Religions > Bible > Two Ways to Get Our Troops OUT of Iraq - **NOW** !!
| 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: "Joe Irvin" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Ways to Get Our Troops OUT of Iraq - **NOW** !! |
07 Feb 2007 11:18:24 AM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <dwbarnes@barnsco.com> wrote in message
news:060220071923491281%dwbarnes@barnsco.com...
In article <eqafi5$u3l$1@news04.infoave.net>, Joe Irvin
<ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dwbarnes@barnsco.com> wrote in message
news:060220070817204704%dwbarnes@barnsco.com...
In article <eqa2n6$grg$1@news04.infoave.net>, Joe Irvin
<ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dwbarnes@barnsco.com> wrote in message
news:050220071906490329%dwbarnes@barnsco.com...
In article <eq7fho$p3u$1@news04.infoave.net>, Joe Irvin
<ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dwbarnes@barnsco.com> wrote in message
news:030220071510334104%dwbarnes@barnsco.com...
In article <eq33cs$jbm$1@news04.infoave.net>, Joe Irvin
<ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dwbarnes@barnsco.com> wrote in message
news:030220071352041585%dwbarnes@barnsco.com...
In article <eq2vkt$f6d$1@news04.infoave.net>, Joe Irvin
<ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
[snip]
*****. The Republicans went through a laundry list of
³reasons,²
all phony. You are being dishonest.
Are these people dishonest who also believed that there were
weapons
...
they've all backed away now. To be honest they could say
that
they
had
made
a mistake an voted for the war on the basis of false
intelligence
...
they
blame the President for lying:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the
capacity
to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to
deliver
them.
That
is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our
purpose
is
clear.
We
want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons
of
mass
destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he
has
ten
times
since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,
1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and
consistent
with
the
U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions
(including,
if
appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites)
to
respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its
weapons
of
mass
destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin,
Tom
Daschle,
John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We
are
confident
that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological
weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build
up
his
chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
reports
indicate
that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States
the
authority
to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein
because I
believe
that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his
hands
is a
real
and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
And here Ms Clinton even ties Al Qaeda to Iraq.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence
reports
show
that
Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and
biological
weapons
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear
program.
He
has
also
given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al
Qaeda
members.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein
will
continue
to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical
warfare,
and
will
keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
I believe she is correct about al Qaeda but how quickly the
complainers
forget that they also believed that there were WMD's. Who
are
the
real
liers?
Yeah - they ³believed² that lying sack of ***** BUSH. They
were
naive,
not lying. The good news is that most people realize that
Bush
and
the
Republican Party are liars. To those people, I give credit.
Yes, I guess you are right ... you and Mr Fischer should get
together
and
talk you have a lot in common.
Is this your idea of supporting your position?
I've supported my position ... it you that cannot accept it ... Oh
yes
you
did with "BIG DEAL." I guess "BIG DEAL" goes over big at the clown
college.
You supported nothing. Every quote was based on Bushıs lies.
Sure I did ...
You cut and pasted some quotes with explain any point you may have had.
Whats wrong with cutting and pasteing what has happened.
Nothing if you explain what the hell you are trying to say.
It speaks for itself ... no amount of evidence will convince you ... when
the evidence is overwhelming, it becomes a conspiracy.
You can do the
same.
I prefer thinking on my own.
And if you cannot prove your point with evidence it becomes just your
view/opinon.
I ask you to give me a cite that proves your point that the US was
given the green light to Saddam to invade Kuwait ... US policy.
I did. I just forgot that you wouldnıt accept it.
Show me up then quote it? I'll consider it when you quote it and tell me
where I can find it.
Of course
so far all you are able to cite is the US said they didn't get involved
in
Arab problems.
That is a distortion. Saddam Hussein went to the U.S. and stated he
intended to invade Kuwait. The U.S. Did not indicate they objected,
which in the world of diplomacy means, ³we donıt officially want to say
so, but go for it.²
Of course it doesn't ... it could mean that though ... it could mean that
the US didn't believe they would do it ... it could mean almost anything.
I've quoted from fact check ... its a reputable, I've quoted
from reputable blogs such as the American Thinker.
Yeah - blogs are so accurate.
Its according to which ones you use ... they are accurate ones out there.
Now read the facts.
<http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/glaspie.html>
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Ways to Get Our Troops OUT of Iraq - **NOW** !! |
07 Feb 2007 10:08:57 PM |
|
|
In article <eqd1ku$qg7$1@news04.infoave.net>, Joe Irvin
<ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dwbarnes@barnsco.com> wrote in message
news:060220071923491281%dwbarnes@barnsco.com...
In article <eqafi5$u3l$1@news04.infoave.net>, Joe Irvin
<ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dwbarnes@barnsco.com> wrote in message
news:060220070817204704%dwbarnes@barnsco.com...
In article <eqa2n6$grg$1@news04.infoave.net>, Joe Irvin
<ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dwbarnes@barnsco.com> wrote in message
news:050220071906490329%dwbarnes@barnsco.com...
In article <eq7fho$p3u$1@news04.infoave.net>, Joe Irvin
<ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dwbarnes@barnsco.com> wrote in message
news:030220071510334104%dwbarnes@barnsco.com...
In article <eq33cs$jbm$1@news04.infoave.net>, Joe Irvin
<ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dwbarnes@barnsco.com> wrote in message
news:030220071352041585%dwbarnes@barnsco.com...
In article <eq2vkt$f6d$1@news04.infoave.net>, Joe Irvin
<ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
[snip]
*****. The Republicans went through a laundry list of
³reasons,²
all phony. You are being dishonest.
Are these people dishonest who also believed that there were
weapons
...
they've all backed away now. To be honest they could say
that
they
had
made
a mistake an voted for the war on the basis of false
intelligence
...
they
blame the President for lying:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the
capacity
to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to
deliver
them.
That
is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our
purpose
is
clear.
We
want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons
of
mass
destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he
has
ten
times
since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,
1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and
consistent
with
the
U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions
(including,
if
appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites)
to
respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its
weapons
of
mass
destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin,
Tom
Daschle,
John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We
are
confident
that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological
weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build
up
his
chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
reports
indicate
that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States
the
authority
to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein
because I
believe
that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his
hands
is a
real
and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
And here Ms Clinton even ties Al Qaeda to Iraq.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence
reports
show
that
Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and
biological
weapons
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear
program.
He
has
also
given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al
Qaeda
members.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein
will
continue
to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical
warfare,
and
will
keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
I believe she is correct about al Qaeda but how quickly the
complainers
forget that they also believed that there were WMD's. Who
are
the
real
liers?
Yeah - they ³believed² that lying sack of ***** BUSH. They
were
naive,
not lying. The good news is that most people realize that
Bush
and
the
Republican Party are liars. To those people, I give credit.
Yes, I guess you are right ... you and Mr Fischer should get
together
and
talk you have a lot in common.
Is this your idea of supporting your position?
I've supported my position ... it you that cannot accept it ... Oh
yes
you
did with "BIG DEAL." I guess "BIG DEAL" goes over big at the clown
college.
You supported nothing. Every quote was based on Bushıs lies.
Sure I did ...
You cut and pasted some quotes with explain any point you may have had.
Whats wrong with cutting and pasteing what has happened.
Nothing if you explain what the hell you are trying to say.
It speaks for itself ... no amount of evidence will convince you ...
Try me.
You can do the
same.
I prefer thinking on my own.
And if you cannot prove your point with evidence it becomes just your
view/opinon.
I proved my point.
I ask you to give me a cite that proves your point that the US was
given the green light to Saddam to invade Kuwait ... US policy.
I did. I just forgot that you wouldnıt accept it.
Show me up then quote it? I'll consider it when you quote it and tell me
where I can find it.
No thanks. I am tired of having to chase down crap for people like
you. Read it the first time I say it.
Of course
so far all you are able to cite is the US said they didn't get involved
in
Arab problems.
That is a distortion. Saddam Hussein went to the U.S. and stated he
intended to invade Kuwait. The U.S. Did not indicate they objected,
which in the world of diplomacy means, ³we donıt officially want to say
so, but go for it.²
Of course it doesn't ... it could mean that though ... it could mean that
the US didn't believe they would do it ... it could mean almost anything.
To you, perhaps. In diplomacy terms, it mean ³Go ahead and attack.²
I've quoted from fact check ... its a reputable, I've quoted
from reputable blogs such as the American Thinker.
Yeah - blogs are so accurate.
Its according to which ones you use ... they are accurate ones out there.
How could you know that?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Irvin" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Ways to Get Our Troops OUT of Iraq - **NOW** !! |
08 Feb 2007 10:15:23 AM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <dwbarnes@barnsco.com> wrote in message
news:070220072008576465%dwbarnes@barnsco.com...
In article <eqd1ku$qg7$1@news04.infoave.net>, Joe Irvin
<ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dwbarnes@barnsco.com> wrote in message
news:060220071923491281%dwbarnes@barnsco.com...
In article <eqafi5$u3l$1@news04.infoave.net>, Joe Irvin
<ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dwbarnes@barnsco.com> wrote in message
news:060220070817204704%dwbarnes@barnsco.com...
In article <eqa2n6$grg$1@news04.infoave.net>, Joe Irvin
<ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dwbarnes@barnsco.com> wrote in message
news:050220071906490329%dwbarnes@barnsco.com...
In article <eq7fho$p3u$1@news04.infoave.net>, Joe Irvin
<ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dwbarnes@barnsco.com> wrote in message
news:030220071510334104%dwbarnes@barnsco.com...
In article <eq33cs$jbm$1@news04.infoave.net>, Joe Irvin
<ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dwbarnes@barnsco.com> wrote in message
news:030220071352041585%dwbarnes@barnsco.com...
In article <eq2vkt$f6d$1@news04.infoave.net>, Joe Irvin
<ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
[snip]
*****. The Republicans went through a laundry list
of
³reasons,²
all phony. You are being dishonest.
Are these people dishonest who also believed that there
were
weapons
...
they've all backed away now. To be honest they could say
that
they
had
made
a mistake an voted for the war on the basis of false
intelligence
...
they
blame the President for lying:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the
capacity
to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to
deliver
them.
That
is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our
purpose
is
clear.
We
want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's
weapons
of
mass
destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as
he
has
ten
times
since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb,
18,
1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and
consistent
with
the
U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions
(including,
if
appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi
sites)
to
respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end
its
weapons
of
mass
destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl
Levin,
Tom
Daschle,
John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998.
We
are
confident
that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical
and
biological
weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course
to
build
up
his
chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
reports
indicate
that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United
States
the
authority
to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein
because I
believe
that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in
his
hands
is a
real
and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
And here Ms Clinton even ties Al Qaeda to Iraq.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence
reports
show
that
Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and
biological
weapons
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear
program.
He
has
also
given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including
al
Qaeda
members.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam
Hussein
will
continue
to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical
warfare,
and
will
keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
I believe she is correct about al Qaeda but how quickly
the
complainers
forget that they also believed that there were WMD's. Who
are
the
real
liers?
Yeah - they ³believed² that lying sack of ***** BUSH. They
were
naive,
not lying. The good news is that most people realize that
Bush
and
the
Republican Party are liars. To those people, I give
credit.
Yes, I guess you are right ... you and Mr Fischer should get
together
and
talk you have a lot in common.
Is this your idea of supporting your position?
I've supported my position ... it you that cannot accept it ...
Oh
yes
you
did with "BIG DEAL." I guess "BIG DEAL" goes over big at the
clown
college.
You supported nothing. Every quote was based on Bushıs lies.
Sure I did ...
You cut and pasted some quotes with explain any point you may have
had.
Whats wrong with cutting and pasteing what has happened.
Nothing if you explain what the hell you are trying to say.
It speaks for itself ... no amount of evidence will convince you ...
Try me.
You can do the
same.
I prefer thinking on my own.
And if you cannot prove your point with evidence it becomes just your
view/opinon.
I proved my point.
No you took an ambiguous statement and used it in order to ok Saddams
invasion of Kuwait. It is possible that Saddam read it that way, but its
not your smoking gun. The US/UN and he rest of the world preferred peace in
the middle east and didn't want a war ...
I ask you to give me a cite that proves your point that the US was
given the green light to Saddam to invade Kuwait ... US policy.
I did. I just forgot that you wouldnıt accept it.
Show me up then quote it? I'll consider it when you quote it and tell me
where I can find it.
No thanks. I am tired of having to chase down crap for people like
you. Read it the first time I say it.
I'll take that as you don't have one.
Of course
so far all you are able to cite is the US said they didn't get
involved
in
Arab problems.
That is a distortion. Saddam Hussein went to the U.S. and stated he
intended to invade Kuwait. The U.S. Did not indicate they objected,
which in the world of diplomacy means, ³we donıt officially want to say
so, but go for it.²
Of course it doesn't ... it could mean that though ... it could mean that
the US didn't believe they would do it ... it could mean almost anything.
To you, perhaps. In diplomacy terms, it mean ³Go ahead and attack.²
Diplomacy usually uses ambiguous statements in face saving ... this may have
been taken by Saddam as 'go ahead and attack', but obviously he was wrong.
I've quoted from fact check ... its a reputable, I've quoted
from reputable blogs such as the American Thinker.
Yeah - blogs are so accurate.
Its according to which ones you use ... they are accurate ones out there.
How could you know that?
I've read their base sites to the articles they write. If they cite the
WSJ/WashPost/NYT, I've gone to the original article ... it was as they said.
.... they have credibility.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Ways to Get Our Troops OUT of Iraq - **NOW** !! |
08 Feb 2007 09:36:17 PM |
|
|
In article <eqfiap$dp9$1@news04.infoave.net>, Joe Irvin
<ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dwbarnes@barnsco.com> wrote in message
news:070220072008576465%dwbarnes@barnsco.com...
In article <eqd1ku$qg7$1@news04.infoave.net>, Joe Irvin
<ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dwbarnes@barnsco.com> wrote in message
news:060220071923491281%dwbarnes@barnsco.com...
In article <eqafi5$u3l$1@news04.infoave.net>, Joe Irvin
<ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dwbarnes@barnsco.com> wrote in message
news:060220070817204704%dwbarnes@barnsco.com...
In article <eqa2n6$grg$1@news04.infoave.net>, Joe Irvin
<ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dwbarnes@barnsco.com> wrote in message
news:050220071906490329%dwbarnes@barnsco.com...
In article <eq7fho$p3u$1@news04.infoave.net>, Joe Irvin
<ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dwbarnes@barnsco.com> wrote in message
news:030220071510334104%dwbarnes@barnsco.com...
In article <eq33cs$jbm$1@news04.infoave.net>, Joe Irvin
<ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dwbarnes@barnsco.com> wrote in message
news:030220071352041585%dwbarnes@barnsco.com...
In article <eq2vkt$f6d$1@news04.infoave.net>, Joe Irvin
<ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
[snip]
*****. The Republicans went through a laundry list
of
³reasons,²
all phony. You are being dishonest.
Are these people dishonest who also believed that there
were
weapons
...
they've all backed away now. To be honest they could say
that
they
had
made
a mistake an voted for the war on the basis of false
intelligence
...
they
blame the President for lying:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the
capacity
to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to
deliver
them.
That
is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our
purpose
is
clear.
We
want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's
weapons
of
mass
destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as
he
has
ten
times
since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb,
18,
1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and
consistent
with
the
U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions
(including,
if
appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi
sites)
to
respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end
its
weapons
of
mass
destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl
Levin,
Tom
Daschle,
John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998.
We
are
confident
that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical
and
biological
weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course
to
build
up
his
chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
reports
indicate
that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United
States
the
authority
to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein
because I
believe
that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in
his
hands
is a
real
and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
And here Ms Clinton even ties Al Qaeda to Iraq.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence
reports
show
that
Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and
biological
weapons
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear
program.
He
has
also
given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including
al
Qaeda
members.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam
Hussein
will
continue
to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical
warfare,
and
will
keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
I believe she is correct about al Qaeda but how quickly
the
complainers
forget that they also believed that there were WMD's. Who
are
the
real
liers?
Yeah - they ³believed² that lying sack of ***** BUSH. They
were
naive,
not lying. The good news is that most people realize that
Bush
and
the
Republican Party are liars. To those people, I give
credit.
Yes, I guess you are right ... you and Mr Fischer should get
together
and
talk you have a lot in common.
Is this your idea of supporting your position?
I've supported my position ... it you that cannot accept it ...
Oh
yes
you
did with "BIG DEAL." I guess "BIG DEAL" goes over big at the
clown
college.
You supported nothing. Every quote was based on Bushıs lies.
Sure I did ...
You cut and pasted some quotes with explain any point you may have
had.
Whats wrong with cutting and pasteing what has happened.
Nothing if you explain what the hell you are trying to say.
It speaks for itself ... no amount of evidence will convince you ...
Try me.
You can do the
same.
I prefer thinking on my own.
And if you cannot prove your point with evidence it becomes just your
view/opinon.
I proved my point.
No you took an ambiguous statement and used it in order to ok Saddams
invasion of Kuwait. It is possible that Saddam read it that way, but its
not your smoking gun. The US/UN and he rest of the world preferred peace in
the middle east and didn't want a war ...
So what the experts on the subject mean nothing. All you are doing by
this stupid line of denials id proving you are either stupid or
dishonest.
The reason for not stating it in clearer terms was so that later Bush
could deny it and people like you would accept it.
I ask you to give me a cite that proves your point that the US was
given the green light to Saddam to invade Kuwait ... US policy.
I did. I just forgot that you wouldnıt accept it.
Show me up then quote it? I'll consider it when you quote it and tell me
where I can find it.
No thanks. I am tired of having to chase down crap for people like
you. Read it the first time I say it.
I'll take that as you don't have one.
Denial seems to be what you do bets, so do it!
Of course
so far all you are able to cite is the US said they didn't get
involved
in
Arab problems.
That is a distortion. Saddam Hussein went to the U.S. and stated he
intended to invade Kuwait. The U.S. Did not indicate they objected,
which in the world of diplomacy means, ³we donıt officially want to say
so, but go for it.²
Of course it doesn't ... it could mean that though ... it could mean that
the US didn't believe they would do it ... it could mean almost anything.
To you, perhaps. In diplomacy terms, it mean ³Go ahead and attack.²
Diplomacy usually uses ambiguous statements in face saving ...
Gee - do you think?
this may have
been taken by Saddam as 'go ahead and attack', but obviously he was wrong.
The U.S. was wrong.
I've quoted from fact check ... its a reputable, I've quoted
from reputable blogs such as the American Thinker.
Yeah - blogs are so accurate.
Its according to which ones you use ... they are accurate ones out there.
How could you know that?
I've read their base sites to the articles they write. If they cite the
WSJ/WashPost/NYT, I've gone to the original article ... it was as they said.
... they have credibility.
I gave you a Washington Post site and you denied the accuracy. Very
convenient.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Irvin" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Ways to Get Our Troops OUT of Iraq - **NOW** !! |
09 Feb 2007 11:34:55 AM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <dwbarnes@barnsco.com> wrote in message
news:080220071936174252%dwbarnes@barnsco.com...
In article <eqfiap$dp9$1@news04.infoave.net>, Joe Irvin
<ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dwbarnes@barnsco.com> wrote in message
news:070220072008576465%dwbarnes@barnsco.com...
In article <eqd1ku$qg7$1@news04.infoave.net>, Joe Irvin
<ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dwbarnes@barnsco.com> wrote in message
news:060220071923491281%dwbarnes@barnsco.com...
In article <eqafi5$u3l$1@news04.infoave.net>, Joe Irvin
<ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dwbarnes@barnsco.com> wrote in message
news:060220070817204704%dwbarnes@barnsco.com...
In article <eqa2n6$grg$1@news04.infoave.net>, Joe Irvin
<ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dwbarnes@barnsco.com> wrote in message
news:050220071906490329%dwbarnes@barnsco.com...
In article <eq7fho$p3u$1@news04.infoave.net>, Joe Irvin
<ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dwbarnes@barnsco.com> wrote in message
news:030220071510334104%dwbarnes@barnsco.com...
In article <eq33cs$jbm$1@news04.infoave.net>, Joe Irvin
<ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dwbarnes@barnsco.com> wrote in message
news:030220071352041585%dwbarnes@barnsco.com...
In article <eq2vkt$f6d$1@news04.infoave.net>, Joe Irvin
<ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
[snip]
*****. The Republicans went through a laundry
list
of
³reasons,²
all phony. You are being dishonest.
Are these people dishonest who also believed that there
were
weapons
...
they've all backed away now. To be honest they could
say
that
they
had
made
a mistake an voted for the war on the basis of false
intelligence
...
they
blame the President for lying:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq
the
capacity
to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to
deliver
them.
That
is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our
purpose
is
clear.
We
want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's
weapons
of
mass
destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again,
as
he
has
ten
times
since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser,
Feb,
18,
1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and
consistent
with
the
U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions
(including,
if
appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi
sites)
to
respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to
end
its
weapons
of
mass
destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl
Levin,
Tom
Daschle,
John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in
October1998.
We
are
confident
that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical
and
biological
weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash
course
to
build
up
his
chemical and biological warfare capabilities.
Intelligence
reports
indicate
that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United
States
the
authority
to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein
because I
believe
that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in
his
hands
is a
real
and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
And here Ms Clinton even ties Al Qaeda to Iraq.
"In the four years since the inspectors left,
intelligence
reports
show
that
Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and
biological
weapons
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear
program.
He
has
also
given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists,
including
al
Qaeda
members.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam
Hussein
will
continue
to increase his capacity to wage biological and
chemical
warfare,
and
will
keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
I believe she is correct about al Qaeda but how quickly
the
complainers
forget that they also believed that there were WMD's.
Who
are
the
real
liers?
Yeah - they ³believed² that lying sack of ***** BUSH.
They
were
naive,
not lying. The good news is that most people realize
that
Bush
and
the
Republican Party are liars. To those people, I give
credit.
Yes, I guess you are right ... you and Mr Fischer should
get
together
and
talk you have a lot in common.
Is this your idea of supporting your position?
I've supported my position ... it you that cannot accept it
...
Oh
yes
you
did with "BIG DEAL." I guess "BIG DEAL" goes over big at the
clown
college.
You supported nothing. Every quote was based on Bushıs lies.
Sure I did ...
You cut and pasted some quotes with explain any point you may
have
had.
Whats wrong with cutting and pasteing what has happened.
Nothing if you explain what the hell you are trying to say.
It speaks for itself ... no amount of evidence will convince you ...
Try me.
You can do the
same.
I prefer thinking on my own.
And if you cannot prove your point with evidence it becomes just your
view/opinon.
I proved my point.
No you took an ambiguous statement and used it in order to ok Saddams
invasion of Kuwait. It is possible that Saddam read it that way, but its
not your smoking gun. The US/UN and he rest of the world preferred peace
in
the middle east and didn't want a war ...
So what the experts on the subject mean nothing. All you are doing by
this stupid line of denials id proving you are either stupid or
dishonest.
Post the 'expert'S'. You've posted one person so far and the closest I
could even imagine gave the 'green light', Saddam 'go for it in Kuwait' is
that the US did't get involved in Arab/Arab problems. Notice it wasn't
Arab/Kuwait or Iraq/Kuwait, pluse the statement is so ambiguous. Post some
other experts that says this was the green light. The way you are talking
with 'experts' is that it was main stream thinking.
The reason for not stating it in clearer terms was so that later Bush
could deny it and people like you would accept it.
And you know this how? Its only conjecture on your part.
I ask you to give me a cite that proves your point that the US was
given the green light to Saddam to invade Kuwait ... US policy.
I did. I just forgot that you wouldnıt accept it.
Show me up then quote it? I'll consider it when you quote it and tell
me
where I can find it.
No thanks. I am tired of having to chase down crap for people like
you. Read it the first time I say it.
I'll take that as you don't have one.
Denial seems to be what you do bets, so do it!
You give me no evidence to deny ...
Of course
so far all you are able to cite is the US said they didn't get
involved
in
Arab problems.
That is a distortion. Saddam Hussein went to the U.S. and stated he
intended to invade Kuwait. The U.S. Did not indicate they objected,
which in the world of diplomacy means, ³we donıt officially want to
say
so, but go for it.²
Of course it doesn't ... it could mean that though ... it could mean
that
the US didn't believe they would do it ... it could mean almost
anything.
To you, perhaps. In diplomacy terms, it mean ³Go ahead and attack.²
Diplomacy usually uses ambiguous statements in face saving ...
Gee - do you think?
this may have
been taken by Saddam as 'go ahead and attack', but obviously he was
wrong.
The U.S. was wrong.
I've quoted from fact check ... its a reputable, I've quoted
from reputable blogs such as the American Thinker.
Yeah - blogs are so accurate.
Its according to which ones you use ... they are accurate ones out
there.
How could you know that?
I've read their base sites to the articles they write. If they cite the
WSJ/WashPost/NYT, I've gone to the original article ... it was as they
said.
... they have credibility.
I gave you a Washington Post site and you denied the accuracy. Very
convenient.
I didn't deny the Washington Post, I questioned it and so did the people in
the Washington Post article ... they said the 100,000 figure seem inflated
.... not my words, theirs. David you are getting as bad as Honest Ray.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Ways to Get Our Troops OUT of Iraq - **NOW** !! |
03 Feb 2007 04:01:35 PM |
|
|
Joe Irvin <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
[snip]
*****. The Republicans went through a laundry list of ³reasons,²
all phony. You are being dishonest.
Are these people dishonest who also believed that there were weapons ...
they've all backed away now. To be honest they could say that they had made
a mistake an voted for the war on the basis of false intelligence ... they
blame the President for lying:
Because he's a liar.
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That
is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
Clinton didn't invade, moron. He knew that we didn't need to invade
in order to keep WMD away from Iraq.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Irvin" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Ways to Get Our Troops OUT of Iraq - **NOW** !! |
03 Feb 2007 04:51:27 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:45c5063f$0$80106$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Joe Irvin <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
[snip]
*****. The Republicans went through a laundry list of ³reasons,²
all phony. You are being dishonest.
Are these people dishonest who also believed that there were weapons ...
they've all backed away now. To be honest they could say that they had
made
a mistake an voted for the war on the basis of false intelligence ... they
blame the President for lying:
Because he's a liar.
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That
is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
Clinton didn't invade, moron. He knew that we didn't need to invade
in order to keep WMD away from Iraq.
Eaaassssy Mr Fischer you are replying to a Clinton quote ... I doubt he will
respond ... having trouble in the troll lounge?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Ways to Get Our Troops OUT of Iraq - **NOW** !! |
03 Feb 2007 05:10:33 PM |
|
|
In article <eq33lc$jii$1@news04.infoave.net>, Joe Irvin
<ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:45c5063f$0$80106$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Joe Irvin <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
[snip]
*****. The Republicans went through a laundry list of ³reasons,²
all phony. You are being dishonest.
Are these people dishonest who also believed that there were weapons ...
they've all backed away now. To be honest they could say that they had
made
a mistake an voted for the war on the basis of false intelligence ... they
blame the President for lying:
Because he's a liar.
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That
is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
Clinton didn't invade, moron. He knew that we didn't need to invade
in order to keep WMD away from Iraq.
Eaaassssy Mr Fischer you are replying to a Clinton quote ... I doubt he will
respond ... having trouble in the troll lounge?
Are you that stupid? By posting it as a response you endorsed it.
Does this crap work with the the other brown shirts?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Irvin" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Ways to Get Our Troops OUT of Iraq - **NOW** !! |
05 Feb 2007 08:40:27 AM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <dwbarnes@barnsco.com> wrote in message
news:030220071510334146%dwbarnes@barnsco.com...
In article <eq33lc$jii$1@news04.infoave.net>, Joe Irvin
<ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:45c5063f$0$80106$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Joe Irvin <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
[snip]
*****. The Republicans went through a laundry list of ³reasons,²
all phony. You are being dishonest.
Are these people dishonest who also believed that there were weapons
...
they've all backed away now. To be honest they could say that they had
made
a mistake an voted for the war on the basis of false intelligence ...
they
blame the President for lying:
Because he's a liar.
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That
is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
Clinton didn't invade, moron. He knew that we didn't need to invade
in order to keep WMD away from Iraq.
Eaaassssy Mr Fischer you are replying to a Clinton quote ... I doubt he
will
respond ... having trouble in the troll lounge?
Are you that stupid? By posting it as a response you endorsed it.
Does this crap work with the the other brown shirts?
Coming from you BIG DEAL Barnes it a laugh.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Ways to Get Our Troops OUT of Iraq - **NOW** !! |
05 Feb 2007 09:06:52 PM |
|
|
In article <eq7fkp$p67$1@news04.infoave.net>, Joe Irvin
<ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dwbarnes@barnsco.com> wrote in message
news:030220071510334146%dwbarnes@barnsco.com...
In article <eq33lc$jii$1@news04.infoave.net>, Joe Irvin
<ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:45c5063f$0$80106$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Joe Irvin <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
[snip]
*****. The Republicans went through a laundry list of ³reasons,²
all phony. You are being dishonest.
Are these people dishonest who also believed that there were weapons
...
they've all backed away now. To be honest they could say that they had
made
a mistake an voted for the war on the basis of false intelligence ...
they
blame the President for lying:
Because he's a liar.
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That
is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
Clinton didn't invade, moron. He knew that we didn't need to invade
in order to keep WMD away from Iraq.
Eaaassssy Mr Fischer you are replying to a Clinton quote ... I doubt he
will
respond ... having trouble in the troll lounge?
Are you that stupid? By posting it as a response you endorsed it.
Does this crap work with the the other brown shirts?
Coming from you BIG DEAL Barnes it a laugh.
So the answer is, ³Stupid.²
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kope" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Ways to Get Our Troops OUT of Iraq - **NOW** !! |
08 Feb 2007 07:06:20 PM |
|
|
i am a radical muslim please read my blog, read how islam will win
the clash of civilization.
http://www.xanga.com/hfghj23458654fgha
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Irvin" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Ways to Get Our Troops OUT of Iraq - **NOW** !! |
09 Feb 2007 01:02:11 PM |
|
|
Hay, Big Deal David, Honest Ray, Buffalo Bob, read this guys web page ...
this is right down your ally ... you freedom lovers. At least he's honest
and makes a case you guys can swoon over.
"Kope" <kope22222@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1170983180.736135.117680@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
i am a radical muslim please read my blog, read how islam will win
the clash of civilization.
http://www.xanga.com/hfghj23458654fgha
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Ways to Get Our Troops OUT of Iraq - **NOW** !! |
09 Feb 2007 08:52:34 PM |
|
|
In article <eqigfg$jcr$1@news04.infoave.net>, Joe Irvin
<ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
Hay, Big Deal David, Honest Ray, Buffalo Bob, read this guys web page ...
this is right down your ally ... you freedom lovers. At least he's honest
and makes a case you guys can swoon over.
Hay [sic] How does it feel to have gotten your ***** kicked today by the
IG?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Irvin" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Ways to Get Our Troops OUT of Iraq - **NOW** !! |
10 Feb 2007 12:58:52 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <dwbarnes@barnsco.com> wrote in message
news:090220071852341981%dwbarnes@barnsco.com...
In article <eqigfg$jcr$1@news04.infoave.net>, Joe Irvin
<ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
Hay, Big Deal David, Honest Ray, Buffalo Bob, read this guys web page ...
this is right down your ally ... you freedom lovers. At least he's
honest
and makes a case you guys can swoon over.
Hay [sic] How does it feel to have gotten your ***** kicked today by the
IG?
I've lost you how did I get my ***** kicked? Did you read the guys web page
.... this is everything that people on the left are against ... yet you
support the Muslim jihadists, it seems to me.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Ways to Get Our Troops OUT of Iraq - **NOW** !! |
10 Feb 2007 01:00:32 AM |
|
|
On Feb 9, 9:52 pm, "David W. Barnes" <dwbar...@barnsco.com> wrote:
In article <eqigfg$jc...@news04.infoave.net>, Joe Irvin
<ji3...@sccoast.net> wrote:
Hay, Big Deal David, Honest Ray, Buffalo Bob, read this guys web page ...
this is right down your ally ... you freedom lovers. At least he's honest
and makes a case you guys can swoon over.
Hay [sic] How does it feel to have gotten your ***** kicked today by the
IG?
David Barnes thrives off of violence.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Ways to Get Our Troops OUT of Iraq - **NOW** !! |
03 Feb 2007 05:10:51 PM |
|
|
Joe Irvin <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
Joe Irvin <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
*****. The Republicans went through a laundry list of ³reasons,²
all phony. You are being dishonest.
Are these people dishonest who also believed that there were weapons ...
they've all backed away now. To be honest they could say that they had
made
a mistake an voted for the war on the basis of false intelligence ... they
blame the President for lying:
Because he's a liar.
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That
is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
Clinton didn't invade, moron. He knew that we didn't need to invade
in order to keep WMD away from Iraq.
Eaaassssy Mr Fischer you are replying to a Clinton quote .
Wrong yet again, moron. I'm responding to you.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Server 13" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Ways to Get Our Troops OUT of Iraq - **NOW** !! |
01 Feb 2007 11:30:57 AM |
|
|
"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
news:epsupk$nv$1@news04.infoave.net...
"weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:J4bwh.490165$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.
We did.
Otherwise you are not fighting a war you are setting your military
up as targets ...
We are not fighting a war. We won the war in 3 days.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Irvin" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Ways to Get Our Troops OUT of Iraq - **NOW** !! |
01 Feb 2007 12:36:20 PM |
|
|
"Server 13" <its@casual.com> wrote in message
news:ept84l$2ru$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
news:epsupk$nv$1@news04.infoave.net...
"weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:J4bwh.490165$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.
We did.
Thats what happens in war. Do you recognize any thing, like the Muslim
jihadist killing innocent civilians or is it just the US? How about
suicide bombers thats aim is to kill innocent civilians. Thats ok huh?
Otherwise you are not fighting a war you are setting your military
up as targets ...
We are not fighting a war. We won the war in 3 days.
What are we doing?
.
|
|
|
| User: "weatherwax" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Ways to Get Our Troops OUT of Iraq - **NOW** !! |
01 Feb 2007 04:02:46 PM |
|
|
"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote
"Server 13" <its@casual.com> 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.
We did.
Thats what happens in war. Do you recognize any thing, like the Muslim
jihadist killing innocent civilians or is it just the US? How about
suicide bombers thats aim is to kill innocent civilians. Thats ok huh?
Otherwise you are not fighting a war you are setting your military
up as targets ...
We are not fighting a war. We won the war in 3 days.
What are we doing?
That is a good question.
Right now we are standing in the middle of a civil war. Whichever way we
turn, we will anger supporters of the other side.
--Wax
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Irvin" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Ways to Get Our Troops OUT of Iraq - **NOW** !! |
01 Feb 2007 04:44:22 PM |
|
|
"weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:astwh.225$Xq6.200@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote
"Server 13" <its@casual.com> 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.
We did.
Thats what happens in war. Do you recognize any thing, like the Muslim
jihadist killing innocent civilians or is it just the US? How about
suicide bombers thats aim is to kill innocent civilians. Thats ok huh?
Otherwise you are not fighting a war you are setting your military
up as targets ...
We are not fighting a war. We won the war in 3 days.
What are we doing?
That is a good question.
Right now we are standing in the middle of a civil war. Whichever way we
turn, we will anger supporters of the other side.
My point the war wasn't won in 3 days ... Muslim jihadist still kill US
military and Iraqi civilians. Wasn't it you who was so worried about us
killing innocent civilians? Its OK for the Muslim jihadist to kill US
servicemen and Iraqis civilians ... Doesn't sound like you are that
concerned when the Muslim jihadist kill civilians, just the US.
--Wax
.
|
|
|
| User: "weatherwax" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Ways to Get Our Troops OUT of Iraq - **NOW** !! |
01 Feb 2007 08:09:26 PM |
|
|
"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote
"weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote
"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote
"Server 13" <its@casual.com> 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.
We did.
Thats what happens in war. Do you recognize any thing, like the Muslim
jihadist killing innocent civilians or is it just the US? How about
suicide bombers thats aim is to kill innocent civilians. Thats ok huh?
Otherwise you are not fighting a war you are setting your military
up as targets ...
We are not fighting a war. We won the war in 3 days.
What are we doing?
That is a good question.
Right now we are standing in the middle of a civil war. Whichever
way we turn, we will anger supporters of the other side.
My point the war wasn't won in 3 days ... Muslim jihadist still kill US
military and Iraqi civilians. Wasn't it you who was so worried about us
killing innocent civilians? Its OK for the Muslim jihadist to kill US
servicemen and Iraqis civilians ... Doesn't sound like you are that
concerned when the Muslim jihadist kill civilians, just the US.
You don't even understand what the war is about. We are not fighting Saddam
or "Muslim jihadist". We are involving ourselves in a civil war between
Sunni and Shiite religious fractions. Bush is trying to stand in the
middle and put down the militants on both sides. The problem is that
neither the Shiites nor Sunnis want us there anymore. Iraqi government
needs us to stay in power, but it is primarily Shiite and will not cooperate
in actions against Shiite militants. Therefore the majority of our military
action has been against the Sunnis, which has not fared well with friendly
Sunni countries such as Saudi Arabia. The conflict between these two
groups is over a thousand years old and Bush is not about to put it to an
end.
Another problem is that the major oil fields are in Kurdish and Shiite
hands. The Sunni group believes that they should get their share of the oil
profits. For now, the Kurds are siding with the Shiites, but they really
want nothing more than to break off from Iraq and form their own state,
taking their oil fields with them.
There is no way the United States can solve these problems through force of
arms. We should get out of there, and let them and other Moslem countries
such as Turkey, Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia come in seek a settlement.
--Wax
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Irvin" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Ways to Get Our Troops OUT of Iraq - **NOW** !! |
01 Feb 2007 08:59:17 PM |
|
|
"weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:q3xwh.495248$Fi1.479941@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote
"weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote
"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote
"Server 13" <its@casual.com> 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.
We did.
Thats what happens in war. Do you recognize any thing, like the Muslim
jihadist killing innocent civilians or is it just the US? How about
suicide bombers thats aim is to kill innocent civilians. Thats ok huh?
Otherwise you are not fighting a war you are setting your military
up as targets ...
We are not fighting a war. We won the war in 3 days.
What are we doing?
That is a good question.
Right now we are standing in the middle of a civil war. Whichever
way we turn, we will anger supporters of the other side.
My point the war wasn't won in 3 days ... Muslim jihadist still kill US
military and Iraqi civilians. Wasn't it you who was so worried about us
killing innocent civilians? Its OK for the Muslim jihadist to kill US
servicemen and Iraqis civilians ... Doesn't sound like you are that
concerned when the Muslim jihadist kill civilians, just the US.
You don't even understand what the war is about. We are not fighting
Saddam or "Muslim jihadist".
Sure we are ... London subway bombing, French riots about a cartoon, Spain
train bombing ... not fighting Muslim jihadist?????
We are involving ourselves in a civil war between
Sunni and Shiite religious fractions. Bush is trying to stand in the
middle and put down the militants on both sides. The problem is that
neither the Shiites nor Sunnis want us there anymore. Iraqi government
needs us to stay in power, but it is primarily Shiite and will not
cooperate in actions against Shiite militants. Therefore the majority of
our military action has been against the Sunnis, which has not fared well
with friendly Sunni countries such as Saudi Arabia. The conflict between
these two groups is over a thousand years old and Bush is not about to put
it to an end.
The Iraqis voted for a govt ... maybe we can and maybe we cannot make it
work, but its worth a try IMO. The fighting is mostly going on in Baghdad
and one other province. The north is relatively peaceful with the Kurds.
No matter what is happening the Muslim jihadist that you think we are not
fighting are a world problem and threaten security in the west. I'm not
expert on Iraqi politics.
Another problem is that the major oil fields are in Kurdish and Shiite
hands. The Sunni group believes that they should get their share of the
oil profits. For now, the Kurds are siding with the Shiites, but they
really want nothing more than to break off from Iraq and form their own
state, taking their oil fields with them.
I'm not argueing Iraqi politics. I'm not qualified to.
There is no way the United States can solve these problems through force
of arms. We should get out of there, and let them and other Moslem
countries such as Turkey, Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia come in seek a
settlement.
We could have taken that same mind set in 1941 ... a European problem ...
Sometimes things that happen in other parts of the world affect the US.
--Wax
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Ways to Get Our Troops OUT of Iraq - **NOW** !! |
02 Feb 2007 12:19:23 PM |
|
|
Joe Irvin <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
"Server 13" <its@casual.com> wrote in message
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.
We did.
Thats what happens in war.
That's why you don't wage wars without compelling need.
Do you recognize any thing, like the Muslim
jihadist killing innocent civilians or is it just the US?
So you justify the deaths of hundreds of thousands by pointing to the
actions of a few extremists?!?
How about
suicide bombers thats aim is to kill innocent civilians. Thats ok huh?
What's the difference between them and you?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Irvin" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Ways to Get Our Troops OUT of Iraq - **NOW** !! |
02 Feb 2007 02:28:16 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:45c380ab$0$80043$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Joe Irvin <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
"Server 13" <its@casual.com> wrote in message
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.
We did.
Thats what happens in war.
That's why you don't wage wars without compelling need.
And thats open to interpretation isn't it? ... "compelling need."
Do you recognize any thing, like the Muslim
jihadist killing innocent civilians or is it just the US?
So you justify the deaths of hundreds of thousands by pointing to the
actions of a few extremists?!?
I believe we/west should do what it takes to rid the world of these Mulsim
jihadists. Do you think it would be justified if a dirty bomb was set of in
Los Angeles? Should we wait until something like that happens before we get
serious. The London subway bombing, Spain railway bombing, WTC I&II doesn't
bother you. The 25+ years that these Muslim jihadists have been waging war
against the US ... Lock | | | | |
