of a broad range of senior military officials,
American intelligence experts, politicians and independent analysts who
have recently returned from Iraq were also solicited.
The somewhat surprising verdict of most Iraqis was clear. For all their
distaste for the American occupation, many of them fear that a pullback
any time soon would lead to a violent chain reaction that would
jeopardize the fitful attempts at political dialogue and risk the
collapse of the Iraqi government.
“Many militias and terrorist groups are just waiting for the Americans
to leave,” said Salim Abdullah, the spokesman for the Iraqi Accordance
Front, the largest Sunni Arab group in the Parliament, who lost two
brothers this year to attacks by insurgents.
“This does not mean the presence of American troops in Baghdad is our
favorite option,” he said. “People in the street say the United States
is part of the chaos here and they could have made it better and safer.
Still, we need America to make the country more stable and not leave
Iraq in the trouble, which they, themselves, have caused.”
Senior American commanders in Iraq have a similar assessment. A troop
drawdown should not occur until security is improved, military
commanders say, and even then it should be gradual and carefully
engineered. “There will be a time when we will slowly remove ourselves
from the Iraqi forces and allow them to take more and more control,”
said Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the commander of ground forces in
Iraq, who has privately recommended that elevated troop levels be
maintained through early 2008. “But this should be done thoughtfully and
methodically when conditions permit.”
If the American forces were reduced too soon, military officials say,
the fledgling Iraqi Army and police forces could not hold the line
against a rising tide of suicide bomb attacks by insurgent groups like
Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. Shiite militias that had decided to lie low
would resume large-scale attacks on Sunni residents. Mixed Sunni and
Shiite neighborhoods, already growing scarce, would disappear, and Iraqi
forces would fracture along sectarian lines.
The conditions that need to be achieved before a major troop reduction,
General Odierno said, are a reduction in insurgent and militia attacks
and an improved ability by Iraqi security forces to protect
noncombatants.
A sharply divergent view is prevalent in Congress, where lawmakers have
pressed, unsuccessfully, to impose a schedule for American troop
withdrawal and binding benchmarks for Iraqi political reform. Some
leading Democrats acknowledge a risk of increased violence if the United
States pulls back, but they assert that the Iraqis will not take the
painful steps toward a genuine political accommodation until American
forces begin to leave.
“That is the leverage,” said Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat
who is the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. “They have got to
look into the abyss. And this is the abyss: do they want a civil war, or
do they want a nation?”
“I would begin a troop reduction as an action-forcing mechanism,” he
added.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to
lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker. "Everything after that
seemed like posturing."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Suddenly, the wind shifts |
27 May 2007 07:38:01 PM |
|
|
On 27 May 2007 22:30:36 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/world/middleeast/27withdraw.html
WASHINGTON, May 26 — There is one matter on which American military
commanders, many Iraqis and some of the Bush administration’s staunchest
Congressional critics agree: if the United States withdrew its forces
from Baghdad’s streets this fall, the murder and mayhem would increase.
But that is where the agreement ends. The wrangling in Washington over
war financing, still fierce despite the Democrats’ decision to forgo for
now withdrawal deadlines, has obscured a more fundamental debate over
what Iraq’s future might look like without American troops.
Would the pullback of American forces unleash an even bloodier round of
civil conflict that would lead to the implosion of the Iraqi government?
Or would it put pressure on Iraqi politicians to finally reconcile their
differences? More bluntly: how bad would things get?
Those questions loom as the administration debates how and when to wind
down its troop increase in Iraq, as Iraqis weigh the trade-offs between
autonomy and security, and as Congressional Democrats, frustrated by
this week’s compromise with the White House, vow to hold a tougher line
on future war financing.
To address the issue, The New York Times interviewed more than 40 Iraqi
politicians and citizens and consulted recent surveys of public opinion
in Iraq. The views of a broad range of senior military officials,
American intelligence experts, politicians and independent analysts who
have recently returned from Iraq were also solicited.
The somewhat surprising verdict of most Iraqis was clear. For all their
distaste for the American occupation, many of them fear that a pullback
any time soon would lead to a violent chain reaction that would
jeopardize the fitful attempts at political dialogue and risk the
collapse of the Iraqi government.
“Many militias and terrorist groups are just waiting for the Americans
to leave,” said Salim Abdullah, the spokesman for the Iraqi Accordance
Front, the largest Sunni Arab group in the Parliament, who lost two
brothers this year to attacks by insurgents.
“This does not mean the presence of American troops in Baghdad is our
favorite option,” he said. “People in the street say the United States
is part of the chaos here and they could have made it better and safer.
Still, we need America to make the country more stable and not leave
Iraq in the trouble, which they, themselves, have caused.”
Senior American commanders in Iraq have a similar assessment. A troop
drawdown should not occur until security is improved, military
commanders say, and even then it should be gradual and carefully
engineered. “There will be a time when we will slowly remove ourselves
from the Iraqi forces and allow them to take more and more control,”
said Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the commander of ground forces in
Iraq, who has privately recommended that elevated troop levels be
maintained through early 2008. “But this should be done thoughtfully and
methodically when conditions permit.”
If the American forces were reduced too soon, military officials say,
the fledgling Iraqi Army and police forces could not hold the line
against a rising tide of suicide bomb attacks by insurgent groups like
Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. Shiite militias that had decided to lie low
would resume large-scale attacks on Sunni residents. Mixed Sunni and
Shiite neighborhoods, already growing scarce, would disappear, and Iraqi
forces would fracture along sectarian lines.
The conditions that need to be achieved before a major troop reduction,
General Odierno said, are a reduction in insurgent and militia attacks
and an improved ability by Iraqi security forces to protect
noncombatants.
A sharply divergent view is prevalent in Congress, where lawmakers have
pressed, unsuccessfully, to impose a schedule for American troop
withdrawal and binding benchmarks for Iraqi political reform. Some
leading Democrats acknowledge a risk of increased violence if the United
States pulls back, but they assert that the Iraqis will not take the
painful steps toward a genuine political accommodation until American
forces begin to leave.
“That is the leverage,” said Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat
who is the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. “They have got to
look into the abyss. And this is the abyss: do they want a civil war, or
do they want a nation?”
“I would begin a troop reduction as an action-forcing mechanism,” he
added.
No, they want us to stand and be the punching bag for their civil war
and be angry at us for doing it at the same time because we started
this mess, screwed it up even more and it's cost them dearly.
What a fool you are. You were told this would happen and you wouldn't
listen.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Suddenly, the wind shifts |
27 May 2007 07:13:18 PM |
|
|
(Kate ) wrote in
news:465a237f.15498093@news-west.newscene.com:
On 27 May 2007 22:30:36 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/world/middleeast/27withdraw.html
WASHINGTON, May 26 — There is one matter on which American military
commanders, many Iraqis and some of the Bush administration’s
staunchest Congressional critics agree: if the United States withdrew
its forces from Baghdad’s streets this fall, the murder and mayhem
would increase.
But that is where the agreement ends. The wrangling in Washington over
war financing, still fierce despite the Democrats’ decision to forgo
for now withdrawal deadlines, has obscured a more fundamental debate
over what Iraq’s future might look like without American troops.
Would the pullback of American forces unleash an even bloodier round
of civil conflict that would lead to the implosion of the Iraqi
government? Or would it put pressure on Iraqi politicians to finally
reconcile their differences? More bluntly: how bad would things get?
Those questions loom as the administration debates how and when to
wind down its troop increase in Iraq, as Iraqis weigh the trade-offs
between autonomy and security, and as Congressional Democrats,
frustrated by this week’s compromise with the White House, vow to hold
a tougher line on future war financing.
To address the issue, The New York Times interviewed more than 40
Iraqi politicians and citizens and consulted recent surveys of public
opinion in Iraq. The views of a broad range of senior military
officials, American intelligence experts, politicians and independent
analysts who have recently returned from Iraq were also solicited.
The somewhat surprising verdict of most Iraqis was clear. For all
their distaste for the American occupation, many of them fear that a
pullback any time soon would lead to a violent chain reaction that
would jeopardize the fitful attempts at political dialogue and risk
the collapse of the Iraqi government.
“Many militias and terrorist groups are just waiting for the Americans
to leave,” said Salim Abdullah, the spokesman for the Iraqi Accordance
Front, the largest Sunni Arab group in the Parliament, who lost two
brothers this year to attacks by insurgents.
“This does not mean the presence of American troops in Baghdad is our
favorite option,” he said. “People in the street say the United States
is part of the chaos here and they could have made it better and
safer. Still, we need America to make the country more stable and not
leave Iraq in the trouble, which they, themselves, have caused.”
Senior American commanders in Iraq have a similar assessment. A troop
drawdown should not occur until security is improved, military
commanders say, and even then it should be gradual and carefully
engineered. “There will be a time when we will slowly remove ourselves
from the Iraqi forces and allow them to take more and more control,”
said Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the commander of ground forces in
Iraq, who has privately recommended that elevated troop levels be
maintained through early 2008. “But this should be done thoughtfully
and methodically when conditions permit.”
If the American forces were reduced too soon, military officials say,
the fledgling Iraqi Army and police forces could not hold the line
against a rising tide of suicide bomb attacks by insurgent groups like
Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. Shiite militias that had decided to lie low
would resume large-scale attacks on Sunni residents. Mixed Sunni and
Shiite neighborhoods, already growing scarce, would disappear, and
Iraqi forces would fracture along sectarian lines.
The conditions that need to be achieved before a major troop
reduction, General Odierno said, are a reduction in insurgent and
militia attacks and an improved ability by Iraqi security forces to
protect noncombatants.
A sharply divergent view is prevalent in Congress, where lawmakers
have pressed, unsuccessfully, to impose a schedule for American troop
withdrawal and binding benchmarks for Iraqi political reform. Some
leading Democrats acknowledge a risk of increased violence if the
United States pulls back, but they assert that the Iraqis will not
take the painful steps toward a genuine political accommodation until
American forces begin to leave.
“That is the leverage,” said Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat
who is the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. “They have got to
look into the abyss. And this is the abyss: do they want a civil war,
or do they want a nation?”
“I would begin a troop reduction as an action-forcing mechanism,” he
added.
No, they want us to stand and be the punching bag for their civil war
and be angry at us for doing it at the same time because we started
this mess, screwed it up even more and it's cost them dearly.
What a fool you are. You were told this would happen and you wouldn't
listen.
We knew it was going to be hard, Kate. It was you libruls who wanted
something quick and easy and who don't have the stomach for even as
little trouble as this war has been.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to
lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker. "Everything after that
seemed like posturing."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "ike milligan" |
|
| Title: Re: Suddenly, the wind shifts |
27 May 2007 09:01:56 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns993DD6A75ECF8freddybear@66.150.105.47...
cobalt@newscene.com (Kate ) wrote in
news:465a237f.15498093@news-west.newscene.com:
On 27 May 2007 22:30:36 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/world/middleeast/27withdraw.html
WASHINGTON, May 26 - There is one matter on which American military
commanders, many Iraqis and some of the Bush administration's
staunchest Congressional critics agree: if the United States withdrew
its forces from Baghdad's streets this fall, the murder and mayhem
would increase.
But that is where the agreement ends. The wrangling in Washington over
war financing, still fierce despite the Democrats' decision to forgo
for now withdrawal deadlines, has obscured a more fundamental debate
over what Iraq's future might look like without American troops.
Would the pullback of American forces unleash an even bloodier round
of civil conflict that would lead to the implosion of the Iraqi
government? Or would it put pressure on Iraqi politicians to finally
reconcile their differences? More bluntly: how bad would things get?
Those questions loom as the administration debates how and when to
wind down its troop increase in Iraq, as Iraqis weigh the trade-offs
between autonomy and security, and as Congressional Democrats,
frustrated by this week's compromise with the White House, vow to hold
a tougher line on future war financing.
To address the issue, The New York Times interviewed more than 40
Iraqi politicians and citizens and consulted recent surveys of public
opinion in Iraq. The views of a broad range of senior military
officials, American intelligence experts, politicians and independent
analysts who have recently returned from Iraq were also solicited.
The somewhat surprising verdict of most Iraqis was clear. For all
their distaste for the American occupation, many of them fear that a
pullback any time soon would lead to a violent chain reaction that
would jeopardize the fitful attempts at political dialogue and risk
the collapse of the Iraqi government.
"Many militias and terrorist groups are just waiting for the Americans
to leave," said Salim Abdullah, the spokesman for the Iraqi Accordance
Front, the largest Sunni Arab group in the Parliament, who lost two
brothers this year to attacks by insurgents.
"This does not mean the presence of American troops in Baghdad is our
favorite option," he said. "People in the street say the United States
is part of the chaos here and they could have made it better and
safer. Still, we need America to make the country more stable and not
leave Iraq in the trouble, which they, themselves, have caused."
Senior American commanders in Iraq have a similar assessment. A troop
drawdown should not occur until security is improved, military
commanders say, and even then it should be gradual and carefully
engineered. "There will be a time when we will slowly remove ourselves
from the Iraqi forces and allow them to take more and more control,"
said Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the commander of ground forces in
Iraq, who has privately recommended that elevated troop levels be
maintained through early 2008. "But this should be done thoughtfully
and methodically when conditions permit."
If the American forces were reduced too soon, military officials say,
the fledgling Iraqi Army and police forces could not hold the line
against a rising tide of suicide bomb attacks by insurgent groups like
Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. Shiite militias that had decided to lie low
would resume large-scale attacks on Sunni residents. Mixed Sunni and
Shiite neighborhoods, already growing scarce, would disappear, and
Iraqi forces would fracture along sectarian lines.
The conditions that need to be achieved before a major troop
reduction, General Odierno said, are a reduction in insurgent and
militia attacks and an improved ability by Iraqi security forces to
protect noncombatants.
A sharply divergent view is prevalent in Congress, where lawmakers
have pressed, unsuccessfully, to impose a schedule for American troop
withdrawal and binding benchmarks for Iraqi political reform. Some
leading Democrats acknowledge a risk of increased violence if the
United States pulls back, but they assert that the Iraqis will not
take the painful steps toward a genuine political accommodation until
American forces begin to leave.
"That is the leverage," said Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat
who is the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. "They have got to
look into the abyss. And this is the abyss: do they want a civil war,
or do they want a nation?"
"I would begin a troop reduction as an action-forcing mechanism," he
added.
No, they want us to stand and be the punching bag for their civil war
and be angry at us for doing it at the same time because we started
this mess, screwed it up even more and it's cost them dearly.
What a fool you are. You were told this would happen and you wouldn't
listen.
We knew it was going to be hard, Kate. It was you libruls who wanted
something quick and easy and who don't have the stomach for even as
little trouble as this war has been.
So it was the liberals who said the Iraqis would welcome the U.S. military
as liberators nad the war would be over in a few weeks. Also the liberals
who said "Bring it on", and Mission Accomplished".
You go into someone's country and tell them it's time for a makeover, and
unfortunately you will have to kill a few hundred thousand of them to make
it work, but they should be happy because they are now free. You
well-meaning liberals.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Suddenly, the wind shifts |
28 May 2007 06:08:31 AM |
|
|
"ike milligan" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in
news:oKq6i.10817$296.8955@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns993DD6A75ECF8freddybear@66.150.105.47...
cobalt@newscene.com (Kate ) wrote in
news:465a237f.15498093@news-west.newscene.com:
On 27 May 2007 22:30:36 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/world/middleeast/27withdraw.html
WASHINGTON, May 26 - There is one matter on which American military
commanders, many Iraqis and some of the Bush administration's
staunchest Congressional critics agree: if the United States
withdrew its forces from Baghdad's streets this fall, the murder and
mayhem would increase.
But that is where the agreement ends. The wrangling in Washington
over war financing, still fierce despite the Democrats' decision to
forgo for now withdrawal deadlines, has obscured a more fundamental
debate over what Iraq's future might look like without American
troops.
Would the pullback of American forces unleash an even bloodier round
of civil conflict that would lead to the implosion of the Iraqi
government? Or would it put pressure on Iraqi politicians to finally
reconcile their differences? More bluntly: how bad would things get?
Those questions loom as the administration debates how and when to
wind down its troop increase in Iraq, as Iraqis weigh the trade-offs
between autonomy and security, and as Congressional Democrats,
frustrated by this week's compromise with the White House, vow to
hold a tougher line on future war financing.
To address the issue, The New York Times interviewed more than 40
Iraqi politicians and citizens and consulted recent surveys of
public opinion in Iraq. The views of a broad range of senior
military officials, American intelligence experts, politicians and
independent analysts who have recently returned from Iraq were also
solicited.
The somewhat surprising verdict of most Iraqis was clear. For all
their distaste for the American occupation, many of them fear that a
pullback any time soon would lead to a violent chain reaction that
would jeopardize the fitful attempts at political dialogue and risk
the collapse of the Iraqi government.
"Many militias and terrorist groups are just waiting for the
Americans to leave," said Salim Abdullah, the spokesman for the
Iraqi Accordance Front, the largest Sunni Arab group in the
Parliament, who lost two brothers this year to attacks by
insurgents.
"This does not mean the presence of American troops in Baghdad is
our favorite option," he said. "People in the street say the United
States is part of the chaos here and they could have made it better
and safer. Still, we need America to make the country more stable
and not leave Iraq in the trouble, which they, themselves, have
caused."
Senior American commanders in Iraq have a similar assessment. A
troop drawdown should not occur until security is improved, military
commanders say, and even then it should be gradual and carefully
engineered. "There will be a time when we will slowly remove
ourselves from the Iraqi forces and allow them to take more and more
control," said Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the commander of ground
forces in Iraq, who has privately recommended that elevated troop
levels be maintained through early 2008. "But this should be done
thoughtfully and methodically when conditions permit."
If the American forces were reduced too soon, military officials
say, the fledgling Iraqi Army and police forces could not hold the
line against a rising tide of suicide bomb attacks by insurgent
groups like Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. Shiite militias that had
decided to lie low would resume large-scale attacks on Sunni
residents. Mixed Sunni and Shiite neighborhoods, already growing
scarce, would disappear, and Iraqi forces would fracture along
sectarian lines.
The conditions that need to be achieved before a major troop
reduction, General Odierno said, are a reduction in insurgent and
militia attacks and an improved ability by Iraqi security forces to
protect noncombatants.
A sharply divergent view is prevalent in Congress, where lawmakers
have pressed, unsuccessfully, to impose a schedule for American
troop withdrawal and binding benchmarks for Iraqi political reform.
Some leading Democrats acknowledge a risk of increased violence if
the United States pulls back, but they assert that the Iraqis will
not take the painful steps toward a genuine political accommodation
until American forces begin to leave.
"That is the leverage," said Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan
Democrat who is the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. "They
have got to look into the abyss. And this is the abyss: do they want
a civil war, or do they want a nation?"
"I would begin a troop reduction as an action-forcing mechanism," he
added.
No, they want us to stand and be the punching bag for their civil
war and be angry at us for doing it at the same time because we
started this mess, screwed it up even more and it's cost them
dearly.
What a fool you are. You were told this would happen and you
wouldn't listen.
We knew it was going to be hard, Kate. It was you libruls who wanted
something quick and easy and who don't have the stomach for even as
little trouble as this war has been.
So it was the liberals who said the Iraqis would welcome the U.S.
military as liberators nad the war would be over in a few weeks.
They did welcome us, and we did crush Saddam's army in a few weeks. It
seems like you liberals have very convenient memories.
Also
the liberals who said "Bring it on", and Mission Accomplished".
You also have very convenient soundbite machines to tell you what to
think when the President says something.
You go into someone's country and tell them it's time for a makeover,
and unfortunately you will have to kill a few hundred thousand of them
to make it work, but they should be happy because they are now free.
If you asked them they would tell you that they are happy that Saddam is
dead and that they can form their own government. But don't let little
things like that affect your desire to tell other people what to do.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to
lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker. "Everything after that
seemed like posturing."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Fritzinger" |
|
| Title: Re: Suddenly, the wind shifts |
28 May 2007 02:28:17 PM |
|
|
In article <Xns993DD6A75ECF8freddybear@66.150.105.47>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
cobalt@newscene.com (Kate ) wrote in
news:465a237f.15498093@news-west.newscene.com:
On 27 May 2007 22:30:36 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/world/middleeast/27withdraw.html
WASHINGTON, May 26 — There is one matter on which American military
commanders, many Iraqis and some of the Bush administration’s
staunchest Congressional critics agree: if the United States withdrew
its forces from Baghdad’s streets this fall, the murder and mayhem
would increase.
But that is where the agreement ends. The wrangling in Washington over
war financing, still fierce despite the Democrats’ decision to forgo
for now withdrawal deadlines, has obscured a more fundamental debate
over what Iraq’s future might look like without American troops.
Would the pullback of American forces unleash an even bloodier round
of civil conflict that would lead to the implosion of the Iraqi
government? Or would it put pressure on Iraqi politicians to finally
reconcile their differences? More bluntly: how bad would things get?
Those questions loom as the administration debates how and when to
wind down its troop increase in Iraq, as Iraqis weigh the trade-offs
between autonomy and security, and as Congressional Democrats,
frustrated by this week’s compromise with the White House, vow to hold
a tougher line on future war financing.
To address the issue, The New York Times interviewed more than 40
Iraqi politicians and citizens and consulted recent surveys of public
opinion in Iraq. The views of a broad range of senior military
officials, American intelligence experts, politicians and independent
analysts who have recently returned from Iraq were also solicited.
The somewhat surprising verdict of most Iraqis was clear. For all
their distaste for the American occupation, many of them fear that a
pullback any time soon would lead to a violent chain reaction that
would jeopardize the fitful attempts at political dialogue and risk
the collapse of the Iraqi government.
“Many militias and terrorist groups are just waiting for the Americans
to leave,” said Salim Abdullah, the spokesman for the Iraqi Accordance
Front, the largest Sunni Arab group in the Parliament, who lost two
brothers this year to attacks by insurgents.
“This does not mean the presence of American troops in Baghdad is our
favorite option,” he said. “People in the street say the United States
is part of the chaos here and they could have made it better and
safer. Still, we need America to make the country more stable and not
leave Iraq in the trouble, which they, themselves, have caused.”
Senior American commanders in Iraq have a similar assessment. A troop
drawdown should not occur until security is improved, military
commanders say, and even then it should be gradual and carefully
engineered. “There will be a time when we will slowly remove ourselves
from the Iraqi forces and allow them to take more and more control,”
said Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the commander of ground forces in
Iraq, who has privately recommended that elevated troop levels be
maintained through early 2008. “But this should be done thoughtfully
and methodically when conditions permit.”
If the American forces were reduced too soon, military officials say,
the fledgling Iraqi Army and police forces could not hold the line
against a rising tide of suicide bomb attacks by insurgent groups like
Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. Shiite militias that had decided to lie low
would resume large-scale attacks on Sunni residents. Mixed Sunni and
Shiite neighborhoods, already growing scarce, would disappear, and
Iraqi forces would fracture along sectarian lines.
The conditions that need to be achieved before a major troop
reduction, General Odierno said, are a reduction in insurgent and
militia attacks and an improved ability by Iraqi security forces to
protect noncombatants.
A sharply divergent view is prevalent in Congress, where lawmakers
have pressed, unsuccessfully, to impose a schedule for American troop
withdrawal and binding benchmarks for Iraqi political reform. Some
leading Democrats acknowledge a risk of increased violence if the
United States pulls back, but they assert that the Iraqis will not
take the painful steps toward a genuine political accommodation until
American forces begin to leave.
“That is the leverage,” said Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat
who is the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. “They have got to
look into the abyss. And this is the abyss: do they want a civil war,
or do they want a nation?”
“I would begin a troop reduction as an action-forcing mechanism,” he
added.
No, they want us to stand and be the punching bag for their civil war
and be angry at us for doing it at the same time because we started
this mess, screwed it up even more and it's cost them dearly.
What a fool you are. You were told this would happen and you wouldn't
listen.
We knew it was going to be hard, Kate. It was you libruls who wanted
something quick and easy and who don't have the stomach for even as
little trouble as this war has been.
Except, of course, for all the administration officials who told us how
easy it was going to be. I won't give you the quotes, because you have
seen them before, but I recall Rumsfeld telling us that the war wouldn't
last more than about 6 weeks, Wolfowitz telling us the reconstruction
would be paid for by Iraqi oil money, other administration officials
telling us the war wouldn't cost more than about $50 billion, Cheney
telling us the insurgency was in its "last throes", etc. Sorry, but
either the administration was separated widely from reality, or they
lied.
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Suddenly, the wind shifts |
28 May 2007 05:20:31 PM |
|
|
David Fritzinger <dfritzin@nospam.mac.com> wrote in
news:dfritzin-414DE4.09281728052007@news-server.hawaii.rr.com:
In article <Xns993DD6A75ECF8freddybear@66.150.105.47>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
<...>
We knew it was going to be hard, Kate. It was you libruls who wanted
something quick and easy and who don't have the stomach for even as
little trouble as this war has been.
Except, of course, for all the administration officials who told us
how easy it was going to be. I won't give you the quotes, because you
have seen them before,
If you were honest you'd have to give me Bush's quotes about how hard
the reconstruction would be, from that same "Mission Accomplished"
speech that you like to cite.
but I recall Rumsfeld telling us that the war
wouldn't last more than about 6 weeks,
It didn't.
This is the reconstruction phase. Bush said it would be a long tough
process, and he was right.
Wolfowitz telling us the
reconstruction would be paid for by Iraqi oil money,
It's still entirely possible. Do you remember how long it took England
to pay off Lend/Lease?
Yang may now snark in with one of his patented rectal comments about
return on investment that ignores the value of a free allied country.
other
administration officials telling us the war wouldn't cost more than
about $50 billion, Cheney telling us the insurgency was in its "last
throes", etc.
Yeah, that was a dumb comment, and when has the government ever got a
cost estimate right?
Sorry, but either the administration was separated
widely from reality, or they lied.
Or else your expectations were entirely out of line with reality. For a
"reality-based community" you libruls sure do have a lot of unrealistic
expectations.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to
lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker. "Everything after that
seemed like posturing."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Suddenly, the wind shifts |
27 May 2007 11:32:02 PM |
|
|
On 28 May 2007 00:13:18 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
cobalt@newscene.com (Kate ) wrote in
news:465a237f.15498093@news-west.newscene.com:
On 27 May 2007 22:30:36 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/world/middleeast/27withdraw.html
WASHINGTON, May 26 — There is one matter on which American military
commanders, many Iraqis and some of the Bush administration’s
staunchest Congressional critics agree: if the United States withdrew
its forces from Baghdad’s streets this fall, the murder and mayhem
would increase.
But that is where the agreement ends. The wrangling in Washington over
war financing, still fierce despite the Democrats’ decision to forgo
for now withdrawal deadlines, has obscured a more fundamental debate
over what Iraq’s future might look like without American troops.
Would the pullback of American forces unleash an even bloodier round
of civil conflict that would lead to the implosion of the Iraqi
government? Or would it put pressure on Iraqi politicians to finally
reconcile their differences? More bluntly: how bad would things get?
Those questions loom as the administration debates how and when to
wind down its troop increase in Iraq, as Iraqis weigh the trade-offs
between autonomy and security, and as Congressional Democrats,
frustrated by this week’s compromise with the White House, vow to hold
a tougher line on future war financing.
To address the issue, The New York Times interviewed more than 40
Iraqi politicians and citizens and consulted recent surveys of public
opinion in Iraq. The views of a broad range of senior military
officials, American intelligence experts, politicians and independent
analysts who have recently returned from Iraq were also solicited.
The somewhat surprising verdict of most Iraqis was clear. For all
their distaste for the American occupation, many of them fear that a
pullback any time soon would lead to a violent chain reaction that
would jeopardize the fitful attempts at political dialogue and risk
the collapse of the Iraqi government.
“Many militias and terrorist groups are just waiting for the Americans
to leave,” said Salim Abdullah, the spokesman for the Iraqi Accordance
Front, the largest Sunni Arab group in the Parliament, who lost two
brothers this year to attacks by insurgents.
“This does not mean the presence of American troops in Baghdad is our
favorite option,” he said. “People in the street say the United States
is part of the chaos here and they could have made it better and
safer. Still, we need America to make the country more stable and not
leave Iraq in the trouble, which they, themselves, have caused.”
Senior American commanders in Iraq have a similar assessment. A troop
drawdown should not occur until security is improved, military
commanders say, and even then it should be gradual and carefully
engineered. “There will be a time when we will slowly remove ourselves
from the Iraqi forces and allow them to take more and more control,”
said Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the commander of ground forces in
Iraq, who has privately recommended that elevated troop levels be
maintained through early 2008. “But this should be done thoughtfully
and methodically when conditions permit.”
If the American forces were reduced too soon, military officials say,
the fledgling Iraqi Army and police forces could not hold the line
against a rising tide of suicide bomb attacks by insurgent groups like
Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. Shiite militias that had decided to lie low
would resume large-scale attacks on Sunni residents. Mixed Sunni and
Shiite neighborhoods, already growing scarce, would disappear, and
Iraqi forces would fracture along sectarian lines.
The conditions that need to be achieved before a major troop
reduction, General Odierno said, are a reduction in insurgent and
militia attacks and an improved ability by Iraqi security forces to
protect noncombatants.
A sharply divergent view is prevalent in Congress, where lawmakers
have pressed, unsuccessfully, to impose a schedule for American troop
withdrawal and binding benchmarks for Iraqi political reform. Some
leading Democrats acknowledge a risk of increased violence if the
United States pulls back, but they assert that the Iraqis will not
take the painful steps toward a genuine political accommodation until
American forces begin to leave.
“That is the leverage,” said Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat
who is the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. “They have got to
look into the abyss. And this is the abyss: do they want a civil war,
or do they want a nation?”
“I would begin a troop reduction as an action-forcing mechanism,” he
added.
No, they want us to stand and be the punching bag for their civil war
and be angry at us for doing it at the same time because we started
this mess, screwed it up even more and it's cost them dearly.
What a fool you are. You were told this would happen and you wouldn't
listen.
We knew it was going to be hard, Kate. It was you libruls who wanted
something quick and easy and who don't have the stomach for even as
little trouble as this war has been.
No, honey. We didn't want it at all, because as we told you, Saddam
was the lynchpin that was keeping civil war from happening and that's
why the civilians were letting him be a tyrant. The only reason for
us to remove him was if he had real WMD's that he actually could and
was going to hit us with. Cheney knew that so he lied to us and you.
You were just the bigger fool.
But we all know you didn't want to listen. And now here you are,
admitting exactly what we told you. It's a civil war and surprise -
there's no easy way out.
Of course they are frightened that it will get worse, but it won't
make any difference when we leave about that. It just makes a
difference how many of our own men we sacrafice for nothing.
Time for Fred to say he's sorry, he was wrong, The liberals, Bush sr,
the generals - all were right. We had no business being there and we
still don't because it doesn't matter when when we leave - it's going
to be tragically bad for the Iraqis and it's already been tragically
bad for the Iraqis. Bush screwed up having us attack and then fucked
it up royally by doing it badly.
Sorry you can't see reality, but you always see it way too late. The
way you are admitting now. By telling us that you know it, but trying
desperately to pretend it's not true.
We all see through you Freddo.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Suddenly, the wind shifts |
28 May 2007 06:18:55 AM |
|
|
(Kate ) wrote in
news:465b5826.28977171@news-west.newscene.com:
On 28 May 2007 00:13:18 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
(Kate ) wrote in
news:465a237f.15498093@news-west.newscene.com:
On 27 May 2007 22:30:36 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/world/middleeast/27withdraw.html
WASHINGTON, May 26 — There is one matter on which American military
commanders, many Iraqis and some of the Bush administration’s
staunchest Congressional critics agree: if the United States
withdrew its forces from Baghdad’s streets this fall, the murder and
mayhem would increase.
But that is where the agreement ends. The wrangling in Washington
over war financing, still fierce despite the Democrats’ decision to
forgo for now withdrawal deadlines, has obscured a more fundamental
debate over what Iraq’s future might look like without American
troops.
Would the pullback of American forces unleash an even bloodier round
of civil conflict that would lead to the implosion of the Iraqi
government? Or would it put pressure on Iraqi politicians to finally
reconcile their differences? More bluntly: how bad would things get?
Those questions loom as the administration debates how and when to
wind down its troop increase in Iraq, as Iraqis weigh the trade-offs
between autonomy and security, and as Congressional Democrats,
frustrated by this week’s compromise with the White House, vow to
hold a tougher line on future war financing.
To address the issue, The New York Times interviewed more than 40
Iraqi politicians and citizens and consulted recent surveys of
public opinion in Iraq. The views of a broad range of senior
military officials, American intelligence experts, politicians and
independent analysts who have recently returned from Iraq were also
solicited.
The somewhat surprising verdict of most Iraqis was clear. For all
their distaste for the American occupation, many of them fear that a
pullback any time soon would lead to a violent chain reaction that
would jeopardize the fitful attempts at political dialogue and risk
the collapse of the Iraqi government.
“Many militias and terrorist groups are just waiting for the
Americans to leave,” said Salim Abdullah, the spokesman for the
Iraqi Accordance Front, the largest Sunni Arab group in the
Parliament, who lost two brothers this year to attacks by
insurgents.
“This does not mean the presence of American troops in Baghdad is
our favorite option,” he said. “People in the street say the United
States is part of the chaos here and they could have made it better
and safer. Still, we need America to make the country more stable
and not leave Iraq in the trouble, which they, themselves, have
caused.”
Senior American commanders in Iraq have a similar assessment. A
troop drawdown should not occur until security is improved, military
commanders say, and even then it should be gradual and carefully
engineered. “There will be a time when we will slowly remove
ourselves from the Iraqi forces and allow them to take more and more
control,” said Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the commander of ground
forces in Iraq, who has privately recommended that elevated troop
levels be maintained through early 2008. “But this should be done
thoughtfully and methodically when conditions permit.”
If the American forces were reduced too soon, military officials
say, the fledgling Iraqi Army and police forces could not hold the
line against a rising tide of suicide bomb attacks by insurgent
groups like Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. Shiite militias that had
decided to lie low would resume large-scale attacks on Sunni
residents. Mixed Sunni and Shiite neighborhoods, already growing
scarce, would disappear, and Iraqi forces would fracture along
sectarian lines.
The conditions that need to be achieved before a major troop
reduction, General Odierno said, are a reduction in insurgent and
militia attacks and an improved ability by Iraqi security forces to
protect noncombatants.
A sharply divergent view is prevalent in Congress, where lawmakers
have pressed, unsuccessfully, to impose a schedule for American
troop withdrawal and binding benchmarks for Iraqi political reform.
Some leading Democrats acknowledge a risk of increased violence if
the United States pulls back, but they assert that the Iraqis will
not take the painful steps toward a genuine political accommodation
until American forces begin to leave.
“That is the leverage,” said Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan
Democrat who is the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. “They
have got to look into the abyss. And this is the abyss: do they want
a civil war, or do they want a nation?”
“I would begin a troop reduction as an action-forcing mechanism,” he
added.
No, they want us to stand and be the punching bag for their civil
war and be angry at us for doing it at the same time because we
started this mess, screwed it up even more and it's cost them
dearly.
What a fool you are. You were told this would happen and you
wouldn't listen.
We knew it was going to be hard, Kate. It was you libruls who wanted
something quick and easy and who don't have the stomach for even as
little trouble as this war has been.
No, honey. We didn't want it at all, because as we told you, Saddam
was the lynchpin that was keeping civil war from happening and that's
why the civilians were letting him be a tyrant.
No, sweetie, they were "letting" him be a tyrant because he had the army
behind him.
The only reason for
us to remove him was if he had real WMD's that he actually could and
was going to hit us with. Cheney knew that so he lied to us and you.
You were just the bigger fool.
There are twenty other reasons in the Resolution which your precious
Democrats voted for. You might try paying attention to what it says some
time.
But we all know you didn't want to listen. And now here you are,
admitting exactly what we told you. It's a civil war and surprise -
there's no easy way out.
It's not a civil war, and guess what, nobody ever said it would be easy.
You just proved my point, Katie dear. YOU DO WANT IT TO BE EASY.
Of course they are frightened that it will get worse, but it won't
make any difference when we leave about that. It just makes a
difference how many of our own men we sacrafice for nothing.
Time for Fred to say he's sorry, he was wrong, The liberals, Bush sr,
the generals - all were right. We had no business being there and we
still don't because it doesn't matter when when we leave - it's going
to be tragically bad for the Iraqis and it's already been tragically
bad for the Iraqis. Bush screwed up having us attack and then fucked
it up royally by doing it badly.
Sorry you can't see reality, but you always see it way too late. The
way you are admitting now. By telling us that you know it, but trying
desperately to pretend it's not true.
Katie dear, you always act like I'm "admitting" something. Desperate for
me to be breaking down and groveling at your feet, begging forgiveness
for refusing to see the truth, aren't you Kate? It ain't gonna happen.
I'm *admitting* that we told you all along that it was going to be a
difficult process and that there would be setbacks. I'm *admitting* that
you're a weak-willed sob sister who doesn't have the spine to stick to a
commitment that YOUR POLITICIANS MADE. The first time anything looked
bad, which is the first time news came back from the war, all you lily-
livered liberals got the vapors and started looking for excuses so that
you could BLAME ANYBODY BUT YOURSELVES for the votes YOUR OWN
POLITICIANS made in Congress.
And since you're all so stupid that you'll believe anything, you
actually believe that YOUR OWN POLITICIANS are gullible idiots who
believed that Saddam was going to be trouble in 1998 but when they
believed the same thing in 2002 and voted for the war it was because
BUSH LIED.
You're such a piece of work, Kate. You think everybody is as stupid as
you are.
We all see through you Freddo.
You only see what you want to see, Kate. Too bad for you I'm not as
stupid as you are.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to
lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker. "Everything after that
seemed like posturing."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "William Wingstedt" |
|
| Title: Re: Suddenly, the wind shifts |
28 May 2007 08:39:03 AM |
|
|
On 28 May 2007 00:13:18 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
cobalt@newscene.com (Kate ) wrote in
news:465a237f.15498093@news-west.newscene.com:
snip
We knew it was going to be hard, Kate. It was you libruls who wanted
something quick and easy and who don't have the stomach for even as
little trouble as this war has been.
How little trouble has it been?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to
lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker. "Everything after that
seemed like posturing."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Suddenly, the wind shifts |
28 May 2007 08:35:04 AM |
|
|
(William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:465adb0e.240374450@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On 28 May 2007 00:13:18 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
cobalt@newscene.com (Kate ) wrote in
news:465a237f.15498093@news-west.newscene.com:
snip
We knew it was going to be hard, Kate. It was you libruls who wanted
something quick and easy and who don't have the stomach for even as
little trouble as this war has been.
How little trouble has it been?
Very little. Any of the big battles in World War II took more American
lives than the whole Iraq operation, and I don't recall reading much
about pulling out of Germany.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to
lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker. "Everything after that
seemed like posturing."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "William Wingstedt" |
|
| Title: Re: Suddenly, the wind shifts |
03 Jun 2007 09:15:20 PM |
|
|
On 28 May 2007 13:35:04 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
William_Wingstedt@comcast.net (William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:465adb0e.240374450@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On 28 May 2007 00:13:18 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
cobalt@newscene.com (Kate ) wrote in
news:465a237f.15498093@news-west.newscene.com:
snip
We knew it was going to be hard, Kate. It was you libruls who wanted
something quick and easy and who don't have the stomach for even as
little trouble as this war has been.
How little trouble has it been?
Very little. Any of the big battles in World War II took more American
lives than the whole Iraq operation, and I don't recall reading much
about pulling out of Germany.
Interesting perspective. I'm not sure the families of those who have
fallen would share it. They might think it's the same amount of
trouble, with them bearing the brunt of it. I'm sure they're happy to
hear of your strong stomach though.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to
lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker. "Everything after that
seemed like posturing."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Suddenly, the wind shifts |
04 Jun 2007 06:51:07 AM |
|
|
(William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:465affd3.7486044@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On 28 May 2007 13:35:04 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
(William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:465adb0e.240374450@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On 28 May 2007 00:13:18 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
cobalt@newscene.com (Kate ) wrote in
news:465a237f.15498093@news-west.newscene.com:
snip
We knew it was going to be hard, Kate. It was you libruls who wanted
something quick and easy and who don't have the stomach for even as
little trouble as this war has been.
How little trouble has it been?
Very little. Any of the big battles in World War II took more American
lives than the whole Iraq operation, and I don't recall reading much
about pulling out of Germany.
Interesting perspective. I'm not sure the families of those who have
fallen would share it. They might think it's the same amount of
trouble, with them bearing the brunt of it. I'm sure they're happy to
hear of your strong stomach though.
I am sorry for their loss, and honor the courage of the soldiers who
gave their lives in service to America. It would be a grave dishonor to
those brave men and women to abandon the mission for which they have
sacrificed their lives.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to
lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker. "Everything after that
seemed like posturing."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "William Wingstedt" |
|
| Title: Re: Suddenly, the wind shifts |
06 Jun 2007 11:20:47 AM |
|
|
On 04 Jun 2007 11:51:07 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
William_Wingstedt@comcast.net (William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:465affd3.7486044@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On 28 May 2007 13:35:04 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
William_Wingstedt@comcast.net (William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:465adb0e.240374450@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On 28 May 2007 00:13:18 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
cobalt@newscene.com (Kate ) wrote in
news:465a237f.15498093@news-west.newscene.com:
snip
We knew it was going to be hard, Kate. It was you libruls who wanted
something quick and easy and who don't have the stomach for even as
little trouble as this war has been.
How little trouble has it been?
Very little. Any of the big battles in World War II took more American
lives than the whole Iraq operation, and I don't recall reading much
about pulling out of Germany.
Interesting perspective. I'm not sure the families of those who have
fallen would share it. They might think it's the same amount of
trouble, with them bearing the brunt of it. I'm sure they're happy to
hear of your strong stomach though.
I am sorry for their loss, and honor the courage of the soldiers who
gave their lives in service to America. It would be a grave dishonor to
those brave men and women to abandon the mission for which they have
sacrificed their lives.
What's the mission now? I may not have kept up with all the changes.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to
lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker. "Everything after that
seemed like posturing."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rob Brown" |
|
| Title: Re: Suddenly, the wind shifts |
06 Jun 2007 12:30:37 PM |
|
|
"William Wingstedt" <William_Wingstedt@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4666de7f.215394771@Newsgroups.Comcast.net...
On 04 Jun 2007 11:51:07 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
William_Wingstedt@comcast.net (William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:465affd3.7486044@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On 28 May 2007 13:35:04 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
William_Wingstedt@comcast.net (William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:465adb0e.240374450@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On 28 May 2007 00:13:18 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
cobalt@newscene.com (Kate ) wrote in
news:465a237f.15498093@news-west.newscene.com:
snip
We knew it was going to be hard, Kate. It was you libruls who wanted
something quick and easy and who don't have the stomach for even as
little trouble as this war has been.
How little trouble has it been?
Very little. Any of the big battles in World War II took more American
lives than the whole Iraq operation, and I don't recall reading much
about pulling out of Germany.
Interesting perspective. I'm not sure the families of those who have
fallen would share it. They might think it's the same amount of
trouble, with them bearing the brunt of it. I'm sure they're happy to
hear of your strong stomach though.
I am sorry for their loss, and honor the courage of the soldiers who
gave their lives in service to America. It would be a grave dishonor to
those brave men and women to abandon the mission for which they have
sacrificed their lives.
What a bunch of *****.The grave dishonor was done by the idiot in the
Whitehouse when he sent our troops to die in the ill conceived, unnecessary
war he and the other jerks in his administration lied us into. He continues
to dishonor them by not taking steps to correct his grave and reprehensible
failure of judgment. But this is a man who couldn't think of *anything* he'd
done wrong after four years in office.
Let me help prompt his memory. Unnecessary invasion of Iraq, torture,
human rights abuses, violations of the US Constitution, violations of the
Geneva Conventions, unjustified religious self righteousness and hypocrisy
to name a few of his worst mistakes.
Bush apologists' are so pathetic these days.
Rob Brown
What's the mission now? I may not have kept up with all the changes.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to
lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker. "Everything after that
seemed like posturing."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Suddenly, the wind shifts |
06 Jun 2007 12:58:55 PM |
|
|
(William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:4666de7f.215394771@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On 04 Jun 2007 11:51:07 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
(William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:465affd3.7486044@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On 28 May 2007 13:35:04 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
(William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:465adb0e.240374450@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On 28 May 2007 00:13:18 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
cobalt@newscene.com (Kate ) wrote in
news:465a237f.15498093@news-west.newscene.com:
snip
We knew it was going to be hard, Kate. It was you libruls who
wanted
something quick and easy and who don't have the stomach for even
as
little trouble as this war has been.
How little trouble has it been?
Very little. Any of the big battles in World War II took more
American
lives than the whole Iraq operation, and I don't recall reading much
about pulling out of Germany.
Interesting perspective. I'm not sure the families of those who have
fallen would share it. They might think it's the same amount of
trouble, with them bearing the brunt of it. I'm sure they're happy
to
hear of your strong stomach though.
I am sorry for their loss, and honor the courage of the soldiers who
gave their lives in service to America. It would be a grave dishonor
to
those brave men and women to abandon the mission for which they have
sacrificed their lives.
What's the mission now? I may not have kept up with all the changes.
Same as it ever was. Support the Iraqis in building a free society.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to
lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker. "Everything after that
seemed like posturing."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Suddenly, the wind shifts |
04 Jun 2007 10:22:37 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 02:15:20 GMT,
(William Wingstedt) wrote:
On 28 May 2007 13:35:04 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
(William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:465adb0e.240374450@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
We knew it was going to be hard, Kate. It was you libruls who wanted
something quick and easy and who don't have the stomach for even as
little trouble as this war has been.
How little trouble has it been?
Very little. Any of the big battles in World War II took more American
lives than the whole Iraq operation, and I don't recall reading much
about pulling out of Germany.
Interesting perspective. I'm not sure the families of those who have
fallen would share it.
There are about half a million of Iraqi "families of the fallen" (who
we're supposed to be helping) who might also not agree with Phred.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Suddenly, the wind shifts |
05 Jun 2007 05:41:20 AM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:5ll963p9c4mdfm45jh0cg0g1o8gb5kk34k@4ax.com:
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 02:15:20 GMT,
(William Wingstedt) wrote:
On 28 May 2007 13:35:04 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
(William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:465adb0e.240374450@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
We knew it was going to be hard, Kate. It was you libruls who
wanted something quick and easy and who don't have the stomach for
even as little trouble as this war has been.
How little trouble has it been?
Very little. Any of the big battles in World War II took more
American lives than the whole Iraq operation, and I don't recall
reading much about pulling out of Germany.
Interesting perspective. I'm not sure the families of those who have
fallen would share it.
There are about half a million of Iraqi "families of the fallen" (who
we're supposed to be helping) who might also not agree with Phred.
I tell you what, let's pull all our soldiers out tomorrow, and you and
Wingstedt go live there and tell us how it works out.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to
lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker. "Everything after that
seemed like posturing."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "William Wingstedt" |
|
| Title: Re: Suddenly, the wind shifts |
06 Jun 2007 11:19:09 AM |
|
|
On 05 Jun 2007 10:41:20 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:5ll963p9c4mdfm45jh0cg0g1o8gb5kk34k@4ax.com:
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 02:15:20 GMT,
(William Wingstedt) wrote:
On 28 May 2007 13:35:04 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
(William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:465adb0e.240374450@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
We knew it was going to be hard, Kate. It was you libruls who
wanted something quick and easy and who don't have the stomach for
even as little trouble as this war has been.
How little trouble has it been?
Very little. Any of the big battles in World War II took more
American lives than the whole Iraq operation, and I don't recall
reading much about pulling out of Germany.
Interesting perspective. I'm not sure the families of those who have
fallen would share it.
There are about half a million of Iraqi "families of the fallen" (who
we're supposed to be helping) who might also not agree with Phred.
I tell you what, let's pull all our soldiers out tomorrow, and you and
Wingstedt go live there and tell us how it works out.
How 'bout this. You go live there today, while it's still so
wonderful, and report back.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to
lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker. "Everything after that
seemed like posturing."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Suddenly, the wind shifts |
06 Jun 2007 12:58:21 PM |
|
|
(William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:4666ddcb.215215243@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On 05 Jun 2007 10:41:20 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:5ll963p9c4mdfm45jh0cg0g1o8gb5kk34k@4ax.com:
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 02:15:20 GMT,
(William Wingstedt) wrote:
On 28 May 2007 13:35:04 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
(William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:465adb0e.240374450@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
We knew it was going to be hard, Kate. It was you libruls who
wanted something quick and easy and who don't have the stomach
for even as little trouble as this war has been.
How little trouble has it been?
Very little. Any of the big battles in World War II took more
American lives than the whole Iraq operation, and I don't recall
reading much about pulling out of Germany.
Interesting perspective. I'm not sure the families of those who have
fallen would share it.
There are about half a million of Iraqi "families of the fallen"
(who we're supposed to be helping) who might also not agree with
Phred.
I tell you what, let's pull all our soldiers out tomorrow, and you and
Wingstedt go live there and tell us how it works out.
How 'bout this. You go live there today, while it's still so
wonderful, and report back.
I'm under no illusions about the situation as it exists today.
You seem to be seriously deluded about what will happen when the US
pulls out.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to
lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker. "Everything after that
seemed like posturing."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Suddenly, the wind shifts |
06 Jun 2007 05:11:43 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 16:19:09 GMT,
(William Wingstedt) wrote:
On 05 Jun 2007 10:41:20 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
I tell you what, let's pull all our soldiers out tomorrow, and you and
Wingstedt go live there and tell us how it works out.
How 'bout this. You go live there today, while it's still so
wonderful, and report back.
Outside the Green Zone, and no flack jacket - just like a native. If
it's wonderful for them it should be wonderful for him.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Doc Smartass" |
|
| Title: Re: Suddenly, the wind shifts |
28 May 2007 02:37:32 PM |
|
|
(William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:465adb0e.240374450@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On 28 May 2007 00:13:18 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
cobalt@newscene.com (Kate ) wrote in
news:465a237f.15498093@news-west.newscene.com:
snip
We knew it was going to be hard, Kate. It was you libruls who wanted
something quick and easy and who don't have the stomach for even as
little trouble as this war has been.
How little trouble has it been?
"No neocons have been injured during the production of this war."
--
Doc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Heckling
aa # 1939
Help Prevent Projectile Stupidity
Duct-Tape a Fundie's Mouth Shut Today!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Suddenly, the wind shifts |
28 May 2007 05:20:49 PM |
|
|
Doc Smartass <gekido@astroskivviesboymail.com> wrote in
news:Xns993E94EC77261askifyouwantit@216.77.188.18:
William_Wingstedt@comcast.net (William Wingstedt) wrote in
news:465adb0e.240374450@Newsgroups.Comcast.net:
On 28 May 2007 00:13:18 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
cobalt@newscene.com (Kate ) wrote in
news:465a237f.15498093@news-west.newscene.com:
snip
We knew it was going to be hard, Kate. It was you libruls who wanted
something quick and easy and who don't have the stomach for even as
little trouble as this war has been.
How little trouble has it been?
"No neocons have been injured during the production of this war."
You haven't either, hypocrite.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to
lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker. "Everything after that
seemed like posturing."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
