| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Bill McCarty" |
| Date: |
12 Dec 2005 10:21:27 PM |
| Object: |
IMPERTINENT QUESTION # 145 |
OK, the Iraqis have NOT executed several American hostages as
they have threatened. Isn't this the right time to release a couple
dozen of Iraqis in OUR prisons as a gesture to mark the Christmas
season ? Or do we want to follow the failed Israeli policy of tit for
tat - An eye for an eye, which in sixty years has brought them neither
peace nor victory nor security. Forgiveness is not an important part of
the Jewish faith, but it's an absolutely CENTRAL part of
Christianity. Isn't it time to try it out ?
.
|
|
| User: "Docky Wocky" |
|
| Title: Re: IMPERTINENT QUESTION # 145 |
13 Dec 2005 09:34:29 AM |
|
|
mccarty sez:
"OK, the Iraqis have NOT executed several American hostages as
they have threatened. Isn't this the right time to release a couple
dozen of Iraqis in OUR prisons as a gesture to mark the Christmas
season ?..."
________________________________
On the other hand, since you have absolutely no idea of what your terrorist
pals have done to their captives, you
are simply an appeaser.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill McCarty" |
|
| Title: Re: IMPERTINENT QUESTION # 145 |
13 Dec 2005 11:28:45 AM |
|
|
I'm an appeaser because I ask a question about the possibility
of reaching an understanding with the Insurgents ? No I'm not. I have
no idea whether it's possible. But it MAY accomplish something. Your
rigid, closed mind, never again, not an inch attitude has
accomplished NOTHING in the past and will accomplish nothing in the
future. At some point forgiveness has to start, if we're going to get
on with our lives. The problem with the war criminal Sharon is that he
has backed himself into a corner and can't get out. He has doomed
Israel to an eternity of bitterness, hatred and bloodshed. And is
trying to doom the US to a similar fate. Breaking out of this stupid
loop won't be easy but I hope we'll have the guts to try.
Have a nice day, Bill.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DGVREIMAN" |
|
| Title: Re: IMPERTINENT QUESTION # 145 |
13 Dec 2005 01:19:22 PM |
|
|
"Docky Wocky" <mrchuck@lst.net> wrote in message
news:9SBnf.6155$Jz6.3658@trnddc06...
mccarty sez:
"OK, the Iraqis have NOT executed several American hostages as
they have threatened. Isn't this the right time to release a
couple
dozen of Iraqis in OUR prisons as a gesture to mark the
Christmas
season ?..."
________________________________
On the other hand, since you have absolutely no idea of what
your terrorist pals have done to their captives, you
are simply an appeaser.
Doug Says: Duh, Macarty is associating the vicious marauding
goons that we have captured to those innocent people the goons
have taken hostage. Bringing marauding goons to justice, and
taking hostages, are two different things - would someone please
tell Uncle Billy the difference.
Doug Grant (Tm)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Docky Wocky" |
|
| Title: Re: IMPERTINENT QUESTION # 145 |
13 Dec 2005 03:58:13 PM |
|
|
McCarty, give us one example of where terrorist appeasement has
ever resulted in an accommodation?
"But it MAY accomplish something," is a cop-out, since there never has been
any reciprocal accommodation from those turkeys. None. Ever.
And while you are pontificating, tell us again why Sharon is such a monster?
I always enjoy the left's views on him.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill McCarty" |
|
| Title: Re: IMPERTINENT QUESTION # 145 |
13 Dec 2005 09:02:36 PM |
|
|
Please stop trying to put words in my mouth fat head. I didn't
use the word 'monster'. YOU did. Of course it's easy to understand
why that word would spring to your mind. Sharon has been indicted as a
war criminal by the World Court in The Hague and it's only a matter of
time before he answers for his crimes. But don't take my word for it.
Just Google on the words: Sharon War Criminal and you'll find about two
milion (2,000,000) web pages dealing with Shinerman ! What is it
with you guys ? Why do you insist on hiding behind false names ? To
me that's like spitting on the grave of your parents. What have you
got to be ashamed of ?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: IMPERTINENT QUESTION # 145 |
14 Dec 2005 09:33:16 PM |
|
|
"Docky Wocky" <mrchuck@lst.net> wrote in message
news:VtHnf.6225$Jz6.2742@trnddc06...
McCarty, give us one example of where terrorist appeasement has
ever resulted in an accommodation?
Your question is based upon three premises and all three are totally and
dangerously wrong:
A. People cannot change
B. People have not changed in the past.
C. People will not change in the future.
I don't know about your religious and spiritual heritage, but mine could
almost be summed up as a total rejection of the three premises listed above.
Evil and sinful behavior can and should be replaced by action in harmony
with the laws of god and in harmony with the legitimate rights and needs of
our neighbors. Clinging to the three positions stated above might go far to
explain why the Jews have never been able to establish a peaceful
relationship with their neighbors and exist either as hostile rivals to, or
parasites of these neighbors.
And that's puzzling since Jewish history along with Christian history is
replete with examples of repentance, revival of spiritual conviction and
redemption. The example from Jewish history that comes to mind is the
rejection of idol worship and a return to traditional virtues.
How often should we turn the other cheek, reach out to our enemies and
forgive him his transgressions?. MY religious tradition says we should
forgive him over and over and over again. It's this rejection of MY
tradition in favor of YOURS that worries me about our efforts in Iraq.
Especially in view of our military men saying privately the war has no
military solution. OK. Then lets try a non-military solution. Why does that
possibility seem to strike terror into your heart ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "DGVREIMAN" |
|
| Title: Re: IMPERTINENT QUESTION # 145 |
16 Dec 2005 07:38:01 AM |
|
|
"Bill" <bmcc@XpaM.net> wrote in message
news:0u5of.384$ug1.80887@monger.newsread.com...
"Docky Wocky" <mrchuck@lst.net> wrote in message
news:VtHnf.6225$Jz6.2742@trnddc06...
McCarty, give us one example of where terrorist appeasement
has
ever resulted in an accommodation?
Your question is based upon three premises and all three are
totally and
dangerously wrong:
A. People cannot change
B. People have not changed in the past.
C. People will not change in the future.
I don't know about your religious and spiritual heritage, but
mine could
almost be summed up as a total rejection of the three premises
listed above.
Evil and sinful behavior can and should be replaced by action
in harmony
with the laws of god and in harmony with the legitimate rights
and needs of
our neighbors. Clinging to the three positions stated above
might go far to
explain why the Jews have never been able to establish a
peaceful
relationship with their neighbors and exist either as hostile
rivals to, or
parasites of these neighbors.
And that's puzzling since Jewish history along with Christian
history is
replete with examples of repentance, revival of spiritual
conviction and
redemption. The example from Jewish history that comes to mind
is the
rejection of idol worship and a return to traditional virtues.
How often should we turn the other cheek, reach out to our
enemies and
forgive him his transgressions?. MY religious tradition says we
should
forgive him over and over and over again. It's this rejection
of MY
tradition in favor of YOURS that worries me about our efforts
in Iraq.
Especially in view of our military men saying privately the war
has no
military solution. OK. Then lets try a non-military solution.
Why does that
possibility seem to strike terror into your heart ?
Doug Says:
Nonsense. First, there are no credible "military men saying
privately the war has no military solution." That is a lie. ALL
of the Generals involved with our war on terror (of which Iraq is
just a battlefield) not only state we must use military force
against radical Islam, but also that such force is winning our
war. Second, if you actually believe that if we lay down our
arms and turn the other check our enemies will then lay down
their arms and stop murdering then you have not been paying much
attention to the barks and howls coming from radical Islam. They
live by a genocide code. All that do not agree with their
bizarre form of Satanic worshiping must die - that is their code,
their pathetic life, and their ideology. Radical Islam is a
plague on this Earth, and the way to stop and destroy such filth
is not to swat at it after it bites you, but to drain the swamp
from which it was spawned. Iran is that swamp, and the only way
the Iranian goons will stop is when they are destroyed by
military force. Period, end of story.
Doug Grant (Tm)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: IMPERTINENT QUESTION # 145 |
16 Dec 2005 01:16:50 PM |
|
|
"DGVREIMAN" <DGVREIMAN@COMCAST.NET> wrote in message > > dangerously wrong:
Doug Says:
Nonsense. First, there are no credible "military men saying
privately the war has no military solution." That is a lie.
From Today's News Reports
NO MILITARY SOLUTION IN IRAQ, SAY U.S. COMMANDERS
It's time for the U.S. to get out of Iraq -- because the insurgency
cannot be defeated by the force of American arms. Who says so? Why, the U.S.
military leaders on the ground in Iraq, who flat-out contradict Bush
administration claims that the war against the insurgency is being won.
Those are the findings in a stunning report in this morning's Philadelphia
Inquirer. Here's what the Inquirer's Tom Lasseter found after talking to a
raft of U.S. commanders:
"A growing number of senior American military officers in Iraq have
concluded there is no long-term military solution to an insurgency that has
killed thousands of Iraqis and more than 1,300 U.S. troops in the last two
years. Instead, officers say, the only way to end the guerrilla war is
through Iraqi politics - an arena that has been crippled by divisions
between Shiite Muslims, whose coalition dominated January elections, and
Sunni Muslims, who are a minority in Iraq and form the base of support for
the insurgency.
"'I think the more accurate way to approach this right now is to concede
that... this insurgency is not going to be settled, the terrorists and the
terrorism in Iraq is not going to be settled, through military options or
military operations,' Brig. Gen. Donald Alston, the chief U.S. military
spokesman in Iraq, said last week, echoing other senior officers. 'It's
going to be settled in the political process.'
"Gen. George W. Casey, the U.S. commander in Iraq, called the military's
efforts 'the Pillsbury Doughboy idea' - pressing the insurgency in one area
only causes it to rise elsewhere. 'Like in Baghdad," Casey said last week.
"We push in Baghdad - they're down to about less than a car bomb a day in
Baghdad over the last week - but in north-center [Iraq]... they've gone up.
The political process will be the decisive element.'
"The recognition that a military solution is not in the offing has led U.S.
and Iraqi officials to signal they are willing to negotiate with insurgent
groups or their intermediaries. 'It has evolved in the course of normal
business,' said a senior U.S. diplomatic official in Baghdad, who spoke on
condition of anonymity because of U.S. policy to defer to the Iraqi
government on political matters. 'We have now encountered people who at
least claim to have some form of a relationship with the insurgency.'
"The message is markedly different from statements by U.S. officials who
spoke of quashing the insurgency by rounding up or killing 'dead-enders'
loyal to former dictator Saddam Hussein. As recently as weeks ago, in a
Memorial Day interview on CNN's Larry King Live, Vice President Cheney said
he believed the insurgency was in its 'last throes.'..." Read the rest of
Lasseter's eye-opening report from Iraq by clicking here.
This reality check on the Bushie's mad claims that victory is near in Iraq
comes to us on the same day that, as USA Today reports this morning,
disenchantment by Americans with their country's occupation of Iraq is at
the highest levels ever -- and 59% now say that the U.S. should withdraw
some or all of its troops from Iraq in the latest Gallup poll.
The paper notes that "In the Gallup Poll, 56% say the Iraq war wasn't 'worth
it,' essentially matching the high-water mark of 57% a month ago." But it
also points out that those who continue to say the war was worth it do so
because they still buy the myth that Saddam Hussein had something to do with
9/11 -- a belief flatly contradicted by the findings of ex-GOP Gov. Tom
Kean's 9/11 Commission. Even the Bush administration has been forced to
admit there was no Baghdad-9/11 connection. Yet so powerful was the
Republican propaganda machine's insistence on this connection that it
lingers, for as USA Today went on to say this morning: "Of the 42% who say
the war was worth it, the top reasons cited are the Sept. 11 attacks on the
United States, the need to stop terrorism and a desire to end the oppression
of the Iraqi people"
Yesterday, on ABC's This Week, Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., an ardent
supporter of the invasion, called on Bush for a timetable for withdrawing
troops. "I feel that we have done about as much as we can do," he said.
But, as usual, the cowardly Democratic leadership in Congress is failing to
seize this moment when public opinion would support withdrawal from Iraq.
Just two weeks ago, Marin County Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey (left) forced a
vote on her resolution requiring the Bush administration But, as usual, the
cowardly Democratic leadership in Congress is failing to seize this moment
when public opinion would support withdrawal from Iraq.
Just two weeks ago, Marin County Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey forced a vote
on her resolution requiring the Bush administration to set a timetable for
withdrawal from Iraq. But this common-sense proposal was torpedoed with the
help of the House Democratic leadership -- Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, the
supposed "liberal," and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer both led 79 House
Democrats in voting to kill the Woolsey withdrawal resolution.
Have a nice day Doogie. BMc
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: IMPERTINENT QUESTION # 145 |
16 Dec 2005 01:24:20 PM |
|
|
"DGVREIMAN" <DGVREIMAN@COMCAST.NET> wrote in message > >Doug Says:
Nonsense. First, there are no credible "military men saying
privately the war has no military solution." That is a lie.
From the Philadelphia Inquirer
Officers: MILITARY CAN'T END INSURGENCY.
The solution in Iraq will have to come through the political process,
Americans there agree.
By Tom Lasseter
Inquirer Foreign Staff
BAGHDAD - A growing number of senior American military officers in Iraq have
concluded there is no long-term military solution to an insurgency that has
killed thousands of Iraqis and more than 1,300 U.S. troops in the last two
years.
Instead, officers say, the only way to end the guerrilla war is through
Iraqi politics - an arena that has been crippled by divisions between Shiite
Muslims, whose coalition dominated January elections, and Sunni Muslims, who
are a minority in Iraq and form the base of support for the insurgency.
"I think the more accurate way to approach this right now is to concede
that... this insurgency is not going to be settled, the terrorists and the
terrorism in Iraq is not going to be settled, through military options or
military operations," Brig. Gen. Donald Alston, the chief U.S. military
spokesman in Iraq, said last week, echoing other senior officers. "It's
going to be settled in the political process."
Gen. George W. Casey, the U.S. commander in Iraq, called the military's
efforts "the Pillsbury Doughboy idea" - pressing the insurgency in one area
only causes it to rise elsewhere.
"Like in Baghdad," Casey said last week. "We push in Baghdad - they're down
to about less than a car bomb a day in Baghdad over the last week - but in
north-center [Iraq]... they've gone up. The political process will be the
decisive element."
The recognition that a military solution is not in the offing has led U.S.
and Iraqi officials to signal they are willing to negotiate with insurgent
groups or their intermediaries.
"It has evolved in the course of normal business," said a senior U.S.
diplomatic official in Baghdad, who spoke on condition of anonymity because
of U.S. policy to defer to the Iraqi government on political matters. "We
have now encountered people who at least claim to have some form of a
relationship with the insurgency."
The message is markedly different from statements by U.S. officials who
spoke of quashing the insurgency by rounding up or killing "dead-enders"
loyal to former dictator Saddam Hussein. As recently as two weeks ago, in a
Memorial Day interview on CNN's Larry King Live, Vice President Cheney said
he believed the insurgency was in its "last throes."
But the violence has continued unabated, even though 44 of the 55 leaders of
the Hussein regime portrayed in the U.S. military's famous "deck of cards"
have been killed or captured, including Hussein.
Lt. Col. Frederick P. Wellman, who works with the task force overseeing
training of Iraqi security troops, said the insurgency did not seem to be
running out of recruits, a dynamic fueled by tribal members seeking revenge
for relatives killed in fighting.
"We can't kill them all," Wellman said. "When I kill one, I create three."
Last month was one of the deadliest since President Bush declared the end of
major combat operations in May 2003, a month that saw six U.S. troops killed
by hostile fire. In May 2005, 67 U.S. troops were killed by hostile fire,
the fourth-highest tally since the war began, according to Iraq Coalition
Casualty Count, an Internet site that uses official casualty reports to
organize deaths by a variety of criteria.
At least 26 troops have been killed by insurgents this month, bringing to
1,311 the number of U.S. soldiers killed by hostile action. Accidents or
illness claimed 391 more service members' lives.
Iraqi Interior Minister Bayan Jabr said last week that the insurgency had
killed 12,000 Iraqis during the last two years. He did not say how he
arrived at the figure.
U.S. officials had hoped January's national elections would blunt the
insurgency by giving all Iraqis hope for their political future. But the
political process has not in any meaningful way included Iraq's Sunni Muslim
population.
Most of Iraq's Sunnis, motivated either by fear or boycott, did not vote,
and they hold a scant 17 seats in the 275-member National Assembly, which is
charged with writing a constitution.
With Shiites and Kurds stocking the nation's security forces with members of
their militias, Sunnis have been marginalized and, according to some
analysts in Iraq, have become more willing to join armed groups.
Since September, about 85 percent of the violence in Iraq has occurred in
just four of Iraq's 18 provinces: the Sunni heartland of Baghdad, Anbar,
Nineveh and Salah ad-Din.
Sunnis near downtown Baghdad have only to drive down the street to see how
precarious their position in Iraqi politics and society is these days. Near
the party headquarters for the Shiite Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution
in Iraq, which is in large part shaping the policy of the nation, Kurdish
militia members patrol the streets.
The troops are ostensibly part of the nation's army, but they still wear
militia uniforms and, as is the case with some in Kurdistan, many either
can't or won't speak Arabic. One of the roads they patrol has been named
Badr Street, for the armed wing of the Supreme Council. There is a large
billboard with the looming face of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the Supreme
Council's leader.
Unless Sunnis develop confidence that the government will represent them,
few here see the insurgency fading.
In speaking of success in suppressing the insurgency in Baghdad - the result
of large-scale raids that targeted primarily Sunni neighborhoods - Brig.
Gen. Alston said he expected the violence to return.
"We have made good progress" in stopping the production of car bombs in
Baghdad, Alston said. "Now, do I think that there will be more [bombs] in
Baghdad? Yes, I do."
Have a nice day Doogie. BMc.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Danzig" |
|
| Title: Re: IMPERTINENT QUESTION # 145 |
16 Dec 2005 04:52:18 PM |
|
|
DGVREIMAN wr
Nonsense. First, there are no credible "military men saying
privately the war has no military solution." That is a lie. ALL
of the Generals involved with our war on terror (of which Iraq is
just a battlefield) not only state we must use military force
against radical Islam, but also that such force is winning our
war. Second, if you actually believe that if we lay down our
arms and turn the other check our enemies will then lay down
their arms and stop murdering then you have not been paying much
attention to the barks and howls coming from radical Islam. They
live by a genocide code. All that do not agree with their
bizarre form of Satanic worshiping must die - that is their code,
their pathetic life, and their ideology. Radical Islam is a
plague on this Earth, and the way to stop and destroy such filth
is not to swat at it after it bites you, but to drain the swamp
from which it was spawned. Iran is that swamp, and the only way
the Iranian goons will stop is when they are destroyed by
military force. Period, end of story.
Doug Grant (Tm)
dougie has spoken!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Docky Wocky" |
|
| Title: Re: IMPERTINENT QUESTION # 145 |
15 Dec 2005 11:06:36 AM |
|
|
mccarty then sez:
"Your question is based upon three premises and all three are totally and
dangerously wrong:
A. People cannot change
B. People have not changed in the past.
C. People will not change in the future..."
___________________________________
And, once again, (with feeling) "give us one example of where terrorist
appeasement has ever resulted in an accommodation?"
All accommodation, so far, has been by folks who think like you think.
You can blather on about your premises all you want. There is nothing
fundamentally
wrong with them, and you may be sincere, but you are carrying sand to the
Sahara and not
influencing one damn terrorist in any way.
All I want to see is one example...just one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill McCarty" |
|
| Title: Re: IMPERTINENT QUESTION # 145 |
15 Dec 2005 08:44:00 PM |
|
|
Define terrorist. Does it include people who fire missiles into
refugee camps ? Does it include people who constantly violate UN
resolutions ? Does it include people who grab Palestinian land under
the pretext of providing for their own security ? Does it imclude
people who drop bombs on cities whose government thas never attacked
their nation, their peole or their government ? In fact the word
terrorist means simply people we dont like. One mans terrorist is
another mans freedom fighter. It's clever of you to ask me to accept
your premises in formulating an answer to a question. But not clever
enough.
Have a nice day. Bill.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
