After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, Aidan <awe...@gmail.com> Spat the
Words

Maybe you
haven't noticed the news articles I posted recently, in which some
Sunni sheiks are getting together to stand up against Al Qaeda in
Iraq.

Standing up to al qaeda isn't going to end Sunni vs. Shiite sectarian
violence, is it?

Latest intelligence indicates al-qaeda doesn't really exist.
They were a made-up group, made up by the neocons to justify
mobilizing on a war footing.

After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, Aidan <aweraw@gmail.com> Spat the
Words

Maybe you
haven't noticed the news articles I posted recently, in which some
Sunni sheiks are getting together to stand up against Al Qaeda in
Iraq.

Standing up to al qaeda isn't going to end Sunni vs. Shiite sectarian
violence, is it?

Latest intelligence indicates al-qaeda doesn't really exist.

They were a made-up group, made up by the neocons to justify
mobilizing on a war footing. Al-qaeda was a label originally
given to Usama Bin Laden, AlZawiri, and a handful of other
radical islamists who had never even heard of the term until
after 9-11 when they found out this is what the US government
was calling them.

Now it's a catch-all phrase to refer to any radical muslim,
and of course it's a reason to stay in Iraq.

It's encouraging that Bush just spent $1 trillion US dollars
to go after a dozen radical islamic militants.

On Apr 25, 9:48 pm, Aidan <awe...@gmail.com> wrote:

Steven Douglas wrote:

Aidan <awe...@gmail.com> wrote in article
<f0mfa3$5c...@news-02.connect.com.au> :

Steven Douglas wrote:

On Apr 24, 3:40 am, Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:

After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, Aidan <awe...@gmail.com>
Spat
the Words

Steven Douglas wrote:

On Apr 23, 9:35 pm, eric <ericdavis...@gmail.com> wrote:

Doesn't look like Redneck Yank Yahoos could fight there way out
of
a paper bag now.

The Democrats in Congress have their white flags out, ready to
wave
for all to see and prove you correct.

I think this is why you cop so much flak here, Stevie.
You're always calling out others on their exclusive criticism of
Bush,
but it seems you're just the opposite: you exclusively criticize
'the
dems'. You never say a bad word about republicans, unless you're
absolutely cornered and need a way out.

Stevie will defend Bush and his policies tooth and nail, yet
he doesn't even know why he's doing it. This is true stupidity.

I don't defend Bush and his policies tooth and nail. I have said
repeatedly that knowing what I know now, I wouldn't have supported
the use of military force in Iraq. But we're there now, and I don't
think it's in our best interest to hand Iraq over to the
terrorists.

There you go again... 'OUR' best interest. It wasn't in YOUR best
interest to go there in the first place, so I don't see how staying
there can be. It doesn't even seem like it was in the Iraqi's best
interest either, being that more have died in fighting since the US
occupation began, than died under Saddam's regime, and are now
actually
more likely to die simply walking the streets than under Saddam.
Sure,
Saddam was not a nice guy... neither is Bush.

It's the terrorists who are killing Iraqis walking the streets,
haven't you noticed?

Who are the terrorists, and were they a problem before you invaded?

Answers: Mostly Iraqi's, and NO!

The latest big attacks in Iraq, with innocent Iraqis as targets, were
conducted by Al Qaeda in Iraq. There is a growing movement between the
two sects for a reconciliation. But Al Qaeda doesn't want that to
happen, so their attack on the Iraqi Parliament was a message to
anyone who is thinking about reconcilation. Al Qaeda attacks in Iraq
are intended to continue the chaos and get people like you to think
any thought of reconcilation is hopeless. And, unfortunately, it seems
to be working on you.

The problems with 'terrorists' are the direct results of destabilizing
Iraq under the guise of a liberation operation.

Yes, it was such a peaceful paradise under Saddam Hussein, where 5000
children per month were dying due to Saddam's corrupt handling of the
food and medicine from the corrupt UN Oil for Food program.

And if we put up the white flag now, the
terrorists will destroy the democratically elected government in Iraq
and install their own tyranny.

Looking back over Iraq's modern history, there have always been groups
wanting to over-throw which ever government is in power at the time,
many of which have had the capability to actually pull it off.

It's pretty much inevitable that the fighting is going to continue
indefinitely after the US leaves.

Not necessarily. I wish you'd pay attention to the news out of Iraq
that 200 Sunni sheiks are getting together to take a stance against Al
Qaeda, and seek a reconciliation with the Iraqi government. Maybe you
wouldn't be such a pessimist (or are you an optimist) that Iraq is
hopeless.

As soon as the US leaves, neighboring
countries will swoop in and back their favored militant group; Unless
you want to stay there permanently, remaining isn't going to change
much.

We've had a presence in Europe (after World War II) for more than 60
years. We've been in South Korea for more than 50 years. We're still
in the former Yugoslavia, and probably will be for a long time. So
what?

I would actually say that it's inevitable that the state of Iraq
will eventually dissolve, and be absorbed by Saudi Arabia, Iran and
Turkey. The US stays, because it's in their interest to have Iraq
remain a separate state (divide and conquer theory), however, the fact
the citizens are fighting amongst each other and will not mix
neighborhoods, along religious and ethnic lines, indicates they don't
believe it is in their best interest to remain a monolithic state.

Doesn't matter what the citizens appear to want though... that's not in
YOUR best interest. Why bother trying to address the reasons they
choose to fight each other - just label them terrorists, kill 'em, and
move on to the next town.

The terrorists are the people who are targeting and killing innocent
Iraqis. I think they should be stopped. Obviously you think otherwise.

The real beneficiaries of this war have been American corporations.
They've some how managed to convince average Americans that their
interests are one and the same. You're proof of this. That you
think
it's in your interests to remain there, gaining national debt,
wasting
tax money and losing lives, is the truly flabbergasting aspect or
your
stance.

I've stated the reason for my stance.

So you don't deny that the biggest beneficiaries of the invasion have
been US corporations?

I just heard the other day that Haliburton is losing money in Iraq.
That should make a few leftists happy.

I don't want to put up the white

flag and hand the terrorists the victory their hoping for.

I know you don't want to put up the white flag; you have to much pride
invested in your country's status as a super power.

...and these 'terrorists' you keep referring to are in fact not part of
a single united front you can defeat and achieve victory over. They
are
made up of many disparate groups who rally to drive out a foreign
occupier.

Their larger goal is to destroy the new Iraqi government, and
institute their own tyranny. Most Iraqis did not vote for that, but
voted instead for their democratically elected government.

Much of the time, they're fighting each other... they aren't
united in their views, so there's no one way for you to 'win' in Iraq.

There are ways you can make one group happier than another, and that
just means that the group who feels they got the raw deal will rally
against those they saw as being allied with the US.

The US __cannot__ achieve 'victory' in Iraq, without killing a hefty
percentage of the population. Unless you're applying some bizarre
definition of victory, I really don't see how you can envision a
'victory' in Iraq...

A "victory" in Iraq would mean allowing the people who voted for the
democratic government to keep it, and prevent the terrorists from
destroying that government.

Obviously you disagree, and think Iraq should belong to the
terrorists.

You've handed it to the terrorists. You being there gives all the
usually disparate militant groups a cause to rally around. The
longer
you stay there, the more ***** they become, the more their
resolve
hardens, the more recruits they gain. Thus, the only way you can
win is
to kill them all... killing citizens who believe they are defending
their country and way of life against an invading army; but who
cares,
it's in YOUR best interest to do that, right?

Why are you still making that old tired argument? Don't you realize a
majority of Iraqis voted in favor of their democratic government? The
fact a tiny minority of terrorists don't want that government and
would rather institute a dictatorial tyranny is okay with you?

You call numerous poll results showing over 50% of Iraqi's wanting to
end the US occupation a 'tiny minority'? How odd.

Cite the poll that shows a majority of Iraqis want an immediate
withdrawal.

It is
the Iraqi government that is fighting the terrorists you think are
the
"citizens" defending their country.

They certainly are citizens. Doesn't make what they do right, but they
are citizens of the country in which they live.

Not if they're outsiders there to inflame the sectarian violence
(especially now, when there is hope for reconciliation). That's what
the two most recent largest attacks were about.

And the terrorists are murdering
innocent Iraqis,

Sunni's killing Shiite's. Shiite's killing Sunni's. Iraqi's killing
Iraqi's. American's killing Iraqi's. Iraqi's killing American's.
*****, American's killing American's!

You left out Al Qaeda killing innocent Iraqis. Why are you so anxious
to ignore that?

Who are the terrorists again? Oh, the only 'terrorists' here are the
groups that the US chooses to apply the label to... other than that,
they are all separate groups of people fighting for a cause they
believe
in. Your terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. Your freedom
fighters are his terrorists.

Fine, you can join randie and WH in calling Al Qaeda terrorists, who
want only to destroy the new democracy in Iraq, "freedom fighters".
It's a strange definition of "freedom", isn't it?

which somehow causes you to think they're defending
their country??? What kind of twisted thinking is that?

Not mine. If they didn't think they were defending their country/way
of
life, why would they be doing it otherwise, eh Stevie? For brownie
points?

I can't believe how ignorant you are. Truly.

Maybe you
haven't noticed the news articles I posted recently, in which some
Sunni sheiks are getting together to stand up against Al Qaeda in
Iraq.

Standing up to al qaeda isn't going to end Sunni vs. Shiite sectarian
violence, is it?

It will if the 200 Sunni sheiks (as mentioned in the news, in an
article I have posted previously) are successful in their endeavor.

But you somehow think Al Qaeda in Iraq is fighting for their
country? Incredible.

Oh, I must have missed the report stating that all the Shiite vs Sunni
sectarian violence in Iraq was being caused by Al Qaeda. Here I am,
thinking that aside from the invasion it's mostly been a civil conflict
with the US stuck in the middle, when really it was just those Al Qaeda
scamps giving the US a hard time! How silly of me!

That's the first thing you've said in a long time that makes sense.
Congratulations. Now start reading the news and stop with the ignorant
BS.

On Apr 25, 9:48 pm, Aidan <awe...@gmail.com> wrote:

Steven Douglas wrote:

Aidan <awe...@gmail.com> wrote in article
<f0mfa3$5c...@news-02.connect.com.au> :

Steven Douglas wrote:

On Apr 24, 3:40 am, Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:

After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, Aidan <awe...@gmail.com> Spat
the Words

Steven Douglas wrote:

On Apr 23, 9:35 pm, eric <ericdavis...@gmail.com> wrote:

Doesn't look like Redneck Yank Yahoos could fight there way out of
a paper bag now.

The Democrats in Congress have their white flags out, ready to wave
for all to see and prove you correct.

I think this is why you cop so much flak here, Stevie.
You're always calling out others on their exclusive criticism of Bush,
but it seems you're just the opposite: you exclusively criticize 'the
dems'. You never say a bad word about republicans, unless you're
absolutely cornered and need a way out.

Stevie will defend Bush and his policies tooth and nail, yet
he doesn't even know why he's doing it. This is true stupidity.

I don't defend Bush and his policies tooth and nail. I have said
repeatedly that knowing what I know now, I wouldn't have supported
the use of military force in Iraq. But we're there now, and I don't
think it's in our best interest to hand Iraq over to the terrorists.

There you go again... 'OUR' best interest. It wasn't in YOUR best
interest to go there in the first place, so I don't see how staying
there can be. It doesn't even seem like it was in the Iraqi's best
interest either, being that more have died in fighting since the US
occupation began, than died under Saddam's regime, and are now actually
more likely to die simply walking the streets than under Saddam. Sure,
Saddam was not a nice guy... neither is Bush.

It's the terrorists who are killing Iraqis walking the streets,
haven't you noticed?

Who are the terrorists, and were they a problem before you invaded?

Answers: Mostly Iraqi's, and NO!

The latest big attacks in Iraq, with innocent Iraqis as targets, were
conducted by Al Qaeda in Iraq. There is a growing movement between the
two sects for a reconciliation. But Al Qaeda doesn't want that to
happen, so their attack on the Iraqi Parliament was a message to
anyone who is thinking about reconcilation. Al Qaeda attacks in Iraq
are intended to continue the chaos and get people like you to think
any thought of reconcilation is hopeless. And, unfortunately, it seems
to be working on you.

The problems with 'terrorists' are the direct results of destabilizing
Iraq under the guise of a liberation operation.

Yes, it was such a peaceful paradise under Saddam Hussein, where 5000
children per month were dying due to Saddam's corrupt handling of the
food and medicine from the corrupt UN Oil for Food program.

And if we put up the white flag now, the
terrorists will destroy the democratically elected government in Iraq
and install their own tyranny.

Looking back over Iraq's modern history, there have always been groups
wanting to over-throw which ever government is in power at the time,
many of which have had the capability to actually pull it off.

It's pretty much inevitable that the fighting is going to continue
indefinitely after the US leaves.

Not necessarily. I wish you'd pay attention to the news out of Iraq
that 200 Sunni sheiks are getting together to take a stance against Al
Qaeda, and seek a reconciliation with the Iraqi government. Maybe you
wouldn't be such a pessimist (or are you an optimist) that Iraq is
hopeless.

As soon as the US leaves, neighboring
countries will swoop in and back their favored militant group; Unless
you want to stay there permanently, remaining isn't going to change
much.

We've had a presence in Europe (after World War II) for more than 60
years. We've been in South Korea for more than 50 years. We're still
in the former Yugoslavia, and probably will be for a long time. So
what?