16 American soldiers dead and this punk Lenz wants to debate some Harry Hope
guy.
Does Lenz givashit about the dead soldiers?
"William Lenz" <billlenz@erie.net> wrote in message
news:vqcv6uq9drntc3@corp.supernews.com...
Harry Hope
It's not exactly the throwing of flowers that we were promised by Bush
and Cheney pre-war, but, you know... flowers... car bombs... it's
close enough for Dubya.
Although I don't recall flowers (which btw was never mentioned, what was
mentioned was) I do recall seeing scenes fo celebration in the streets,
and
US solders being welcomed. This didn't happen all over Iraq but then I was
never truly stated that it would.
Yes, if George W. Bush's lame attempt to pass the buck on "Mission
Accomplished" left you confused, his take on the recent spate of car
bombings and attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq will make your head spin.
The only ones that it confused were those looking for excuses for
attacking
the President in this manner. Most people saw the sign for what is was a
transistion point. The end of one mission in Iraq and the beginning of
another.
According to Our Great Leader, the increase in attacks on American
soldiers and international aid agencies is actually a sign of
progress.
In a fashion you're misrepresenting the comment that was made. Will a
weasel
fight harder when its cornered or when its on open ground? Myself I don't
agree with that stand (although I don't have the same info the President
has), but I will say in honest fairness that I understand what that
statement was refering to.
"The more successful we are on the ground, the more these killers will
react," said President Brainiac last week.
Oh really?
Again I go back to my above analogy question.
"Will a weasel fight harder when its cornered or when its on open ground?"
So following this logic, at what point can we declare total success on
the ground?
Hundreds of attacks per day?
Thousands?
If we had a clue we would know success is based upon the total defeat of
all
who oppose the misson.
This means the weasels are either caught, killed, or driven out.
At this time there are three missions occuring in Iraq ( we're
multitasking
there)
1 Rebuilding and/or improving (trying wining the favor of Iraqi citizens
with civial improvements)
2 Securing the country (defeating all those that should have been defeated
in the early stage)
3 Developing a free Iraqi goverment.
I mean, seriously, I'd like to know, because frankly this whole thing
just seems to be getting kinda *****-backwards.
Isn't that the purpose of spin?
I spin something so that it looks *****-backwards to better suite my side of
the arguement.
If you want this to be forward stop spinning it.
First George W. Bush declares Mission Accomplished at the beginning of
the conflict, and now he's of the opinion that the more American
troops are blown up and shot at, the better we're doing?
Again the referance is a simple one. The tighter we move them into the
corner the harder they'll fight to breakout. This should not be taken as a
literal corner but a political one. The more we rebuild Iraq, the more
Iraqi
hearts and minds we win over by our and the worlds work there, the more
we're politically placing the weasels into a corner. As such the more
those
that don't want this outcome will fight to destablize and destroy the work
being done through acts of violence.
I don't see why that consept is so hard to understand?
How bizarre.
The only truly bizarre thing is how you of obvious intelegence cannot
understand a simple principal that should have been learned in early grade
school (for some who've been around animals even earlier).
From The Democratic Underground
http://www.democraticunderground.com/
Harry
.
