"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:45ca261d$0$80079$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...

Joe Irvin <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:

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

Joe Irvin <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:

The aim of the war we are talking about now is the war against the
Muslim
jihadist ...

*****.

Its true, Honest Ray.

The "Muslim jihadists" comes from Saudi Arabia and from Pakistan.
Allies of the United States.

And that is the truth ... I knew you had it in you to tell the truth at
least one time.

And its awful that we have to support them ... the Saudis
for oil and supposedly Pakistan for their support (questionalbe IMO) in
finding Osama. But I agree with you we do support them.

We've had a succession of administration insiders who said that Bush
wanted war with Iraq regardless of the facts.

We also had investigations ... Bush didn't fix intell.

That succession of
admin insiders had there chance to testify at the 9/ll heardings and other
hearings investigations that have been held.

We have the UN, who

refused to accept Bush's flimsy excuses. We have the reports of
weapons inspectors, who found no WMD before they were forced to leave
Iraq by Bush.

You left out one fact ... it was on and off on the inspections ... a cat an
mouse game.

We have people who were criminally attacked by the

Bush administration for daring to refute Bush's claims.

Haven't heard that one ...

I've also agreed that there were not WMD's found. People who act on
information they think true are not liers ...

Bush did not act on any information. In fact he rushed to war before
the UN inspectors could finish their job and report no WMDs.

12 years of on and off .

"David W. Barnes" <dwbarnes@barnsco.com> wrote in message
news:030220071352041560%dwbarnes@barnsco.com...

In article <eq2or5$83s$1@news04.infoave.net>, Joe Irvin
<ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:

"David W. Barnes" <dwbarnes@barnsco.com> wrote in message
news:030220070847202270%dwbarnes@barnsco.com...

In article <epvlv9$tsg$1@news04.infoave.net>, Joe Irvin
<ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:

"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 accept that civilians get killed in wars, and you advocate war,
you advocate the killing of civilians.

Obviously, and a recognition of reality.

Yeah - reality is that we just have to kill people to keep the price of
oil down.

I've not one time said we had to kill people to keep the price of oil down.

But you might as yourself who would keep the middle east open for oil
shipments to not only the US but the rest of the world.

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?

I donıt. But to be consistent, you should.

Not at all ... there could and have been countries ruled by despots that
do
not threaten our vital interests. Vital interests are what countries go
to
war about.

Iraq never threatened our vital interests. In fact, they were an
excellent tool to fight terrorists.

Again, your opinion.

Were they fighting terrorist when they invaded Kuwait
... when Saddam paid off suicide bombers families. Others have different
opinions

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.

We didnıt ³think² about it. We pretextually invaded another country
for the first time in U.S. History. It was like Hitler invading Poland
and claiming a ³national interest.²

That is your opinion.

LOL! Yeah - supported by the facts.

Yes I did.

The Prez and Congress though otherwise.

No, they didnıt. They thought we would walk right in. They thought
about special interests and did not give a damn about the military.

Thats true, the thought was that it would be a cake walk ... it wasn't.

They made
their decision on faulty intell, but it was, with the intell they had,
the
right decision they thought.

So you are one of those few who agrees with Britany Spears. "I think
we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and
we should just support that."

I didn't even come close to say that and you know it. I wasn't even talking
about myself.

Germany didn't attack the US but the US went
to war with them.

Brilliant. Do you think that the fact that they declared war on us
might have had something to do with it?

So what we attacked them without them attacking us ... that was your
original argument.

Osama declared war (a fatwah) on the US does that give
the US the right then, to invade every country that is Muslim ... I think
not.

You have yet to explain why we invaded Iraq to,

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

See above

The whole, ³Saddam Hussein was a bad

man and we are here to rescue the people of Iraq² was a lie.

If and only if Iraq settles in to some what stable the people will be
*resqued*.

You canıt rescue people who donıt want to be rescued.

I agree with you on that, but I think the problem is bigger than trying
to
rescue people.

You said it, I didnıt.

The Muslim jihadist want to use force and intimidtion to
take over the world.

LOL!! *****. That would be Bush and the Right Wing.

I'm noteing you read this before what I wrote below where I quote Muslim
jihadist that prove what I say is true.

"According to a poll taken in 2004, over 60% of
"British Muslims want to live under sharia -- in the United Kingdom."
Mark
Steyn. ... Former Hezbollah leader Hussein Massawi, "We are not fighting
so
that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you."
Roger
Kimball. "But, pointedly imams here and there in the country have come
out
in support of the bombers (subway bombers in London) 'Even if i'm
British,'
one of them declares, 'I have no allegiance to the British Queen
whatsoever,
or to British society.'" David Pyrce-Jones. These Muslim jihadist are a
threat to the west. They have no concept of the separation of religion
from
secular govt ... its the same. The US and the West ignores this.

Pure *****. That is a big problem with the Internet. There is
always some ***** out their who is will to claim the earth is flat,
so if you want to believe the earth is flat you can point to his quotes
as though they mean something.

This isn't off the internet. You may find the articles on the internet
though. Bombings in London, Spain, Asia, and whats going on in Sudan ...
this isn't the flat earth people.

What you fail to understand is, ³Bush is an alien!²
<http://tinyurl.com/2alccn>

So I see you are not serious.

This was only one of many reasons we went into Iraq.

*****. The Republicans went through a laundry list of ³reasons,²
all phony. You are being dishonest.

Ok, Did Saddam ignore the agreement that ended the Gulf War by shooting
at
aircraft in the no fly zone? Did he not account for the weapons he had
and
that he was to account for? Did he play a cat and mouse game with the UN
inspectors for 12 years? These questions can be answered with a yes and
no.
This is not *****. Did Saddam have WMD's? No, but our intell and
other
countries intell said that he did. This you can call *****, but it
wasn't a lie ... it was a miscalculation based on faulty information.
Saddam lets the inspectors inspect, account for his WMD's and there no
war.

Big deal. The reason we won the cold war was patience and diplomacy.
Adults have the patience and the long range goals to do that. Bush has
the patience of a three year old and his goals extend to the end of the
day. (Which explains why he did so poorly in school and could not
excel in anything but getting drunk and high). He doesnıt mind getting
others killed as long as he gets to play war.

I'll take that as a "yes" that what I said was not ******* but true since
you can only rant about Bush and not refute or answer the questions I asked
and what I said.

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.

You are apparently a Right Wing hack that repeats we he hears on Fox
³NEWS.²

Attacking me doesn't change the facts.

What ³facts² are those?

The ones that you answered "Big deal" and then went on a rant about Bush ...
those facts.

I've asked questions above that were
reported on most US networks and international news. To make this all
***** you have to say that Saddam complied with the agreement that
ended
the Gulf War. Are you ready to do that? Claiming I'm a Fox News
watcher
ignores the facts and sidesteps the real issues.

You make a huge assumption. According to your ³thinking,² the fact
that we support Israel, and Israel attacks the Palestinians, which are
supported by these, so called, terrorists, Bin Laden was justified in
the World Trade Center attack. Get real.

I said nothing about Israel or attacks on Palestinians ... this is what you
said ... stay on topic.

The fact the Saddam Hussein wasnıt completely cooperative was a pretext
to invade Iraq, nothing more.

Your opinion.

when he didn't live up to the agreement that ended the Gulf
war and 12 years of talking it was time to take action others thought.

They are

worse off now than under Saddam Hussein.

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

To The Kurds: ³You are worse off now than under Saddam Hussein, and
we, America, did that to you.

So you can decide for the Kurds ...?
It was bad under Saddam Hussein, we

know, but at least you were living the result of your actions and your
mistakes.

Which meant the death of anyone at Saddams whim.

Not like now, where death can come to you without any reason at all.
More Iraqis die every day than they did under Saddam Hussein, and with
even less of a reason.

This may be true, but its the Muslim jihadist that are killing the majority
of them.

As an American I am responsible for the actions of my

government. For that, I apologize. This is what happens when we allow
the ignorant, hateful, and religious decide who will be our leaders and
what will be our foreign policy.

So the religious, ignorant, and hateful shouldn't be allowed to
participate
in government? How democratic of you.

Canıt read well, can you? We shouldnıt have allowed them to decide who
would be our leaders and dictate foreign policy.

Voting is how its done here ... voting for our representatives.

We made terrible errors and are

having trouble correcting those errors. We are currently trying to
inject some common sense into our society but many refuse to listen.

I'll agree that terrible errors were made.

But lets follow the assholes anyway. <http://tinyurl.com/85f82>

Get serious.

They are too consumed by hatred and religious furor.

You know nothing of religious hatred until you read some of the Mulsim
jihadists rantings.

Propaganda.

Maybe but its working.

We wouldn't be having this conversation under Muslim
law.

Yeah, yeah, yeah... But then, we arenıt under Muslim law.

If people listened to you we would probably a step closer. ;)]

Again, for my

part, I am sorry we got you into this and I wish I could get you out.²

Any suggestions on how to get out?

Fill up the airplanes with all the troops and as much equipment as we
can carry and fly west. They are doomed, and we doomed them. Better
today than tomorrow. At least they get their country back and we can
begin the VERY long process of, once again, having to repair our image
in the world after the Republicans fucked it up.

What Republicans are doing now is stalling, and getting Americans
killed in the process, until the next, probably Democratic, president
is in office. Then when Iraq falls apart they can say, ³It wasnıt our
fault.² Hopefully everyone is clear - it is their fault.

They will say the same thing when a responsible, probably Democratic,
president says taxes must be raised to pay for all the irresponsible
Right Wing spending under Bush and the current Republicans. And
Republicans will say, ³See, Democrats raise taxes!²

It seems to work with the simple minded.

Is that why its a simple minded idea?