| Topic: |
Science > Prophecies-Of-Nostradamus |
| User: |
"Marvin The Paranoid Android" |
| Date: |
21 Apr 2007 03:26:16 PM |
| Object: |
As Iraqi troops stand up, we'll keep standing up ... |
How times change.
Yesterday's talking points are todays embarassments.
Reid is right -- the war is lost. Bring 'em home.
Cheers!
-- Marvin
.
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: As Iraqi troops stand up, we'll keep standing up ... |
21 Apr 2007 07:22:07 PM |
|
|
On Apr 21, 1:26 pm, Marvin The Paranoid Android
<marvinparanoidandr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
How times change.
Yesterday's talking points are todays embarassments.
Reid is right -- the war is lost. Bring 'em home.
By the way, Marvin, the legality of removing Saddam from power was
addressed by Senator Reid when he voted to authorize the use of
military force in Iraq:
HARRY REID: "We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that
Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in
further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass
destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal
constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and
justifies resumption of the armed conflict." Senator Harry Reid (D.
Nevada) addressing the US Senate, October 9, 2002, Congressional
Record, p. S10145
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S10145&dbname=2002_record
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin The Paranoid Android" |
|
| Title: Re: As Iraqi troops stand up, we'll keep standing up ... |
23 Apr 2007 09:33:16 AM |
|
|
Steven Douglas wrote:
On Apr 21, 1:26 pm, Marvin The Paranoid Android
<marvinparanoidandr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
How times change.
Yesterday's talking points are todays embarassments.
Reid is right -- the war is lost. Bring 'em home.
By the way, Marvin, the legality of removing Saddam from power was
addressed by Senator Reid when he voted to authorize the use of
military force in Iraq:
HARRY REID: "We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that
Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in
further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass
destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal
constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and
justifies resumption of the armed conflict." Senator Harry Reid (D.
Nevada) addressing the US Senate, October 9, 2002, Congressional
Record, p. S10145
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S10145&dbname=2002_record
A lot of Dems voted for the war. They did so out of post 9-11 fear
and twisted intel or they just wanted to hand Bush enough rope that'd
he hang himself.
The war is lost.
Voting to authorize it is one thing. Mismanaging it and losing it is
another.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Lemke" |
|
| Title: Re: As Iraqi troops stand up, we'll keep standing up ... |
23 Apr 2007 10:13:07 AM |
|
|
On Apr 23, 10:33 am, Marvin The Paranoid Android
<marvinparanoidandr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
A lot of Dems voted for the war. They did so out of post 9-11 fear
and twisted intel or they just wanted to hand Bush enough rope that'd
he hang himself.
The war is lost.
Voting to authorize it is one thing. Mismanaging it and losing it is
another.
Cherry picking intelligence and taking advantage of the fear and anger
in post 9/11 America was the Bush program for manufacturing support
for an imperial war.
The press didn't stand up and do it's job and question. Half the
Democrats didn't have the courage to stand up and challenge. Russ
Feingold and Robert Byrd are heroes.
You could say that Bush's war is lost. You could also say that the
Iraqis are well on their way to self-determination via civil war. Al-
Queda, widely known to be active in Iraq AFTER the invasion, will
emerge stronger when all is said and done and be able to concentrate
it's efforts in Western countries.
Before long history will prove neocon ideology and propaganda to be
obsessive, dangerously moronic pissing in the wind.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: As Iraqi troops stand up, we'll keep standing up ... |
23 Apr 2007 11:53:55 AM |
|
|
On Apr 23, 7:33 am, Marvin The Paranoid Android
<marvinparanoidandr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
On Apr 21, 1:26 pm, Marvin The Paranoid Android
<marvinparanoidandr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
How times change.
Yesterday's talking points are todays embarassments.
Reid is right -- the war is lost. Bring 'em home.
By the way, Marvin, the legality of removing Saddam from power was
addressed by Senator Reid when he voted to authorize the use of
military force in Iraq:
HARRY REID: "We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that
Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in
further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass
destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal
constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and
justifies resumption of the armed conflict." Senator Harry Reid (D.
Nevada) addressing the US Senate, October 9, 2002, Congressional
Record, p. S10145
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page...
A lot of Dems voted for the war. They did so out of post 9-11 fear
and twisted intel or they just wanted to hand Bush enough rope that'd
he hang himself.
Did you notice Senator Reid addressed the legality of removing Saddam
from power?
The war is lost.
Not necessarily. There are hopeful signs for those who remain
optimistic. Of course those who were never optimistic will ignore
those signs.
Iraqi tribal chiefs forming an anti-insurgent party
By Chris Kraul, Times Staff Writer
April 20, 2007
RAMADI, IRAQ - A group of Sunni tribal leaders in beleaguered Al Anbar
province said Thursday that it intended to form a national party to
oppose insurgents such as Al Qaeda in Iraq and reengage with Iraq's
political process.
The announcement came after 200 sheiks said to represent 50 tribes met
here and agreed to form a provincial sheiks council and hold the first
convention in May of their new party, called Iraq Awakening. Sheiks
from three other provinces will attend, organizers said.
The driving force behind the new party, Sheik Abdul-Sattar abu Risha,
said in an interview that the tribal leaders would be pushing a slate
of candidates in Al Anbar provincial elections later this year, as
well as in the next round of national parliamentary balloting,
scheduled for 2009.
One purpose of the party, Sattar said, is to promote a better image of
American-led forces "to the Iraqis here." He added that the tribes
also would participate in a U.S.-backed effort to reestablish a court
system in Ramadi, the provincial capital. [end quoting]
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-sheiks20apr20,1,7969226.story?coll=la-headlines-world
Voting to authorize it is one thing. Mismanaging it and losing it is
another.
During and after the allied invasion of France in 1944, there was a
lot of mismanagement that could have led pessimists to believe the war
was lost. The D-Day landing was a disaster for US troops. And later,
the Battle of the Bulge cost the lives of 16,000 US troops in just a
few weeks. In today's political climate, the anti-war crowd would have
been telling us the war was lost and calling for the withdrawal of our
troops.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin The Paranoid Android" |
|
| Title: Re: As Iraqi troops stand up, we'll keep standing up ... |
23 Apr 2007 12:48:13 PM |
|
|
On Apr 23, 12:53 pm, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 23, 7:33 am, Marvin The Paranoid Android
<marvinparanoidandr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
On Apr 21, 1:26 pm, Marvin The Paranoid Android
<marvinparanoidandr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
How times change.
Yesterday's talking points are todays embarassments.
Reid is right -- the war is lost. Bring 'em home.
By the way, Marvin, the legality of removing Saddam from power was
addressed by Senator Reid when he voted to authorize the use of
military force in Iraq:
HARRY REID: "We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that
Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in
further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass
destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal
constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and
justifies resumption of the armed conflict." Senator Harry Reid (D.
Nevada) addressing the US Senate, October 9, 2002, Congressional
Record, p. S10145
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page...
A lot of Dems voted for the war. They did so out of post 9-11 fear
and twisted intel or they just wanted to hand Bush enough rope that'd
he hang himself.
Did you notice Senator Reid addressed the legality of removing Saddam
from power?
Yes.
Did you notice that this nothing to do with my original post?
The war is lost.
Not necessarily. There are hopeful signs for those who remain
optimistic. Of course those who were never optimistic will ignore
those signs.
I was hopeful after the President landed on a aircraft carrier in a
jet fighter wearing a flightsuit and proclaimed that major combat
operations had ended. Didn't you feel optimistic then too?
Unfortunately, that was 4 years ago and 3,000 U.S. troops and tens of
thousands of Iraqi civilians were still alive, playing with their
children and loving and supporting their families.
But no ones to blame for this mess is there, except the Dems and
Clinton, right?
Iraqi tribal chiefs forming an anti-insurgent party
By Chris Kraul, Times Staff Writer
April 20, 2007
RAMADI, IRAQ - A group of Sunni tribal leaders in beleaguered Al Anbar
province said Thursday that it intended to form a national party to
oppose insurgents such as Al Qaeda in Iraq and reengage with Iraq's
political process.
The announcement came after 200 sheiks said to represent 50 tribes met
here and agreed to form a provincial sheiks council and hold the first
convention in May of their new party, called Iraq Awakening. Sheiks
from three other provinces will attend, organizers said.
The driving force behind the new party, Sheik Abdul-Sattar abu Risha,
said in an interview that the tribal leaders would be pushing a slate
of candidates in Al Anbar provincial elections later this year, as
well as in the next round of national parliamentary balloting,
scheduled for 2009.
One purpose of the party, Sattar said, is to promote a better image of
American-led forces "to the Iraqis here." He added that the tribes
also would participate in a U.S.-backed effort to reestablish a court
system in Ramadi, the provincial capital. [end quoting]
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-sheiks20apr20,1,7...
Good. Let's hope that it pans out.
But what purpose does the presence of U.S. troops have to do with
this?? The Iraqi PM told them to stop building barriers around Sunni
communities in Baghdad -- nice option -- imprison them all.
Voting to authorize it is one thing. Mismanaging it and losing it is
another.
During and after the allied invasion of France in 1944, there was a
lot of mismanagement that could have led pessimists to believe the war
was lost. The D-Day landing was a disaster for US troops. And later,
the Battle of the Bulge cost the lives of 16,000 US troops in just a
few weeks. In today's political climate, the anti-war crowd would have
been telling us the war was lost and calling for the withdrawal of our
troops.
During the Allied Invasion there was a whole-hearted commitment by the
world to defeat Nazi Germany. It wasn't just the U.S. on those
beaches -- there were Canadians, French, U.K. and other troops in
great numbers.
Rummie, Cheney and Bush are doing 'War-Lite' ... trying to forward the
NeoCon agenda on the cheap. It's not working and obviously so.
This is a flawed comparison. Iraq shouldn't have been attacked. Europe
had to be freed.
Cheers!
-- Marvin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: As Iraqi troops stand up, we'll keep standing up ... |
23 Apr 2007 07:02:58 PM |
|
|
On Apr 23, 10:48 am, Marvin The Paranoid Android
<marvinparanoidandr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 23, 12:53 pm, Steven Douglas <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 23, 7:33 am, Marvin The Paranoid Android
<marvinparanoidandr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
On Apr 21, 1:26 pm, Marvin The Paranoid Android
<marvinparanoidandr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
How times change.
Yesterday's talking points are todays embarassments.
Reid is right -- the war is lost. Bring 'em home.
By the way, Marvin, the legality of removing Saddam from power was
addressed by Senator Reid when he voted to authorize the use of
military force in Iraq:
HARRY REID: "We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that
Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in
further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass
destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal
constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and
justifies resumption of the armed conflict." Senator Harry Reid (D.
Nevada) addressing the US Senate, October 9, 2002, Congressional
Record, p. S10145
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page...
A lot of Dems voted for the war. They did so out of post 9-11 fear
and twisted intel or they just wanted to hand Bush enough rope that'd
he hang himself.
Did you notice Senator Reid addressed the legality of removing Saddam
from power?
Yes.
Did you notice that this nothing to do with my original post?
That's why I said "by the way" when I first raised the point (see
above), in response to your mention in another thread that the
coalition use of military force in Iraq was illegal. Senator Reid
obviously disagrees with you on that point.
The war is lost.
Not necessarily. There are hopeful signs for those who remain
optimistic. Of course those who were never optimistic will ignore
those signs.
I was hopeful after the President landed on a aircraft carrier in a
jet fighter wearing a flightsuit and proclaimed that major combat
operations had ended. Didn't you feel optimistic then too?
Major combat operations had ended. Saddam was gone. And yes, I did
feel optimistic. And then the terrorists decided to do whatever they
could to prevent democracy in Iraq. So they started blowing people up.
Unfortunately, that was 4 years ago and 3,000 U.S. troops and tens of
thousands of Iraqi civilians were still alive, playing with their
children and loving and supporting their families.
Yes, it's really a shame the terrorists are intent on denying the
Iraqi people their democratically elected government.
But no ones to blame for this mess is there, except the Dems and
Clinton, right?
Why do you have this idea that I'm anti-Clinton? Do you have any
evidence of that? And no, I don't say things like "no one's to blame
except ...." because I think a lot of people can share blame. Rather
than me, it's actually people who disagree with me who are far more
likely to say "no one's to blame except ____."
Iraqi tribal chiefs forming an anti-insurgent party
By Chris Kraul, Times Staff Writer
April 20, 2007
RAMADI, IRAQ - A group of Sunni tribal leaders in beleaguered Al Anbar
province said Thursday that it intended to form a national party to
oppose insurgents such as Al Qaeda in Iraq and reengage with Iraq's
political process.
The announcement came after 200 sheiks said to represent 50 tribes met
here and agreed to form a provincial sheiks council and hold the first
convention in May of their new party, called Iraq Awakening. Sheiks
from three other provinces will attend, organizers said.
The driving force behind the new party, Sheik Abdul-Sattar abu Risha,
said in an interview that the tribal leaders would be pushing a slate
of candidates in Al Anbar provincial elections later this year, as
well as in the next round of national parliamentary balloting,
scheduled for 2009.
One purpose of the party, Sattar said, is to promote a better image of
American-led forces "to the Iraqis here." He added that the tribes
also would participate in a U.S.-backed effort to reestablish a court
system in Ramadi, the provincial capital. [end quoting]
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-sheiks20apr20,1,7...
Good. Let's hope that it pans out.
But what purpose does the presence of U.S. troops have to do with
this?? The Iraqi PM told them to stop building barriers around Sunni
communities in Baghdad -- nice option -- imprison them all.
I thought that was a joint US/Iraqi operation. I thought the idea was
to protect those Sunnis. But if the Prime Minister wants it stopped,
it should be stopped.
Voting to authorize it is one thing. Mismanaging it and losing it is
another.
During and after the allied invasion of France in 1944, there was a
lot of mismanagement that could have led pessimists to believe the war
was lost. The D-Day landing was a disaster for US troops. And later,
the Battle of the Bulge cost the lives of 16,000 US troops in just a
few weeks. In today's political climate, the anti-war crowd would have
been telling us the war was lost and calling for the withdrawal of our
troops.
During the Allied Invasion there was a whole-hearted commitment by the
world to defeat Nazi Germany.
Not true. A lot of people in the middle east were hoping for a Hitler
victory in that war.
It wasn't just the U.S. on those beaches -- there were Canadians,
French, U.K. and other troops in great numbers.
Yes I know. All together, D-Day was a successful operation. But due to
some bungling, it was a particularly bad day for US troops on Omaha
Beach. That's why I said it was a disaster for US troops, though the
entirety of the Normandy operation was an overwhelming success. Do you
know how many US troops died on Omaha Beach? And what do you think
today's anti-war Americans would have been saying about it if they'd
been around at the time?
Rummie, Cheney and Bush are doing 'War-Lite' ... trying to forward the
NeoCon agenda on the cheap. It's not working and obviously so.
This is a flawed comparison.
It's not the two wars I'm comparing, but the "mismanaging" that seems
to happen in every war.
Iraq shouldn't have been attacked.
Yet you just gave Senator Reid a pass for his vote authorizing the use
of military force in Iraq.
Europe had to be freed.
Not everyone agreed. In that era it was conservatives, such as Robert
Taft, who were the anti-war isolationists. To this day, old guard
conservative Pat Buchanan thinks it was unnecessary for the US to
fight Hitler. Back then, it was US liberals who believed in fighting
evil. Today's so-called "liberals" have moved away from their old
ideals. Joe Lieberman is the most visible liberal today who stands
firm in his belief that the Democratic Party should have remained the
party of FDR, Truman, JFK, Scoop Jackson, etc. Instead, today's
Democratic Party has become the party of Robert Taft.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: As Iraqi troops stand up, we'll keep standing up ... |
23 Apr 2007 04:38:28 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 09:53:55 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
On Apr 23, 7:33 am, Marvin The Paranoid Android
<marvinparanoidandr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
On Apr 21, 1:26 pm, Marvin The Paranoid Android
<marvinparanoidandr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
How times change.
Yesterday's talking points are todays embarassments.
Reid is right -- the war is lost. Bring 'em home.
By the way, Marvin, the legality of removing Saddam from power was
addressed by Senator Reid when he voted to authorize the use of
military force in Iraq:
HARRY REID: "We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that
Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in
further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass
destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal
constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and
justifies resumption of the armed conflict." Senator Harry Reid (D.
Nevada) addressing the US Senate, October 9, 2002, Congressional
Record, p. S10145
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page...
A lot of Dems voted for the war. They did so out of post 9-11 fear
and twisted intel or they just wanted to hand Bush enough rope that'd
he hang himself.
Did you notice Senator Reid addressed the legality of removing Saddam
from power?
The war is lost.
Not necessarily. There are hopeful signs for those who remain
optimistic. Of course those who were never optimistic will ignore
those signs.
Iraqi tribal chiefs forming an anti-insurgent party
By Chris Kraul, Times Staff Writer
April 20, 2007
RAMADI, IRAQ - A group of Sunni tribal leaders in beleaguered Al Anbar
province said Thursday that it intended to form a national party to
oppose insurgents such as Al Qaeda in Iraq and reengage with Iraq's
political process.
The announcement came after 200 sheiks said to represent 50 tribes met
here and agreed to form a provincial sheiks council and hold the first
convention in May of their new party, called Iraq Awakening. Sheiks
from three other provinces will attend, organizers said.
The driving force behind the new party, Sheik Abdul-Sattar abu Risha,
said in an interview that the tribal leaders would be pushing a slate
of candidates in Al Anbar provincial elections later this year, as
well as in the next round of national parliamentary balloting,
scheduled for 2009.
One purpose of the party, Sattar said, is to promote a better image of
American-led forces "to the Iraqis here." He added that the tribes
also would participate in a U.S.-backed effort to reestablish a court
system in Ramadi, the provincial capital. [end quoting]
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-sheiks20apr20,1,7969226.story?coll=la-headlines-world
Voting to authorize it is one thing. Mismanaging it and losing it is
another.
During and after the allied invasion of France in 1944, there was a
lot of mismanagement that could have led pessimists to believe the war
was lost. The D-Day landing was a disaster for US troops. And later,
the Battle of the Bulge cost the lives of 16,000 US troops in just a
few weeks. In today's political climate, the anti-war crowd would have
been telling us the war was lost and calling for the withdrawal of our
troops.
Um .... okay. The French were the ones who were invaded, and they
had a strong ally who was willing to come to their aid. So, using that as
an analogy, Iraq's (muslim?) allies will help them to defeat the U.S.
Nice job!
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: As Iraqi troops stand up, we'll keep standing up ... |
23 Apr 2007 07:06:44 PM |
|
|
On Apr 23, 2:38 pm, Woodswun <woods...@tepidmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 09:53:55 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
On Apr 23, 7:33 am, Marvin The Paranoid Android
<marvinparanoidandr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
On Apr 21, 1:26 pm, Marvin The Paranoid Android
<marvinparanoidandr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
How times change.
Yesterday's talking points are todays embarassments.
Reid is right -- the war is lost. Bring 'em home.
By the way, Marvin, the legality of removing Saddam from power was
addressed by Senator Reid when he voted to authorize the use of
military force in Iraq:
HARRY REID: "We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that
Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in
further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass
destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal
constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and
justifies resumption of the armed conflict." Senator Harry Reid (D.
Nevada) addressing the US Senate, October 9, 2002, Congressional
Record, p. S10145
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page...
A lot of Dems voted for the war. They did so out of post 9-11 fear
and twisted intel or they just wanted to hand Bush enough rope that'd
he hang himself.
Did you notice Senator Reid addressed the legality of removing Saddam
from power?
The war is lost.
Not necessarily. There are hopeful signs for those who remain
optimistic. Of course those who were never optimistic will ignore
those signs.
Iraqi tribal chiefs forming an anti-insurgent party
By Chris Kraul, Times Staff Writer
April 20, 2007
RAMADI, IRAQ - A group of Sunni tribal leaders in beleaguered Al Anbar
province said Thursday that it intended to form a national party to
oppose insurgents such as Al Qaeda in Iraq and reengage with Iraq's
political process.
The announcement came after 200 sheiks said to represent 50 tribes met
here and agreed to form a provincial sheiks council and hold the first
convention in May of their new party, called Iraq Awakening. Sheiks
from three other provinces will attend, organizers said.
The driving force behind the new party, Sheik Abdul-Sattar abu Risha,
said in an interview that the tribal leaders would be pushing a slate
of candidates in Al Anbar provincial elections later this year, as
well as in the next round of national parliamentary balloting,
scheduled for 2009.
One purpose of the party, Sattar said, is to promote a better image of
American-led forces "to the Iraqis here." He added that the tribes
also would participate in a U.S.-backed effort to reestablish a court
system in Ramadi, the provincial capital. [end quoting]
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-sheiks20apr20,1,7...
Voting to authorize it is one thing. Mismanaging it and losing it is
another.
During and after the allied invasion of France in 1944, there was a
lot of mismanagement that could have led pessimists to believe the war
was lost. The D-Day landing was a disaster for US troops. And later,
the Battle of the Bulge cost the lives of 16,000 US troops in just a
few weeks. In today's political climate, the anti-war crowd would have
been telling us the war was lost and calling for the withdrawal of our
troops.
Um .... okay. The French were the ones who were invaded, and they
had a strong ally who was willing to come to their aid. So, using that as
an analogy, Iraq's (muslim?) allies will help them to defeat the U.S.
Nice job!
Uh, I merely pointed out that mismanagement happens in all wars. That
was my comparison, not this convoluted imaginary comparison you
created.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: As Iraqi troops stand up, we'll keep standing up ... |
23 Apr 2007 08:26:11 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 17:06:44 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
On Apr 23, 2:38 pm, Woodswun <woods...@tepidmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 09:53:55 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
On Apr 23, 7:33 am, Marvin The Paranoid Android
<marvinparanoidandr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
On Apr 21, 1:26 pm, Marvin The Paranoid Android
<marvinparanoidandr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
How times change.
Yesterday's talking points are todays embarassments.
Reid is right -- the war is lost. Bring 'em home.
By the way, Marvin, the legality of removing Saddam from power was
addressed by Senator Reid when he voted to authorize the use of
military force in Iraq:
HARRY REID: "We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that
Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in
further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass
destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal
constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and
justifies resumption of the armed conflict." Senator Harry Reid (D.
Nevada) addressing the US Senate, October 9, 2002, Congressional
Record, p. S10145
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page...
A lot of Dems voted for the war. They did so out of post 9-11 fear
and twisted intel or they just wanted to hand Bush enough rope that'd
he hang himself.
Did you notice Senator Reid addressed the legality of removing Saddam
from power?
The war is lost.
Not necessarily. There are hopeful signs for those who remain
optimistic. Of course those who were never optimistic will ignore
those signs.
Iraqi tribal chiefs forming an anti-insurgent party
By Chris Kraul, Times Staff Writer
April 20, 2007
RAMADI, IRAQ - A group of Sunni tribal leaders in beleaguered Al Anbar
province said Thursday that it intended to form a national party to
oppose insurgents such as Al Qaeda in Iraq and reengage with Iraq's
political process.
The announcement came after 200 sheiks said to represent 50 tribes met
here and agreed to form a provincial sheiks council and hold the first
convention in May of their new party, called Iraq Awakening. Sheiks
from three other provinces will attend, organizers said.
The driving force behind the new party, Sheik Abdul-Sattar abu Risha,
said in an interview that the tribal leaders would be pushing a slate
of candidates in Al Anbar provincial elections later this year, as
well as in the next round of national parliamentary balloting,
scheduled for 2009.
One purpose of the party, Sattar said, is to promote a better image of
American-led forces "to the Iraqis here." He added that the tribes
also would participate in a U.S.-backed effort to reestablish a court
system in Ramadi, the provincial capital. [end quoting]
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-sheiks20apr20,1,7...
Voting to authorize it is one thing. Mismanaging it and losing it is
another.
During and after the allied invasion of France in 1944, there was a
lot of mismanagement that could have led pessimists to believe the war
was lost. The D-Day landing was a disaster for US troops. And later,
the Battle of the Bulge cost the lives of 16,000 US troops in just a
few weeks. In today's political climate, the anti-war crowd would have
been telling us the war was lost and calling for the withdrawal of our
troops.
Um .... okay. The French were the ones who were invaded, and they
had a strong ally who was willing to come to their aid. So, using that as
an analogy, Iraq's (muslim?) allies will help them to defeat the U.S.
Nice job!
Uh, I merely pointed out that mismanagement happens in all wars. That
was my comparison, not this convoluted imaginary comparison you
created.
There wasn't "a lot of mismanagement" in France. They built all their
defenses into a wall that the Germans went around, so they were completely
defenseless. That's one strategical error.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: As Iraqi troops stand up, we'll keep standing up ... |
24 Apr 2007 11:25:58 PM |
|
|
Woodswun <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in article
(null) :
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 21:26:10 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
On Apr 23, 6:26 pm, Woodswun <woods...@tepidmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 17:06:44 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
On Apr 23, 2:38 pm, Woodswun <woods...@tepidmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 09:53:55 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
On Apr 23, 7:33 am, Marvin The Paranoid Android
<marvinparanoidandr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
On Apr 21, 1:26 pm, Marvin The Paranoid Android
<marvinparanoidandr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
How times change.
Yesterday's talking points are todays embarassments.
Reid is right -- the war is lost. Bring 'em home.
By the way, Marvin, the legality of removing Saddam from power was
addressed by Senator Reid when he voted to authorize the use of
military force in Iraq:
HARRY REID: "We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that
Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in
further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass
destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal
constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and
justifies resumption of the armed conflict." Senator Harry Reid (D.
Nevada) addressing the US Senate, October 9, 2002, Congressional
Record, p. S10145
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page...
A lot of Dems voted for the war. They did so out of post 9-11 fear
and twisted intel or they just wanted to hand Bush enough rope that'd
he hang himself.
Did you notice Senator Reid addressed the legality of removing Saddam
from power?
The war is lost.
Not necessarily. There are hopeful signs for those who remain
optimistic. Of course those who were never optimistic will ignore
those signs.
Iraqi tribal chiefs forming an anti-insurgent party
By Chris Kraul, Times Staff Writer
April 20, 2007
RAMADI, IRAQ - A group of Sunni tribal leaders in beleaguered Al Anbar
province said Thursday that it intended to form a national party to
oppose insurgents such as Al Qaeda in Iraq and reengage with Iraq's
political process.
The announcement came after 200 sheiks said to represent 50 tribes met
here and agreed to form a provincial sheiks council and hold the first
convention in May of their new party, called Iraq Awakening. Sheiks
from three other provinces will attend, organizers said.
The driving force behind the new party, Sheik Abdul-Sattar abu Risha,
said in an interview that the tribal leaders would be pushing a slate
of candidates in Al Anbar provincial elections later this year, as
well as in the next round of national parliamentary balloting,
scheduled for 2009.
One purpose of the party, Sattar said, is to promote a better image of
American-led forces "to the Iraqis here." He added that the tribes
also would participate in a U.S.-backed effort to reestablish a court
system in Ramadi, the provincial capital. [end quoting]
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-sheiks20apr20,1,7...
Voting to authorize it is one thing. Mismanaging it and losing it is
another.
During and after the allied invasion of France in 1944, there was a
lot of mismanagement that could have led pessimists to believe the war
was lost. The D-Day landing was a disaster for US troops. And later,
the Battle of the Bulge cost the lives of 16,000 US troops in just a
few weeks. In today's political climate, the anti-war crowd would have
been telling us the war was lost and calling for the withdrawal of our
troops.
Um .... okay. The French were the ones who were invaded, and they
had a strong ally who was willing to come to their aid. So, using that as
an analogy, Iraq's (muslim?) allies will help them to defeat the U.S.
Nice job!
Uh, I merely pointed out that mismanagement happens in all wars. That
was my comparison, not this convoluted imaginary comparison you
created.
There wasn't "a lot of mismanagement" in France. They built all their
defenses into a wall that the Germans went around, so they were completely
defenseless. That's one strategical error.
I was talking about the D-Day invasion of France, not the German
invasion of France.
So, the U.S. has a long history of mismanaging wars. Thanks for pointing
that out.
Of course you're either missing, or ignoring, the larger point. Even
with the mistakes, we didn't quit -- did we? We didn't put up the
white flag and surrender, which is what the Democrats in Congress are
trying to do right now. Thank God today's Democrats were not in charge
during World War II. They'd have surrendered.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: As Iraqi troops stand up, we'll keep standing up ... |
25 Apr 2007 04:25:24 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:25:58 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in article
(null) :
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 21:26:10 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
On Apr 23, 6:26 pm, Woodswun <woods...@tepidmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 17:06:44 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
On Apr 23, 2:38 pm, Woodswun <woods...@tepidmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 09:53:55 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
On Apr 23, 7:33 am, Marvin The Paranoid Android
<marvinparanoidandr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
On Apr 21, 1:26 pm, Marvin The Paranoid Android
<marvinparanoidandr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
How times change.
Yesterday's talking points are todays embarassments.
Reid is right -- the war is lost. Bring 'em home.
By the way, Marvin, the legality of removing Saddam from power was
addressed by Senator Reid when he voted to authorize the use of
military force in Iraq:
HARRY REID: "We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that
Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in
further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass
destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal
constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and
justifies resumption of the armed conflict." Senator Harry Reid (D.
Nevada) addressing the US Senate, October 9, 2002, Congressional
Record, p. S10145
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page...
A lot of Dems voted for the war. They did so out of post 9-11 fear
and twisted intel or they just wanted to hand Bush enough rope that'd
he hang himself.
Did you notice Senator Reid addressed the legality of removing Saddam
from power?
The war is lost.
Not necessarily. There are hopeful signs for those who remain
optimistic. Of course those who were never optimistic will ignore
those signs.
Iraqi tribal chiefs forming an anti-insurgent party
By Chris Kraul, Times Staff Writer
April 20, 2007
RAMADI, IRAQ - A group of Sunni tribal leaders in beleaguered Al Anbar
province said Thursday that it intended to form a national party to
oppose insurgents such as Al Qaeda in Iraq and reengage with Iraq's
political process.
The announcement came after 200 sheiks said to represent 50 tribes met
here and agreed to form a provincial sheiks council and hold the first
convention in May of their new party, called Iraq Awakening. Sheiks
from three other provinces will attend, organizers said.
The driving force behind the new party, Sheik Abdul-Sattar abu Risha,
said in an interview that the tribal leaders would be pushing a slate
of candidates in Al Anbar provincial elections later this year, as
well as in the next round of national parliamentary balloting,
scheduled for 2009.
One purpose of the party, Sattar said, is to promote a better image of
American-led forces "to the Iraqis here." He added that the tribes
also would participate in a U.S.-backed effort to reestablish a court
system in Ramadi, the provincial capital. [end quoting]
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-sheiks20apr20,1,7...
Voting to authorize it is one thing. Mismanaging it and losing it is
another.
During and after the allied invasion of France in 1944, there was a
lot of mismanagement that could have led pessimists to believe the war
was lost. The D-Day landing was a disaster for US troops. And later,
the Battle of the Bulge cost the lives of 16,000 US troops in just a
few weeks. In today's political climate, the anti-war crowd would have
been telling us the war was lost and calling for the withdrawal of our
troops.
Um .... okay. The French were the ones who were invaded, and they
had a strong ally who was willing to come to their aid. So, using that as
an analogy, Iraq's (muslim?) allies will help them to defeat the U.S.
Nice job!
Uh, I merely pointed out that mismanagement happens in all wars. That
was my comparison, not this convoluted imaginary comparison you
created.
There wasn't "a lot of mismanagement" in France. They built all their
defenses into a wall that the Germans went around, so they were completely
defenseless. That's one strategical error.
I was talking about the D-Day invasion of France, not the German
invasion of France.
So, the U.S. has a long history of mismanaging wars. Thanks for pointing
that out.
Of course you're either missing, or ignoring, the larger point. Even
with the mistakes, we didn't quit -- did we? We didn't put up the
white flag and surrender, which is what the Democrats in Congress are
trying to do right now. Thank God today's Democrats were not in charge
during World War II. They'd have surrendered.
I'm not missing anything. You think the Unites States military has a long
history of screwing up, and that invading forces should be fought
off, no matter what.
Seriously, none of us would ever have expected to see you turn around and
see the current situation in Iraq from the Iraqi point of view!
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: As Iraqi troops stand up, we'll keep standing up ... |
25 Apr 2007 08:09:55 PM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, Woodswun
<woodswun@tepidmail.com> Spat the Words
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:25:58 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in article
(null) :
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 21:26:10 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
On Apr 23, 6:26 pm, Woodswun <woods...@tepidmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 17:06:44 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
On Apr 23, 2:38 pm, Woodswun <woods...@tepidmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 09:53:55 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
On Apr 23, 7:33 am, Marvin The Paranoid Android
<marvinparanoidandr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
On Apr 21, 1:26 pm, Marvin The Paranoid Android
<marvinparanoidandr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
How times change.
Yesterday's talking points are todays embarassments.
Reid is right -- the war is lost. Bring 'em home.
By the way, Marvin, the legality of removing Saddam from
power was addressed by Senator Reid when he voted to
authorize the use of military force in Iraq:
HARRY REID: "We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an
agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world
that it would not engage in further aggression and that it
would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has
refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a
breach of the armistice which renders it void and
justifies resumption of the armed conflict." Senator Harry
Reid (D. Nevada) addressing the US Senate, October 9, 2002,
Congressional Record, p. S10145
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?
position=a
ll&page...
A lot of Dems voted for the war. They did so out of post 9-11
fear and twisted intel or they just wanted to hand Bush enough
rope that'd he hang himself.
Did you notice Senator Reid addressed the legality of removing
Saddam from power?
The war is lost.
Not necessarily. There are hopeful signs for those who remain
optimistic. Of course those who were never optimistic will
ignore those signs.
Iraqi tribal chiefs forming an anti-insurgent party
By Chris Kraul, Times Staff Writer
April 20, 2007
RAMADI, IRAQ - A group of Sunni tribal leaders in beleaguered
Al Anbar province said Thursday that it intended to form a
national party to oppose insurgents such as Al Qaeda in Iraq
and reengage with Iraq's political process.
The announcement came after 200 sheiks said to represent 50
tribes met here and agreed to form a provincial sheiks council
and hold the first convention in May of their new party, called
Iraq Awakening. Sheiks from three other provinces will attend,
organizers said.
The driving force behind the new party, Sheik Abdul-Sattar abu
Risha, said in an interview that the tribal leaders would be
pushing a slate of candidates in Al Anbar provincial elections
later this year, as well as in the next round of national
parliamentary balloting, scheduled for 2009.
One purpose of the party, Sattar said, is to promote a better
image of American-led forces "to the Iraqis here." He added
that the tribes also would participate in a U.S.-backed effort
to reestablish a court system in Ramadi, the provincial
capital. [end quoting]
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-
sheiks20apr20
,1,7...
Voting to authorize it is one thing. Mismanaging it and
losing it is another.
During and after the allied invasion of France in 1944, there
was a lot of mismanagement that could have led pessimists to
believe the war was lost. The D-Day landing was a disaster for
US troops. And later, the Battle of the Bulge cost the lives of
16,000 US troops in just a few weeks. In today's political
climate, the anti-war crowd would have been telling us the war
was lost and calling for the withdrawal of our troops.
Um .... okay. The French were the ones who were invaded, and they
had a strong ally who was willing to come to their aid. So,
using that as an analogy, Iraq's (muslim?) allies will help them
to defeat the U.S. Nice job!
Uh, I merely pointed out that mismanagement happens in all wars.
That was my comparison, not this convoluted imaginary comparison
you created.
There wasn't "a lot of mismanagement" in France. They built all
their defenses into a wall that the Germans went around, so they
were completely defenseless. That's one strategical error.
I was talking about the D-Day invasion of France, not the German
invasion of France.
So, the U.S. has a long history of mismanaging wars. Thanks for
pointing that out.
Of course you're either missing, or ignoring, the larger point. Even
with the mistakes, we didn't quit -- did we? We didn't put up the
white flag and surrender, which is what the Democrats in Congress are
trying to do right now. Thank God today's Democrats were not in charge
during World War II. They'd have surrendered.
I'm not missing anything. You think the Unites States military has a
long history of screwing up, and that invading forces should be fought
off, no matter what.
Seriously, none of us would ever have expected to see you turn around
and see the current situation in Iraq from the Iraqi point of view!
It's so nice that stevie can now put himself in the Iraqis' shoes.
Iraqi politicians say government is failing
http://www.inform.kz/showarticle.php?lang=eng&id=150836
US Says Withdrawal in Iraqi Politicians' Hands
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/134888.html
Here's one I really like. It's from General Petraeus
"David Petraeus, and other defense officials try to convince
lawmakers that a timetable would push Iraq into chaos."
Oh really General Petraeus ? You mean, like, more chaos than
it's in now ? Just exactly how do you define chaos ?
Surging chaos in US-occupied Iraq
http://www.socialistworker.org/2007-1/629/629_16_Iraq.shtml
Woods
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: As Iraqi troops stand up, we'll keep standing up ... |
25 Apr 2007 10:28:18 PM |
|
|
Perseid <eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, Woodswun
<woodswun@tepidmail.com> Spat the Words
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:25:58 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in article
(null) :
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 21:26:10 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
On Apr 23, 6:26 pm, Woodswun <woods...@tepidmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 17:06:44 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
On Apr 23, 2:38 pm, Woodswun <woods...@tepidmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 09:53:55 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
On Apr 23, 7:33 am, Marvin The Paranoid Android
<marvinparanoidandr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
On Apr 21, 1:26 pm, Marvin The Paranoid Android
<marvinparanoidandr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
How times change.
Yesterday's talking points are todays embarassments.
Reid is right -- the war is lost. Bring 'em home.
By the way, Marvin, the legality of removing Saddam from
power was addressed by Senator Reid when he voted to
authorize the use of military force in Iraq:
HARRY REID: "We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an
agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world
that it would not engage in further aggression and that it
would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has
refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a
breach of the armistice which renders it void and
justifies resumption of the armed conflict." Senator Harry
Reid (D. Nevada) addressing the US Senate, October 9, 2002,
Congressional Record, p. S10145
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?
position=a
ll&page...
A lot of Dems voted for the war. They did so out of post 9-11
fear and twisted intel or they just wanted to hand Bush enough
rope that'd he hang himself.
Did you notice Senator Reid addressed the legality of removing
Saddam from power?
The war is lost.
Not necessarily. There are hopeful signs for those who remain
optimistic. Of course those who were never optimistic will
ignore those signs.
Iraqi tribal chiefs forming an anti-insurgent party
By Chris Kraul, Times Staff Writer
April 20, 2007
RAMADI, IRAQ - A group of Sunni tribal leaders in beleaguered
Al Anbar province said Thursday that it intended to form a
national party to oppose insurgents such as Al Qaeda in Iraq
and reengage with Iraq's political process.
The announcement came after 200 sheiks said to represent 50
tribes met here and agreed to form a provincial sheiks council
and hold the first convention in May of their new party, called
Iraq Awakening. Sheiks from three other provinces will attend,
organizers said.
The driving force behind the new party, Sheik Abdul-Sattar abu
Risha, said in an interview that the tribal leaders would be
pushing a slate of candidates in Al Anbar provincial elections
later this year, as well as in the next round of national
parliamentary balloting, scheduled for 2009.
One purpose of the party, Sattar said, is to promote a better
image of American-led forces "to the Iraqis here." He added
that the tribes also would participate in a U.S.-backed effort
to reestablish a court system in Ramadi, the provincial
capital. [end quoting]
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-
sheiks20apr20
,1,7...
Voting to authorize it is one thing. Mismanaging it and
losing it is another.
During and after the allied invasion of France in 1944, there
was a lot of mismanagement that could have led pessimists to
believe the war was lost. The D-Day landing was a disaster for
US troops. And later, the Battle of the Bulge cost the lives of
16,000 US troops in just a few weeks. In today's political
climate, the anti-war crowd would have been telling us the war
was lost and calling for the withdrawal of our troops.
Um .... okay. The French were the ones who were invaded, and they
had a strong ally who was willing to come to their aid. So,
using that as an analogy, Iraq's (muslim?) allies will help them
to defeat the U.S. Nice job!
Uh, I merely pointed out that mismanagement happens in all wars.
That was my comparison, not this convoluted imaginary comparison
you created.
There wasn't "a lot of mismanagement" in France. They built all
their defenses into a wall that the Germans went around, so they
were completely defenseless. That's one strategical error.
I was talking about the D-Day invasion of France, not the German
invasion of France.
So, the U.S. has a long history of mismanaging wars. Thanks for
pointing that out.
Of course you're either missing, or ignoring, the larger point. Even
with the mistakes, we didn't quit -- did we? We didn't put up the
white flag and surrender, which is what the Democrats in Congress are
trying to do right now. Thank God today's Democrats were not in charge
during World War II. They'd have surrendered.
I'm not missing anything. You think the Unites States military has a
long history of screwing up, and that invading forces should be fought
off, no matter what.
Seriously, none of us would ever have expected to see you turn around
and see the current situation in Iraq from the Iraqi point of view!
It's so nice that stevie can now put himself in the Iraqis' shoes.
I've been doing it for quite some time now, randie. You're confused if
you think the terrorists you call "freedom fighters" represent the
Iraqi point of view.
Iraqi politicians say government is failing
http://www.inform.kz/showarticle.php?lang=eng&id=150836
You mean there's some difference of opinion within the Iraqi
Parliament? How shocking! Your article cites a couple of politicians
who complain that a government that is barely a year old is not
running perfectly smoothly. How shocking.
US Says Withdrawal in Iraqi Politicians' Hands
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/134888.html
I actually agree with this article. Thanks for posting it.
Here's one I really like. It's from General Petraeus
"David Petraeus, and other defense officials try to convince
lawmakers that a timetable would push Iraq into chaos."
Oh really General Petraeus ? You mean, like, more chaos than
it's in now ? Just exactly how do you define chaos ?
It could be a lot worse, and it will be if you have your way.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: As Iraqi troops stand up, we'll keep standing up ... |
23 Apr 2007 04:34:42 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 07:33:16 -0700, Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
On Apr 21, 1:26 pm, Marvin The Paranoid Android
<marvinparanoidandr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
How times change.
Yesterday's talking points are todays embarassments.
Reid is right -- the war is lost. Bring 'em home.
By the way, Marvin, the legality of removing Saddam from power was
addressed by Senator Reid when he voted to authorize the use of
military force in Iraq:
HARRY REID: "We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that
Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in
further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass
destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal
constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and
justifies resumption of the armed conflict." Senator Harry Reid (D.
Nevada) addressing the US Senate, October 9, 2002, Congressional
Record, p. S10145
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S10145&dbname=2002_record
A lot of Dems voted for the war. They did so out of post 9-11 fear
and twisted intel or they just wanted to hand Bush enough rope that'd
he hang himself.
The war is lost.
Voting to authorize it is one thing. Mismanaging it and losing it is
another.
Let's be clear on this - Congress voted to give Bush the authority to do
what was needed to be done for the security of the United States. They
did not declare War. This is *Bush's* war, not Congress' war.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: As Iraqi troops stand up, we'll keep standing up ... |
23 Apr 2007 07:04:13 PM |
|
|
On Apr 23, 2:34 pm, Woodswun <woods...@tepidmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 07:33:16 -0700, Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
On Apr 21, 1:26 pm, Marvin The Paranoid Android
<marvinparanoidandr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
How times change.
Yesterday's talking points are todays embarassments.
Reid is right -- the war is lost. Bring 'em home.
By the way, Marvin, the legality of removing Saddam from power was
addressed by Senator Reid when he voted to authorize the use of
military force in Iraq:
HARRY REID: "We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that
Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in
further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass
destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal
constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and
justifies resumption of the armed conflict." Senator Harry Reid (D.
Nevada) addressing the US Senate, October 9, 2002, Congressional
Record, p. S10145
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page...
A lot of Dems voted for the war. They did so out of post 9-11 fear
and twisted intel or they just wanted to hand Bush enough rope that'd
he hang himself.
The war is lost.
Voting to authorize it is one thing. Mismanaging it and losing it is
another.
Let's be clear on this - Congress voted to give Bush the authority to do
what was needed to be done for the security of the United States. They
did not declare War. This is *Bush's* war, not Congress' war.
Let's be even further clear on this -- Congress gave Bush
authorization to use military force in Iraq. That's what they voted
on, not some ambiguous creation of your imagination.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: As Iraqi troops stand up, we'll keep standing up ... |
23 Apr 2007 08:24:54 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 17:04:13 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
On Apr 23, 2:34 pm, Woodswun <woods...@tepidmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 07:33:16 -0700, Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
On Apr 21, 1:26 pm, Marvin The Paranoid Android
<marvinparanoidandr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
How times change.
Yesterday's talking points are todays embarassments.
Reid is right -- the war is lost. Bring 'em home.
By the way, Marvin, the legality of removing Saddam from power was
addressed by Senator Reid when he voted to authorize the use of
military force in Iraq:
HARRY REID: "We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that
Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in
further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass
destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal
constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and
justifies resumption of the armed conflict." Senator Harry Reid (D.
Nevada) addressing the US Senate, October 9, 2002, Congressional
Record, p. S10145
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page...
A lot of Dems voted for the war. They did so out of post 9-11 fear
and twisted intel or they just wanted to hand Bush enough rope that'd
he hang himself.
The war is lost.
Voting to authorize it is one thing. Mismanaging it and losing it is
another.
Let's be clear on this - Congress voted to give Bush the authority to do
what was needed to be done for the security of the United States. They
did not declare War. This is *Bush's* war, not Congress' war.
Let's be even further clear on this -- Congress gave Bush
authorization to use military force in Iraq. That's what they voted
on, not some ambiguous creation of your imagination.
If Bush needed to, yes, but the decision to invade was Bush's - he
declared war, NOT Congress.
Woods
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
