Two Ways to Get Our Troops OUT of Iraq - NOW !!

Religions > Bible > Two Ways to Get Our Troops OUT of Iraq - **NOW** !!

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 2 of 22

Topic:	Religions > Bible
User:	"Egalitarian"
Date:	28 Jan 2007 09:24:51 AM
Object:	Two Ways to Get Our Troops OUT of Iraq - NOW !!

There are two ways to get our troops OUT of
Iraq - **NOW** !!
There's a good way and bad way.
First - the BAD way. That's the way it was done
this last week. 43 of them were killed. Thus, fully 43
of them *immediately* got out of Iraq. But the problem
with doing it that way is that it's rough on their families
and probably is rock bottom on the list of priorities that
most soldiers would have by way of methods of redeploy-
ment out of there. And too, it would take 'way too long.
At that rate -- around 5,000 per year -- it would take over
25 years to get them all out of Iraq. Warmonger-in-Thief
Bush is probably the *only* person who'd like to see us
being stuck there for that long.
Then there's the GOOD way: Congress immediately
and with the full force of law totally DE-FUNDS the war,
with the sole exception of the amount of money that it
would take to IMMEDIATELY get **all** of our troops
out of these, and back to America safely. That would
save countless of our soldiers' lives, and enable the
USA to regain some of the respect it lost worldwide
when the a-hole who stole the White House illegally
invaded another sovereign nation after LYING to every-
one in order to CON them into supporting his idiocy.
Some people disagree with the latter method. It
would be interesting to know how many of those same
people also are bone-dumb enough to be RRR Cult
lemmings.
- Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com>
.

User: "weatherwax"
Title: Re: Two Ways to Get Our Troops OUT of Iraq - NOW !!	31 Jan 2007 02:26:41 PM

"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote

"ouroboros rex" wrote

"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote

How about winning?

lol Don't stop there - we're all waiting in anticipation
of your brilliant plan.

I not a military expert, but obviously the US has forgot
how to wage war since WWII. What I do think that needs to be done is for
the politicians to let our military
wage the war ... let the military make the rules of engagement, disarm the
Iraqi militias, etc. When your
military wins 99% of the battles in Vietnam/Iraq, is the
best military in the world, best armed and equiped one
has to wonder why we cannot win. You either commit
to win, not just defend, or you never get involved. We could send 100,000
troops but if they are just
there to defend and not go on offense in the long run you will lose ...
Don't get involved in a war if you don't
have the stomach for it. The Pentagon is full of Generals that could
devise a strategy to win this war,
but I doubt they can devise a stategy with all the restraints the
politicians put on them.

What restraints has "the politicians" put on the war? Up to now President
Bush has gotten everything he asked for. Saddam and the old Iraqi military
has been completely defeated.
--Wax
.

User: "Joe Irvin"
Title: Re: Two Ways to Get Our Troops OUT of Iraq - NOW !!	31 Jan 2007 05:33:10 PM

"weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:5Y6wh.489430$Fi1.214745@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote

"ouroboros rex" wrote

"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote

How about winning?

lol Don't stop there - we're all waiting in anticipation
of your brilliant plan.

I not a military expert, but obviously the US has forgot
how to wage war since WWII. What I do think that needs to be done is
for the politicians to let our military
wage the war ... let the military make the rules of engagement, disarm
the Iraqi militias, etc. When your
military wins 99% of the battles in Vietnam/Iraq, is the
best military in the world, best armed and equiped one
has to wonder why we cannot win. You either commit
to win, not just defend, or you never get involved. We could send 100,000
troops but if they are just
there to defend and not go on offense in the long run you will lose ...
Don't get involved in a war if you don't
have the stomach for it. The Pentagon is full of Generals that could
devise a strategy to win this war,
but I doubt they can devise a stategy with all the restraints the
politicians put on them.

What restraints has "the politicians" put on the war? Up to now President
Bush has gotten everything he asked for. Saddam and the old Iraqi
military has been completely defeated.

Rules of engagement ... safe havens for the jihadists just for 2. Remember
Vietnam?

--Wax

User: "weatherwax"
Title: Re: Two Ways to Get Our Troops OUT of Iraq - NOW !!	31 Jan 2007 07:08:57 PM

"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote

"weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote

"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote

"ouroboros rex" wrote

"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote

How about winning?

lol Don't stop there - we're all waiting in
anticipation of your brilliant plan.

I not a military expert, but obviously the US has forgot how to wage war
since WWII. What I
do think that needs to be done is for the politicians
to let our military wage the war ... let the military
make the rules of engagement, disarm the Iraqi
militias, etc. When your military wins 99% of the
battles in Vietnam/Iraq, is the best military in the
world, best armed and equiped one has to
wonder why we cannot win. You either commit
to win, not just defend, or you never get involved.
We could send 100,000 troops but if they are just
there to defend and not go on offense in the long
run you will lose ... Don't get involved in a war if you don't
have the stomach for it. The Pentagon is full of Generals that could
devise a strategy to win this
war, but I doubt they can devise a stategy with all the restraints the
politicians put on them.

What restraints has "the politicians" put on the war?
Up to now President Bush has gotten everything he
asked for. Saddam and the old Iraqi military has
been completely defeated.

Rules of engagement ... safe havens for the jihadists
just for 2. Remember Vietnam?

I remember Vietnam. I was there in 1964-65..
Just what do you want to do? Shoot civilians? That is what it comes down
to, because we are fighting civilians who are fighting for their own land.
There is no way you can point out one person as being friendly, and another
as the enemy.
--Wax
.

User: "Joe Irvin"
Title: Re: Two Ways to Get Our Troops OUT of Iraq - NOW !!	01 Feb 2007 08:51:33 AM

"weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:J4bwh.490165$Fi1.111274@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote

"weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote

"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote

"ouroboros rex" wrote

"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote

How about winning?

lol Don't stop there - we're all waiting in
anticipation of your brilliant plan.

I not a military expert, but obviously the US has forgot how to wage
war since WWII. What I
do think that needs to be done is for the politicians
to let our military wage the war ... let the military
make the rules of engagement, disarm the Iraqi
militias, etc. When your military wins 99% of the
battles in Vietnam/Iraq, is the best military in the
world, best armed and equiped one has to
wonder why we cannot win. You either commit
to win, not just defend, or you never get involved.
We could send 100,000 troops but if they are just
there to defend and not go on offense in the long
run you will lose ... Don't get involved in a war if you don't
have the stomach for it. The Pentagon is full of Generals that could
devise a strategy to win this
war, but I doubt they can devise a stategy with all the restraints the
politicians put on them.

What restraints has "the politicians" put on the war?
Up to now President Bush has gotten everything he
asked for. Saddam and the old Iraqi military has
been completely defeated.

Rules of engagement ... safe havens for the jihadists
just for 2. Remember Vietnam?

I remember Vietnam. I was there in 1964-65..

Just what do you want to do? Shoot civilians? That is what it comes down
to, because we are fighting civilians who are fighting for their own land.
There is no way you can point out one person as being friendly, and
another as the enemy.

No, I never advocated or implied to shoot innocent civilians. What I do
advocate is that if our military is receiving fire from a civilian
home/mosque/hospital do all that is possible not to harm civilians but
protect your forces and if that means firing into these place by all means
do so. Otherwise you are not fighting a war you are setting your military
up as targets ... we should have never went to war if we didn't want to win
it. Do you hold the Muslim jihadists to the same standards of conduct as
the US military ... chopping off heads, killing civilians as an aim. If
they are fighting for their own country how do you account for them bombing
their own people with no US targets?

--Wax

User: "weatherwax"
Title: Re: Two Ways to Get Our Troops OUT of Iraq - NOW !!	01 Feb 2007 11:05:59 AM

"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote

"weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote

"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote

"weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote

"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote

"ouroboros rex" wrote

"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote

How about winning?

lol Don't stop there - we're all waiting in
anticipation of your brilliant plan.

I not a military expert, but obviously the US has forgot how to wage
war since WWII. What I
do think that needs to be done is for the politicians
to let our military wage the war ... let the military
make the rules of engagement, disarm the Iraqi
militias, etc. When your military wins 99% of the
battles in Vietnam/Iraq, is the best military in the
world, best armed and equiped one has to
wonder why we cannot win. You either commit
to win, not just defend, or you never get involved.
We could send 100,000 troops but if they are just
there to defend and not go on offense in the long
run you will lose ... Don't get involved in a war if you don't
have the stomach for it. The Pentagon is full of Generals that could
devise a strategy to win this
war, but I doubt they can devise a stategy with all the restraints the
politicians put on them.

What restraints has "the politicians" put on the war?
Up to now President Bush has gotten everything he
asked for. Saddam and the old Iraqi military has
been completely defeated.

Rules of engagement ... safe havens for the jihadists
just for 2. Remember Vietnam?

I remember Vietnam. I was there in 1964-65..

Just what do you want to do? Shoot civilians? That is what it comes
down to, because we are fighting civilians who are fighting for their own
land. There is no way you can point out one person as being
friendly, and another as the enemy.

No, I never advocated or implied to shoot innocent civilians. What I do
advocate is that if our military is receiving fire from a civilian
home/mosque/hospital do all that is possible not to harm civilians but
protect your forces and if that means firing into these place by all means
do so. Otherwise you are not fighting a war you are setting your military
up as targets ... we should have never went to war if we didn't want to
win it. Do you hold the Muslim jihadists to the same standards of conduct
as the US military ... chopping off heads, killing civilians as an aim.
If they are fighting for their own country how do you account for them
bombing their own people with no US targets?

I don't know where you have been while the news was on, but we have been
firing into civilian homes, mosques, and hospitals. And we having been
killing innocent civilians.
--Wax
.

User: "Joe Irvin"
Title: Re: Two Ways to Get Our Troops OUT of Iraq - NOW !!	01 Feb 2007 12:33:31 PM

"weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:X5pwh.492536$Fi1.290940@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote

"weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote

"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote

"weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote

"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote

"ouroboros rex" wrote

"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote

How about winning?

lol Don't stop there - we're all waiting in
anticipation of your brilliant plan.

I not a military expert, but obviously the US has forgot how to wage
war since WWII. What I
do think that needs to be done is for the politicians
to let our military wage the war ... let the military
make the rules of engagement, disarm the Iraqi
militias, etc. When your military wins 99% of the
battles in Vietnam/Iraq, is the best military in the
world, best armed and equiped one has to
wonder why we cannot win. You either commit
to win, not just defend, or you never get involved.
We could send 100,000 troops but if they are just
there to defend and not go on offense in the long
run you will lose ... Don't get involved in a war if you don't
have the stomach for it. The Pentagon is full of Generals that could
devise a strategy to win this
war, but I doubt they can devise a stategy with all the restraints
the politicians put on them.

What restraints has "the politicians" put on the war?
Up to now President Bush has gotten everything he
asked for. Saddam and the old Iraqi military has
been completely defeated.

Rules of engagement ... safe havens for the jihadists
just for 2. Remember Vietnam?

I remember Vietnam. I was there in 1964-65..

Just what do you want to do? Shoot civilians? That is what it comes
down to, because we are fighting civilians who are fighting for their
own land. There is no way you can point out one person as being
friendly, and another as the enemy.

No, I never advocated or implied to shoot innocent civilians. What I do
advocate is that if our military is receiving fire from a civilian
home/mosque/hospital do all that is possible not to harm civilians but
protect your forces and if that means firing into these place by all
means do so. Otherwise you are not fighting a war you are setting your
military up as targets ... we should have never went to war if we didn't
want to win it. Do you hold the Muslim jihadists to the same standards
of conduct as the US military ... chopping off heads, killing civilians
as an aim. If they are fighting for their own country how do you account
for them
bombing their own people with no US targets?

I don't know where you have been while the news was on, but we have been
firing into civilian homes, mosques, and hospitals. And we having been
killing innocent civilians.

In some cases yes we have. We also have men in the military on trial for
murdering civilians who killed civilians where enemy fire came from.
Special permission/situations is need to fire into mosques. There have been
situations where US soldiers were not allowed to enter mosques and had to
wait for Iraqis ... this to me shows a lack of will to win. Have the Muslim
jihadist violated any rules of war ... do they recognize the rules of war?

--Wax

User: "weatherwax"
Title: Re: Two Ways to Get Our Troops OUT of Iraq - NOW !!	01 Feb 2007 03:16:26 PM

"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote

"weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote

"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote

No, I never advocated or implied to shoot innocent civilians. What I do
advocate is that if our military is receiving fire from a civilian
home/mosque/hospital do all that is possible not to harm civilians but
protect your forces and if that means firing into these place by all
means do so. Otherwise you are not fighting a war you are setting your
military up as targets ... we should have never went to war if we didn't
want to win it. Do you hold the Muslim jihadists to the same standards
of conduct as the US military ... chopping off heads, killing civilians
as an aim. If they are fighting for their own country how do you account
for them bombing their own people with no US targets?

I don't know where you have been while the news was on, but we
have been firing into civilian homes, mosques, and hospitals. And we
having been killing innocent civilians.

In some cases yes we have. We also have men in the military on trial for
murdering civilians who killed civilians where enemy fire came from.
Special permission/situations is need to fire into mosques. There have
been situations where US soldiers were not allowed to enter mosques and
had to > wait for Iraqis ... this to me shows a lack of will to win. Have
the Muslim jihadist violated any rules of war ... do they recognize the
rules of war?

In other words, you are advocating that we kill more innocent civilians.
--Wax
.

User: "Joe Irvin"
Title: Re: Two Ways to Get Our Troops OUT of Iraq - NOW !!	01 Feb 2007 03:49:09 PM

"weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:KMswh.493227$Fi1.395917@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote

"weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote

"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote

No, I never advocated or implied to shoot innocent civilians. What I
do advocate is that if our military is receiving fire from a civilian
home/mosque/hospital do all that is possible not to harm civilians but
protect your forces and if that means firing into these place by all
means do so. Otherwise you are not fighting a war you are setting your
military up as targets ... we should have never went to war if we
didn't want to win it. Do you hold the Muslim jihadists to the same
standards of conduct as the US military ... chopping off heads, killing
civilians as an aim. If they are fighting for their own country how do
you account for them bombing their own people with no US targets?

I don't know where you have been while the news was on, but we
have been firing into civilian homes, mosques, and hospitals. And we
having been killing innocent civilians.

In some cases yes we have. We also have men in the military on trial for
murdering civilians who killed civilians where enemy fire came from.
Special permission/situations is need to fire into mosques. There have
been situations where US soldiers were not allowed to enter mosques and
had to > wait for Iraqis ... this to me shows a lack of will to win.
Have the Muslim jihadist violated any rules of war ... do they recognize
the rules of war?

In other words, you are advocating that we kill more innocent civilians.

No, I'm not advocating killing more innocent civilians. I'm just
recognizing reality that in war civilians get killed. If it was our policy
that civilians cannot be killed we would have never have won a war or would
we ever win a war. The message that would be sent to the Muslim jihadists
is to hide behind civilians and you can kill Americans without being fired
on. And if you were so worried about the killing of innocent civilians you
may want to in a least one of your post recognize the fact that civilians
are targeted by the Muslim jihadist, rather than hold the US to a standard
that cannot be met. The Muslim jihadist target civilians, the US doesn't.
There is a difference even though in both cases civilians are killed.

--Wax

User: "weatherwax"
Title: Re: Two Ways to Get Our Troops OUT of Iraq - NOW !!	01 Feb 2007 05:15:51 PM

"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
news:eptn8k$q9v$1@news04.infoave.net...

"weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:KMswh.493227$Fi1.395917@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote

"weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote

"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote

No, I never advocated or implied to shoot innocent civilians. What I
do advocate is that if our military is receiving fire from a civilian
home/mosque/hospital do all that is possible not to harm civilians but
protect your forces and if that means firing into these place by all
means do so. Otherwise you are not fighting a war you are setting
your military up as targets ... we should have never went to war if we
didn't want to win it. Do you hold the Muslim jihadists to the same
standards of conduct as the US military ... chopping off heads,
killing civilians as an aim. If they are fighting for their own
country how do you account for them bombing their own people with no
US targets?

I don't know where you have been while the news was on, but we
have been firing into civilian homes, mosques, and hospitals. And we
having been killing innocent civilians.

In some cases yes we have. We also have men in the military on trial
for murdering civilians who killed civilians where enemy fire came from.
Special permission/situations is need to fire into mosques. There have
been situations where US soldiers were not allowed to enter mosques and
had to > wait for Iraqis ... this to me shows a lack of will to win.
Have the Muslim jihadist violated any rules of war ... do they recognize
the rules of war?

In other words, you are advocating that we kill more innocent civilians.

No, I'm not advocating killing more innocent civilians. I'm just
recognizing reality that in war civilians get killed. If it was our
policy that civilians cannot be killed we would have never have won a war
or
would we ever win a war. The message that would be sent to the
Muslim jihadists is to hide behind civilians and you can kill Americans
without being fired on. And if you were so worried about the killing of
innocent civilians you may want to in a least one of your post recognize
the fact that civilians are targeted by the Muslim jihadist, rather than
hold
the US to a standard that cannot be met. The Muslim jihadist target
civilians, the US doesn't. There is a difference even though in both
cases civilians are killed.

Face it: You are advocating that we kill more innocent civilians.
--Wax
.

User: "Joe Irvin"
Title: Re: Two Ways to Get Our Troops OUT of Iraq - NOW !!	01 Feb 2007 08:49:37 PM

"weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:Hwuwh.494107$Fi1.6192@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
news:eptn8k$q9v$1@news04.infoave.net...

"weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:KMswh.493227$Fi1.395917@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote

"weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote

"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote

No, I never advocated or implied to shoot innocent civilians. What I
do advocate is that if our military is receiving fire from a civilian
home/mosque/hospital do all that is possible not to harm civilians
but protect your forces and if that means firing into these place by
all means do so. Otherwise you are not fighting a war you are
setting your military up as targets ... we should have never went to
war if we didn't want to win it. Do you hold the Muslim jihadists to
the same standards of conduct as the US military ... chopping off
heads, killing civilians as an aim. If they are fighting for their
own country how do you account for them bombing their own people with
no US targets?

I don't know where you have been while the news was on, but we
have been firing into civilian homes, mosques, and hospitals. And we
having been killing innocent civilians.

In some cases yes we have. We also have men in the military on trial
for murdering civilians who killed civilians where enemy fire came
from. Special permission/situations is need to fire into mosques.
There have been situations where US soldiers were not allowed to enter
mosques and had to > wait for Iraqis ... this to me shows a lack of
will to win. Have the Muslim jihadist violated any rules of war ... do
they recognize the rules of war?

In other words, you are advocating that we kill more innocent civilians.

No, I'm not advocating killing more innocent civilians. I'm just
recognizing reality that in war civilians get killed. If it was our
policy that civilians cannot be killed we would have never have won a war
or
would we ever win a war. The message that would be sent to the
Muslim jihadists is to hide behind civilians and you can kill Americans
without being fired on. And if you were so worried about the killing of
innocent civilians you may want to in a least one of your post recognize
the fact that civilians are targeted by the Muslim jihadist, rather than
hold
the US to a standard that cannot be met. The Muslim jihadist target
civilians, the US doesn't. There is a difference even though in both
cases civilians are killed.

Face it: You are advocating that we kill more innocent civilians.

Face it, I recognizing reality that civilians get killed in wars. If you
were really worried about the Iraqi civilians getting killed you would
recognize that the Muslim jihadist target civilians with suicide bombers ...
something you have not spoken out against in our posts. The only thing you
are worried is holding the US to an impossible standard, all the while
ignoring the Muslim jihadists. You've not said one thing about how Saddam
killed innocent civilians either, just the US. What a standard.

--Wax

User: "David W. Barnes"
Title: Re: Two Ways to Get Our Troops OUT of Iraq - NOW !!	01 Feb 2007 10:23:11 PM

In article <epu8s1$ce7$1@news04.infoave.net>, Joe Irvin
<ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:

"weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:Hwuwh.494107$Fi1.6192@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
news:eptn8k$q9v$1@news04.infoave.net...

"weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:KMswh.493227$Fi1.395917@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote

"weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote

"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote

No, I never advocated or implied to shoot innocent civilians. What I
do advocate is that if our military is receiving fire from a civilian
home/mosque/hospital do all that is possible not to harm civilians
but protect your forces and if that means firing into these place by
all means do so. Otherwise you are not fighting a war you are
setting your military up as targets ... we should have never went to
war if we didn't want to win it. Do you hold the Muslim jihadists to
the same standards of conduct as the US military ... chopping off
heads, killing civilians as an aim. If they are fighting for their
own country how do you account for them bombing their own people with
no US targets?

I don't know where you have been while the news was on, but we
have been firing into civilian homes, mosques, and hospitals. And we
having been killing innocent civilians.

In some cases yes we have. We also have men in the military on trial
for murdering civilians who killed civilians where enemy fire came
from. Special permission/situations is need to fire into mosques.
There have been situations where US soldiers were not allowed to enter
mosques and had to > wait for Iraqis ... this to me shows a lack of
will to win. Have the Muslim jihadist violated any rules of war ... do
they recognize the rules of war?

In other words, you are advocating that we kill more innocent civilians.

No, I'm not advocating killing more innocent civilians. I'm just
recognizing reality that in war civilians get killed. If it was our
policy that civilians cannot be killed we would have never have won a war
or
would we ever win a war. The message that would be sent to the
Muslim jihadists is to hide behind civilians and you can kill Americans
without being fired on. And if you were so worried about the killing of
innocent civilians you may want to in a least one of your post recognize
the fact that civilians are targeted by the Muslim jihadist, rather than
hold
the US to a standard that cannot be met. The Muslim jihadist target
civilians, the US doesn't. There is a difference even though in both
cases civilians are killed.

Face it: You are advocating that we kill more innocent civilians.

Face it, I recognizing reality that civilians get killed in wars.

Which means nothing other than you knew it would happen ahead of time.

If you
were really worried about the Iraqi civilians getting killed you would
recognize that the Muslim jihadist target civilians with suicide bombers ...
something you have not spoken out against in our posts. The only thing you
are worried is holding the US to an impossible standard, all the while
ignoring the Muslim jihadists. You've not said one thing about how Saddam
killed innocent civilians either, just the US. What a standard.

Saddam Hussein was the president of Iraq. Right or wrong, it was an
Iraqi problem. You have yet to explain why we invaded Iraq to,
supposed, save the Iraqi�s (Alternate reason #4) but we fail to do so
in other countries with despots. The whole, �Saddam Hussein was a bad
man and we are here to rescue the people of Iraq� was a lie. They are
worse off now than under Saddam Hussein.
.

User: "Joe Irvin"
Title: Re: Two Ways to Get Our Troops OUT of Iraq - NOW !!	02 Feb 2007 09:39:23 AM

"David W. Barnes" <dwbarnes@barnsco.com> wrote in message
news:010220072023114561%dwbarnes@barnsco.com...

In article <epu8s1$ce7$1@news04.infoave.net>, Joe Irvin
<ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:

"weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:Hwuwh.494107$Fi1.6192@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
news:eptn8k$q9v$1@news04.infoave.net...

"weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:KMswh.493227$Fi1.395917@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote

"weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote

"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote

No, I never advocated or implied to shoot innocent civilians.
What I
do advocate is that if our military is receiving fire from a
civilian
home/mosque/hospital do all that is possible not to harm civilians
but protect your forces and if that means firing into these place
by
all means do so. Otherwise you are not fighting a war you are
setting your military up as targets ... we should have never went
to
war if we didn't want to win it. Do you hold the Muslim jihadists
to
the same standards of conduct as the US military ... chopping off
heads, killing civilians as an aim. If they are fighting for their
own country how do you account for them bombing their own people
with
no US targets?

I don't know where you have been while the news was on, but we
have been firing into civilian homes, mosques, and hospitals. And
we
having been killing innocent civilians.

In some cases yes we have. We also have men in the military on
trial
for murdering civilians who killed civilians where enemy fire came
from. Special permission/situations is need to fire into mosques.
There have been situations where US soldiers were not allowed to
enter
mosques and had to > wait for Iraqis ... this to me shows a lack of
will to win. Have the Muslim jihadist violated any rules of war ...
do
they recognize the rules of war?

In other words, you are advocating that we kill more innocent
civilians.

No, I'm not advocating killing more innocent civilians. I'm just
recognizing reality that in war civilians get killed. If it was our
policy that civilians cannot be killed we would have never have won a
war
or
would we ever win a war. The message that would be sent to the
Muslim jihadists is to hide behind civilians and you can kill
Americans
without being fired on. And if you were so worried about the killing
of
innocent civilians you may want to in a least one of your post
recognize
the fact that civilians are targeted by the Muslim jihadist, rather
than
hold
the US to a standard that cannot be met. The Muslim jihadist target
civilians, the US doesn't. There is a difference even though in both
cases civilians are killed.

Face it: You are advocating that we kill more innocent civilians.

Face it, I recognizing reality that civilians get killed in wars.

Which means nothing other than you knew it would happen ahead of time.

True, it has nothing to do with whether I advocate killing civilians or not
.... civilians get killed in wars is reality.

If you
were really worried about the Iraqi civilians getting killed you would
recognize that the Muslim jihadist target civilians with suicide bombers
...
something you have not spoken out against in our posts. The only thing
you
are worried is holding the US to an impossible standard, all the while
ignoring the Muslim jihadists. You've not said one thing about how
Saddam
killed innocent civilians either, just the US. What a standard.

Saddam Hussein was the president of Iraq. Right or wrong, it was an
Iraqi problem.

True, Saddam was Prez of Iraq which enable him to sign an agreement that
ended the Gulf War. He failed to live up to the agreement he signed ... he
fired on aircraft in the no-fly zone, he played a cat and mouse game with
inspectors, and he failed to account for the WMD's he previously had ...
broke the agreement. What makes you think we have to invade all other
countries that have despots? The US hardly has the capability to this or is
it even wise to think about doing this. Its only when its to our national
interest that we might think about doing this.
You have yet to explain why we invaded Iraq to,

supposed, save the Iraqi�s (Alternate reason #4) but we fail to do so
in other countries with despots.

See above
The whole, �Saddam Hussein was a bad

man and we are here to rescue the people of Iraq� was a lie.

If and only if Iraq settles in to some what stable the people will be
*resqued*. This was only one of many reasons we went into Iraq. Its not a
lie until we have finished the war and see how things play out. At least
some of the people are better off than before ... the Kurds in the north, so
one can see what the *lie* is not something we promised and failed to live
up to. Also we freed the people of Iraq and they have to have some
responsibility of helping themselves.
They are

worse off now than under Saddam Hussein.

See above. ... tell the Kurds they are worse off.
.

User: "weatherwax"
Title: Re: Two Ways to Get Our Troops OUT of Iraq - NOW !!	02 Feb 2007 02:17:47 PM

"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote

"David W. Barnes" <dwbarnes@barnsco.com> wrote

Joe Irvin <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:

"weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote

"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote

"weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote

"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote

"weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote

"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote

No, I never advocated or implied to shoot innocent civilians.
What I
do advocate is that if our military is receiving fire from a
civilian
home/mosque/hospital do all that is possible not to harm
civilians
but protect your forces and if that means firing into these place
by
all means do so. Otherwise you are not fighting a war you are
setting your military up as targets ... we should have never went
to
war if we didn't want to win it. Do you hold the Muslim
jihadists to
the same standards of conduct as the US military ... chopping off
heads, killing civilians as an aim. If they are fighting for
their
own country how do you account for them bombing their own people
with
no US targets?

I don't know where you have been while the news was on, but we
have been firing into civilian homes, mosques, and hospitals. And
we
having been killing innocent civilians.

In some cases yes we have. We also have men in the military on
trial
for murdering civilians who killed civilians where enemy fire came
from. Special permission/situations is need to fire into mosques.
There have been situations where US soldiers were not allowed to
enter
mosques and had to > wait for Iraqis ... this to me shows a lack of
will to win. Have the Muslim jihadist violated any rules of war ...
do
they recognize the rules of war?

In other words, you are advocating that we kill more innocent
civilians.

No, I'm not advocating killing more innocent civilians. I'm just
recognizing reality that in war civilians get killed. If it was our
policy that civilians cannot be killed we would have never have won a
war
or
would we ever win a war. The message that would be sent to the
Muslim jihadists is to hide behind civilians and you can kill
Americans
without being fired on. And if you were so worried about the killing
of
innocent civilians you may want to in a least one of your post
recognize
the fact that civilians are targeted by the Muslim jihadist, rather
than
hold
the US to a standard that cannot be met. The Muslim jihadist target
civilians, the US doesn't. There is a difference even though in both
cases civilians are killed.

Face it: You are advocating that we kill more innocent civilians.

Face it, I recognizing reality that civilians get killed in wars.

Which means nothing other than you knew it would happen ahead of time.

True, it has nothing to do with whether I advocate killing civilians or
not ... civilians get killed in wars is reality.

And you advocate war, which you admit equates to killing innocent civilians.

If you
were really worried about the Iraqi civilians getting killed you would
recognize that the Muslim jihadist target civilians with suicide bombers
...
something you have not spoken out against in our posts. The only thing
you are worried is holding the US to an impossible standard, all the
while
ignoring the Muslim jihadists. You've not said one thing about how
Saddam killed innocent civilians either, just the US. What a standard.

Saddam Hussein was the president of Iraq. Right or wrong, it was an
Iraqi problem.

True, Saddam was Prez of Iraq which enable him to sign an agreement that
ended the Gulf War. He failed to live up to the agreement he signed ...
he fired on aircraft in the no-fly zone, he played a cat and mouse game
with inspectors, and he failed to account for the WMD's he previously had
... broke the agreement. What makes you think we have to invade all other
countries that have despots? The US hardly has the capability to this or
is it even wise to think about doing this. Its only when its to our
national interest that we might think about doing this.

It is interesting to see that you consider such incidents to be a sufficient
excuse for invasion. However, even Bush did not consider that as sufficient
cause. Instead, Bush justified the war by claiming that Saddam had weapons
of mass destruction.

You have yet to explain why we invaded Iraq to,
supposed, save the Iraqi�s (Alternate reason #4) but we fail to do so
in other countries with despots.

See above

The whole, �Saddam Hussein was a bad
man and we are here to rescue the people of Iraq� was a lie.

If and only if Iraq settles in to some what stable the people will be
*resqued*. This was only one of many reasons we went into Iraq. Its not
a lie until we have finished the war and see how things play out.
At least some of the people are better off than before ... the Kurds in
the north, so one can see what the *lie* is not something we promised
and failed to live up to. Also we freed the people of Iraq and they have
to have some responsibility of helping themselves.

They are worse off now than under Saddam Hussein.

See above. ... tell the Kurds they are worse off.

Between 1980 and 1988 Iraq was at war with Iran over a territorial dispute.
By 1985 the United States and other Western countries became involved on the
side of Iraq (i.e. on the side of Saddam.) During the war the Iraqi Kurds
revolted against Iraq. At the end of the war in 1988 Saddam put down the
revolt in brutal fashion using poison gas. The United States took no action
against Iran because Saddam was considered an ally against Iran. The Kurds
did not become an issue until the Gulf War.
For hundreds of years the Kurds have fought for a national state of their
own, but they had always been put down. Before the invasion of Iran,
President Bush assured the government of Turkey that Iraq will not be
partitioned to form a Kurdish state. This was important to Turkey because
it has a large Kurdish population of its own. Attempts by a Texan oil group
to develop a rich oil field in the Kurdish region of Iraq was welcomed by
the Kurds, but is opposed by the Iraqi government and by President Bush who
is taking measures to prevent the development.
--Wax
.

User: "Joe Irvin"
Title: Re: Two Ways to Get Our Troops OUT of Iraq - NOW !!	02 Feb 2007 03:42:35 PM

"weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:L%Mwh.502800$Fi1.331396@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote

"David W. Barnes" <dwbarnes@barnsco.com> wrote

Joe Irvin <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:

"weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote

"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote

"weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote

"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote

"weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote

"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote

No, I never advocated or implied to shoot innocent civilians.
What I
do advocate is that if our military is receiving fire from a
civilian
home/mosque/hospital do all that is possible not to harm
civilians
but protect your forces and if that means firing into these
place by
all means do so. Otherwise you are not fighting a war you are
setting your military up as targets ... we should have never
went to
war if we didn't want to win it. Do you hold the Muslim
jihadists to
the same standards of conduct as the US military ... chopping
off
heads, killing civilians as an aim. If they are fighting for
their
own country how do you account for them bombing their own people
with
no US targets?

I don't know where you have been while the news was on, but we
have been firing into civilian homes, mosques, and hospitals.
And we
having been killing innocent civilians.

In some cases yes we have. We also have men in the military on
trial
for murdering civilians who killed civilians where enemy fire came
from. Special permission/situations is need to fire into mosques.
There have been situations where US soldiers were not allowed to
enter
mosques and had to > wait for Iraqis ... this to me shows a lack
of
will to win. Have the Muslim jihadist violated any rules of war
... do
they recognize the rules of war?

In other words, you are advocating that we kill more innocent
civilians.

No, I'm not advocating killing more innocent civilians. I'm just
recognizing reality that in war civilians get killed. If it was our
policy that civilians cannot be killed we would have never have won
a war
or
would we ever win a war. The message that would be sent to the
Muslim jihadists is to hide behind civilians and you can kill
Americans
without being fired on. And if you were so worried about the
killing of
innocent civilians you may want to in a least one of your post
recognize
the fact that civilians are targeted by the Muslim jihadist, rather
than
hold
the US to a standard that cannot be met. The Muslim jihadist target
civilians, the US doesn't. There is a difference even though in
both
cases civilians are killed.

Face it: You are advocating that we kill more innocent civilians.

Face it, I recognizing reality that civilians get killed in wars.

Which means nothing other than you knew it would happen ahead of time.

True, it has nothing to do with whether I advocate killing civilians or
not ... civilians get killed in wars is reality.

And you advocate war, which you admit equates to killing innocent
civilians.

Yes probably more offensive though. I'd be glad to listen to, and maybe
even agree with you if you could show me a way to wage war without innocent
civilians being killed. Now about the 25+ years of war that the Muslim
jihadist have been waging against the US, what is your solution? Talking?
We've been doing that for the 25+ years. We've tried the UN [12 years
talking] to no avail. Keeping all this in mind, suppose the Prez had done,
nothing. If the US had been hit again would they come around and blamed you
because you want to continue to talk or would they blame Prez for not
acting? Or suppose they didn't make a big hit on the US just continued to
do small thing like blowing up air craft, military instalation, kill
individual Americans abroad. When is the time that, you, Mr Weatherwax,
think that it is necessary to use force. Please address that.

If you
were really worried about the Iraqi civilians getting killed you would
recognize that the Muslim jihadist target civilians with suicide
bombers ...
something you have not spoken out against in our posts. The only thing
you are worried is holding the US to an impossible standard, all the
while
ignoring the Muslim jihadists. You've not said one thing about how
Saddam killed innocent civilians either, just the US. What a standard.

Saddam Hussein was the president of Iraq. Right or wrong, it was an
Iraqi problem.

True, Saddam was Prez of Iraq which enable him to sign an agreement that
ended the Gulf War. He failed to live up to the agreement he signed ...
he fired on aircraft in the no-fly zone, he played a cat and mouse game
with inspectors, and he failed to account for the WMD's he previously had
... broke the agreement. What makes you think we have to invade all
other countries that have despots? The US hardly has the capability to
this or is it even wise to think about doing this. Its only when its to
our national interest that we might think about doing this.

It is interesting to see that you consider such incidents to be a
sufficient excuse for invasion.

Its just as interesting to me that you do not consider the incidents over
the past 25 years enough to take some kind of action besides talking. How
many incidents, or how long should we have talked?
However, even Bush did not consider that as sufficient

cause. Instead, Bush justified the war by claiming that Saddam had
weapons of mass destruction.

Bush considered many other reasons also unless you can show me where he went
into Iraq only because of WMD's I know it was probably a major reason
though ... Remember he was working all the while with the UN ... trying to
get the UN to enforce UN Res 1441. The Prez had other intell from other
countries also. True, all the intell was faulty, but he hardly knew that
at the time.

You have yet to explain why we invaded Iraq to,
supposed, save the Iraqi�s (Alternate reason #4) but we fail to do so
in other countries with despots.

See above

The whole, �Saddam Hussein was a bad
man and we are here to rescue the people of Iraq� was a lie.

If and only if Iraq settles in to some what stable the people will be
*resqued*. This was only one of many reasons we went into Iraq. Its not
a lie until we have finished the war and see how things play out.
At least some of the people are better off than before ... the Kurds in
the north, so one can see what the *lie* is not something we promised
and failed to live up to. Also we freed the people of Iraq and they have
to have some responsibility of helping themselves.

They are worse off now than under Saddam Hussein.

See above. ... tell the Kurds they are worse off.

Between 1980 and 1988 Iraq was at war with Iran over a territorial
dispute. By 1985 the United States and other Western countries became
involved on the side of Iraq (i.e. on the side of Saddam.)

I'm not arguing that ... at the time of WWII the US was involved on the side
of the USSR. As I've said before foreign policy is fluid. Friends become
enemies and enemies become friends.
During the war the Iraqi Kurds

revolted against Iraq. At the end of the war in 1988 Saddam put down the
revolt in brutal fashion using poison gas. The United States took no
action against Iran because Saddam was considered an ally against Iran.
The Kurds did not become an issue until the Gulf War.

And ...

For hundreds of years the Kurds have fought for a national state of their
own, but they had always been put down. Before the invasion of Iran,
President Bush assured the government of Turkey that Iraq will not be
partitioned to form a Kurdish state. This was important to Turkey because
it has a large Kurdish population of its own.

I've only heard one person argue that the Kurds should have a separate state
.... Sen Biden ... maybe/maybe not its workable. I don't know.
Attempts by a Texan oil group

to develop a rich oil field in the Kurdish region of Iraq was welcomed by
the Kurds, but is opposed by the Iraqi government and by President Bush
who is taking measures to prevent the development.

I cannot comment on it, I don't know.

--Wax

User: "Ray Fischer"
Title: Re: Two Ways to Get Our Troops OUT of Iraq - NOW !!	03 Feb 2007 01:47:14 AM

Joe Irvin <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:

"weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message

"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote

Face it: You are advocating that we kill more innocent civilians.

Face it, I recognizing reality that civilians get killed in wars.

Which means nothing other than you knew it would happen ahead of time.

True, it has nothing to do with whether I advocate killing civilians or
not ... civilians get killed in wars is reality.

And you advocate war, which you admit equates to killing innocent
civilians.

Yes probably more offensive though. I'd be glad to listen to, and maybe
even agree with you if you could show me a way to wage war without innocent
civilians being killed.

There is the key problem with your particular kind of insanity: You cannot
conceive of not killing people. To you, war is the only solution to every
problem. Death and suffering is all you understand.
All you have to offer is hate.

Now about the 25+ years of war that the Muslim
jihadist have been waging against the US

And what of the millions of Muslims dead because of of the US?
Because of religious bigots like you?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.

User: "Joe Irvin"
Title: Re: Two Ways to Get Our Troops OUT of Iraq - NOW !!	03 Feb 2007 11:43:35 AM

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:45c43e02$0$80056$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...

Joe Irvin <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:

"weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message

"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote

Face it: You are advocating that we kill more innocent civilians.

Face it, I recognizing reality that civilians get killed in wars.

Which means nothing other than you knew it would happen ahead of time.

True, it has nothing to do with whether I advocate killing civilians or
not ... civilians get killed in wars is reality.

And you advocate war, which you admit equates to killing innocent
civilians.

Yes probably more offensive though. I'd be glad to listen to, and maybe
even agree with you if you could show me a way to wage war without
innocent
civilians being killed.

There is the key problem with your particular kind of insanity: You
cannot
conceive of not killing people. To you, war is the only solution to every
problem. Death and suffering is all you understand.

Global warming has affected me.

All you have to offer is hate.

Its the global warming.

Now about the 25+ years of war that the Muslim
jihadist have been waging against the US

And what of the millions of Muslims dead because of of the US?
Because of religious bigots like you?

Global warming.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net

User: "Ray Fischer"
Title: Re: Two Ways to Get Our Troops OUT of Iraq - NOW !!	03 Feb 2007 02:07:08 PM

Joe Irvin <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message

Joe Irvin <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:

"weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message

"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote

Face it: You are advocating that we kill more innocent civilians.

Face it, I recognizing reality that civilians get killed in wars.

Which means nothing other than you knew it would happen ahead of time.

True, it has nothing to do with whether I advocate killing civilians or
not ... civilians get killed in wars is reality.

And you advocate war, which you admit equates to killing innocent
civilians.

Yes probably more offensive though. I'd be glad to listen to, and maybe
even agree with you if you could show me a way to wage war without
innocent
civilians being killed.

There is the key problem with your particular kind of insanity: You
cannot
conceive of not killing people. To you, war is the only solution to every
problem. Death and suffering is all you understand.

Global warming has affected me.

And that's supposed to be relevant?

All you have to offer is hate.

Its the global warming.

It's the hate and the cowardice.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.

User: "Joe Irvin"
Title: Re: Two Ways to Get Our Troops OUT of Iraq - NOW !!	03 Feb 2007 02:36:38 PM

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:45c4eb6c$0$80074$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...

Joe Irvin <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message

Joe Irvin <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:

"weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message

"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote

Face it: You are advocating that we kill more innocent
civilians.

Face it, I recognizing reality that civilians get killed in wars.

Which means nothing other than you knew it would happen ahead of
time.

True, it has nothing to do with whether I advocate killing civilians
or
not ... civilians get killed in wars is reality.

And you advocate war, which you admit equates to killing innocent
civilians.

Yes probably more offensive though. I'd be glad to listen to, and maybe
even agree with you if you could show me a way to wage war without
innocent
civilians being killed.

There is the key problem with your particular kind of insanity: You
cannot
conceive of not killing people. To you, war is the only solution to
every
problem. Death and suffering is all you understand.

Global warming has affected me.

And that's supposed to be relevant?

All you have to offer is hate.

Its the global warming.

It's the hate and the cowardice.

Must be global warming.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net

User: "Osprey"
Title: Re: Two Ways to Get Our Troops OUT of Iraq - NOW !!	02 Feb 2007 09:43:31 AM

"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
news:epvlv9$tsg$1@news04.infoave.net...