"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns970BD5A9044A0fstone69@213.155.197.138...

"Mark Stahl" <stahl@nospam.aecom.yu.edu> wrote in
news:EYmdneeg86NVpujeRVn-qA@giganews.com:

"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns970BABB9A7A66fstone69@213.155.197.138...

"Mark Stahl" <stahl@nospam.aecom.yu.edu> wrote in
news:PrudnTmJMLWhm-jenZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@giganews.com:

"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns97099C45F10FBfstone69@213.155.197.138...

"Mark Stahl" <stahl@nospam.aecom.yu.edu> wrote in
news:c_adnVBn7pmF1u_enZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@giganews.com:

"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns970956A5212FEfstone69@213.155.197.138...

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
wrote

in

news:79o2n11d8g470559914moao3u380pjt4og@4ax.com:

On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 00:17:57 GMT, in alt.atheism , John Baker
<nunya@biziniz.net> in
<m0g2n19727o705mh57dqckji5ifse249j4@4ax.com> wrote:

On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 17:36:59 -0500, "Time Traveller"
<gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:


Does it hurt to be as stupid as you?

Do you think that things are going as swimmingly in Iraq as we
were told?

Well, let's see, the airport road is now secure,

2,000 American soldiers dead.... for a single road. Nice.

For a whole country.

The whole country is far from secure, Fred, and you know it. But
that road is, sorta.

It's getting there.

At the rate of one road every three years or so, we should have all
the roads secure in a few centuries. Nice.

That road is only one indication of the losses that
the terrorists are taking.

Which terrorists, Fred? You're talking about the people fighting to
expel an occupying foreign power as terrorists? Are you talking
about the terrorists who attacked the US? Who, exactly? You people
who swallow republican war propaganda never seem to say.

I'm talking about the terrorists who are trying to take the country
of Iraq away from its legitimately elected government.

You may not know this, but Iraq doesn't have a "legitimately elected
government". It has a government imposed by an invading force.

For 25 million people freed from tyranny.

Well, 25 million, minus the 100,000+ we've killed to do it.

Why do you continue to quote that bogus 100,000 number after it's
been refuted so thorougly?

Because it's the best estimate we have, and of course has never been
refuted.

It's not the best estimate that anybody has.

Actually it is.

It's a crock of *****, and
has been definitively refuted.

Only because you find it embarassing.

Not because it isn't, you know,
the truth (or that you and your cronies actually would *care* about
inflicting all that misery, suffering, and death so long as the
contractors get paid)

If you think otherwise, refute away.

Plus no
guarantee that they're "freed from tyranny:, only that the imposer
of said tyrrany has changed.

If you assume that they'll elect an "imposer of tyranny".

I don't know who they'll elect and neither do you.

I'm assuming that they'll elect people who are running for
parliament.

A great many people's lives are demonstrably
worse off now than before (the ones that are still alive, that
is).

Yeah, we've caught a great many terrorists whose lives are just
*ruined* now.

How many terrorists have we caught, Fred? What made them terrorists?

Several thousand. Baathism and radical Islamism.

What makes you think that?

Is every Iraqi a terrorist in your world, Fred?

No, only the ones who are terrorists.

Brilliant reasoning there.

For a
mass murdering dictator brought to justice.

Nice, I guess, but not worth the life of my neighbor's yappy dog
never mind 2,000 Americans and 100,000 Iraqis.

There you go quoting that bogus 100,000 number again.

Why is it bogus?

Because the people who published it even said so.

Where? Back up your claim, please.

They gave it a margin
of error from 5000 to 200,000.

Does that mean you find 7,000 deaths to be just peachy, then?

I guess we should
have left Saddam in power to bribe the UN into ignoring the
sanctions and rebuild his WMD arsenal in peace.

Well, when that was or wasn't happening, none of our soldiers were
having their limbs blown off or worse. Saddam was extremely far from
having any particularly dangerous weapons,

If you count "able to reconstruct his WMD factories as soon as he
bribes the UN to get the sanctions off".

and the average Iraqi
wasn't living in a war zone with hundreds of thousands of his
countrymen dead.

No, he was living in a Baathist country with hundreds of thousands of
his countrymen slaughtered by their tyrranical leader and his
cronies.

So now he gets to live in a non-Baathist war zone with hundreds of
thousands of his countrymen slaughtered by outsiders and their
contractors,

with escalating violence and more instability to come
when the US eventually leaves. *And* there's no water, electricity, or
medical care in large swaths of the country.

But of course, we managed to funnel a lot of money to our defense
contractors who got to blow a lot of stuff up (on TV, of course) so
the Freds of the world would be happy.

Pretty much any solution to the Saddam issue other
than the one that was chosen would seem to have been preferable to
starting a war, but of course that wouldn't have filled
Halliburton't coffers as effectively or made for a "tough"
Presidential image. So here we are.

We tried those other solutions for ten years. They didn't work.

Exactly how did they "not work", Fred? Iraq was no threat to us or
anyone else.

Internal repression was occasionally brutal and certainly
unacceptable but hardly as destructive as the daily bombings we have
now. Certainly no worse than any number of other countries we don't
invade (N. Korea).

The US wasn't regularly killing or torturing Arabs
(on TV no less), breeding future generations of terrorists. Our
soldiers weren't dying every day to secure some worthless road in some
lousy desert. Things were hardly ideal but they were obviously better
than they are now.

Of course, if we *didn't* keep doing things that would produce more
terrorists, how would we guarantee more attacks agaisnt us to justify
expanding a military campaign? You know, you're right, Fred.

Nice indeed.

We clearly have a different concept of "nice". Mine involves
things which are positive developments. Not sure what you mean by
it;

Apparantly you can't read

I read rather well, since the age of three. You, meanwhile, seem to
prefer your foreign policy at the level of a three year old: you're
stronger than them, so what's theirs is yours. Blow things up and
make pretty explosions for TV. Drool away, killer.

Oh, dear, I must have touched a nerve there.

How do ya figure, killer?

any better than you can resist *****
propaganda.

It occurs to me that a man who has been thoroughly duped by the
uneducated Rove and company is in no position to discriminate
propaganda from fact.

perhaps
it has something to do with the bottom lines of defense
contractors.

(obviously a point you wouldn't want to touch; I wouldn't blame
you.)

Yes, I do see your point.

It's about time.

Maybe you should try wearing a hat.

Ah, the king of the non-sequitor returns. Well played. Maybe you
should try enlisting.

TV's Fred Stone wrote:

"towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:WqKdndYervPCyujenZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@centurytel.net:

TV's Fred Stone wrote:

Well, let's see, the airport road is now secure,

2,000 American soldiers dead.... for a single road. Nice.

For a whole country.

The whole country is far from secure, Fred, and you know it. But
that road is, sorta.

It's getting there. That road is only one indication of the losses
that the terrorists are taking.

Is it worth all the money and lives? Especially when the US
infrastructure is crumbling?

Yes, it is worth it.

What do YOU have invested in the Iraq war? Do you have any children
over there? You're obviously not there.

And the US infrastructure is not crumbling. That's
just absurd.

Tell that to New Orelans.