 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Dodge / Dodge Trucks / December 2006OT<<< Weekend BS Post>>>
I'm sure most of you have read or heard of the study and recommendations about our policy in Iraq. What do you think that GW will do regarding the recommendations contained in the study? Bonus question: Do you feel that Iraq has fallen into a civil war? > I'm sure most of you have read or heard of the study and recommendations > about our policy in Iraq. > > What do you think that GW will do regarding the recommendations contained > in the study? I think he will puss out and do what ever he can at this point to make sure he does not look like a failure. He could care less about what really needs to be done, he does not have the ability to do it right and he is going to fail. > Bonus question: > > Do you feel that Iraq has fallen into a civil war? With the exception of Saddam, it always has been a civil war and will be that way long after we pull out and move on. Iraq will end up being just like Bosnia/Yugo and Vietnam if we don't lobby our congressmen and senators to do what is right. How many more US Service members need to die for something that we really have no reason to be involved in? The war on terror? HA we will NOT catch Osama because "they" will not let us and even if we did, the war on terror is a farse and will not end because there will ALWAYS be terrorist. >> I'm sure most of you have read or heard of the study and recommendations >> about our policy in Iraq. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >to be done, he does not have the ability to do it right and he is going to >fail. probably right............however the american people have to take their share of the blame for this. the media coverage in this country is very liberal. (not trying to sound like budd.......just sayin). the enemy knows that they can beat us in the press. look at the coverage. our us losses have been statistically very low, but every single casualty appears on the front page of every paper. the president, whoever it is.......repub or demo.........has to run his agenda for the papers.........not for what it right. the will of americans, in general is very low. >> Bonus question: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >if we did, the war on terror is a farse and will not end because there will >ALWAYS be terrorist. you could not be more wrong. the war on terror is very real and as i said before............americans need to realize this and develop the will to win the war on terror. yugo, bosnia, iraq........they are all our neighbors now. this is a very global world, america is very affected by what happens in those countries. having said that......i probably agree with you that our strategy of fighting this war is pretty poorly laid out. im not sure that iraq was the "head" of the terrorist movement as much as bush wanted to make it an example to the others of the military ability of the us. bad move. i think iran, saudi and pakistan may be where the real issues develop. im not sure that force is right way to win this war either.........certainly not as a sole strategy. but if you don't think that terrorism is a threat to the us........you are very wrong. the world has slowly been turning more extremist and terrorism is the tool of the extremists. there will always be terrorists but that is not a reason to condone it or to allow it to continue. there will always be murders too. there will always be death too. we don't just don't accept that without raising any effort to stem the tide. i think that we agree that the strategy of the bush admin hasn't been good or effective and we are all skeptics when tying to hold out hope that there is a president out there somewhere who will form a solid, intellignet and well prepared strategy............but that doesn't mean you throw in the towell. you just sound bitter to me larry. >>> I'm sure most of you have read or heard of the study and recommendations >>> about our policy in Iraq. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > coverage. our us losses have been statistically very low, but every > single casualty appears on the front page of every paper. I have no problem with this at all. We as a country should know the cost in lives. We should also be made aware of the wounded and the extent of the wounds, be they physical or psycological. Further, we should be made aware of the long term cost of these wounded. Perhaps then we would not be in such a hurry to toss our troops into harms way. the > president, whoever it is.......repub or demo.........has to run his > agenda for the papers.........not for what it right. the will of [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >>will >>ALWAYS be terrorist. I have a really hard time believing that with all the toy's we have that we have yet to locate Osama. We have sat's that can read a friggin' licence plate from orbit and we can't come up with this guy? It smells a lttle funny to me. Roy >>>> I'm sure most of you have read or heard of the study and >>>> recommendations [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > Roy Though it was a different time and a different war, look how uneffective we were in the tunnels. Hinding some one that is underground (litterally) is not that easy, technology or not. Besides, we are trying to fight some one that is used to running and hiding and never being found unless he wants to be, in manner that (IMO) simply won't work. I think that to catch him we will have to think, act and fight like him but that will not happen. Or, you could be right Roy, maybe he is a CIA operative and they are hiding him! LOL >>>>> I'm sure most of you have read or heard of the study and >>>>> recommendations [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > Or, you could be right Roy, maybe he is a CIA operative and they are > hiding him! LOL That isn't what I said. But who did the government fly out of the country right after 9/11 when all plans were grounded? Bin Laden's relative's!! >>>>>> I'm sure most of you have read or heard of the study and >>>>>> recommendations [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] >That isn't what I said. But who did the government fly out of the country >right after 9/11 when all plans were grounded? Bin Laden's relative's!! the ones that oppose him? the ones that he has threatened? those relatives? >>>>>>> I'm sure most of you have read or heard of the study and >>>>>>> recommendations [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] > the ones that oppose him? the ones that he has threatened? those > relatives? Don't know, but must be pretty special people. >>>>>> I'm sure most of you have read or heard of the study and >>>>>> recommendations [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > That isn't what I said. But who did the government fly out of the country > right after 9/11 when all plans were grounded? Bin Laden's relative's!! Roy learn to read please, see the LOL after what I said. damn you are starting to sound like budd. <BG> >>>>>>> I'm sure most of you have read or heard of the study and >>>>>>> recommendations [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > Roy learn to read please, see the LOL after what I said. damn you are > starting to sound like budd. <BG> Hey!! That's bashing of one sort or another! <GBFG> >>> I'm sure most of you have read or heard of the study and recommendations >>> about our policy in Iraq. [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > will always be death too. we don't just don't accept that without > raising any effort to stem the tide. I agree the war on terro is real, I don't think I said anything other. Though I do think it is just an excuss (at times) for Bush to "justify" his doings. However, do you really think that catch Osama will stop it? I don't, some one else will take over and may be a lot worse. Sort of like the worries of what will happen in N. Korea when Kim Il kicks the bucket and his son takes over, who happens to be a bigger extremist then his old man. I don't condone it anymore then I condone the continuation of illegal immigation! But just about anyone can see that we will (esspecially when the US ends up doing it alone) never be able to stop it. Lets look back at Yugo. I agree that Molosevek (sp) was wrong and agree with us going in there to stop him. However, when the country split for the reasons that it did, how did this because something that we had to stay there for and deal with? We are becoming a world police force and that is NOT what the military is for. If something were to happen on OUR soil right now, we could not defend ourself! That is wrong! What next, do we go back in to Mogodishu because they are fighting again? I'm sorry but I think we need to pick what we get involved with better. Iraq - WMD? Where were they, nothing has been found, then it twists to the capture of Saddam, we did that, then it twist to the war on terror, then a final twist to "stabilize" their country. > i think that we agree that the strategy of the bush admin hasn't been > good or effective and we are all skeptics when tying to hold out hope > that there is a president out there somewhere who will form a solid, > intellignet and well prepared strategy............but that doesn't > mean you throw in the towell. you just sound bitter to me larry. Not bitter, sick of seeing friends, family and loved ones go over to places like that to be the damn world police force and not come home alive. There are justifiable reasons to some of the things we do, but I'm sorry there is (IMO) no more reason to be in Iraq. They need to fix their country not us! >>>> I'm sure most of you have read or heard of the study and recommendations >>>> about our policy in Iraq. [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] >Though I do think it is just an excuss (at times) for Bush to "justify" his >doings. However, do you really think that catch Osama will stop it? don't put words in my mouth. i don't remember even mentionng osama. he is a pretty small cog in this whole thing. i really don't care if they catch him or not. > I >don't, some one else will take over and may be a lot worse. Sort of like [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I don't condone it anymore then I condone the continuation of illegal >immigation! thats a whole other animal. different discussion-no relevance to this one. > But just about anyone can see that we will (esspecially when >the US ends up doing it alone) never be able to stop it. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >there for and deal with? We are becoming a world police force and that is >NOT what the military is for. i agree that it is not what the military is trained for, if that is what you mean. >If something were to happen on OUR soil right now, we could not defend >ourself! That is wrong! What next, do we go back in to Mogodishu because [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >are justifiable reasons to some of the things we do, but I'm sorry there is >(IMO) no more reason to be in Iraq. They need to fix their country not us! its a mixed bag. it is apparent that they can't fix it. it is also questionable whether or not they even want to fix it. but the troops that i talk to that have been there do not share your opinion nor do they feel that the real story is portrayed by the media in this country. i think we agree on that though. you did hit the nail on the head though and helped to illustrate my point. the military is not trained to be a police force. very different things. the military is trained to assault. that is not what we are doing in iraq. that is urban police work. when the military does what it is trained to do in iraq, that is to assault and destroy, they are blasted by our media and politicians as being killers. so, instead they have to try to be police officers and to run a containment campaign in a foriegn country. they can't do that and they are getting killed. the media and politicians then say the military can't do the job. they could, but there would be a lot of collateral damage and a lot of civilian deaths, which americans will not support. so........that being the case, they are stuck. we either have to grow a pair and accept the consequesnces of what we need to do or we need to bring the troops home and get ready for the consequences of not taking care of the business of doing what we need to do to protect our nation. now, i understand that is only one mans opinion and there are many americans that do not agree. >>>>> I'm sure most of you have read or heard of the study and >>>>> recommendations [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > he is a pretty small cog in this whole thing. i really don't care if > they catch him or not. No you didn't, I did in my original post, maybe you need to read it again? >> I >>don't, some one else will take over and may be a lot worse. Sort of like [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > they feel that the real story is portrayed by the media in this > country. Yes we agree that the media is not and never will report things the way they really are. As to the troops that you talk, just as with you, there are a large number of troops I talk to that DO feel the same as I do. So on that I'll call it a draw. > i think we agree on that though. you did hit the nail on > the head though and helped to illustrate my point. the military is [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > now, i understand that is only one mans opinion and there are many > americans that do not agree. >>>>>> I'm sure most of you have read or heard of the study and >>>>>> recommendations [quoted text clipped - 129 lines] >large number of troops I talk to that DO feel the same as I do. So on that >I'll call it a draw. fair enough and every troop that has been over there deserves to be heard so i have no problem with all of their views being brought out. >> i think we agree on that though. you did hit the nail on >> the head though and helped to illustrate my point. the military is [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> now, i understand that is only one mans opinion and there are many >> americans that do not agree. BTW.. My step daughter made it home, safe and sound. Now my cousin (damn jarhead) is deploying for his third rotation, damn shame of it is that he goes out on or about Christmas day. >>>>>>> I'm sure most of you have read or heard of the study and >>>>>>> recommendations [quoted text clipped - 162 lines] >>> now, i understand that is only one mans opinion and there are many >>> americans that do not agree. > BTW.. My step daughter made it home, safe and sound. Now my cousin (damn > jarhead) is deploying for his third rotation, damn shame of it is that he > goes out on or about Christmas day. smile when you say 'jarhead" wiley! Mike >>>>>>>> I'm sure most of you have read or heard of the study and >>>>>>>> recommendations [quoted text clipped - 179 lines] >>>> now, i understand that is only one mans opinion and there are many >>>> americans that do not agree. Ok Mr. Leatherneck! How are the heated seats? LOL >> BTW.. My step daughter made it home, safe and sound. Now my cousin (damn >> jarhead) is deploying for his third rotation, damn shame of it is that he [quoted text clipped - 199 lines] >>>>> now, i understand that is only one mans opinion and there are many >>>>> americans that do not agree. > Ok Mr. Leatherneck! How are the heated seats? LOL Semper Warm! ;^) Mike >>> BTW.. My step daughter made it home, safe and sound. Now my cousin >>> (damn jarhead) is deploying for his third rotation, damn shame of it is [quoted text clipped - 211 lines] >>>>>> now, i understand that is only one mans opinion and there are many >>>>>> americans that do not agree. When someone types an email message, the information is turned into electronic code. The smallest unit of information is a "byte". A thousand bytes is a "kilobyte" like a thousand grams is a kilogram. And a million bytes is a MB, and a billion bytes is a gigabyte, or GB. When an emailer leaves the old text on the bottom, the message takes up more. More what? Well, more time to squeeze the message through the telephone wire. More down load time. Because the computer had to get (in effect) three or four messages through the phone wire. Your new message, plus the other messages that you left in the email. When computers were first connected to each other, it was often a long distance call to get the messages. So, leaving an old message on the bottom was incredibly bad manners -- because it cost the other guys on the list money to send the old message through the phone wire. And in the early days, it was a near certainty that anyone who left old text in a message would be criticized by others who had to pay long distance to download the old text. It's still bad manners, because it still takes time to send the messages. And it takes up more space on everyone's computer. 36 KB is "thirty six thousand bytes of information space". And when you send an email to a mailing list, everyone on the mailing list has to download the large message. Some people do have fast intenet service. Fast or slow, the 36 KB message still takes up 36,000 bits of information on everyone else's computer. Or at least everyone who is on the email list, and got your message. So, what to do about it? The polite thing to do is when you reply to scroll down into the message. Click the mouse pointer some where in the old text, and drag the pointer down to the bottom of the message. A bunch of old text will highlight (change color, or might turn into reverse -- white type on a colored background). Then press the "delete" key and the highlighted text will disappear. Do this as many times as needed to remove all the old text from previous messages. On some email programs, you can hold the left click down, and slide the pointer off the bottom of the email window. And it will continue to highlight more and more text. Well, can't you just read the message at the top? Sure. After my dialup connection (very slowly) downloads your couple words, plus all the old text from earlier emails. And then I get to store your couple of words plus all the earlier messages. Please leave enough of the old message so that we know what is the question you are answering. But highlight and delete any old text that isn't needed to make the point. Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org www.mormons.com . BTW.. My step daughter made it home, safe and sound. Now my cousin (damn jarhead) is deploying for his third rotation, damn shame of it is that he goes out on or about Christmas day. <theguy@whatever.net> wrote in message news:u0kmn29gf50l35bs0fe1t0tiu5hojo1v7a@4ax.com... > On Sat, 9 Dec 2006 16:21:27 -0700, "azwiley1" <azwiley1@cox.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 175 lines] >>> now, i understand that is only one mans opinion and there are many >>> americans that do not agree. What ever! > When someone types an email message, the information is turned into > electronic code. The smallest unit of information is a "byte". A [quoted text clipped - 318 lines] >>>> now, i understand that is only one mans opinion and there are many >>>> americans that do not agree. > What ever! WTF is he taliking about? What did I miss? >> When someone types an email message, the information is turned into >> electronic code. The smallest unit of information is a "byte". A [quoted text clipped - 318 lines] >>>>> now, i understand that is only one mans opinion and there are many >>>>> americans that do not agree. >> What ever! > WTF is he taliking about? > > What did I miss? I think, at least from what I gathered from the long winded netnannyish type post, that he is bothered by the fact that I top posted the BTW comments about my step daughter and cousin. >>> When someone types an email message, the information is turned into >>> electronic code. The smallest unit of information is a "byte". A [quoted text clipped - 318 lines] >>>>>> now, i understand that is only one mans opinion and there are many >>>>>> americans that do not agree. You top posted?? Shame on ya!<G> Tell your step daughter Welcome Home! and Thanks for doing what she does. Tell your cousin to keep his damn head down! Roy >>> What ever! >> WTF is he taliking about? [quoted text clipped - 327 lines] >>>>>>> now, i understand that is only one mans opinion and there are many >>>>>>> americans that do not agree. No, I wrote to ask you to trim excess text from your posts.  SignatureChristopher A. Young You can't shout down a troll. You have to starve them. . >> What ever! > WTF is he taliking about? > > What did I miss? I think, at least from what I gathered from the long winded netnannyish type post, that he is bothered by the fact that I top posted the BTW comments about my step daughter and cousin. >>> When someone types an email message, the information is turned into >>> electronic code. The smallest unit of information is a "byte". A [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>> When an emailer leaves the old text on the bottom, the message takes >>> up more. More what? Well, >No, I wrote to ask you to trim excess text from your posts. well, i think you got your answer. >Christopher A. Young > You can't shout down a troll. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >takes >>>> up more. More what? Well, Delete trailing text from posts before sending. SignatureChristopher A. Young You can't shout down a troll. You have to starve them. . > What ever! WTF is he taliking about? > Delete trailing text from posts before sending. You write a short story to complain about the size of attached post's and you do the same thing! OOOOOkay > Christopher A. Young > You can't shout down a troll. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> What ever! > WTF is he taliking about? The only time you've ever seen me leave untrimmed text is when I send the text back to let others actually do the trim text. Any other post is neatly trimmed. Please read a few of my other posts. None have been as badly cluttered as the ones I protested. SignatureChristopher A. Young You can't shout down a troll. You have to starve them. . > Delete trailing text from posts before sending. You write a short story to complain about the size of attached post's and you do the same thing! OOOOOkay > The only time you've ever seen me leave untrimmed text is when I send > the text back to let others actually do the trim text. Any other post > is neatly trimmed. I read your post complaning about the lack of trim. YOU did not trim the trailing post's that had nothing to do with your new subject. Never mind that, for one who wants to net nanny, you were off topic. Now with this post you are top posting. Geeeeeeze >Please read a few of my other posts. No more torture please.<G> >None have been > as badly cluttered as the ones I protested. I hate to be the one to tell ya but nobody really gives a damn. That is the nice thing about this UNmoderated bunch of people. They say what they want, and post what they want. Oh, and they post any way they want. It is doubtful that you will change that . But your more than welcome to try, it could be fun to watch. Roy >> Delete trailing text from posts before sending. > > You write a short story to complain about the size of attached post's > and > you do the same thing! > OOOOOkay On Sat, 9 Dec 2006 08:56:59 -0700, "azwiley1" <azwiley1@cox.net> wrote: >> What do you think that GW will do regarding the recommendations contained >> in the study? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >to be done, he does not have the ability to do it right and he is going to >fail. CY: My prediction is that he'll do mostly ineffective things that will continue to irritate them over there. probably right............however the american people have to take their share of the blame for this. the media coverage in this country is very liberal. (not trying to sound like budd.......just sayin). the enemy knows that they can beat us in the press. look at the coverage. our us losses have been statistically very low, but every single casualty appears on the front page of every paper. the president, whoever it is.......repub or demo.........has to run his agenda for the papers.........not for what it right. the will of americans, in general is very low. CY: I see a lot of support for the troops. It's the leadership who's doing ineffective nonsense. >> Bonus question: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >if we did, the war on terror is a farse and will not end because there will >ALWAYS be terrorist. CY: I'm in agreement that there will always be terrorists. However, there are a few things that can be done to help. you could not be more wrong. the war on terror is very real and as i said before............americans need to realize this and develop the will to win the war on terror. yugo, bosnia, iraq........they are all our neighbors now. this is a very global world, america is very affected by what happens in those countries. having said that......i probably agree with you that our strategy of fighting this war is pretty poorly laid out. im not sure that iraq was the "head" of the terrorist movement as much as bush wanted to make it an example to the others of the military ability of the us. bad move. i think iran, saudi and pakistan may be where the real issues develop. im not sure that force is right way to win this war either.........certainly not as a sole strategy. but if you don't think that terrorism is a threat to the us........you are very wrong. the world has slowly been turning more extremist and terrorism is the tool of the extremists. there will always be terrorists but that is not a reason to condone it or to allow it to continue. there will always be murders too. there will always be death too. we don't just don't accept that without raising any effort to stem the tide. CY: Would be nice to do a few more sensible things. Like do away with a lot of the gun laws in the US, and do away with the Patriot Acts which remove freedom from the US citizens. i think that we agree that the strategy of the bush admin hasn't been good or effective and we are all skeptics when tying to hold out hope that there is a president out there somewhere who will form a solid, intellignet and well prepared strategy............but that doesn't mean you throw in the towell. you just sound bitter to me larry. CY: Wish we could bring Ronald Reagan back to life. > I'm sure most of you have read or heard of the study and recommendations > about our policy in Iraq. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Do you feel that Iraq has fallen into a civil war? Its not a civil war when people from Iran and Syria are coming in attacking the Iraqis > I'm sure most of you have read or heard of the study and recommendations > about our policy in Iraq. > > What do you think that GW will do regarding the recommendations contained > in the study? Right or wrong, he'll do whatever is most likely to get his party the most votes in the next national election. > Bonus question: > > Do you feel that Iraq has fallen into a civil war? Absolutely, Sunni against Shiite is a civil war within an insurgency. >I'm sure most of you have read or heard of the study and recommendations >about our policy in Iraq. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Do you feel that Iraq has fallen into a civil war? I'm sure the study didn't suggest putting Saddam back in power if they don't get their sh.t together. That's what I would do. beekeep |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.