| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Stan" |
| Date: |
04 Nov 2006 11:28:19 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Don't take my word for it, ask a NeoCon about Bush and Rumsfeld |
"Fran" <Fran.Beta@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1162688776.457292.145580@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
(snipped)
Everyone here knows I'm a communist, so it stands to reason that if you
ask me my opinion about Bush and Rumsfeld and the wisdom of invading
Iraq in 2003, the response is going to be critical.
" Mr. Churchill, sir, lets face it...your policies have been a disaster.
Shall I mention Gallipoli. Narvik. Dunkirk. We cannot win. You have
been badly advised sir. We have to cut and run "
.
|
|
| User: "Gordon Levi" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't take my word for it, ask a NeoCon about Bush and Rumsfeld |
05 Nov 2006 03:07:08 AM |
|
|
"Stan" <ecreipt@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
"Fran" <Fran.Beta@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1162688776.457292.145580@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
(snipped)
Everyone here knows I'm a communist, so it stands to reason that if you
ask me my opinion about Bush and Rumsfeld and the wisdom of invading
Iraq in 2003, the response is going to be critical.
" Mr. Churchill, sir, lets face it...your policies have been a disaster.
Shall I mention Gallipoli. Narvik. Dunkirk. We cannot win. You have
been badly advised sir. We have to cut and run "
He would have replied "You blethering idiot. Gallipoli was over twenty
years ago". Ever polite, I will just remind you that WW2 was over
sixty years ago and suggest you provide some more recent examples.
Maybe you could give us one in which the military casualties have
steadily increased since the Commander in Chief announced "mission
accomplished".
.
|
|
|
| User: "SaPeIsMa" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't take my word for it, ask a NeoCon about Bush and Rumsfeld |
05 Nov 2006 09:59:37 AM |
|
|
"Gordon Levi" <gordon@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:0o2rk2d8r5gg3l5o49moi9kegef1e7lbac@4ax.com...
"Stan" <ecreipt@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
"Fran" <Fran.Beta@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1162688776.457292.145580@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
(snipped)
Everyone here knows I'm a communist, so it stands to reason that if you
ask me my opinion about Bush and Rumsfeld and the wisdom of invading
Iraq in 2003, the response is going to be critical.
" Mr. Churchill, sir, lets face it...your policies have been a disaster.
Shall I mention Gallipoli. Narvik. Dunkirk. We cannot win. You have
been badly advised sir. We have to cut and run "
He would have replied "You blethering idiot. Gallipoli was over twenty
years ago". Ever polite, I will just remind you that WW2 was over
sixty years ago and suggest you provide some more recent examples.
Maybe you could give us one in which the military casualties have
steadily increased since the Commander in Chief announced "mission
accomplished".
The so-called mission accomplished was a sign posted on a ship that was
returning from a tour od duty.
But don't let me interfere with your rape of the facts.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Whyte-Settlar" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't take my word for it, ask a NeoCon about Bush and Rumsfeld |
05 Nov 2006 07:27:32 PM |
|
|
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:12ks2leg57pni6d@corp.supernews.com...
"Gordon Levi" <gordon@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:0o2rk2d8r5gg3l5o49moi9kegef1e7lbac@4ax.com...
"Stan" <ecreipt@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
"Fran" <Fran.Beta@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1162688776.457292.145580@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
(snipped)
Everyone here knows I'm a communist, so it stands to reason that if you
ask me my opinion about Bush and Rumsfeld and the wisdom of invading
Iraq in 2003, the response is going to be critical.
" Mr. Churchill, sir, lets face it...your policies have been a disaster.
Shall I mention Gallipoli. Narvik. Dunkirk. We cannot win. You have
been badly advised sir. We have to cut and run "
He would have replied "You blethering idiot. Gallipoli was over twenty
years ago". Ever polite, I will just remind you that WW2 was over
sixty years ago and suggest you provide some more recent examples.
Maybe you could give us one in which the military casualties have
steadily increased since the Commander in Chief announced "mission
accomplished".
The so-called mission accomplished was a sign posted on a ship that was
returning from a tour od duty.
But don't let me interfere with your rape of the facts.
Every aspect of a Bush media appearance is stage crafted. Nothing happens by
accident:
"...The most elaborate - and criticized - White House event so far was Mr.
Bush's speech aboard the Abraham Lincoln announcing "the end of major
combat" in Iraq. White House officials say that a variety of people,
including the president, came up with the idea, and that Mr. Sforza embedded
himself on the carrier to make preparations days before Mr. Bush's landing
in a flight suit and his early evening speech.Media strategists noted
afterward that Mr. Sforza and his aides had choreographed every aspect of
the event, even down to the members of the Lincoln crew arrayed in
coordinated shirt colors over Mr. Bush's right shoulder and the "Mission
Accomplished" banner placed to perfectly capture the president and the
celebratory two words in a single shot. The speech was specifically timed
for what image makers call "magic hour light," which cast a golden glow on
Mr. Bush...."
Of course later, when it backfired, he lied and tried to blame the crew
for it saying it was their idea.
The gutless ***** couldn't take responsibility for having a *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "SaPeIsMa" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't take my word for it, ask a NeoCon about Bush and Rumsfeld |
05 Nov 2006 07:39:39 PM |
|
|
"Adam Whyte-Settlar" <grawillers@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:454e8f8f@quokka.wn.com.au...
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:12ks2leg57pni6d@corp.supernews.com...
"Gordon Levi" <gordon@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:0o2rk2d8r5gg3l5o49moi9kegef1e7lbac@4ax.com...
"Stan" <ecreipt@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
"Fran" <Fran.Beta@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1162688776.457292.145580@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
(snipped)
Everyone here knows I'm a communist, so it stands to reason that if
you
ask me my opinion about Bush and Rumsfeld and the wisdom of invading
Iraq in 2003, the response is going to be critical.
" Mr. Churchill, sir, lets face it...your policies have been a
disaster.
Shall I mention Gallipoli. Narvik. Dunkirk. We cannot win. You
have
been badly advised sir. We have to cut and run "
He would have replied "You blethering idiot. Gallipoli was over twenty
years ago". Ever polite, I will just remind you that WW2 was over
sixty years ago and suggest you provide some more recent examples.
Maybe you could give us one in which the military casualties have
steadily increased since the Commander in Chief announced "mission
accomplished".
The so-called mission accomplished was a sign posted on a ship that was
returning from a tour od duty.
But don't let me interfere with your rape of the facts.
Every aspect of a Bush media appearance is stage crafted. Nothing happens
by accident:
Ah yes
It's a big conspiracy
You know, there is a cure for BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome)
"...The most elaborate - and criticized - White House event so far was
Mr. Bush's speech aboard the Abraham Lincoln announcing "the end of major
combat" in Iraq. White House officials say that a variety of people,
including the president, came up with the idea, and that Mr. Sforza
embedded himself on the carrier to make preparations days before Mr.
Bush's landing in a flight suit and his early evening speech.Media
strategists noted afterward that Mr. Sforza and his aides had
choreographed every aspect of the event, even down to the members of the
Lincoln crew arrayed in coordinated shirt colors over Mr. Bush's right
shoulder and the "Mission Accomplished" banner placed to perfectly capture
the president and the celebratory two words in a single shot. The speech
was specifically timed for what image makers call "magic hour light,"
which cast a golden glow on Mr. Bush...."
Of course later, when it backfired, he lied and tried to blame the crew
for it saying it was their idea.
The gutless ***** couldn't take responsibility for having a *****.
Riiiight
You are suffereng from a very advanced case of BDS.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Whyte-Settlar" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't take my word for it, ask a NeoCon about Bush and Rumsfeld |
05 Nov 2006 08:48:55 PM |
|
|
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:12kt4o41hrr6q18@corp.supernews.com...
"Adam Whyte-Settlar" <grawillers@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:454e8f8f@quokka.wn.com.au...
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:12ks2leg57pni6d@corp.supernews.com...
"Gordon Levi" <gordon@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:0o2rk2d8r5gg3l5o49moi9kegef1e7lbac@4ax.com...
"Stan" <ecreipt@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
"Fran" <Fran.Beta@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1162688776.457292.145580@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
(snipped)
Everyone here knows I'm a communist, so it stands to reason that if
you
ask me my opinion about Bush and Rumsfeld and the wisdom of invading
Iraq in 2003, the response is going to be critical.
" Mr. Churchill, sir, lets face it...your policies have been a
disaster.
Shall I mention Gallipoli. Narvik. Dunkirk. We cannot win. You
have
been badly advised sir. We have to cut and run "
He would have replied "You blethering idiot. Gallipoli was over twenty
years ago". Ever polite, I will just remind you that WW2 was over
sixty years ago and suggest you provide some more recent examples.
Maybe you could give us one in which the military casualties have
steadily increased since the Commander in Chief announced "mission
accomplished".
The so-called mission accomplished was a sign posted on a ship that was
returning from a tour od duty.
But don't let me interfere with your rape of the facts.
Every aspect of a Bush media appearance is stage crafted. Nothing happens
by accident:
Ah yes
It's a big conspiracy
You know, there is a cure for BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome)
So you are saying that Bush's media apearances are not choreographed?
Or do you have nothing at all as usual.
"...The most elaborate - and criticized - White House event so far was
Mr. Bush's speech aboard the Abraham Lincoln announcing "the end of major
combat" in Iraq. White House officials say that a variety of people,
including the president, came up with the idea, and that Mr. Sforza
embedded himself on the carrier to make preparations days before Mr.
Bush's landing in a flight suit and his early evening speech.Media
strategists noted afterward that Mr. Sforza and his aides had
choreographed every aspect of the event, even down to the members of the
Lincoln crew arrayed in coordinated shirt colors over Mr. Bush's right
shoulder and the "Mission Accomplished" banner placed to perfectly
capture the president and the celebratory two words in a single shot. The
speech was specifically timed for what image makers call "magic hour
light," which cast a golden glow on Mr. Bush...."
Riiiight
You are suffereng from a very advanced case of BDS.
So you have nothing?
Are you seriously suggesting that the arrival of Bush on that ship and his
speech and the banner and everything else that with it was not arranged and
choreographed?
Bwahahahahahahahaha!
Now there's gullible and there's gullible.
.
|
|
|
| User: "SaPeIsMa" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't take my word for it, ask a NeoCon about Bush and Rumsfeld |
05 Nov 2006 09:22:38 PM |
|
|
"Adam Whyte-Settlar" <grawillers@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:454ea2a7@quokka.wn.com.au...
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:12kt4o41hrr6q18@corp.supernews.com...
"Adam Whyte-Settlar" <grawillers@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:454e8f8f@quokka.wn.com.au...
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:12ks2leg57pni6d@corp.supernews.com...
"Gordon Levi" <gordon@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:0o2rk2d8r5gg3l5o49moi9kegef1e7lbac@4ax.com...
"Stan" <ecreipt@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
"Fran" <Fran.Beta@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1162688776.457292.145580@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
(snipped)
Everyone here knows I'm a communist, so it stands to reason that if
you
ask me my opinion about Bush and Rumsfeld and the wisdom of invading
Iraq in 2003, the response is going to be critical.
" Mr. Churchill, sir, lets face it...your policies have been a
disaster.
Shall I mention Gallipoli. Narvik. Dunkirk. We cannot win. You
have
been badly advised sir. We have to cut and run "
He would have replied "You blethering idiot. Gallipoli was over twenty
years ago". Ever polite, I will just remind you that WW2 was over
sixty years ago and suggest you provide some more recent examples.
Maybe you could give us one in which the military casualties have
steadily increased since the Commander in Chief announced "mission
accomplished".
The so-called mission accomplished was a sign posted on a ship that was
returning from a tour od duty.
But don't let me interfere with your rape of the facts.
Every aspect of a Bush media appearance is stage crafted. Nothing
happens by accident:
Ah yes
It's a big conspiracy
You know, there is a cure for BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome)
So you are saying that Bush's media apearances are not choreographed?
Or do you have nothing at all as usual.
"...The most elaborate - and criticized - White House event so far was
Mr. Bush's speech aboard the Abraham Lincoln announcing "the end of
major combat" in Iraq. White House officials say that a variety of
people, including the president, came up with the idea, and that Mr.
Sforza embedded himself on the carrier to make preparations days before
Mr. Bush's landing in a flight suit and his early evening speech.Media
strategists noted afterward that Mr. Sforza and his aides had
choreographed every aspect of the event, even down to the members of the
Lincoln crew arrayed in coordinated shirt colors over Mr. Bush's right
shoulder and the "Mission Accomplished" banner placed to perfectly
capture the president and the celebratory two words in a single shot.
The speech was specifically timed for what image makers call "magic hour
light," which cast a golden glow on Mr. Bush...."
Riiiight
You are suffereng from a very advanced case of BDS.
So you have nothing?
Are you seriously suggesting that the arrival of Bush on that ship and his
speech and the banner and everything else that with it was not arranged
and choreographed?
Bwahahahahahahahaha!
Now there's gullible and there's gullible.
Do you have ANY evidence that it was ?
Or do you presume that just because YOU belive that it's true, therefore
it IS true ?
Now consuidering that it is YOU who is making the claim
It's for YOU to prove it
And not just parts of it, BUT ALL OF IT.
So don't talk about others being "gullible" when you are being a gull
Apparently, you will even swallow your own *****.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fran" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't take my word for it, ask a NeoCon about Bush and Rumsfeld |
05 Nov 2006 11:04:09 PM |
|
|
Adam Whyte-Settlar wrote:
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:12kt4o41hrr6q18@corp.supernews.com...
{...]
So you are saying that Bush's media apearances are not choreographed?
Or do you have nothing at all as usual.
"...The most elaborate - and criticized - White House event so far was
Mr. Bush's speech aboard the Abraham Lincoln announcing "the end of major
combat" in Iraq. White House officials say that a variety of people,
including the president, came up with the idea, and that Mr. Sforza
embedded himself on the carrier to make preparations days before Mr.
Bush's landing in a flight suit and his early evening speech.Media
strategists noted afterward that Mr. Sforza and his aides had
choreographed every aspect of the event, even down to the members of the
Lincoln crew arrayed in coordinated shirt colors over Mr. Bush's right
shoulder and the "Mission Accomplished" banner placed to perfectly
capture the president and the celebratory two words in a single shot. The
speech was specifically timed for what image makers call "magic hour
light," which cast a golden glow on Mr. Bush...."
Riiiight
You are suffereng from a very advanced case of BDS.
So you have nothing?
Are you seriously suggesting that the arrival of Bush on that ship and his
speech and the banner and everything else that with it was not arranged and
choreographed?
He's asking you to prove that Bush didn't just happen to be passing by
the Abraham Lincoln at the time, and happen to get photographed and
that his press office and the DOD didn't think the image was worth
vetting first and so flick-passed it to the press ...
He's asking you to prove that someone who went through the whole
business of getting the Republican nomination and an election campaign
costing $US600million and has spin doctors Roving every inch of the
ground he might walk on for a photo op packed them off somewhere while
he had a quiet moemtn with the crew.
Bwahahahahahahahaha!
Now there's gullible and there's gullible.
And then there's the poster you're responding to ...
I believe the word is "troll".
Fran
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Whyte-Settlar" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't take my word for it, ask a NeoCon about Bush and Rumsfeld |
05 Nov 2006 11:37:34 PM |
|
|
"Fran" <Fran.Beta@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1162789449.112877.298120@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Adam Whyte-Settlar wrote:
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:12kt4o41hrr6q18@corp.supernews.com...
{...]
So you are saying that Bush's media apearances are not choreographed?
Or do you have nothing at all as usual.
"...The most elaborate - and criticized - White House event so far
was
Mr. Bush's speech aboard the Abraham Lincoln announcing "the end of
major
combat" in Iraq. White House officials say that a variety of people,
including the president, came up with the idea, and that Mr. Sforza
embedded himself on the carrier to make preparations days before Mr.
Bush's landing in a flight suit and his early evening speech.Media
strategists noted afterward that Mr. Sforza and his aides had
choreographed every aspect of the event, even down to the members of
the
Lincoln crew arrayed in coordinated shirt colors over Mr. Bush's right
shoulder and the "Mission Accomplished" banner placed to perfectly
capture the president and the celebratory two words in a single shot.
The
speech was specifically timed for what image makers call "magic hour
light," which cast a golden glow on Mr. Bush...."
Riiiight
You are suffereng from a very advanced case of BDS.
So you have nothing?
Are you seriously suggesting that the arrival of Bush on that ship and
his
speech and the banner and everything else that with it was not arranged
and
choreographed?
He's asking you to prove that Bush didn't just happen to be passing by
the Abraham Lincoln at the time, and happen to get photographed and
that his press office and the DOD didn't think the image was worth
vetting first and so flick-passed it to the press ...
He's asking you to prove that someone who went through the whole
business of getting the Republican nomination and an election campaign
costing $US600million and has spin doctors Roving every inch of the
ground he might walk on for a photo op packed them off somewhere while
he had a quiet moment with the crew.
Simply beggars belief doesn't it?
Jesus wept. [shakes head]
By the way - the stuff above is a quote from one of the crew that was set up
to film it.
Below is another exended part of the article I quoted from if you are
interested - with the names of everybody that organises the choreography,
lighting etc.
Personally I'm not blaming them for doing it - after all that's their job
and they *should* be the best in the biz.
Why not?
*All* high-ranking politicians have PR teams to make them look good on TV
and Bush's team are among the best.
But every now and again one comes accross posters like the idot above who
are so jaw-droppingly thick they leave one speechless with incredulity.
Maybe he thinks Bush just hitched a ride on a passing jet eh?
".....That somebody, White House officials and television executives say, is
in fact three or four people. First among equals is Scott Sforza, a former
ABC producer who was hired by the Bush campaign in Austin, Tex., and who now
works for Dan Bartlett, the White House communications director. Mr. Sforza
created the White House "message of the day" backdrops and helped design the
$250,000 set at the United States Central Command forward headquarters in
Doha, Qatar, during the Iraq war.
Mr. Sforza works closely with Bob DeServi, a former NBC cameraman whom the
Bush White House hired after seeing his work in the 2000 campaign. Mr.
DeServi, whose title is associate director of communications for production,
is considered a master at lighting. "You want it, I'll heat it up and make a
picture," he said early this week. Mr. DeServi helped produce one of Mr.
Bush's largest events, a speech to a crowd in Revolution Square in Bucharest
last November.
To stage the event, Mr. DeServi went so far as to rent Musco lights in
Britain, which were then shipped across the English Channel and driven
across Europe to Romania, where they lighted Mr. Bush and the giant stage
across from the country's former Communist headquarters.
A third crucial player is Greg Jenkins, a former Fox News television
producer in Washington who is now the director of presidential advance. Mr.
Jenkins manages the small army of staff members and volunteers who move days
ahead of Mr. Bush and his entourage to set up the staging of all White House
events.
"We pay particular attention to not only what the president says but what
the American people see," Mr. Bartlett said. "Americans are leading busy
lives, and sometimes they don't have the opportunity to read a story or
listen to an entire broadcast. But if they can have an instant understanding
of what the president is talking about by seeing 60 seconds of television,
you accomplish your goals as communicators. So we take it seriously."
The president's image makers, Mr. Bartlett said, work within a budget for
White House travel and events allotted by Congress, which for fiscal 2003
was $3.7 million. He said he did not know the specific cost of staging Mr.
Bush's Sept. 11 anniversary speech, or what the White House was charged for
the lights. A spokeswoman at the headquarters of Musco Lighting in
Oskaloosa, Iowa, said the company did not disclose the prices it charged
clients.
White House communications operatives in previous administrations said many
costs of presidential trips were paid for by whoever was deemed the official
host of a trip - typically a federal agency, a city or a company. Trips
deemed political are paid for by the parties.
"The total cost of a trip is ultimately shared across a wide spectrum of
agencies and hosts," said Joshua King, who was director of production of
presidential events in the Clinton administration. "To get to who really
pays for presidential events would keep a team of accountants very busy."
The most elaborate - and criticized - White House event so far was Mr.
Bush's speech aboard the Abraham Lincoln announcing the end of major combat
in Iraq. White House officials say that a variety of people, including the
president, came up with the idea, and that Mr. Sforza embedded himself on
the carrier to make preparations days before Mr. Bush's landing in a flight
suit and his early evening speech.
Media strategists noted afterward that Mr. Sforza and his aides had
choreographed every aspect of the event, even down to the members of the
Lincoln crew arrayed in coordinated shirt colors over Mr. Bush's right
shoulder and the "Mission Accomplished" banner placed to perfectly capture
the president and the celebratory two words in a single shot. The speech was
specifically timed for what image makers call "magic hour light," which cast
a golden glow on Mr. Bush.
"If you looked at the TV picture, you saw there was flattering light on his
left cheek and slight shadowing on his right," Mr. King said. "It looked
great."
The trip was attacked by Democrats as an expensive political stunt, but
White House officials said that Democrats needed a better issue for taking
on the president. A New York Times/CBS News nationwide poll conducted May
9-12 found that the White House may have been right: 59 percent of those
polled said it was appropriate, and not an effort to make political gain,
for Mr. Bush to dress in a flight suit and announce the end of combat
operations on the aircraft carrier.
But even this White House makes mistakes. One of the more notable ones
occurred in January, when Mr. Bush delivered a speech about his economic
plan at a St. Louis trucking company. Volunteers for the White House covered
"Made in China" stamps with white stickers on boxes arrayed on either side
of the president. Behind Mr. Bush was a printed backdrop of faux boxes that
read "Made in U.S.A.," the message the administration wanted to convey to
the television audience.
The White House takes great pride in the backdrops, which are created by Mr.
Sforza, and has gone so far as to help design them for universities where
Mr. Bush travels to make commencement addresses. Last year, the White House
helped design a large banner for Ohio State as part of the background for
Mr. Bush; last week, the White House collaborated with the University of
South Carolina to make Sforzian backdrops for a presidential commencement
speech in the school's new Carolina Center.
"They really are good," said Russ McKinney, the school's director of public
affairs, as he listened to the president.
Television camera crews, meanwhile, say they have rarely had such
consistently attractive pictures to send back to editing rooms.
"They seem to approach an event site like it's a TV set," said Chris
Carlson, an ABC cameraman who covers the White House. "They dress it up
really nicely. It looks like a million bucks."
Even for standard-issue White House events, Mr. Bush's image makers watch
every angle. Last week, when the president had a joint news conference with
Prime Minister José Mariá Aznar of Spain, it was staged in the Grand Foyer
of the White House, under grand marble columns, with the Blue Room and a
huge cream-colored bouquet of flowers illuminated in the background. (Mr.
Sforza and Mr. DeServi could be seen there conferring before the cameras
began rolling.) The scene was lush and rich, filled with the beauty of the
White House in real time.
"They understand they have to build a set, whether it's an aircraft carrier
or the Rose Garden or the South Lawn," Mr. Deaver said. "They understand
that putting depth into the picture makes the candidate or president look
better...."
And so on and so on.
A W-S
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gordon Levi" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't take my word for it, ask a NeoCon about Bush and Rumsfeld |
05 Nov 2006 08:50:21 PM |
|
|
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Gordon Levi" <gordon@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:0o2rk2d8r5gg3l5o49moi9kegef1e7lbac@4ax.com...
"Stan" <ecreipt@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
"Fran" <Fran.Beta@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1162688776.457292.145580@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
(snipped)
Everyone here knows I'm a communist, so it stands to reason that if you
ask me my opinion about Bush and Rumsfeld and the wisdom of invading
Iraq in 2003, the response is going to be critical.
" Mr. Churchill, sir, lets face it...your policies have been a disaster.
Shall I mention Gallipoli. Narvik. Dunkirk. We cannot win. You have
been badly advised sir. We have to cut and run "
He would have replied "You blethering idiot. Gallipoli was over twenty
years ago". Ever polite, I will just remind you that WW2 was over
sixty years ago and suggest you provide some more recent examples.
Maybe you could give us one in which the military casualties have
steadily increased since the Commander in Chief announced "mission
accomplished".
The so-called mission accomplished was a sign posted on a ship that was
returning from a tour od duty.
But don't let me interfere with your rape of the facts.
There is some controversy over the origin of the sign
<http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/> but,
in future, I will confine myself to the Commander's own words. "The
United States and our allies have prevailed" sounds equally hollow.
.
|
|
|
| User: "SaPeIsMa" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't take my word for it, ask a NeoCon about Bush and Rumsfeld |
05 Nov 2006 09:20:30 PM |
|
|
"Gordon Levi" <gordon@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:ng7tk213nbm5vbmm2bv6ihnjosglaquj0f@4ax.com...
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Gordon Levi" <gordon@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:0o2rk2d8r5gg3l5o49moi9kegef1e7lbac@4ax.com...
"Stan" <ecreipt@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
"Fran" <Fran.Beta@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1162688776.457292.145580@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
(snipped)
Everyone here knows I'm a communist, so it stands to reason that if
you
ask me my opinion about Bush and Rumsfeld and the wisdom of invading
Iraq in 2003, the response is going to be critical.
" Mr. Churchill, sir, lets face it...your policies have been a
disaster.
Shall I mention Gallipoli. Narvik. Dunkirk. We cannot win. You
have
been badly advised sir. We have to cut and run "
He would have replied "You blethering idiot. Gallipoli was over twenty
years ago". Ever polite, I will just remind you that WW2 was over
sixty years ago and suggest you provide some more recent examples.
Maybe you could give us one in which the military casualties have
steadily increased since the Commander in Chief announced "mission
accomplished".
The so-called mission accomplished was a sign posted on a ship that was
returning from a tour od duty.
But don't let me interfere with your rape of the facts.
There is some controversy over the origin of the sign
<http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/> but,
in future, I will confine myself to the Commander's own words. "The
United States and our allies have prevailed" sounds equally hollow.
The problem with most people is that they can't seem to get past the simple
concept that there were 2 phases to the Iraq Campaing
Phase 1 was getting in there as quick as possible, turfing Saddam and
settling in
Phase 2 is getting Iraq to become a democracy
Phase 1 was so fast that even the generals executing it were surprised by
the swiftness of it.
Phase 2 is a different story
We just have to look at how long it took to pacify Germany and Japan,
before they got to run their own governments.
5-6 years in BOTH cases.
So yes, Bush was QUITE CORRECT, norwithstanding the idiots who claim
otherwise, that when he declared "The United States and our allies have
prevailed" it was applicable to Phase 1 and NOT Phase 2, since Phase 2 could
ONLY begin after Phase 1 was competed.
What amazes me, is that both my kids, who are 6 and 8 respectively have had
no problems with understanding this
And most of their classmates, have had no problems with this either.
ONe has to wonder about all those "adults" who are still running around,
unable to understand something so simple
What's your excuse ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Whyte-Settlar" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't take my word for it, ask a NeoCon about Bush and Rumsfeld |
05 Nov 2006 11:43:48 PM |
|
|
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:12ktak4bfuqh2e2@corp.supernews.com...
"Gordon Levi" <gordon@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:ng7tk213nbm5vbmm2bv6ihnjosglaquj0f@4ax.com...
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Gordon Levi" <gordon@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:0o2rk2d8r5gg3l5o49moi9kegef1e7lbac@4ax.com...
"Stan" <ecreipt@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
"Fran" <Fran.Beta@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1162688776.457292.145580@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
(snipped)
Everyone here knows I'm a communist, so it stands to reason that if
you
ask me my opinion about Bush and Rumsfeld and the wisdom of invading
Iraq in 2003, the response is going to be critical.
" Mr. Churchill, sir, lets face it...your policies have been a
disaster.
Shall I mention Gallipoli. Narvik. Dunkirk. We cannot win. You
have
been badly advised sir. We have to cut and run "
He would have replied "You blethering idiot. Gallipoli was over twenty
years ago". Ever polite, I will just remind you that WW2 was over
sixty years ago and suggest you provide some more recent examples.
Maybe you could give us one in which the military casualties have
steadily increased since the Commander in Chief announced "mission
accomplished".
The so-called mission accomplished was a sign posted on a ship that was
returning from a tour od duty.
But don't let me interfere with your rape of the facts.
There is some controversy over the origin of the sign
<http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/> but,
in future, I will confine myself to the Commander's own words. "The
United States and our allies have prevailed" sounds equally hollow.
The problem with most people is that they can't seem to get past the
simple concept that there were 2 phases to the Iraq Campaing
Phase 1 was getting in there as quick as possible, turfing Saddam and
settling in
Phase 2 is getting Iraq to become a democracy
Phase 1 was so fast that even the generals executing it were surprised by
the swiftness of it.
Phase 2 is a different story
We just have to look at how long it took to pacify Germany and Japan,
before they got to run their own governments.
5-6 years in BOTH cases.
So yes, Bush was QUITE CORRECT, norwithstanding the idiots who claim
otherwise, that when he declared "The United States and our allies have
prevailed" it was applicable to Phase 1 and NOT Phase 2, since Phase 2
could ONLY begin after Phase 1 was competed.
What amazes me, is that both my kids, who are 6 and 8 respectively have
had no problems with understanding this
And most of their classmates, have had no problems with this either.
ONe has to wonder about all those "adults" who are still running around,
unable to understand something so simple
What's your excuse ?
You are still in Phase 1 idiot.
Phase 2 is likely to be civil war.
What's *your* excuse.
.
|
|
|
| User: "SaPeIsMa" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't take my word for it, ask a NeoCon about Bush and Rumsfeld |
06 Nov 2006 07:54:56 AM |
|
|
"Adam Whyte-Settlar" <grawillers@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:454ecba2@quokka.wn.com.au...
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:12ktak4bfuqh2e2@corp.supernews.com...
"Gordon Levi" <gordon@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:ng7tk213nbm5vbmm2bv6ihnjosglaquj0f@4ax.com...
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Gordon Levi" <gordon@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:0o2rk2d8r5gg3l5o49moi9kegef1e7lbac@4ax.com...
"Stan" <ecreipt@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
"Fran" <Fran.Beta@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1162688776.457292.145580@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
(snipped)
Everyone here knows I'm a communist, so it stands to reason that if
you
ask me my opinion about Bush and Rumsfeld and the wisdom of invading
Iraq in 2003, the response is going to be critical.
" Mr. Churchill, sir, lets face it...your policies have been a
disaster.
Shall I mention Gallipoli. Narvik. Dunkirk. We cannot win. You
have
been badly advised sir. We have to cut and run "
He would have replied "You blethering idiot. Gallipoli was over twenty
years ago". Ever polite, I will just remind you that WW2 was over
sixty years ago and suggest you provide some more recent examples.
Maybe you could give us one in which the military casualties have
steadily increased since the Commander in Chief announced "mission
accomplished".
The so-called mission accomplished was a sign posted on a ship that was
returning from a tour od duty.
But don't let me interfere with your rape of the facts.
There is some controversy over the origin of the sign
<http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/> but,
in future, I will confine myself to the Commander's own words. "The
United States and our allies have prevailed" sounds equally hollow.
The problem with most people is that they can't seem to get past the
simple concept that there were 2 phases to the Iraq Campaing
Phase 1 was getting in there as quick as possible, turfing Saddam and
settling in
Phase 2 is getting Iraq to become a democracy
Phase 1 was so fast that even the generals executing it were surprised by
the swiftness of it.
Phase 2 is a different story
We just have to look at how long it took to pacify Germany and Japan,
before they got to run their own governments.
5-6 years in BOTH cases.
So yes, Bush was QUITE CORRECT, norwithstanding the idiots who claim
otherwise, that when he declared "The United States and our allies have
prevailed" it was applicable to Phase 1 and NOT Phase 2, since Phase 2
could ONLY begin after Phase 1 was competed.
What amazes me, is that both my kids, who are 6 and 8 respectively have
had no problems with understanding this
And most of their classmates, have had no problems with this either.
ONe has to wonder about all those "adults" who are still running around,
unable to understand something so simple
What's your excuse ?
You are still in Phase 1 idiot.
Phase 2 is likely to be civil war.
What's *your* excuse.
Well there's your problem, you're too stupid to realize that Phase 1 has
been over for a few years.
Or maybe it has to do with your inability to read
So let me repeat it again for your edification
Phase 1 was getting in there as quick as possible, turfing Saddam and
settlling in
Phase 2 is getting Iraq to become a democracy
As to your claim of "Phase 2 is likely to be civil war" that's the classic
stupid argument of "things could become this or that"
This is typically used by people who have no intelligent response to cover
their *****.
You should read up on the Problems the Allies had in Germany from 1945 to
1950. Ditto for Japan during that same period
I'm sure there were idiots in those days too, to make the claim "Phase 2 is
likely to be civil war" about Germany and Japan as well.
The presence of idiots is one of those constants of the Universe.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Whyte-Settlar" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't take my word for it, ask a NeoCon about Bush and Rumsfeld |
06 Nov 2006 10:18:01 AM |
|
|
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:12kuftna6kl9919@corp.supernews.com...
"Adam Whyte-Settlar" <grawillers@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:454ecba2@quokka.wn.com.au...
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:12ktak4bfuqh2e2@corp.supernews.com...
"Gordon Levi" <gordon@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:ng7tk213nbm5vbmm2bv6ihnjosglaquj0f@4ax.com...
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Gordon Levi" <gordon@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:0o2rk2d8r5gg3l5o49moi9kegef1e7lbac@4ax.com...
"Stan" <ecreipt@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
"Fran" <Fran.Beta@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1162688776.457292.145580@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
(snipped)
Everyone here knows I'm a communist, so it stands to reason that if
you
ask me my opinion about Bush and Rumsfeld and the wisdom of
invading
Iraq in 2003, the response is going to be critical.
" Mr. Churchill, sir, lets face it...your policies have been a
disaster.
Shall I mention Gallipoli. Narvik. Dunkirk. We cannot win. You
have
been badly advised sir. We have to cut and run "
He would have replied "You blethering idiot. Gallipoli was over
twenty
years ago". Ever polite, I will just remind you that WW2 was over
sixty years ago and suggest you provide some more recent examples.
Maybe you could give us one in which the military casualties have
steadily increased since the Commander in Chief announced "mission
accomplished".
The so-called mission accomplished was a sign posted on a ship that was
returning from a tour od duty.
But don't let me interfere with your rape of the facts.
There is some controversy over the origin of the sign
<http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/> but,
in future, I will confine myself to the Commander's own words. "The
United States and our allies have prevailed" sounds equally hollow.
The problem with most people is that they can't seem to get past the
simple concept that there were 2 phases to the Iraq Campaing
Phase 1 was getting in there as quick as possible, turfing Saddam and
settling in
Phase 2 is getting Iraq to become a democracy
Phase 1 was so fast that even the generals executing it were surprised
by the swiftness of it.
Phase 2 is a different story
We just have to look at how long it took to pacify Germany and Japan,
before they got to run their own governments.
5-6 years in BOTH cases.
So yes, Bush was QUITE CORRECT, norwithstanding the idiots who claim
otherwise, that when he declared "The United States and our allies have
prevailed" it was applicable to Phase 1 and NOT Phase 2, since Phase 2
could ONLY begin after Phase 1 was competed.
What amazes me, is that both my kids, who are 6 and 8 respectively have
had no problems with understanding this
And most of their classmates, have had no problems with this either.
ONe has to wonder about all those "adults" who are still running around,
unable to understand something so simple
What's your excuse ?
You are still in Phase 1 idiot.
Phase 2 is likely to be civil war.
What's *your* excuse.
Well there's your problem, you're too stupid to realize that Phase 1 has
been over for a few years.
No - you are so in denial you can't admit what everyone that isn't an
apologist for the neocon adventure can see clearly
Your so called phase 1 consists of several parts.
The first part was bomb the country to hell with missiles killing 30,000
civilians in the process.
So far so good.
The next part of phase 1 is the land war involving 130,000 invading troops
on the ground to occupy the country and crush any further resistance.
Ooops - so far not so good.
That's where you are stuck now - still trying to crush the resistance.
As almost everone else agrees, phase 2 is likely to be civil war - in fact
most commentators would say that 100 deaths a day in sectarian killings all
over the country is already civil war.
To try and compare this sordid little botched occupation, hegemony and base
building to the appaling aftermath of 6 years of total all-out war
involving half the nations on the planet is so utterly fatuous I can barely
bring myself to dignify the comparsion with a response.
You sir, are a blinkered fool.
A W-S
Or maybe it has to do with your inability to read
So let me repeat it again for your edification
Phase 1 was getting in there as quick as possible, turfing Saddam and
settlling in
Phase 2 is getting Iraq to become a democracy
As to your claim of "Phase 2 is likely to be civil war" that's the classic
stupid argument of "things could become this or that"
This is typically used by people who have no intelligent response to cover
their *****.
You should read up on the Problems the Allies had in Germany from 1945 to
1950. Ditto for Japan during that same period
I'm sure there were idiots in those days too, to make the claim "Phase 2
is likely to be civil war" about Germany and Japan as well.
The presence of idiots is one of those constants of the Universe.
.
|
|
|
| User: "SaPeIsMa" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't take my word for it, ask a NeoCon about Bush and Rumsfeld |
06 Nov 2006 11:54:18 AM |
|
|
"Adam Whyte-Settlar" <grawillers@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:454f6048@quokka.wn.com.au...
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:12kuftna6kl9919@corp.supernews.com...
"Adam Whyte-Settlar" <grawillers@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:454ecba2@quokka.wn.com.au...
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:12ktak4bfuqh2e2@corp.supernews.com...
"Gordon Levi" <gordon@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:ng7tk213nbm5vbmm2bv6ihnjosglaquj0f@4ax.com...
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Gordon Levi" <gordon@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:0o2rk2d8r5gg3l5o49moi9kegef1e7lbac@4ax.com...
"Stan" <ecreipt@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
"Fran" <Fran.Beta@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1162688776.457292.145580@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
(snipped)
Everyone here knows I'm a communist, so it stands to reason that
if you
ask me my opinion about Bush and Rumsfeld and the wisdom of
invading
Iraq in 2003, the response is going to be critical.
" Mr. Churchill, sir, lets face it...your policies have been a
disaster.
Shall I mention Gallipoli. Narvik. Dunkirk. We cannot win. You
have
been badly advised sir. We have to cut and run "
He would have replied "You blethering idiot. Gallipoli was over
twenty
years ago". Ever polite, I will just remind you that WW2 was over
sixty years ago and suggest you provide some more recent examples.
Maybe you could give us one in which the military casualties have
steadily increased since the Commander in Chief announced "mission
accomplished".
The so-called mission accomplished was a sign posted on a ship that
was
returning from a tour od duty.
But don't let me interfere with your rape of the facts.
There is some controversy over the origin of the sign
<http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/> but,
in future, I will confine myself to the Commander's own words. "The
United States and our allies have prevailed" sounds equally hollow.
The problem with most people is that they can't seem to get past the
simple concept that there were 2 phases to the Iraq Campaing
Phase 1 was getting in there as quick as possible, turfing Saddam
and settling in
Phase 2 is getting Iraq to become a democracy
Phase 1 was so fast that even the generals executing it were surprised
by the swiftness of it.
Phase 2 is a different story
We just have to look at how long it took to pacify Germany and
Japan, before they got to run their own governments.
5-6 years in BOTH cases.
So yes, Bush was QUITE CORRECT, norwithstanding the idiots who claim
otherwise, that when he declared "The United States and our allies have
prevailed" it was applicable to Phase 1 and NOT Phase 2, since Phase 2
could ONLY begin after Phase 1 was competed.
What amazes me, is that both my kids, who are 6 and 8 respectively have
had no problems with understanding this
And most of their classmates, have had no problems with this either.
ONe has to wonder about all those "adults" who are still running
around, unable to understand something so simple
What's your excuse ?
You are still in Phase 1 idiot.
Phase 2 is likely to be civil war.
What's *your* excuse.
Well there's your problem, you're too stupid to realize that Phase 1 has
been over for a few years.
Or maybe it has to do with your inability to read
So let me repeat it again for your edification
Phase 1 was getting in there as quick as possible, turfing Saddam and
settlling in
Phase 2 is getting Iraq to become a democracy
As to your claim of "Phase 2 is likely to be civil war" that's the
classic stupid argument of "things could become this or that"
This is typically used by people who have no intelligent response to
cover their *****.
You should read up on the Problems the Allies had in Germany from 1945 to
1950. Ditto for Japan during that same period
I'm sure there were idiots in those days too, to make the claim "Phase 2
is likely to be civil war" about Germany and Japan as well.
The presence of idiots is one of those constants of the Universe.
No - you are so in denial you can't admit what everyone that isn't an
apologist for the neocon adventure can see clearly
Your so called phase 1 consists of several parts.
The first part was bomb the country to hell with missiles killing 30,000
civilians in the process.
So far so good.
The next part of phase 1 is the land war involving 130,000 invading troops
on the ground to occupy the country and crush any further resistance.
Ooops - so far not so good.
That's where you are stuck now - still trying to crush the resistance.
As almost everone else agrees, phase 2 is likely to be civil war - in fact
most commentators would say that 100 deaths a day in sectarian killings
all over the country is already civil war.
To try and compare this sordid little botched occupation, hegemony and
base building to the appaling aftermath of 6 years of total all-out war
involving half the nations on the planet is so utterly fatuous I can
barely bring myself to dignify the comparsion with a response.
You sir, are a blinkered fool.
The fact that your are unable to make intelligent comparisons is not my
problem
Better to be called a blinkered fool by one who has his head up his *****.
than the reverse
At least the blinkered fool can still see pretty much everything by just
moving his head. The other guy (thass you bro) needs to pull his head out
to just start...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Whyte-Settlar" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't take my word for it, ask a NeoCon about Bush and Rumsfeld |
06 Nov 2006 08:03:33 PM |
|
|
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:12kutvaq5d8t6a2@corp.supernews.com...
"Adam Whyte-Settlar" <grawillers@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:454f6048@quokka.wn.com.au...
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:12kuftna6kl9919@corp.supernews.com...
"Adam Whyte-Settlar" <grawillers@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:454ecba2@quokka.wn.com.au...
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:12ktak4bfuqh2e2@corp.supernews.com...
"Gordon Levi" <gordon@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:ng7tk213nbm5vbmm2bv6ihnjosglaquj0f@4ax.com...
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Gordon Levi" <gordon@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:0o2rk2d8r5gg3l5o49moi9kegef1e7lbac@4ax.com...
"Stan" <ecreipt@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
"Fran" <Fran.Beta@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1162688776.457292.145580@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
(snipped)
Everyone here knows I'm a communist, so it stands to reason that
if you
ask me my opinion about Bush and Rumsfeld and the wisdom of
invading
Iraq in 2003, the response is going to be critical.
" Mr. Churchill, sir, lets face it...your policies have been a
disaster.
Shall I mention Gallipoli. Narvik. Dunkirk. We cannot win.
You have
been badly advised sir. We have to cut and run "
He would have replied "You blethering idiot. Gallipoli was over
twenty
years ago". Ever polite, I will just remind you that WW2 was over
sixty years ago and suggest you provide some more recent examples.
Maybe you could give us one in which the military casualties have
steadily increased since the Commander in Chief announced "mission
accomplished".
The so-called mission accomplished was a sign posted on a ship that
was
returning from a tour od duty.
But don't let me interfere with your rape of the facts.
There is some controversy over the origin of the sign
<http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/>
but,
in future, I will confine myself to the Commander's own words. "The
United States and our allies have prevailed" sounds equally hollow.
The problem with most people is that they can't seem to get past the
simple concept that there were 2 phases to the Iraq Campaing
Phase 1 was getting in there as quick as possible, turfing Saddam
and settling in
Phase 2 is getting Iraq to become a democracy
Phase 1 was so fast that even the generals executing it were surprised
by the swiftness of it.
Phase 2 is a different story
We just have to look at how long it took to pacify Germany and
Japan, before they got to run their own governments.
5-6 years in BOTH cases.
So yes, Bush was QUITE CORRECT, norwithstanding the idiots who claim
otherwise, that when he declared "The United States and our allies
have prevailed" it was applicable to Phase 1 and NOT Phase 2, since
Phase 2 could ONLY begin after Phase 1 was competed.
What amazes me, is that both my kids, who are 6 and 8 respectively
have had no problems with understanding this
And most of their classmates, have had no problems with this
either.
ONe has to wonder about all those "adults" who are still running
around, unable to understand something so simple
What's your excuse ?
You are still in Phase 1 idiot.
Phase 2 is likely to be civil war.
What's *your* excuse.
Well there's your problem, you're too stupid to realize that Phase 1 has
been over for a few years.
Or maybe it has to do with your inability to read
So let me repeat it again for your edification
Phase 1 was getting in there as quick as possible, turfing Saddam and
settlling in
Phase 2 is getting Iraq to become a democracy
As to your claim of "Phase 2 is likely to be civil war" that's the
classic stupid argument of "things could become this or that"
This is typically used by people who have no intelligent response to
cover their *****.
You should read up on the Problems the Allies had in Germany from 1945
to 1950. Ditto for Japan during that same period
I'm sure there were idiots in those days too, to make the claim "Phase 2
is likely to be civil war" about Germany and Japan as well.
The presence of idiots is one of those constants of the Universe.
No - you are so in denial you can't admit what everyone that isn't an
apologist for the neocon adventure can see clearly
Your so called phase 1 consists of several parts.
The first part was bomb the country to hell with missiles killing 30,000
civilians in the process.
So far so good.
The next part of phase 1 is the land war involving 130,000 invading
troops on the ground to occupy the country and crush any further
resistance.
Ooops - so far not so good.
That's where you are stuck now - still trying to crush the resistance.
As almost everone else agrees, phase 2 is likely to be civil war - in
fact most commentators would say that 100 deaths a day in sectarian
killings all over the country is already civil war.
To try and compare this sordid little botched occupation, hegemony and
base building to the appaling aftermath of 6 years of total all-out war
involving half the nations on the planet is so utterly fatuous I can
barely bring myself to dignify the comparsion with a response.
You sir, are a blinkered fool.
The fact that your are unable to make intelligent comparisons is not my
problem
You are the one trying to compare Japan in 1945 to Iraq!!!
Geeez!
Go and play in your Bushworld fantasy park where 'things are getting better
in Iraq' - you're not worth my bother idiot.
Japan was a tight-knit homogenous country with thousands of years of
traditon.
Iraq is a recently cobbled together invention of British expediency that
your old pal and ally Saddam managed to keep the lid on using terror (with a
little help from his Russian, French and American friends of course).
There is a very good chance it will split back into three when your bungling
government runs away from the debacle saying "It's up to the Iraqis to sort
it out now".
The difference is that the Iraqis will take thousands of casualties and
never ever give up but the Americans won't.
Long -term?
You're fucked.
.
|
|
|
| User: "SaPeIsMa" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't take my word for it, ask a NeoCon about Bush and Rumsfeld |
06 Nov 2006 08:46:55 PM |
|
|
"Adam Whyte-Settlar" <grawillers@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:454fe983@quokka.wn.com.au...
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:12kutvaq5d8t6a2@corp.supernews.com...
"Adam Whyte-Settlar" <grawillers@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:454f6048@quokka.wn.com.au...
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:12kuftna6kl9919@corp.supernews.com...
"Adam Whyte-Settlar" <grawillers@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:454ecba2@quokka.wn.com.au...
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:12ktak4bfuqh2e2@corp.supernews.com...
"Gordon Levi" <gordon@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:ng7tk213nbm5vbmm2bv6ihnjosglaquj0f@4ax.com...
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Gordon Levi" <gordon@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:0o2rk2d8r5gg3l5o49moi9kegef1e7lbac@4ax.com...
"Stan" <ecreipt@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
"Fran" <Fran.Beta@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1162688776.457292.145580@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
(snipped)
Everyone here knows I'm a communist, so it stands to reason that
if you
ask me my opinion about Bush and Rumsfeld and the wisdom of
invading
Iraq in 2003, the response is going to be critical.
" Mr. Churchill, sir, lets face it...your policies have been a
disaster.
Shall I mention Gallipoli. Narvik. Dunkirk. We cannot win. You
have
been badly advised sir. We have to cut and run "
He would have replied "You blethering idiot. Gallipoli was over
twenty
years ago". Ever polite, I will just remind you that WW2 was over
sixty years ago and suggest you provide some more recent examples.
Maybe you could give us one in which the military casualties have
steadily increased since the Commander in Chief announced "mission
accomplished".
The so-called mission accomplished was a sign posted on a ship that
was
returning from a tour od duty.
But don't let me interfere with your rape of the facts.
There is some controversy over the origin of the sign
<http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/>
but,
in future, I will confine myself to the Commander's own words. "The
United States and our allies have prevailed" sounds equally hollow.
The problem with most people is that they can't seem to get past the
simple concept that there were 2 phases to the Iraq Campaing
Phase 1 was getting in there as quick as possible, turfing Saddam
and settling in
Phase 2 is getting Iraq to become a democracy
Phase 1 was so fast that even the generals executing it were
surprised by the swiftness of it.
Phase 2 is a different story
We just have to look at how long it took to pacify Germany and
Japan, before they got to run their own governments.
5-6 years in BOTH cases.
So yes, Bush was QUITE CORRECT, norwithstanding the idiots who claim
otherwise, that when he declared "The United States and our allies
have prevailed" it was applicable to Phase 1 and NOT Phase 2, since
Phase 2 could ONLY begin after Phase 1 was competed.
What amazes me, is that both my kids, who are 6 and 8 respectively
have had no problems with understanding this
And most of their classmates, have had no problems with this
either.
ONe has to wonder about all those "adults" who are still running
around, unable to understand something so simple
What's your excuse ?
You are still in Phase 1 idiot.
Phase 2 is likely to be civil war.
What's *your* excuse.
Well there's your problem, you're too stupid to realize that Phase 1
has been over for a few years.
Or maybe it has to do with your inability to read
So let me repeat it again for your edification
Phase 1 was getting in there as quick as possible, turfing Saddam
and settlling in
Phase 2 is getting Iraq to become a democracy
As to your claim of "Phase 2 is likely to be civil war" that's the
classic stupid argument of "things could become this or that"
This is typically used by people who have no intelligent response to
cover their *****.
You should read up on the Problems the Allies had in Germany from 1945
to 1950. Ditto for Japan during that same period
I'm sure there were idiots in those days too, to make the claim "Phase
2 is likely to be civil war" about Germany and Japan as well.
The presence of idiots is one of those constants of the Universe.
No - you are so in denial you can't admit what everyone that isn't an
apologist for the neocon adventure can see clearly
Your so called phase 1 consists of several parts.
The first part was bomb the country to hell with missiles killing 30,000
civilians in the process.
So far so good.
The next part of phase 1 is the land war involving 130,000 invading
troops on the ground to occupy the country and crush any further
resistance.
Ooops - so far not so good.
That's where you are stuck now - still trying to crush the resistance.
As almost everone else agrees, phase 2 is likely to be civil war - in
fact most commentators would say that 100 deaths a day in sectarian
killings all over the country is already civil war.
To try and compare this sordid little botched occupation, hegemony and
base building to the appaling aftermath of 6 years of total all-out war
involving half the nations on the planet is so utterly fatuous I can
barely bring myself to dignify the comparsion with a response.
You sir, are a blinkered fool.
The fact that your are unable to make intelligent comparisons is not my
problem
You are the one trying to compare Japan in 1945 to Iraq!!!
Geeez!
Actually, I am NOT, as you so wrongly claim, trying to compare 2
countries...
My comparison was about the PACIFICATION of both Germany and Japan following
WWII. And the problems that the US had with various factions trying to use
force to keep in pwoer or simply fight a rearguard against the winning side.
Now this may be far too suttle for you considering that you have reduce it
to "compare Japan in 1945 to Iraq"
But that is YOUR problem, not mine.
Go and play in your Bushworld fantasy park where 'things are getting
better in Iraq' - you're not worth my bother idiot.
Japan was a tight-knit homogenous country with thousands of years of
traditon.
Iraq is a recently cobbled together invention of British expediency that
your old pal and ally Saddam managed to keep the lid on using terror (with
a little help from his Russian, French and American friends of course).
There is a very good chance it will split back into three when your
bungling government runs away from the debacle saying "It's up to the
Iraqis to sort it out now".
The difference is that the Iraqis will take thousands of casualties and
never ever give up but the Americans won't.
Long -term?
You're fucked.
I read your drivel above, with all the nonsense that you project on me such
are "your old pal and ally Saddam" and then I laugh when you end with
"you're fucked".
You don't even have a functioning brain
At best your a parrot repeating drivel you've heard with no understanding of
the noise you are making
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Whyte-Settlar" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't take my word for it, ask a NeoCon about Bush and Rumsfeld |
06 Nov 2006 11:15:25 PM |
|
|
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:12kvtagpump23c3@corp.supernews.com...
"Adam Whyte-Settlar" <grawillers@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:454fe983@quokka.wn.com.au...
You are the one trying to compare Japan in 1945 to Iraq!!!
Geeez!
Actually, I am NOT, as you so wrongly claim, trying to compare 2
countries...
My comparison was about the PACIFICATION of both Germany and Japan
following WWII. And the problems that the US had with various factions
trying to use force to keep in pwoer or simply fight a rearguard against
the winning side.
It in no way compares to either Germany or Japan.
Both countries had officially surrendered and been instructed to do so by
what remained of the leadership in Germanay and by the emperer in Japan.
True there were fanatical factions that continued to resist but 85% of
Iraqis opposed to an occupation is not a 'problem with a faction'.
Go and play in your Bushworld fantasy park where 'things are getting
better in Iraq' - you're not worth my bother idiot.
Japan was a tight-knit homogenous country with thousands of years of
traditon.
Iraq is a recently cobbled together invention of British expediency that
your old pal and ally Saddam managed to keep the lid on using terror
(with a little help from his Russian, French and American friends of
course).
There is a very good chance it will split back into three when your
bungling government runs away from the debacle saying "It's up to the
Iraqis to sort it out now".
The difference is that the Iraqis will take thousands of casualties and
never ever give up but the Americans won't.
Long -term?
You're fucked.
I read your drivel above, with all the nonsense that you project on me
such are "your old pal and ally Saddam" and then I laugh when you end with
"you're fucked".
You don't even have a functioning brain
At best your a parrot repeating drivel you've heard with no understanding
of the noise you are making
Why don't you try pointing out even a single line of the above which you can
prove isn't true instead of the usual 'rightards defence' of just bandying
unoriginal personal insults.
You didn't know Saddam was once a friend and ally of the US?
Doesn't surprise me.
I was joining demonstrations against Saddam when your government was still
issuing exports licences to US companies to supply the monster with
so-called 'dual purpose' biological agents. As documented word for word in
your senate hearings. Ask your kids about it.
You are an embarrassment to intelligent Americans - do some research Idiot.
As for being 'fucked' it's just shorthand for - 'you will eventually be
forced to withdraw from Iraq' - despite your half -billion dollar, 114acres
of fortress.
I repeat; The Iraqis are far more willing to take casualties than are the
Americans.
100,000 more Iraqis will hardly make a difference in the scale of the
millions over the last 20 years. 100,000 Americans and you will be running
away as in the last debacle in Vietnam.
Get this.
91% of Sunnis want you out. Even 75% of Shias want you out FFS!
Read the latest polls. YEAH! Would you believe it?
Someone actually got round to asking the IRAQIS what they want!
But so much for 'democracy' if they don't go along with your fucking puppets
and the "The Iraqi's all love us and want us to stay" insanity.
Even if the puppet is only 'Prime Minister' of three square miles of
Bagdhad.
What a fucking joke.
Iraq (or rather the three regions that make up 'Iraq') will need a civil
war, a reconciliation, a renaissance, an enlightenment, a separation of
church and state, an emancipation and then 200 years of social evolution
before they are anywhere near being an established mature democracy.
And you fuckwits, armed with the twin pillars of US government policy,
arrogance and ignorance, really think you can bomb the place to ***** and
then have the Iraqis shower you with flowers and agree to install a
US-friendly 'democracy' in the space of half a dozen years?!
It's beyond pathetic.
A W-S
And then it's; "Why does eveyone hate us and think we are morons"
.
|
|
|
| User: "SaPeIsMa" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't take my word for it, ask a NeoCon about Bush and Rumsfeld |
07 Nov 2006 07:46:04 PM |
|
|
"Adam Whyte-Settlar" <grawillers@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:4550167c@quokka.wn.com.au...
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:12kvtagpump23c3@corp.supernews.com...
"Adam Whyte-Settlar" <grawillers@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:454fe983@quokka.wn.com.au...
You are the one trying to compare Japan in 1945 to Iraq!!!
Geeez!
Actually, I am NOT, as you so wrongly claim, trying to compare 2
countries...
My comparison was about the PACIFICATION of both Germany and Japan
following WWII. And the problems that the US had with various factions
trying to use force to keep in pwoer or simply fight a rearguard against
the winning side.
It in no way compares to either Germany or Japan.
Both countries had officially surrendered and been instructed to do so by
what remained of the leadership in Germanay and by the emperer in Japan.
True there were fanatical factions that continued to resist but 85% of
Iraqis opposed to an occupation is not a 'problem with a faction'.
85% of Iraq is opposed ?
You''re so full of ***** it's coming out of your ears
I'll trnslate that to something simpler for you
You LIE like a rug
Go and play in your Bushworld fantasy park where 'things are getting
better in Iraq' - you're not worth my bother idiot.
Japan was a tight-knit homogenous country with thousands of years of
traditon.
Iraq is a recently cobbled together invention of British expediency that
your old pal and ally Saddam managed to keep the lid on using terror
(with a little help from his Russian, French and American friends of
course).
There is a very good chance it will split back into three when your
bungling government runs away from the debacle saying "It's up to the
Iraqis to sort it out now".
The difference is that the Iraqis will take thousands of casualties and
never ever give up but the Americans won't.
Long -term?
You're fucked.
I read your drivel above, with all the nonsense that you project on me
such are "your old pal and ally Saddam" and then I laugh when you end
with "you're fucked".
You don't even have a functioning brain
At best your a parrot repeating drivel you've heard with no understanding
of the noise you are making
Why don't you try pointing out even a single line of the above which you
can prove isn't true instead of the usual 'rightards defence' of just
bandying unoriginal personal insults.
You don't like the description ?
Don't behave in a way to earn it
You didn't know Saddam was once a friend and ally of the US?
Doesn't surprise me.
I was joining demonstrations against Saddam when your government was still
issuing exports licences to US companies to supply the monster with
so-called 'dual purpose' biological agents. As documented word for word in
your senate hearings. Ask your kids about it.
You are an embarrassment to intelligent Americans - do some research
Idiot.
He never was mine, bub
And I'm Canadian
So your stupid projection is off target AGAIN...
As to the fact that Iraq was once helped by the US to fight Iran
Alliances change
Iran was once an ally too
Things changed there as well
Only idiots ignore that things change and want to use previous relationships
as some kind of proof that things should be considered unchanged 30 years
down the line
That's just plain STUPID
But you do stupid pretty well..
As for being 'fucked' it's just shorthand for - 'you will eventually be
forced to withdraw from Iraq' - despite your half -billion dollar,
114acres of fortress.
I repeat; The Iraqis are far more willing to take casualties than are the
Americans.
100,000 more Iraqis will hardly make a difference in the scale of the
millions over the last 20 years. 100,000 Americans and you will be running
away as in the last debacle in Vietnam.
It's funny to hear that considering that the US is STILL in multiple
countries of Europe and Asia.
And you're basing your prediction on the fact that the LEFTY DEMS forced the
withdrawal of the US from VietNam
I will repeat that, the LEFTY Dems forced the withdrawal of the US from
VietNam
Now if by some mischance, the LEFTY Dems get into power, there IS a good
chance that history will repeat itself
And I'm sure, that considering your position, that is something that you
want dearly so that you can garner some small feeling of superiority from
such a disaster.
But that is typical of the small-minded cut and run mindset.
If you had LEARNED anything from the cut-and-run LEFTY Dem fiasco, it was
that such a cowardly approach leads to ENORMOUS tragedy
Many Americans HAVE LEARNED that lesson
And if they can help it, the US will NOT cut-and-run from Iraq.
But that's an internal thing to the US.
Get this.
91% of Sunnis want you out. Even 75% of Shias want you out FFS!
Read the latest polls. YEAH! Would you believe it?
Considering the biais of the media
NO, I do NOT believe it
I would believe Rathergate before I would believe that
Someone actually got round to asking the IRAQIS what they want!
But so much for 'democracy' if they don't go along with your fucking
puppets and the "The Iraqi's all love us and want us to stay" insanity.
Even if the puppet is only 'Prime Minister' of three square miles of
Bagdhad.
What a fucking joke.
Most probably this alleded surbey is the "fucking joke"
Why don't you provide the source ?
Iraq (or rather the three regions that make up 'Iraq') will need a civil
war, a reconciliation, a renaissance, an enlightenment, a separation of
church and state, an emancipation and then 200 years of social evolution
before they are anywhere near being an established mature democracy.
And you fuckwits, armed with the twin pillars of US government policy,
arrogance and ignorance, really think you can bomb the place to ***** and
then have the Iraqis shower you with flowers and agree to install a
US-friendly 'democracy' in the space of half a dozen years?!
It's beyond pathetic.
Nice rant
You do a good parrot
Too bad it's the only thing you do well
A W-S
And then it's; "Why does eveyone hate us and think we are morons"
Actually no on really hates stupid lefty losers like you
It's pity and not hate
And yes, you are a moron.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "D.Nunciator" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't take my word for it, ask a NeoCon about Bush and Rumsfeld |
06 Nov 2006 10:57:48 AM |
|
|
Read for yourself what the Neocons planned at:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
The troops deserve to know the reasons why they are in Iraq and why
they are being killed. Bush has lied from the first -- THIS is the
reason:
THE PURPOSE OF THE IRAQ WAR : AND THE DEFINITION OF VICTORY --IS
THE ESTABLISHMENT UNITED STATES HEGEMONY OVER THE PETROLEUM RESOURCES
OF IRAQ AND IRAN; AND THE ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF A MILITARY
PRESENCE WHICH WILL PRESERVE THAT HEGEMONY FOR THE FORESEEABLE
FUTURE. THERE WILL BE NO WITHDRAWAL OF TROOPS SO LONG AS THE PETROLEUM
IS THERE. THIS IS THE NOBLE CAUSE FOR THE WAR.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stan" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't take my word for it, ask a NeoCon about Bush and Rumsfeld |
06 Nov 2006 04:02:08 PM |
|
|
"D.Nunciator" <netpost@pochta.ru> wrote in message
news:061120060857485755%netpost@pochta.ru...
Read for yourself what the Neocons planned at:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
The troops deserve to know the reasons why they are in Iraq and why
they are being killed. Bush has lied from the first -- THIS is the
reason:
THE PURPOSE OF THE IRAQ WAR : AND THE DEFINITION OF VICTORY --IS
THE ESTABLISHMENT UNITED STATES HEGEMONY OVER THE PETROLEUM RESOURCES
OF IRAQ AND IRAN; AND THE ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF A MILITARY
PRESENCE WHICH WILL PRESERVE THAT HEGEMONY FOR THE FORESEEABLE
FUTURE. THERE WILL BE NO WITHDRAWAL OF TROOPS SO LONG AS THE PETROLEUM
IS THERE. THIS IS THE NOBLE CAUSE FOR THE WAR.
One day it will sink in to your thick head that it was all a response to
Muslim wogs flying planes into American buildings and killing a lot of
people. All their mates are steadily being killed wherever they are. It
will go on for perhaps 30 years. Get used to it.
The Japanese at least had brains and learned a lesson. They are now rich
and better off from Americans kicking their arses. I don't think the wogs
have the nous to learn anything so its going to be a long slog.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Whyte-Settlar" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't take my word for it, ask a NeoCon about Bush and Rumsfeld |
06 Nov 2006 07:53:13 PM |
|
|
"Stan" <ecreipt@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:AhO3h.60108$rP1.10804@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"D.Nunciator" <netpost@pochta.ru> wrote in message
news:061120060857485755%netpost@pochta.ru...
Read for yourself what the Neocons planned at:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
The troops deserve to know the reasons why they are in Iraq and why
they are being killed. Bush has lied from the first -- THIS is the
reason:
THE PURPOSE OF THE IRAQ WAR : AND THE DEFINITION OF VICTORY --IS
THE ESTABLISHMENT UNITED STATES HEGEMONY OVER THE PETROLEUM
RESOURCES
OF IRAQ AND IRAN; AND THE ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF A
MILITARY
PRESENCE WHICH WILL PRESERVE THAT HEGEMONY FOR THE FORESEEABLE
FUTURE. THERE WILL BE NO WITHDRAWAL OF TROOPS SO LONG AS THE PETROLEUM
IS THERE. THIS IS THE NOBLE CAUSE FOR THE WAR.
One day it will sink in to your thick head that it was all a response to
Muslim wogs flying planes into American buildings and killing a lot of
people.
Sorry, but you've got the wrong war - that one is going on in Afghanistan -
or was.
Bush should have stuck to chasing down the terrorists - terrorists who now
openly stroll the streets of Pakistan.
Iraq is a separate issue that only a fool would believe was somehow related
to the Saudi/Al Queda attack on the Pentagon and Trade Towers.
Despite the desperate search for any obscure and tenuous connection, even
Bush now admits that Saddam had nothing to do with it.
Are you saying Bush is a liar? That's treason isn't it?
All their mates are steadily being killed wherever they are. It
will go on for perhaps 30 years. Get used to it.
The Japanese at least had brains and learned a lesson. They are now rich
and better off from Americans kicking their arses. I don't think the wogs
have the nous to learn anything so its going to be a long slog.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gordon Levi" |
|
| Title: Re: Don't take my word for it, ask a NeoCon about Bush and Rumsfeld |
06 Nov 2006 10:48:56 AM |
|
|
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote:
The problem with most people is that they can't seem to get past the simple
concept that there were 2 phases to the Iraq Campaing
Phase 1 was getting in there as quick as possible, turfing Saddam and
settling in
Phase 2 is getting Iraq to become a democracy
Phase 1 was so fast that even the generals executing it were surprised by
the swiftness of it.
Phase 2 is a different story
We just have to look at how long it took to pacify Germany and Japan,
before they got to run their own governments.
It actually took well over 40 years in Germany. Do you think that
Bush's speech was intended to prepare us for that?
5-6 years i | | | | | |
