Discussion:
OT: We are/are not winning in Iraq
(too old to reply)
GENOMEMAN
2004-02-16 13:44:50 UTC
Permalink
Read this excerpt from one of the leading member of Ansar al-Islam, Abu
Musab Zarqawi:

"We can pack up and leave and look for another land, just like what has
happened in so many lands of jihad," the memo states, according to the
Times. "Our enemy is growing stronger day after day, and its intelligence
information increases. ... By God, this is suffocation."

Full Text:

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040209-111042-9241r.htm

Personally, I think this letter shows they are desperate, and "packing up"
like so many libs want us to do, would allow the terrorists to declare
victory.

Discuss....
Chris Whealy
2004-02-16 13:52:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by GENOMEMAN
Personally, I think this letter shows they are desperate, and "packing up"
like so many libs want us to do, would allow the terrorists to declare
victory.
Discuss....
No, this is an audio NG.
--
The voice of ignorance speaks loud and long,
but the words of the wise are quiet and few.
--
John Shaughnessy
2004-02-16 14:23:51 UTC
Permalink
I posted this in an earlier thread, and this is the last I'm going to speak
on it here:

Just like the Palestinians have been "losing" for 50 years? Just like the
IRA "lost" the Troubles? Look what both have gained, and how much damage the
inflicted on their opponents. Unlike your typical John Wayne movie,
Terrorists don't care about conventional "win/lose" notions.


And you convieniently forget the daily US body count:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/02/16/sprj.nirq.main/index.html

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- An Iraqi child and two U.S. soldiers died in three
separate explosions Monday in Iraq, coalition and Iraqi officials said.

An explosion at an elementary school in the Khadimiya district of Baghdad
just before 3 p.m. ( 7 a.m. ET) Monday killed the child and critically
wounded two others, according to Iraqi Police Brigadier General Thamir
Sadoun.

The latest deaths bring the number of U.S. troops killed during Operation
Iraqi Freedom to 542 -- 376 under hostile circumstances, according to U.S.
military figures.

And what about this? Doesn't sound like they're on the run to me:

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/0204/14irattack.html

FALLUJAH, Iraq -- Guerrillas shouting "God is great" launched a bold
daylight assault on an Iraqi police station and security compound west of
Baghdad on Saturday, freeing prisoners and sparking a gunbattle that killed
21 people and wounded 33, police and hospital officials said.

The attackers freed 75 prisoners held at the station, killing the guards and
shooting open the cell doors, police Lt. Col. Jalal Sabri said. The
prisoners were criminals - most arrested for murder or theft - and none of
them were suspected of involvement in the anti-U.S. insurgency, Sabri said.











--
Learning funk bass? visit www.js3jazz.com/store.htm

"Speaking the Truth in times of Universal deceit is a revolutionary act." --
George Orwell
Post by GENOMEMAN
Read this excerpt from one of the leading member of Ansar al-Islam, Abu
"We can pack up and leave and look for another land, just like what has
happened in so many lands of jihad," the memo states, according to the
Times. "Our enemy is growing stronger day after day, and its intelligence
information increases. ... By God, this is suffocation."
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040209-111042-9241r.htm
Personally, I think this letter shows they are desperate, and "packing up"
like so many libs want us to do, would allow the terrorists to declare
victory.
Discuss....
GENOMEMAN
2004-02-16 14:38:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Shaughnessy
I posted this in an earlier thread, and this is the last I'm going to speak
Just like the Palestinians have been "losing" for 50 years?
Except the Iraqis aren't signing up for martyrdom like the terrorists wanted
them to. It says so right in his letter.

According to the Times - whose correspondent, Dexter Filkins, saw both the
Arabic original and a military translation, and "wrote down large parts of
the translation" - the letter is a sort of jihadist primal scream. It says
that the jihad against the Americans in Iraq is going badly. The Iraqis are
not signing up for martyrdom or jihad, they do not even permit the jihadis
to organize their terrorist attacks from local houses, and, worst of all,
the Americans are not afraid of the terrorists. With that charming neglect
of logic that seems to define much of the radical terrorist "mind," Zarkawi
says both that the Americans "are the biggest cowards that God has created,"
and that "America...has no intention of leaving, no matter how many wounded
nor how bloody it becomes."
Brad Johnson
2004-02-16 14:42:21 UTC
Permalink
Yes, this is clearly "almost" over.

How soon before it's "over", pd?

Brad
Subject: Re: We are/are not winning in Iraq
Date: 2/16/2004 9:23 AM Eastern Standard Time
I posted this in an earlier thread, and this is the last I'm going to speak
Just like the Palestinians have been "losing" for 50 years? Just like the
IRA "lost" the Troubles? Look what both have gained, and how much damage the
inflicted on their opponents. Unlike your typical John Wayne movie,
Terrorists don't care about conventional "win/lose" notions.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/02/16/sprj.nirq.main/index.html
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- An Iraqi child and two U.S. soldiers died in three
separate explosions Monday in Iraq, coalition and Iraqi officials said.
An explosion at an elementary school in the Khadimiya district of Baghdad
just before 3 p.m. ( 7 a.m. ET) Monday killed the child and critically
wounded two others, according to Iraqi Police Brigadier General Thamir
Sadoun.
The latest deaths bring the number of U.S. troops killed during Operation
Iraqi Freedom to 542 -- 376 under hostile circumstances, according to U.S.
military figures.
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/0204/14irattack.html
FALLUJAH, Iraq -- Guerrillas shouting "God is great" launched a bold
daylight assault on an Iraqi police station and security compound west of
Baghdad on Saturday, freeing prisoners and sparking a gunbattle that killed
21 people and wounded 33, police and hospital officials said.
The attackers freed 75 prisoners held at the station, killing the guards and
shooting open the cell doors, police Lt. Col. Jalal Sabri said. The
prisoners were criminals - most arrested for murder or theft - and none of
them were suspected of involvement in the anti-U.S. insurgency, Sabri said.
--
Learning funk bass? visit www.js3jazz.com/store.htm
"Speaking the Truth in times of Universal deceit is a revolutionary act." --
George Orwell
Post by GENOMEMAN
Read this excerpt from one of the leading member of Ansar al-Islam, Abu
"We can pack up and leave and look for another land, just like what has
happened in so many lands of jihad," the memo states, according to the
Times. "Our enemy is growing stronger day after day, and its intelligence
information increases. ... By God, this is suffocation."
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040209-111042-9241r.htm
Personally, I think this letter shows they are desperate, and "packing up"
like so many libs want us to do, would allow the terrorists to declare
victory.
Discuss....
DJ
2004-02-16 16:07:57 UTC
Permalink
Unlike your typical John Wayne movie,
Terrorists don't care about conventional "win/lose" notions.

...........and unlike your typical liberal weenies, we won't try to appease
them when they commit cold blooded murder.
Post by John Shaughnessy
I posted this in an earlier thread, and this is the last I'm going to speak
Just like the Palestinians have been "losing" for 50 years? Just like the
IRA "lost" the Troubles? Look what both have gained, and how much damage the
inflicted on their opponents. Unlike your typical John Wayne movie,
Terrorists don't care about conventional "win/lose" notions.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/02/16/sprj.nirq.main/index.html
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- An Iraqi child and two U.S. soldiers died in three
separate explosions Monday in Iraq, coalition and Iraqi officials said.
An explosion at an elementary school in the Khadimiya district of Baghdad
just before 3 p.m. ( 7 a.m. ET) Monday killed the child and critically
wounded two others, according to Iraqi Police Brigadier General Thamir
Sadoun.
The latest deaths bring the number of U.S. troops killed during Operation
Iraqi Freedom to 542 -- 376 under hostile circumstances, according to U.S.
military figures.
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/0204/14irattack.html
FALLUJAH, Iraq -- Guerrillas shouting "God is great" launched a bold
daylight assault on an Iraqi police station and security compound west of
Baghdad on Saturday, freeing prisoners and sparking a gunbattle that killed
21 people and wounded 33, police and hospital officials said.
The attackers freed 75 prisoners held at the station, killing the guards and
shooting open the cell doors, police Lt. Col. Jalal Sabri said. The
prisoners were criminals - most arrested for murder or theft - and none of
them were suspected of involvement in the anti-U.S. insurgency, Sabri said.
--
Learning funk bass? visit www.js3jazz.com/store.htm
"Speaking the Truth in times of Universal deceit is a revolutionary act." --
George Orwell
Post by GENOMEMAN
Read this excerpt from one of the leading member of Ansar al-Islam, Abu
"We can pack up and leave and look for another land, just like what has
happened in so many lands of jihad," the memo states, according to the
Times. "Our enemy is growing stronger day after day, and its
intelligence
Post by John Shaughnessy
Post by GENOMEMAN
information increases. ... By God, this is suffocation."
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040209-111042-9241r.htm
Personally, I think this letter shows they are desperate, and "packing up"
like so many libs want us to do, would allow the terrorists to declare
victory.
Discuss....
Dan Abrams
2004-02-16 16:36:28 UTC
Permalink
John,
You might find this site interesting:
http://www.militarycity.com/valor/honor.html
Dan
Post by John Shaughnessy
I posted this in an earlier thread, and this is the last I'm going to speak
Just like the Palestinians have been "losing" for 50 years? Just like the
IRA "lost" the Troubles? Look what both have gained, and how much damage the
inflicted on their opponents. Unlike your typical John Wayne movie,
Terrorists don't care about conventional "win/lose" notions.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/02/16/sprj.nirq.main/index.html
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- An Iraqi child and two U.S. soldiers died in three
separate explosions Monday in Iraq, coalition and Iraqi officials said.
An explosion at an elementary school in the Khadimiya district of Baghdad
just before 3 p.m. ( 7 a.m. ET) Monday killed the child and critically
wounded two others, according to Iraqi Police Brigadier General Thamir
Sadoun.
The latest deaths bring the number of U.S. troops killed during Operation
Iraqi Freedom to 542 -- 376 under hostile circumstances, according to U.S.
military figures.
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/0204/14irattack.html
FALLUJAH, Iraq -- Guerrillas shouting "God is great" launched a bold
daylight assault on an Iraqi police station and security compound west of
Baghdad on Saturday, freeing prisoners and sparking a gunbattle that killed
21 people and wounded 33, police and hospital officials said.
The attackers freed 75 prisoners held at the station, killing the guards and
shooting open the cell doors, police Lt. Col. Jalal Sabri said. The
prisoners were criminals - most arrested for murder or theft - and none of
them were suspected of involvement in the anti-U.S. insurgency, Sabri said.
--
Learning funk bass? visit www.js3jazz.com/store.htm
"Speaking the Truth in times of Universal deceit is a revolutionary act." --
George Orwell
Post by GENOMEMAN
Read this excerpt from one of the leading member of Ansar al-Islam, Abu
"We can pack up and leave and look for another land, just like what has
happened in so many lands of jihad," the memo states, according to the
Times. "Our enemy is growing stronger day after day, and its intelligence
information increases. ... By God, this is suffocation."
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040209-111042-9241r.htm
Personally, I think this letter shows they are desperate, and "packing up"
like so many libs want us to do, would allow the terrorists to declare
victory.
Discuss....
--
_________________________________________________________
If a man among you holds no sin upon his hand,
then let him cast a stone at me for playing in the band.

http://www.bluepearlband.com
Dan Abrams
2004-02-16 16:37:47 UTC
Permalink
John,
You might find this site interesting:
http://www.militarycity.com/valor/honor.html
Dan


_________________________________________________________
If a man among you holds no sin upon his hand,
then let him cast a stone at me for playing in the band.

http://www.bluepearlband.com
John Shaughnessy
2004-02-16 19:45:25 UTC
Permalink
I'm not really sure what I'm supposed to find "interesting" about soldiers
dying. I think it sucks, but that's what happens when you choose to wage
war.

For what it's worth, I didn't want them there to begin with.

--
Learning funk bass? visit www.js3jazz.com/store.htm

"Speaking the Truth in times of Universal deceit is a revolutionary act." --
George Orwell
Post by Dan Abrams
John,
http://www.militarycity.com/valor/honor.html
Dan
_________________________________________________________
If a man among you holds no sin upon his hand,
then let him cast a stone at me for playing in the band.
http://www.bluepearlband.com
Dan Abrams
2004-02-16 20:36:13 UTC
Permalink
It's happening anyway. Has a little more impact when you can put a
name, face and a hometown to
a person beyond the CNN '3 more soldiers' line.
Post by John Shaughnessy
I'm not really sure what I'm supposed to find "interesting" about soldiers
dying. I think it sucks, but that's what happens when you choose to wage
war.
For what it's worth, I didn't want them there to begin with.
--
Learning funk bass? visit www.js3jazz.com/store.htm
"Speaking the Truth in times of Universal deceit is a revolutionary act." --
George Orwell
Post by Dan Abrams
John,
http://www.militarycity.com/valor/honor.html
Dan
_________________________________________________________
If a man among you holds no sin upon his hand,
then let him cast a stone at me for playing in the band.
http://www.bluepearlband.com
--
_________________________________________________________
If a man among you holds no sin upon his hand,
then let him cast a stone at me for playing in the band.

http://www.bluepearlband.com
John Shaughnessy
2004-02-17 04:42:50 UTC
Permalink
Agreed.
--
Learning funk bass? visit www.js3jazz.com/store.htm

"Speaking the Truth in times of Universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell


"Dan Abrams" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:VQ9Yb.73$***@lakeread03...
It's happening anyway. Has a little more impact when you can put a name, face and a hometown to
a person beyond the CNN '3 more soldiers' line.

John Shaughnessy wrote:

I'm not really sure what I'm supposed to find "interesting" about soldiers
dying. I think it sucks, but that's what happens when you choose to wage
war.

For what it's worth, I didn't want them there to begin with.

--
Learning funk bass? visit www.js3jazz.com/store.htm

"Speaking the Truth in times of Universal deceit is a revolutionary act." --
George Orwell


"Dan Abrams" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:ol6Yb.46577$***@lakeread03...
John,
You might find this site interesting:
http://www.militarycity.com/valor/honor.html
Dan


_________________________________________________________
If a man among you holds no sin upon his hand,
then let him cast a stone at me for playing in the band.

http://www.bluepearlband.com
--
_________________________________________________________
If a man among you holds no sin upon his hand,
then let him cast a stone at me for playing in the band.

http://www.bluepearlband.com
Greg C
2004-02-16 22:37:15 UTC
Permalink
Uhm, more people are murdered in Chicago everyday. Should the US pull
out of Chicago?

I can imagine you libs back in WW2 in Normandy - "Oh shit, that guy just
got shot getting off the landing craft! Tell everyone to pull back and
head back to England. Hitler isn't worth this! Nobody told us people
would get hurt!"
Brad Johnson
2004-02-17 00:12:02 UTC
Permalink
A dumbass can imagine lots of stupid things. You're a perfect example.


;^)
Brad
Subject: Re: We are/are not winning in Iraq
Date: 2/16/2004 5:37 PM Eastern Standard Time
Uhm, more people are murdered in Chicago everyday. Should the US pull
out of Chicago?
I can imagine you libs back in WW2 in Normandy - "Oh shit, that guy just
got shot getting off the landing craft! Tell everyone to pull back and
head back to England. Hitler isn't worth this! Nobody told us people
would get hurt!"
RonSonic
2004-02-17 01:45:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg C
Uhm, more people are murdered in Chicago everyday. Should the US pull
out of Chicago?
I can imagine you libs back in WW2 in Normandy - "Oh shit, that guy just
got shot getting off the landing craft! Tell everyone to pull back and
head back to England. Hitler isn't worth this! Nobody told us people
would get hurt!"
What makes it sillier is that our losses are far fewer than we had any reason to
expect.

This isn't 5-10 thousand dead, it's almost 550, about two barracks bombings.

See the alternative isn't peace, they'll keep fighting.

Ron
Scott Dorsey
2004-02-17 19:39:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg C
Uhm, more people are murdered in Chicago everyday. Should the US pull
out of Chicago?
Yes, and probably Detroit also.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
lbanks
2004-02-16 15:07:17 UTC
Permalink
Please, no more politics......PLEASE!!
Post by GENOMEMAN
Read this excerpt from one of the leading member of Ansar al-Islam, Abu
"We can pack up and leave and look for another land, just like what has
happened in so many lands of jihad," the memo states, according to the
Times. "Our enemy is growing stronger day after day, and its intelligence
information increases. ... By God, this is suffocation."
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040209-111042-9241r.htm
Personally, I think this letter shows they are desperate, and "packing up"
like so many libs want us to do, would allow the terrorists to declare
victory.
Discuss....
Todd H.
2004-02-16 16:45:59 UTC
Permalink
Peter, stop. Please. At least in the music newsgroups, OT branded or
not.
--
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Todd H
\ / | http://www.toddh.net/
X Promoting good netiquette | http://triplethreatband.com/
/ \ http://www.toddh.net/netiquette/ | "4 lines suffice."
GENOMEMAN
2004-02-16 15:59:27 UTC
Permalink
Only if you kill your 4 line signature!

He he!
Post by Todd H.
Peter, stop. Please. At least in the music newsgroups, OT branded or
not.
--
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Todd H
\ / | http://www.toddh.net/
X Promoting good netiquette | http://triplethreatband.com/
/ \ http://www.toddh.net/netiquette/ | "4 lines suffice."
Todd H.
2004-02-16 17:33:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by GENOMEMAN
Only if you kill your 4 line signature!
My sig is McQ and follows all accepted netiquette guidelines.

Besides, this is an odd request from a man who had the better half of
a Booker T Washington's day of words in his sig not too long ago:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2444344654d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=yD0a8.58011%24th4.19059323%40news02.optonline.net

Or, my favorite--a 20 line sig of links to your favorite Political
topics.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl4228871616d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=_A1D7.32597%24C7.10719674%40news02.optonline.net

This, Peter is why you're kept on a short political leash in the music
newsgroups. Thank you for attention to the AGB s/n ratio (this post
not withstanding). You're smarter than this. I've seen it.

Best Regards,
--
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Todd H
\ / | http://www.toddh.net/
X Promoting good netiquette | http://triplethreatband.com/
/ \ http://www.toddh.net/netiquette/ | "4 lines suffice."
GENOMEMAN
2004-02-16 18:02:33 UTC
Permalink
Nice research skills!
Post by Todd H.
Post by GENOMEMAN
Only if you kill your 4 line signature!
My sig is McQ and follows all accepted netiquette guidelines.
Besides, this is an odd request from a man who had the better half of
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2444344654d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=yD0a8.58011%24th4.19059323%40news02.optonline.net
Post by Todd H.
Or, my favorite--a 20 line sig of links to your favorite Political
topics.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl4228871616d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=_A1D7.32597%24C7.10719674%40news02.optonline.net
Post by Todd H.
This, Peter is why you're kept on a short political leash in the music
newsgroups. Thank you for attention to the AGB s/n ratio (this post
not withstanding). You're smarter than this. I've seen it.
Best Regards,
--
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Todd H
\ / | http://www.toddh.net/
X Promoting good netiquette | http://triplethreatband.com/
/ \ http://www.toddh.net/netiquette/ | "4 lines suffice."
Steven Sena
2004-02-16 16:43:19 UTC
Permalink
Caesar's palace, morning glory,
silly human, silly human, silly human race.
(Yes)
--
Steven Sena
XS Sound Recording
www.xssound.com
Post by GENOMEMAN
Read this excerpt from one of the leading member of Ansar al-Islam, Abu
"We can pack up and leave and look for another land, just like what has
happened in so many lands of jihad," the memo states, according to the
Times. "Our enemy is growing stronger day after day, and its intelligence
information increases. ... By God, this is suffocation."
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040209-111042-9241r.htm
Personally, I think this letter shows they are desperate, and "packing up"
like so many libs want us to do, would allow the terrorists to declare
victory.
Discuss....
Bob Sherunckle
2004-02-16 16:58:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by GENOMEMAN
Read this excerpt from one of the leading member of Ansar al-Islam, Abu
"We can pack up and leave and look for another land, just like what has
happened in so many lands of jihad," the memo states, according to the
Blah blah blah snipped >
Post by GENOMEMAN
Personally, I think this letter shows they are desperate, and "packing up"
like so many libs want us to do, would allow the terrorists to declare
victory.
Discuss....
No thank you - regardless of the OT reference in the subject line, it can
only lead to a poor signal to noise ratio in an otherwise fantastic
newsgroup. Please stop all of this nonsense.
Jim Anable
2004-02-16 19:50:56 UTC
Permalink
Wait a minute, don't I remember a BIG banner saying "Mission Accomplished"?
It was flying on the Lincoln when GW made his photo-op landing.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/

Civilian deaths: 8,000 to 10,000 http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm
U.S. deaths: 543, FOUR HUNDRED AND THREE SINCE MAY 1st (date of "Mission
Accomplished" banner)! http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/
Steve Eaton
2004-02-16 23:29:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Anable
Wait a minute, don't I remember a BIG banner saying "Mission
Accomplished"?
Post by Jim Anable
It was flying on the Lincoln when GW made his photo-op landing.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/
As is entirely appropriate for a ship returning to port after accomplishing
it's mission.

To extrapolate some larger context for that sign requires much in the way
of paritisan spin and large quantities of suspension of disbelief.
Post by Jim Anable
Civilian deaths: 8,000 to 10,000
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm
Post by Jim Anable
U.S. deaths: 543, FOUR HUNDRED AND THREE SINCE MAY 1st (date of "Mission
Accomplished" banner)! http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/
Cut the spin Jim.
The banner didn't say that the war was over did it?
Neither did Bush.
Stop the partisan spin, it helps nothing.
Jim Anable
2004-02-16 23:58:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Anable
Post by Jim Anable
Wait a minute, don't I remember a BIG banner saying "Mission
Accomplished"?
Post by Jim Anable
It was flying on the Lincoln when GW made his photo-op landing.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/
As is entirely appropriate for a ship returning to port after accomplishing
it's mission.
To extrapolate some larger context for that sign requires much in the way
of paritisan spin and large quantities of suspension of disbelief.
The story in the CNN link says: "Navy and administration sources said
that though the banner was the Navy's
idea, the White House actually made it."

Would the White House have made such a banner if it wasn't part of GW's
publicity stunt and photo-op?
Post by Jim Anable
Post by Jim Anable
Civilian deaths: 8,000 to 10,000
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm
Post by Jim Anable
U.S. deaths: 543, FOUR HUNDRED AND THREE SINCE MAY 1st (date of "Mission
Accomplished" banner)! http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/
Cut the spin Jim.
The banner didn't say that the war was over did it?
Neither did Bush.
In his speech, Bush declared victory in the battle of Iraq. However, Bush now
admits that his declaration of the end of major combat was a MISTAKE.
Brad Johnson
2004-02-17 00:25:40 UTC
Permalink
Nah, Bush visits all seafaring vessels when their "mission" is "accomplished".


LOL


;^)
Brad
Subject: Re: OT: We are/are not winning in Iraq
Date: 2/16/2004 6:58 PM Eastern Standard Time
Post by Jim Anable
Post by Jim Anable
Wait a minute, don't I remember a BIG banner saying "Mission
Accomplished"?
Post by Jim Anable
It was flying on the Lincoln when GW made his photo-op landing.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/
As is entirely appropriate for a ship returning to port after accomplishing
it's mission.
To extrapolate some larger context for that sign requires much in the way
of paritisan spin and large quantities of suspension of disbelief.
The story in the CNN link says: "Navy and administration sources said
that though the banner was the Navy's
idea, the White House actually made it."
Would the White House have made such a banner if it wasn't part of GW's
publicity stunt and photo-op?
Post by Jim Anable
Post by Jim Anable
Civilian deaths: 8,000 to 10,000
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm
Post by Jim Anable
U.S. deaths: 543, FOUR HUNDRED AND THREE SINCE MAY 1st (date of "Mission
Accomplished" banner)! http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/
Cut the spin Jim.
The banner didn't say that the war was over did it?
Neither did Bush.
In his speech, Bush declared victory in the battle of Iraq. However, Bush now
admits that his declaration of the end of major combat was a MISTAKE.
GENOMEMAN
2004-02-17 00:52:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Anable
Post by Jim Anable
Post by Jim Anable
Wait a minute, don't I remember a BIG banner saying "Mission
Accomplished"?
Post by Jim Anable
It was flying on the Lincoln when GW made his photo-op landing.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/
As is entirely appropriate for a ship returning to port after accomplishing
it's mission.
To extrapolate some larger context for that sign requires much in the way
of paritisan spin and large quantities of suspension of disbelief.
The story in the CNN link says: "Navy and administration sources said
that though the banner was the Navy's
idea, the White House actually made it."
Would the White House have made such a banner if it wasn't part of GW's
publicity stunt and photo-op?
LOL!! Would have Bush even invaded Iraq in the first place for a "photo op?"
Jim Anable
2004-02-17 01:14:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Eaton
Post by Jim Anable
Post by Jim Anable
Post by Jim Anable
Wait a minute, don't I remember a BIG banner saying "Mission
Accomplished"?
Post by Jim Anable
It was flying on the Lincoln when GW made his photo-op landing.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/
As is entirely appropriate for a ship returning to port after
accomplishing
Post by Jim Anable
Post by Jim Anable
it's mission.
To extrapolate some larger context for that sign requires much in the
way
Post by Jim Anable
Post by Jim Anable
of paritisan spin and large quantities of suspension of disbelief.
The story in the CNN link says: "Navy and administration sources said
that though the banner was the Navy's
idea, the White House actually made it."
Would the White House have made such a banner if it wasn't part of GW's
publicity stunt and photo-op?
LOL!! Would have Bush even invaded Iraq in the first place for a "photo op?"
My personal opinion is that it was destined to happen, for any or NO reason at
all. I said it during the election, to the protest of Republican friends and
family: "If GW is elected, there will be a war with Iraq."

How many Republicans still believe that we were told the truth about the reasons
for war (Saddam has WMD, Saddam is trying to buy "yellow cake", Saddam has an
advanced nuclear program, Saddam played a role in 9/11...)?

Meanwhile, Bin Laden is free, and N. Korea flaunts their nuclear program.
mark
2004-02-17 02:10:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Anable
Post by GENOMEMAN
Post by Jim Anable
Post by Steve Eaton
Post by Jim Anable
Wait a minute, don't I remember a BIG banner saying "Mission
Accomplished"? It was flying on the Lincoln when GW made his
photo-op landing.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/
As is entirely appropriate for a ship returning to port after
accomplishing it's mission.
To extrapolate some larger context for that sign requires much in the
way
Post by Jim Anable
Post by Steve Eaton
of paritisan spin and large quantities of suspension of disbelief.
The story in the CNN link says: "Navy and administration sources
said that though the banner was the Navy's
idea, the White House actually made it."
Would the White House have made such a banner if it wasn't part of
GW's publicity stunt and photo-op?
LOL!! Would have Bush even invaded Iraq in the first place for a "photo op?"
My personal opinion is that it was destined to happen, for any or NO
reason at all. I said it during the election, to the protest of
Republican friends and family: "If GW is elected, there will be a
war with Iraq."
How many Republicans still believe that we were told the truth about
the reasons for war (Saddam has WMD, Saddam is trying to buy "yellow
cake", Saddam has an advanced nuclear program, Saddam played a role
in 9/11...)?
Meanwhile, Bin Laden is free, and N. Korea flaunts their nuclear program.
The problem is that you liberlas don't understand politics, and the
therefore the true reason for going into Iraq and taking ot - we needed to
show our might in order to force the other islamic countries into stopping
the free reign they were allowing in regards to terrorism (islamic
militancy) and WMD. Libya has complied. Saudi Arabia is doing their best.
And the US now has a central base to wage war against any front from the
middle east that is necessary.

Mission accomplished.
Brad Johnson
2004-02-17 04:00:07 UTC
Permalink
Thank goodness conservatives have this whole politics thing down.


It just gets dumber and dumber around here.


Brad
Subject: Re: OT: We are/are not winning in Iraq
Date: 2/16/2004 9:10 PM Eastern Standard Time
Post by Jim Anable
Post by GENOMEMAN
Post by Jim Anable
Post by Steve Eaton
Post by Jim Anable
Wait a minute, don't I remember a BIG banner saying "Mission
Accomplished"? It was flying on the Lincoln when GW made his
photo-op landing.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/
As is entirely appropriate for a ship returning to port after
accomplishing it's mission.
To extrapolate some larger context for that sign requires much in the
way
Post by Jim Anable
Post by Steve Eaton
of paritisan spin and large quantities of suspension of disbelief.
The story in the CNN link says: "Navy and administration sources
said that though the banner was the Navy's
idea, the White House actually made it."
Would the White House have made such a banner if it wasn't part of
GW's publicity stunt and photo-op?
LOL!! Would have Bush even invaded Iraq in the first place for a "photo op?"
My personal opinion is that it was destined to happen, for any or NO
reason at all. I said it during the election, to the protest of
Republican friends and family: "If GW is elected, there will be a
war with Iraq."
How many Republicans still believe that we were told the truth about
the reasons for war (Saddam has WMD, Saddam is trying to buy "yellow
cake", Saddam has an advanced nuclear program, Saddam played a role
in 9/11...)?
Meanwhile, Bin Laden is free, and N. Korea flaunts their nuclear program.
The problem is that you liberlas don't understand politics, and the
therefore the true reason for going into Iraq and taking ot - we needed to
show our might in order to force the other islamic countries into stopping
the free reign they were allowing in regards to terrorism (islamic
militancy) and WMD. Libya has complied. Saudi Arabia is doing their best.
And the US now has a central base to wage war against any front from the
middle east that is necessary.
Mission accomplished.
Dude
2004-02-17 09:50:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brad Johnson
It just gets dumber and dumber around here.
Yeah especially when you enter the conversaation Brad...at least PD links in
some shit to read once in a while.

Fuck you asshole!

Stay off the Pit fuckface...keep your ass on Talkbass with the kids!
Brad Johnson
2004-02-17 16:45:23 UTC
Permalink
Thanks, Steve. I rarely went on the Pit anyway.

Am I banned?

;^)
Brad
Subject: Re: OT: We are/are not winning in Iraq
Date: 2/17/2004 4:50 AM Eastern Standard Time
Post by Brad Johnson
It just gets dumber and dumber around here.
Yeah especially when you enter the conversaation Brad...at least PD links in
some shit to read once in a while.
Fuck you asshole!
Stay off the Pit fuckface...keep your ass on Talkbass with the kids!
Brad Johnson
2004-02-17 16:46:53 UTC
Permalink
BTW I noticed the timestamp.

tea time?

LOL
Brad
Subject: Re: OT: We are/are not winning in Iraq
Date: 2/17/2004 4:50 AM Eastern Standard Time
Post by Brad Johnson
It just gets dumber and dumber around here.
Yeah especially when you enter the conversaation Brad...at least PD links in
some shit to read once in a while.
Fuck you asshole!
Stay off the Pit fuckface...keep your ass on Talkbass with the kids!
Dude
2004-02-17 19:02:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brad Johnson
BTW I noticed the timestamp.
tea time?
LOL yourself dipshit...nope just up late drinking a cup of java.
Brad Johnson
2004-02-17 21:43:53 UTC
Permalink
LOL again.

;^)
Brad
Subject: Re: OT: We are/are not winning in Iraq
Date: 2/17/2004 2:02 PM Eastern Standard Time
Post by Brad Johnson
BTW I noticed the timestamp.
tea time?
LOL yourself dipshit...nope just up late drinking a cup of java.
Brad Johnson
2004-02-17 21:46:13 UTC
Permalink
See you and the kids at TB.

;^)
Brad
Subject: Re: OT: We are/are not winning in Iraq
Date: 2/17/2004 2:02 PM Eastern Standard Time
Post by Brad Johnson
BTW I noticed the timestamp.
tea time?
LOL yourself dipshit...nope just up late drinking a cup of java.
Brad Johnson
2004-02-17 16:48:28 UTC
Permalink
Forgot to mention... I'll be here as long as I feel like it.

Like I said, dumber and dumber... nothing like cheap entertainment.

;^)
Brad
Subject: Re: OT: We are/are not winning in Iraq
Date: 2/17/2004 4:50 AM Eastern Standard Time
Post by Brad Johnson
It just gets dumber and dumber around here.
Yeah especially when you enter the conversaation Brad...at least PD links in
some shit to read once in a while.
Fuck you asshole!
Stay off the Pit fuckface...keep your ass on Talkbass with the kids!
Bob Cain
2004-02-17 05:35:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by mark
The problem is that you liberlas don't understand politics, and the
therefore the true reason for going into Iraq and taking ot - we needed to
show our might in order to force the other islamic countries into stopping
the free reign they were allowing in regards to terrorism (islamic
militancy) and WMD. Libya has complied. Saudi Arabia is doing their best.
And the US now has a central base to wage war against any front from the
middle east that is necessary.
I'm a liberal and I understand that. Said so here before it
started. I just don't like it or believe it will be
effective in the long run or the short run. It is the only
reason that stands up *at all* to analysis or evidence and
I'm rather surprised it isn't at the forefront of the debate
instead of all the justifications that just don't hold any
water and are likely to defeat the Shrub.
Post by mark
Mission accomplished.
Way too soon to admit victory. The kind of victory this
administration wants is simply impossible. But it is
saleable, unfortunately.


Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Steve Eaton
2004-02-17 17:16:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Cain
Post by mark
The problem is that you liberlas don't understand politics, and the
therefore the true reason for going into Iraq and taking ot - we needed to
show our might in order to force the other islamic countries into stopping
the free reign they were allowing in regards to terrorism (islamic
militancy) and WMD. Libya has complied. Saudi Arabia is doing their best.
And the US now has a central base to wage war against any front from the
middle east that is necessary.
I'm a liberal and I understand that. Said so here before it
started. I just don't like it or believe it will be
effective in the long run or the short run. It is the only
reason that stands up *at all* to analysis or evidence and
I'm rather surprised it isn't at the forefront of the debate
instead of all the justifications that just don't hold any
water and are likely to defeat the Shrub.
I'd say that if Bush loses because of that, then the Liberals do not
understand so well after all. Now I know it is possible to understand the
reasons for it, and like you, disagree about the effectiveness of the
actions.
And no one can say that you are wrong yet, because we simply do not
know how well it will work. (or how badly it won't)

But honestly, so far you are maybe the fifth or sixth Liberal voice that
I've heard give such a reasonable argument. And believe me I've heard
a buttload of Liberal voices on the matter. I don't think on the whole,
that the Liberals are showing very well on the issue. I get the impression
of
a bunch of Chicken Littles, running around in circles hysterically flapping
their
arms screeching that Bush is a traitor, Bush lied, and urging each other to
spread viscious rumors on the net in the interest of ousting Bush.
When dirty tricks are being acknowledged in public, they are no
longer tricks, they are just a dirty way to do business.
The donkey has become an ass.

Though you seem to have reasonable doubts,
most of the Liberals aren't exactly coming off as the voice
of reason. I 'd be surprised if 1 out of 10 of them understood
it at all.
Post by Bob Cain
Post by mark
Mission accomplished.
Way too soon to admit victory. The kind of victory this
administration wants is simply impossible. But it is
saleable, unfortunately.
Bob
It's not just the administration that would like a clear victory, I think
most of us would feel better and safer if there could be a VE Day,
or something that we could point to and just say wheeew...It's over.

But I think you're right, we'll never get that finality on this one.
Post by Bob Cain
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."
A. Einstein
Brad Johnson
2004-02-17 17:39:57 UTC
Permalink
Subject: Re: OT: We are/are not winning in Iraq
Date: 2/17/2004 12:16 PM Eastern Standard Time
Post by Bob Cain
Post by mark
The problem is that you liberlas don't understand politics, and the
therefore the true reason for going into Iraq and taking ot - we needed
to
Post by Bob Cain
Post by mark
show our might in order to force the other islamic countries into
stopping
Post by Bob Cain
Post by mark
the free reign they were allowing in regards to terrorism (islamic
militancy) and WMD. Libya has complied. Saudi Arabia is doing their
best.
Post by Bob Cain
Post by mark
And the US now has a central base to wage war against any front from the
middle east that is necessary.
I'm a liberal and I understand that. Said so here before it
started. I just don't like it or believe it will be
effective in the long run or the short run. It is the only
reason that stands up *at all* to analysis or evidence and
I'm rather surprised it isn't at the forefront of the debate
instead of all the justifications that just don't hold any
water and are likely to defeat the Shrub.
I'd say that if Bush loses because of that, then the Liberals do not
understand so well after all. Now I know it is possible to understand the
reasons for it, and like you, disagree about the effectiveness of the
actions.
And no one can say that you are wrong yet, because we simply do not
know how well it will work. (or how badly it won't)
This strategy is hardly difficult to understand. It's what appears to be the
lame excuses that are bothering people... and not just Liberals. Couldn't Bush,
et.al. come up with something better than the imminent threat stuff they put
forth for public consumption?.
But honestly, so far you are maybe the fifth or sixth Liberal voice that
I've heard give such a reasonable argument. And believe me I've heard
a buttload of Liberal voices on the matter. I don't think on the whole,
that the Liberals are showing very well on the issue. I get the impression
of
a bunch of Chicken Littles, running around in circles hysterically flapping
their
arms screeching that Bush is a traitor, Bush lied, and urging each other to
spread viscious rumors on the net in the interest of ousting Bush.
When dirty tricks are being acknowledged in public, they are no
longer tricks, they are just a dirty way to do business.
The donkey has become an ass.
Funny thing is, I've yet to hear a Liberal call Bush a traitor. I think Anne
Coulter has the word trademarked.

"urging each other to spread viscious rumors on the net"

Do you have any proof of this because frankly, it sounds pretty silly? As if
people couldn't put 2+2 together and come to their own conclusions. I
personally have neither urged nor been urged to do anything. I guess they
missed me.

I think I missed out on the Liberal dirty tricks... what were they?

I guess the jury is still out on which is more dangerous, Chicken Littles... or
Chicken Hawks. My vote goes for the C-hawks, always ready for a fight... as
long as someone else is fighting it. Much easier to do when there's no personal
risk IMO
Though you seem to have reasonable doubts,
most of the Liberals aren't exactly coming off as the voice
of reason. I 'd be surprised if 1 out of 10 of them understood
it at all.
That's been my take on people who bend over backwards to give the benefit of
the doubt... again and again and again...
Post by Bob Cain
Post by mark
Mission accomplished.
Way too soon to admit victory. The kind of victory this
administration wants is simply impossible. But it is
saleable, unfortunately.
Bob
It's not just the administration that would like a clear victory, I think
most of us would feel better and safer if there could be a VE Day,
or something that we could point to and just say wheeew...It's over.
But I think you're right, we'll never get that finality on this one.
Yes, now that we started it there's no turning back so I think most people
would like for it to be over. I doubt it'll ever be over, at least not in my
lifetime. As far as feeling better or safer, nope. Not knowing what I know. I
don't see how anyone could feel that way, understanding what the future could
hold. It's too up in the air to feel safe, no matter what happens now. Just my
opinion.

Brad.
Glenn Dowdy
2004-02-17 15:19:30 UTC
Permalink
"mark" <***@especiallyyours.net> wrote in message
news:rKeYb.52097
Post by mark
The problem is that you liberlas don't understand politics, and the
therefore the true reason for going into Iraq and taking ot - we needed to
show our might in order to force the other islamic countries into stopping
the free reign they were allowing in regards to terrorism (islamic
militancy) and WMD. Libya has complied. Saudi Arabia is doing their best.
And Pakistan and NK are lining up to comply. In some other universe.
Post by mark
And the US now has a central base to wage war against any front from the.
middle east that is necessary.
A base that is not secure and not enough forces to take on even one more
country. You do know that for an occupying force of size X you need a total
of 3X in force strength, don't you? Count how many combat brigades are in
Iraq right now and compare that to the total ground strength of US forces.
We're tapped out.

Glenn D.
j***@3inthekey.com
2004-02-17 18:17:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Glenn Dowdy
news:rKeYb.52097
Post by mark
The problem is that you liberlas don't understand politics, and the
therefore the true reason for going into Iraq and taking ot - we needed to
show our might in order to force the other islamic countries into stopping
the free reign they were allowing in regards to terrorism (islamic
militancy) and WMD. Libya has complied. Saudi Arabia is doing their best.
And Pakistan and NK are lining up to comply. In some other universe.
Post by mark
And the US now has a central base to wage war against any front from the.
middle east that is necessary.
A base that is not secure and not enough forces to take on even one more
country. You do know that for an occupying force of size X you need a total
of 3X in force strength, don't you? Count how many combat brigades are in
Iraq right now and compare that to the total ground strength of US forces.
We're tapped out.
Glenn D.
Wasn't the US the result of a struggle against empire and tyranny?
And now it's OK for the US to invade other countries in order to set
up bases so it can wage war in a region? Without being provoked?
That's not very patriotic.
GENOMEMAN
2004-02-17 19:01:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@3inthekey.com
Post by Glenn Dowdy
news:rKeYb.52097
Post by mark
The problem is that you liberlas don't understand politics, and the
therefore the true reason for going into Iraq and taking ot - we needed to
show our might in order to force the other islamic countries into stopping
the free reign they were allowing in regards to terrorism (islamic
militancy) and WMD. Libya has complied. Saudi Arabia is doing their best.
And Pakistan and NK are lining up to comply. In some other universe.
Post by mark
And the US now has a central base to wage war against any front from the.
middle east that is necessary.
A base that is not secure and not enough forces to take on even one more
country. You do know that for an occupying force of size X you need a total
of 3X in force strength, don't you? Count how many combat brigades are in
Iraq right now and compare that to the total ground strength of US forces.
We're tapped out.
Glenn D.
Wasn't the US the result of a struggle against empire and tyranny?
And now it's OK for the US to invade other countries in order to set
up bases so it can wage war in a region? Without being provoked?
That's not very patriotic.
For Terrorists, no, it isn't.
ryanm
2004-02-17 21:50:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Glenn Dowdy
A base that is not secure and not enough forces to take on even one more
country. You do know that for an occupying force of size X you need a total
of 3X in force strength, don't you? Count how many combat brigades are in
Iraq right now and compare that to the total ground strength of US forces.
We're tapped out.
10 to 1 if the enemy is using guerilla (terrorist) tactics.

ryanm
RonSonic
2004-02-17 23:45:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Glenn Dowdy
news:rKeYb.52097
Post by mark
The problem is that you liberlas don't understand politics, and the
therefore the true reason for going into Iraq and taking ot - we needed to
show our might in order to force the other islamic countries into stopping
the free reign they were allowing in regards to terrorism (islamic
militancy) and WMD. Libya has complied. Saudi Arabia is doing their best.
And Pakistan and NK are lining up to comply. In some other universe.
Pakistan just shut the back door they were using to export nuclear technology.
It was in all the papers.
Post by Glenn Dowdy
Post by mark
And the US now has a central base to wage war against any front from the.
middle east that is necessary.
A base that is not secure and not enough forces to take on even one more
country. You do know that for an occupying force of size X you need a total
of 3X in force strength, don't you? Count how many combat brigades are in
Iraq right now and compare that to the total ground strength of US forces.
We're tapped out.
Iraq will stabilize.

Ron
Jim Anable
2004-02-18 01:44:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by RonSonic
Iraq will stabilize.
How many lives and how much money?
Chris Berry
2004-02-18 08:12:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Anable
Post by RonSonic
Iraq will stabilize.
How many lives and how much money?
It was the same question in Vietnam.
And that same question will plague Bush Jr throughout the next election
campaign.
cb
RonSonic
2004-02-19 01:51:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Anable
Post by RonSonic
Iraq will stabilize.
How many lives and how much money?
Many fewer and much less than we thought it would take, going in.

Ron
DJ
2004-02-19 02:57:19 UTC
Permalink
Democracy = Democratic. Isn't that what America is supposed to be all about?

The United States of America is a republic.
Post by RonSonic
Post by Jim Anable
Post by RonSonic
Iraq will stabilize.
How many lives and how much money?
Many fewer and much less than we thought it would take, going in.
Ron
Steve Eaton
2004-02-19 20:17:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Anable
Post by RonSonic
Iraq will stabilize.
How many lives and how much money?
Just how many would be the "proper" amount?
How many lives under the limit were we in WWII when we helped
unseat Hitler?
Was there a point where it would have been too many and past
that point it shouldn't have been done?

That was a rhetorical question that has no valid point.
j***@3inthekey.com
2004-02-17 18:28:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by mark
Post by Jim Anable
Post by GENOMEMAN
Post by Jim Anable
Post by Steve Eaton
Post by Jim Anable
Wait a minute, don't I remember a BIG banner saying "Mission
Accomplished"? It was flying on the Lincoln when GW made his
photo-op landing.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/
As is entirely appropriate for a ship returning to port after
accomplishing it's mission.
To extrapolate some larger context for that sign requires much in the
way
Post by Jim Anable
Post by GENOMEMAN
Post by Jim Anable
Post by Steve Eaton
of paritisan spin and large quantities of suspension of disbelief.
The story in the CNN link says: "Navy and administration sources
said that though the banner was the Navy's
idea, the White House actually made it."
Would the White House have made such a banner if it wasn't part of
GW's publicity stunt and photo-op?
LOL!! Would have Bush even invaded Iraq in the first place for a "photo op?"
My personal opinion is that it was destined to happen, for any or NO
reason at all. I said it during the election, to the protest of
Republican friends and family: "If GW is elected, there will be a
war with Iraq."
How many Republicans still believe that we were told the truth about
the reasons for war (Saddam has WMD, Saddam is trying to buy "yellow
cake", Saddam has an advanced nuclear program, Saddam played a role
in 9/11...)?
Meanwhile, Bin Laden is free, and N. Korea flaunts their nuclear program.
The problem is that you liberlas don't understand politics, and the
therefore the true reason for going into Iraq and taking ot - we needed to
show our might in order to force the other islamic countries into stopping
the free reign they were allowing in regards to terrorism (islamic
militancy) and WMD. Libya has complied. Saudi Arabia is doing their best.
And the US now has a central base to wage war against any front from the
middle east that is necessary.
Mission accomplished.
So Saudi Arabia has tried and convicted the members of its royal
family who support Al-Queda? You seem to have skipped that.

So Pakistan has tried and convicted the nuke scientist who assisted
Libya, Iran and others? And I guess then that Pakistan has tried and
convicted the intelligence officer who wired cash to Mohammed Attah in
the weeks before 9/11?

The problem with you conservatives is that YOU don't understand why
the US invaded Iraq. You all have different disparate reasons for
invading that don't at all echo the bullshit reasons the President
gave. The President and the Vice President don't agree. Few of you
agree. You just all agree it was "the right thing to do".
Apparently, most conservatives believe it's OK to invade a country and
then make up the reasons for the invasion afterwards. The fact that
many of your explanations aren't based on fact (like "Saudi Arabia is
doing their best") doesn't help your cause, either.

Understanding politics has nothing to do with it. Understanding
conquest does, however. Maybe your problem is you don't understand
the difference between imperialism and American Democracy.
GENOMEMAN
2004-02-17 02:21:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Anable
Post by Steve Eaton
Post by Jim Anable
Post by Jim Anable
Post by Jim Anable
Wait a minute, don't I remember a BIG banner saying "Mission
Accomplished"?
Post by Jim Anable
It was flying on the Lincoln when GW made his photo-op landing.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/
As is entirely appropriate for a ship returning to port after
accomplishing
Post by Jim Anable
Post by Jim Anable
it's mission.
To extrapolate some larger context for that sign requires much in the
way
Post by Jim Anable
Post by Jim Anable
of paritisan spin and large quantities of suspension of disbelief.
The story in the CNN link says: "Navy and administration sources said
that though the banner was the Navy's
idea, the White House actually made it."
Would the White House have made such a banner if it wasn't part of GW's
publicity stunt and photo-op?
LOL!! Would have Bush even invaded Iraq in the first place for a "photo op?"
My personal opinion is that it was destined to happen, for any or NO reason at
all. I said it during the election, to the protest of Republican friends and
family: "If GW is elected, there will be a war with Iraq."
How many Republicans still believe that we were told the truth about the reasons
for war (Saddam has WMD, Saddam is trying to buy "yellow cake", Saddam has an
advanced nuclear program, Saddam played a role in 9/11...)?
Meanwhile, Bin Laden is free,
I wouldn't call being relegated to caves and constantly being on the
lookout, "free."

and N. Korea flaunts their nuclear program.
Brad Johnson
2004-02-17 03:57:13 UTC
Permalink
"LOL!! Would have Bush even invaded Iraq in the first place for a "photo op?"

Did you go to college and stuff?

;^)
Brad
Subject: Re: OT: We are/are not winning in Iraq
Date: 2/16/2004 7:52 PM Eastern Standard Time
Post by Jim Anable
Post by Jim Anable
Post by Jim Anable
Wait a minute, don't I remember a BIG banner saying "Mission
Accomplished"?
Post by Jim Anable
It was flying on the Lincoln when GW made his photo-op landing.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/
As is entirely appropriate for a ship returning to port after
accomplishing
Post by Jim Anable
Post by Jim Anable
it's mission.
To extrapolate some larger context for that sign requires much in the
way
Post by Jim Anable
Post by Jim Anable
of paritisan spin and large quantities of suspension of disbelief.
The story in the CNN link says: "Navy and administration sources said
that though the banner was the Navy's
idea, the White House actually made it."
Would the White House have made such a banner if it wasn't part of GW's
publicity stunt and photo-op?
LOL!! Would have Bush even invaded Iraq in the first place for a "photo op?"
Steve Eaton
2004-02-19 19:34:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Anable
Post by Jim Anable
Post by Jim Anable
Wait a minute, don't I remember a BIG banner saying "Mission
Accomplished"?
Post by Jim Anable
It was flying on the Lincoln when GW made his photo-op landing.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/
As is entirely appropriate for a ship returning to port after accomplishing
it's mission.
To extrapolate some larger context for that sign requires much in the way
of paritisan spin and large quantities of suspension of disbelief.
The story in the CNN link says: "Navy and administration sources said
that though the banner was the Navy's
idea, the White House actually made it."
Would the White House have made such a banner if it wasn't part of GW's
publicity stunt and photo-op?
Obviously, I don't know why they did that any more than you do, but
if I had to guess, I would say that the WH did it themselves to ensure
that there was nothing innapropriate on the banner if it were going
to appear behind the Prez.
Post by Jim Anable
Post by Jim Anable
Post by Jim Anable
Civilian deaths: 8,000 to 10,000
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm
Post by Jim Anable
U.S. deaths: 543, FOUR HUNDRED AND THREE SINCE MAY 1st (date of "Mission
Accomplished" banner)! http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/
Cut the spin Jim.
The banner didn't say that the war was over did it?
Neither did Bush.
In his speech, Bush declared victory in the battle of Iraq. However, Bush now
admits that his declaration of the end of major combat was a MISTAKE.
And so? It would appear that Bush just cannot get it right in your opinion.
If he holds on to his previous statements, you call him a liar. If he
changes
his opinion you call him an idiot. There is no point for Bush to try to
please people like you, as nothing he does will do so.

IMO, he was accurate in his assessment that the major combat was over. Since
then, while battles have been ongoing, it would be a huge stretch to
call them "major combat". Most all of the are just local security actions
and anti-insurgent forays.

In fact, in historical perspective, I don't think that the entire Iraq
episode would qualify for "major combat" status.

Compare it to The Darden, Bellieu Woods, or Gettysburg, now THOSE
were major battles.
Josh Dougherty
2004-02-21 11:35:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Eaton
And so? It would appear that Bush just cannot get it right in your opinion.
If he holds on to his previous statements, you call him a liar. If he
changes
his opinion you call him an idiot. There is no point for Bush to try to
please people like you, as nothing he does will do so.
I can think of a few things:

1. resign
2. issue a public apology to the people of Iraq, the United States and the world.
3. Turn himself over for prosecution before an international court of justice.
Mitchell Benson
2004-02-21 14:35:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Steve Eaton
And so? It would appear that Bush just cannot get it right in your opinion.
If he holds on to his previous statements, you call him a liar. If he
changes
his opinion you call him an idiot. There is no point for Bush to try to
please people like you, as nothing he does will do so.
1. resign
2. issue a public apology to the people of Iraq, the United States and the world.
3. Turn himself over for prosecution before an international court of justice.
Amen!

__________________
Mitchell Benson
OKC Backup
www.okcbackup.com
GENOMEMAN
2004-02-21 14:51:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Abrams
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Steve Eaton
And so? It would appear that Bush just cannot get it right in your opinion.
If he holds on to his previous statements, you call him a liar. If he
changes
his opinion you call him an idiot. There is no point for Bush to try to
please people like you, as nothing he does will do so.
1. resign
2. issue a public apology to the people of Iraq, the United States and the world.
3. Turn himself over for prosecution before an international court of justice.
LOL!! And this is why leftists are dangerous. Once again, you will be proven
to be on the wrong side of history, just like the cold war, when your ilk
wanted us to appease the USSR (Reagan was dumb, don't want him near the
button, let's decrease our nuclear capabilities, etc....same shit, different
era). You still can hear the collective gasp from the leftists when Reagan
said, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"
Post by Dan Abrams
Amen!
__________________
Mitchell Benson
OKC Backup
www.okcbackup.com
Josh Dougherty
2004-02-21 21:00:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brad Johnson
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Steve Eaton
And so? It would appear that Bush just cannot get it right in your
opinion.
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Steve Eaton
If he holds on to his previous statements, you call him a liar. If he
changes
his opinion you call him an idiot. There is no point for Bush to try to
please people like you, as nothing he does will do so.
1. resign
2. issue a public apology to the people of Iraq, the United States and
the world.
Post by Josh Dougherty
3. Turn himself over for prosecution before an international court of
justice.
LOL!! And this is why leftists are dangerous. Once again, you will be proven
to be on the wrong side of history, just like the cold war, when your ilk
wanted us to appease the USSR (Reagan was dumb, don't want him near the
button, let's decrease our nuclear capabilities, etc....same shit, different
era). You still can hear the collective gasp from the leftists when Reagan
said, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"
Have you ever had an original thought, or do you just transcribe Sean
Hannity's and randomly insert them into usenet threads?
Romeo Rondeau
2004-02-21 21:22:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh Dougherty
Have you ever had an original thought, or do you just transcribe Sean
Hannity's and randomly insert them into usenet threads?
I'd rather it be Sean Hannity's words than some candy assed internet
scouring liberal spewing garbage out of his non-Microsoft based Linux box
:-)
GENOMEMAN
2004-02-21 21:55:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by GENOMEMAN
Post by Brad Johnson
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Steve Eaton
And so? It would appear that Bush just cannot get it right in your
opinion.
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Steve Eaton
If he holds on to his previous statements, you call him a liar. If he
changes
his opinion you call him an idiot. There is no point for Bush to try
to
Post by Brad Johnson
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Steve Eaton
please people like you, as nothing he does will do so.
1. resign
2. issue a public apology to the people of Iraq, the United States and
the world.
Post by Josh Dougherty
3. Turn himself over for prosecution before an international court of
justice.
LOL!! And this is why leftists are dangerous. Once again, you will be
proven
Post by Brad Johnson
to be on the wrong side of history, just like the cold war, when your ilk
wanted us to appease the USSR (Reagan was dumb, don't want him near the
button, let's decrease our nuclear capabilities, etc....same shit,
different
Post by Brad Johnson
era). You still can hear the collective gasp from the leftists when Reagan
said, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"
Have you ever had an original thought, or do you just transcribe Sean
Hannity's and randomly insert them into usenet threads?
Thanks for letting me know it was an effective statement since you have no
intellectual rebuttal, and you know I am right.
Josh Dougherty
2004-02-22 02:15:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by GENOMEMAN
Post by GENOMEMAN
Post by Brad Johnson
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Steve Eaton
And so? It would appear that Bush just cannot get it right in your
opinion.
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Steve Eaton
If he holds on to his previous statements, you call him a liar. If
he
Post by GENOMEMAN
Post by Brad Johnson
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Steve Eaton
changes
his opinion you call him an idiot. There is no point for Bush to try
to
Post by Brad Johnson
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Steve Eaton
please people like you, as nothing he does will do so.
1. resign
2. issue a public apology to the people of Iraq, the United States
and
Post by GENOMEMAN
Post by Brad Johnson
the world.
Post by Josh Dougherty
3. Turn himself over for prosecution before an international court
of
Post by GENOMEMAN
Post by Brad Johnson
justice.
LOL!! And this is why leftists are dangerous. Once again, you will be
proven
Post by Brad Johnson
to be on the wrong side of history, just like the cold war, when your
ilk
Post by GENOMEMAN
Post by Brad Johnson
wanted us to appease the USSR (Reagan was dumb, don't want him near the
button, let's decrease our nuclear capabilities, etc....same shit,
different
Post by Brad Johnson
era). You still can hear the collective gasp from the leftists when
Reagan
Post by GENOMEMAN
Post by Brad Johnson
said, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"
Have you ever had an original thought, or do you just transcribe Sean
Hannity's and randomly insert them into usenet threads?
Thanks for letting me know it was an effective statement since you have no
intellectual rebuttal, and you know I am right.
An argument by assertion doesn't require or merit an "intellectual
rebuttal" -- though I don't expect you to understand this. The comment
received was already *far* more than your plagiarised non sequitur deserved.
GENOMEMAN
2004-02-22 05:08:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by GENOMEMAN
Thanks for letting me know it was an effective statement since you have no
intellectual rebuttal, and you know I am right.
An argument by assertion doesn't require or merit an "intellectual
rebuttal" -- though I don't expect you to understand this. The comment
received was already *far* more than your plagiarised non sequitur deserved.
Ahh yes...the all knowing, all seeing, maha-Josh Dougherty.

Gawd, talk about delusions of grandeur!

Steve Eaton
2004-02-21 15:35:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Abrams
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Steve Eaton
And so? It would appear that Bush just cannot get it right in your opinion.
If he holds on to his previous statements, you call him a liar. If he
changes
his opinion you call him an idiot. There is no point for Bush to try to
please people like you, as nothing he does will do so.
1. resign
2. issue a public apology to the people of Iraq, the United States and the world.
3. Turn himself over for prosecution before an international court of justice.
Amen!
__________________
Mitchell Benson
Great, another voice from the dim outerworld of the fringe.
Cult of Nurse's
2004-02-21 17:43:32 UTC
Permalink
Funny. I have always thought about the name 'Steve' (BTW, your name!) as
St. Evil

Your thought's?
PS I know this message.
Steve Eaton
2004-02-21 21:25:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cult of Nurse's
Funny. I have always thought about the name 'Steve'
Great! You know I have always thought about the name Cult too.
Post by Cult of Nurse's
(BTW, your name!)
No shit! That's my name?
Thanks for reminding me, otherwise your
complicated and clever flame would've gone, right over my head.

Actually Steven means "The Crown".
What does being afraid to use your own name mean?
Post by Cult of Nurse's
as
St. Evil
Yeah, that's because it's spelled just like it, huh?
Post by Cult of Nurse's
Your thought's?
I don't think you would be interested in thoughts.
Post by Cult of Nurse's
PS I know this message.
Well, you sent it, I should hope so.
Steve Eaton
2004-02-21 15:33:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh Dougherty
Post by Steve Eaton
And so? It would appear that Bush just cannot get it right in your opinion.
If he holds on to his previous statements, you call him a liar. If he
changes
his opinion you call him an idiot. There is no point for Bush to try to
please people like you, as nothing he does will do so.
1. resign
2. issue a public apology to the people of Iraq, the United States and the world.
3. Turn himself over for prosecution before an international court of justice.
Let me guess, you're in your early twenties and this is your first
experience with politics.
No point in his trying to please people like you either.
How's your boy Kincinich doing?LOL.
Brad Johnson
2004-02-17 00:09:48 UTC
Permalink
So that's what that banner meant.

Spin, huh?

Brad
Subject: Re: OT: We are/are not winning in Iraq
Date: 2/16/2004 6:29 PM Eastern Standard Time
Post by Jim Anable
Wait a minute, don't I remember a BIG banner saying "Mission
Accomplished"?
Post by Jim Anable
It was flying on the Lincoln when GW made his photo-op landing.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/
As is entirely appropriate for a ship returning to port after accomplishing
it's mission.
To extrapolate some larger context for that sign requires much in the way
of paritisan spin and large quantities of suspension of disbelief.
Post by Jim Anable
Civilian deaths: 8,000 to 10,000
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm
Post by Jim Anable
U.S. deaths: 543, FOUR HUNDRED AND THREE SINCE MAY 1st (date of "Mission
Accomplished" banner)! http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/
Cut the spin Jim.
The banner didn't say that the war was over did it?
Neither did Bush.
Stop the partisan spin, it helps nothing.
Dr. Riddim
2004-02-16 20:05:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by GENOMEMAN
Read this excerpt from one of the leading member of Ansar al-Islam, Abu
"We can pack up and leave and look for another land, just like what has
happened in so many lands of jihad," the memo states, according to the
Times. "Our enemy is growing stronger day after day, and its intelligence
information increases. ... By God, this is suffocation."
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040209-111042-9241r.htm
Personally, I think this letter shows they are desperate, and "packing up"
like so many libs want us to do, would allow the terrorists to declare
victory.
Discuss....
Define "we".

If by "we" you mean Halliburton, SAIC, Baker-Hughes, Fluor
International, Bechtel, Worldcom/MCI, etc. then "we" most DEFINITELY are
winning - to the tune of billions of dollars.

If by "we" you mean anyone else - especially the men & women on the
front lines who are continuing to make the greatest sacrifice a citizen
can make for his or her country - the answer would have to be a
resounding NO.

I remain incredulous that there are those of you out there who are so
incredibly self-obsessed you actually feel that things are great just
because your lives are going well at the moment. The temerity of that
position horrifies me. It is PRECISELY that mentality that has
precipated (and enabled) some of the most horrific events in human
history.

I'm not saying you shouldn't enjoy whatever blessings you are given, I'm
saying you should recognize that you need to take a more active role in
the big picture - of which you (willingly or unwillingly) are a part.
Fat, dumb, and happy is not the way to live. Ask the ancient Romans.

Doc
RonSonic
2004-02-17 01:53:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Riddim
Post by GENOMEMAN
Read this excerpt from one of the leading member of Ansar al-Islam, Abu
"We can pack up and leave and look for another land, just like what has
happened in so many lands of jihad," the memo states, according to the
Times. "Our enemy is growing stronger day after day, and its intelligence
information increases. ... By God, this is suffocation."
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040209-111042-9241r.htm
Personally, I think this letter shows they are desperate, and "packing up"
like so many libs want us to do, would allow the terrorists to declare
victory.
Discuss....
Define "we".
If by "we" you mean Halliburton, SAIC, Baker-Hughes, Fluor
International, Bechtel, Worldcom/MCI, etc. then "we" most DEFINITELY are
winning - to the tune of billions of dollars.
If by "we" you mean anyone else - especially the men & women on the
front lines who are continuing to make the greatest sacrifice a citizen
can make for his or her country - the answer would have to be a
resounding NO.
I remain incredulous that there are those of you out there who are so
incredibly self-obsessed you actually feel that things are great just
because your lives are going well at the moment. The temerity of that
position horrifies me. It is PRECISELY that mentality that has
precipated (and enabled) some of the most horrific events in human
history.
I'm sorry, was there something you'd like to see me publicly agonize over?
Post by Dr. Riddim
I'm not saying you shouldn't enjoy whatever blessings you are given, I'm
saying you should recognize that you need to take a more active role in
the big picture - of which you (willingly or unwillingly) are a part.
Oh, it was something you wanted me to do. What'd that be?
Post by Dr. Riddim
Fat, dumb, and happy is not the way to live. Ask the ancient Romans.
Meeting your enemy in the field rather than let him attack you at camp or in
town is something that yet more ancient Romans understood.

Ron
claudel
2004-02-17 02:04:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by RonSonic
Post by Dr. Riddim
Post by GENOMEMAN
Read this excerpt from one of the leading member of Ansar al-Islam, Abu
"We can pack up and leave and look for another land, just like what has
happened in so many lands of jihad," the memo states, according to the
Times. "Our enemy is growing stronger day after day, and its intelligence
information increases. ... By God, this is suffocation."
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040209-111042-9241r.htm
Personally, I think this letter shows they are desperate, and "packing up"
like so many libs want us to do, would allow the terrorists to declare
victory.
Discuss....
Define "we".
If by "we" you mean Halliburton, SAIC, Baker-Hughes, Fluor
International, Bechtel, Worldcom/MCI, etc. then "we" most DEFINITELY are
winning - to the tune of billions of dollars.
If by "we" you mean anyone else - especially the men & women on the
front lines who are continuing to make the greatest sacrifice a citizen
can make for his or her country - the answer would have to be a
resounding NO.
I remain incredulous that there are those of you out there who are so
incredibly self-obsessed you actually feel that things are great just
because your lives are going well at the moment. The temerity of that
position horrifies me. It is PRECISELY that mentality that has
precipated (and enabled) some of the most horrific events in human
history.
I'm sorry, was there something you'd like to see me publicly agonize over?
Post by Dr. Riddim
I'm not saying you shouldn't enjoy whatever blessings you are given, I'm
saying you should recognize that you need to take a more active role in
the big picture - of which you (willingly or unwillingly) are a part.
Oh, it was something you wanted me to do. What'd that be?
Post by Dr. Riddim
Fat, dumb, and happy is not the way to live. Ask the ancient Romans.
Meeting your enemy in the field rather than let him attack you at camp or in
town is something that yet more ancient Romans understood.
Just curious.

How many problems did the Romans have with Carthage
after the Third Punic War?


Claude
Dr. Riddim
2004-02-17 08:55:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by claudel
Post by RonSonic
Post by Dr. Riddim
Fat, dumb, and happy is not the way to live. Ask the ancient Romans.
Meeting your enemy in the field rather than let him attack you at camp
or in town is something that yet more ancient Romans understood.
Just curious.
How many problems did the Romans have with Carthage
after the Third Punic War?
What a ridiculous rejoinder. Had you spent any time with Polybius you'd
know damned well what I'm saying. Scipio knew what that war
represented. It took a few hundred years, but it happened...
Dr. Riddim
2004-02-17 08:59:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by RonSonic
Meeting your enemy in the field rather than let him attack you at camp or in
town is something that yet more ancient Romans understood.
Yep, and look where it got 'em. This isn't a discussion of military
strategy. If you can't stay on topic, don't post to the thread.
RonSonic
2004-02-17 14:19:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Riddim
Post by RonSonic
Meeting your enemy in the field rather than let him attack you at camp or in
town is something that yet more ancient Romans understood.
Yep, and look where it got 'em. This isn't a discussion of military
strategy. If you can't stay on topic, don't post to the thread.
This is entirely about military and diplomatic strategy.

Ron
Gtski
2004-02-17 23:33:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Riddim
Post by RonSonic
Meeting your enemy in the field rather than let him attack you at camp or in
town is something that yet more ancient Romans understood.
Yep, and look where it got 'em. This isn't a discussion of military
strategy. If you can't stay on topic, don't post to the thread.
Don't the British/English call the era
of Roman "occupation" the "GOLDEN ERA".. of their history...? ? ?

Maybe you should clarify what assumptions YOU make about
the "topic" of this thread....

* * * * OT: We are/are not winning in Iraq

Are we discussing "winning" a cricket match in Iraq... ? ? ?

gtski
Pooh Bear
2004-02-18 04:06:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gtski
Post by Dr. Riddim
Post by RonSonic
Meeting your enemy in the field rather than let him attack you at camp
or in
Post by Dr. Riddim
Post by RonSonic
town is something that yet more ancient Romans understood.
Yep, and look where it got 'em. This isn't a discussion of military
strategy. If you can't stay on topic, don't post to the thread.
Don't the British/English call the era
of Roman "occupation" the "GOLDEN ERA".. of their history...? ? ?
Uh ?

Where did you get that wacky idea ?

And no btw.
Post by Gtski
Maybe you should clarify what assumptions YOU make about
the "topic" of this thread....
* * * * OT: We are/are not winning in Iraq
Are we discussing "winning" a cricket match in Iraq... ? ? ?
It would seem that the US administration looks at terrorism as a 'war' that
can be won.

Us Brits tried that already in Northern Ireland. Peace only came about due to
a fundamental rethink.

Graham
Bob Cain
2004-02-18 06:29:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pooh Bear
It would seem that the US administration looks at terrorism as a 'war' that
can be won.
I think that if they called it what it really is,
fanaticism, the futility might be more apparent.
"Terrorist" somehow sounds less formidible and more
tractable than "fanatic."

"Corruption is the only thing that can defeat fanaticism",
says Salman Rushdie. This of course requires corruptable
fanatics. Lack of such an opponent leads naturally to what
you suggest, a fundamental rethinking of the problem.


Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
RonSonic
2004-02-19 01:56:06 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 04:06:39 +0000, Pooh Bear
Post by Pooh Bear
Post by Gtski
Post by Dr. Riddim
Post by RonSonic
Meeting your enemy in the field rather than let him attack you at camp
or in
Post by Dr. Riddim
Post by RonSonic
town is something that yet more ancient Romans understood.
Yep, and look where it got 'em. This isn't a discussion of military
strategy. If you can't stay on topic, don't post to the thread.
Don't the British/English call the era
of Roman "occupation" the "GOLDEN ERA".. of their history...? ? ?
Uh ?
Where did you get that wacky idea ?
And no btw.
Yeah, and what'd the Romans ever do for us?
Post by Pooh Bear
Post by Gtski
Maybe you should clarify what assumptions YOU make about
the "topic" of this thread....
* * * * OT: We are/are not winning in Iraq
Are we discussing "winning" a cricket match in Iraq... ? ? ?
It would seem that the US administration looks at terrorism as a 'war' that
can be won.
Us Brits tried that already in Northern Ireland. Peace only came about due to
a fundamental rethink.
That's the idea of war, force your opponent to engage in a fundamental rethink.

Ron
Brad Johnson
2004-02-19 02:35:14 UTC
Permalink
They gave us those cool dates at the end of movies.

Brad
Subject: Re: OT: We are/are not winning in Iraq
Date: 2/18/2004 8:56 PM Eastern Standard Time
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 04:06:39 +0000, Pooh Bear
Yeah, and what'd the Romans ever do for us?
Mitchell Benson
2004-02-19 04:54:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by RonSonic
That's the idea of war, force your opponent to engage in a fundamental rethink.
Ron
I thought the idea of war was to blow the living fuck out of your
opponent so that they COULDN'T think.

_________________
Mitchell Benson
OKC Backup
www.okcbackup.com
RonSonic
2004-02-19 14:35:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Benson
Post by RonSonic
That's the idea of war, force your opponent to engage in a fundamental rethink.
Ron
I thought the idea of war was to blow the living fuck out of your
opponent so that they COULDN'T think.
Not usually feasible and often counterproductive, but occasionally necessary.
The usual formula is to kill them until the rest stop fighting. When that is
depends on what sort of victor's justice they expect.

Ron
nmm
2004-02-19 16:40:03 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 22:54:11 -0600, Mitchell Benson <
Post by Mitchell Benson
Post by RonSonic
That's the idea of war, force your opponent to engage in a
fundamental rethink.
Post by Mitchell Benson
Post by RonSonic
Ron
I thought the idea of war was to blow the living fuck out of your
opponent so that they COULDN'T think.
Not usually feasible and often counterproductive, but
occasionally necessary.
The usual formula is to kill them until the rest stop fighting.
When that is
depends on what sort of victor's justice they expect.
Ron
The last few "wars" have been more about using public money ( or Credit)
to pay for expensive weapons and services from private corporations. These
same private corporations who have invested heavily to get candidates that
share this agenda in office.
the goals and objectives of the War don't really matter that much, but
currency manipulation natural resources, slave labour, revenge
and supporting some family friends can be a fringe benifit.
Pooh Bear
2004-02-20 03:15:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by RonSonic
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 04:06:39 +0000, Pooh Bear
Post by Pooh Bear
It would seem that the US administration looks at terrorism as a 'war' that
can be won.
Us Brits tried that already in Northern Ireland. Peace only came about due to
a fundamental rethink.
That's the idea of war, force your opponent to engage in a fundamental rethink.
It was 'us Brits' that had to do the re-think dummy !

Even back in the 70s ? Edward Heath's Conservative gov't was having 'secret talks'
with the IRA.


Graham
Phil N. LeBlanc
2004-02-16 20:07:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by GENOMEMAN
Read this excerpt from one of the leading member of Ansar al-Islam, Abu
"We can pack up and leave and look for another land, just like what has
happened in so many lands of jihad," the memo states, according to the
Times. "Our enemy is growing stronger day after day, and its intelligence
information increases. ... By God, this is suffocation."
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040209-111042-9241r.htm
Personally, I think this letter shows they are desperate, and "packing up"
like so many libs want us to do, would allow the terrorists to declare
victory.
Discuss....
How about not cross posting to AGA? You stir up enough shit in AGB to
keep you busy, don't you?
Dan Abrams
2004-02-17 00:44:18 UTC
Permalink
Hey, you too can join the war against terrorism with this e-bay item:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3078059896&category=4672&sspagename=STRK%3AMEBWA%3AIT&rd=1

(ordinance not included!)
Post by GENOMEMAN
Read this excerpt from one of the leading member of Ansar al-Islam, Abu
"We can pack up and leave and look for another land, just like what has
happened in so many lands of jihad," the memo states, according to the
Times. "Our enemy is growing stronger day after day, and its intelligence
information increases. ... By God, this is suffocation."
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040209-111042-9241r.htm
Personally, I think this letter shows they are desperate, and "packing up"
like so many libs want us to do, would allow the terrorists to declare
victory.
Discuss....
--
_________________________________________________________
If a man among you holds no sin upon his hand,
then let him cast a stone at me for playing in the band.

http://www.bluepearlband.com
Dave Moore
2004-02-17 11:20:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by GENOMEMAN
Read this excerpt from one of the leading member of Ansar al-Islam, Abu
"We can pack up and leave and look for another land, just like what has
happened in so many lands of jihad," the memo states, according to the
Times. "Our enemy is growing stronger day after day, and its intelligence
information increases. ... By God, this is suffocation."
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040209-111042-9241r.htm
Personally, I think this letter shows they are desperate, and "packing up"
like so many libs want us to do, would allow the terrorists to declare
victory.
Discuss....
Even if we ever win the war,, reconstruction
will probably fail just like it did in the Civil war.
Loading...