Car Forum / Mercedes-Benz Cars / July 2005
Bush Declares Sacrifice in Iraq to Be 'Worth It'
|
|
Thread rating:  |
loose cannon - 29 Jun 2005 06:09 GMT Doesn't sound like Mr. Bush plans on bringing our troops home anytime soon. Get ready for Jeb in 2008.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/29/politics/29prexy.html?hp&ex=1120104000&en=01a6 0703b5ae27e5&ei=5094&partner=homepage
Bush Declares Sacrifice in Iraq to Be 'Worth It'
FORT BRAGG, N.C., June 28 - President Bush, facing a growing restiveness around the country and in his own party over the constant stream of casualties in Iraq, declared Tuesday night that the daily sacrifice of American lives in Iraq "is worth it, and it is vital to the future security of our country."
Members of the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, N.C., Tuesday night during President Bush's address on the war on terrorism. He gave no timetable for American withdrawal. In an address to the nation from this Army base, in front of 750 members of the 82nd Airborne Division and the Army's Special Operations unit based here, Mr. Bush spoke in somber tones of the need for staying power in what has become a long conflict in Iraq. As he has in the past, the president melded the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks with the enemies Americans now face in Iraq.
Mr. Bush gave no timetables for American withdrawal other than an assurance that "as the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down."
While offering no new strategies in a war that has now stretched for 25 months, with no diminishing of attacks on American forces, he explained that he would not send more troops to face the insurgency in Iraq, unless asked by commanders there, because it would "undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight."
osprey - 29 Jun 2005 06:15 GMT > Doesn't sound like Mr. Bush plans on bringing our troops home anytime > soon. Get ready for Jeb in 2008. Approximately 1 in 8 American's think that Bush should bring the troops home before the job is finished. Regardless whether you think the war in Iraq was right or wrong, 7 out of 8 Americans think we should finish the job and stablize the area. I think most Americans are willing to support staying there until it's finished so we don't have to go back again. I don't think Jeb will run personally. I look for a Guilliani and Clinton race. I am hoping Hillary Clinton runs.
I wouldnt' be surprised to see Rice run someday in her career and possibly be the first woman to be President of the U.S.
Jenn - 29 Jun 2005 06:20 GMT > > Doesn't sound like Mr. Bush plans on bringing our troops home anytime > > soon. Get ready for Jeb in 2008. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I don't think Jeb will run personally. I look for a Guilliani and > Clinton race. I am hoping Hillary Clinton runs. Guilliani will NEVER get the Repub nomination: pro gay rights, pro choice, etc.
Mickey - 29 Jun 2005 13:15 GMT > > > Doesn't sound like Mr. Bush plans on bringing our troops home anytime > > > soon. Get ready for Jeb in 2008. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Guilliani will NEVER get the Repub nomination: pro gay rights, pro > choice, etc. Add yet, he may be the most electable republican out there.
Mickey
Jenn - 29 Jun 2005 16:03 GMT > > > > Doesn't sound like Mr. Bush plans on bringing our troops home anytime > > > > soon. Get ready for Jeb in 2008. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Mickey I agree; but the Right will never allow his nomination.
magilla - 29 Jun 2005 16:57 GMT > > > > > Doesn't sound like Mr. Bush plans on bringing our troops home anytime > > > > > soon. Get ready for Jeb in 2008. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > I agree; but the Right will never allow his nomination. Well then, I might send the Religious Right a "thank you" note. Speaking as a New Yorker, it disgusts me how Ghouliani has parlayed 9/11 into a career. And it perplexes me that so many people can think he's so wonderful when his claim to fame is that, for 6 weeks of his tenure as mayor of New York, he wasn't a prick.
Chris aa2186
Mickey - 29 Jun 2005 18:26 GMT > > > "Jenn" <jennconducts@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:jennconducts-4424FE.22211228062005@newssvr13-ext.news.prodigy.com...
> > > > > > Doesn't sound like Mr. Bush plans on bringing our troops home anytime > > > > > > soon. Get ready for Jeb in 2008. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > he's so wonderful when his claim to fame is that, for 6 weeks of his > tenure as mayor of New York, he wasn't a prick. Yeah... and of course, minor things like cleaning up Times Square (exit the bevy of porno shops) and reducing the crime rate, hiring cops, etc.
Kubez - 30 Jun 2005 03:12 GMT > Speaking as a New Yorker, it disgusts me how Ghouliani has parlayed > 9/11 into a career. And it perplexes me that so many people can think > he's so wonderful when his claim to fame is that, for 6 weeks of his > tenure as mayor of New York, he wasn't a prick. I always wondered what happened to David Dinkins. Here he is!
Bill Baker - 29 Jun 2005 07:23 GMT > > Doesn't sound like Mr. Bush plans on bringing our troops home anytime > > soon. Get ready for Jeb in 2008. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > think most Americans are willing to support staying there until it's > finished so we don't have to go back again. While I agree that we should stay and finish the job, I worry about how long it will take and what the cost will be. I also worry about what will happen if there is another terrorist attack on our nation. Will Bush actually go after the terrorists responsible, or will he abandon the search after a few months to attack another random country?
> I don't think Jeb will run personally. I look for a Guilliani and > Clinton race. I am hoping Hillary Clinton runs. I think she should run if that's what she really wants. I don't think she will get past the primaries if she does, though.
> I wouldnt' be surprised to see Rice run someday in her career and > possibly be the first woman to be President of the U.S. I would. She has repeatedly stated that she has no desire to be president.
El Conquistador - 29 Jun 2005 12:50 GMT >> > Doesn't sound like Mr. Bush plans on bringing our troops home anytime >> > soon. Get ready for Jeb in 2008. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > While I agree that we should stay and finish the job, I worry about how > long it will take and what the cost will be. NO MATTER HOW MUCH IT COSTS, WE SHOULD ALL BE READY TO DIE FOR ISRAEL!
Sonewriter - 29 Jun 2005 12:59 GMT >>> > Doesn't sound like Mr. Bush plans on bringing our troops home anytime >>> > soon. Get ready for Jeb in 2008. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >NO MATTER HOW MUCH IT COSTS, WE SHOULD ALL BE READY TO DIE FOR ISRAEL! Why?
Bill Baker - 29 Jun 2005 13:15 GMT On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 07:50:15 -0400, "El Conquistador" <serwad@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<KUvwe.3116$qm.209@bignews5.bellsouth.net>...
>>> > Doesn't sound like Mr. Bush plans on bringing our troops home anytime >>> > soon. Get ready for Jeb in 2008. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > NO MATTER HOW MUCH IT COSTS, WE SHOULD ALL BE READY TO DIE FOR ISRAEL! Is that the random country Bush is going to invade next?
 Signature Lurlean Lie #7: Bill Baker is all "for" queers and defends everything they do no matter how horrible or disgusting it is - even felching news:7908c278.0311101919.43c43c88@posting.google.com
Mickey - 29 Jun 2005 13:49 GMT > >> > Doesn't sound like Mr. Bush plans on bringing our troops home anytime > >> > soon. Get ready for Jeb in 2008. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > NO MATTER HOW MUCH IT COSTS, WE SHOULD ALL BE READY TO DIE FOR ISRAEL! No, the TRUTH (odd word for you, eh Alex) is that we should all be ready to kill for freedom.
Andrealphus - 29 Jun 2005 23:20 GMT >>> > Doesn't sound like Mr. Bush plans on bringing our troops home anytime >>> > soon. Get ready for Jeb in 2008. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > NO MATTER HOW MUCH IT COSTS, WE SHOULD ALL BE READY TO DIE FOR ISRAEL! Okay, you first. I'll be right there in a minute...
Mickey - 29 Jun 2005 23:27 GMT > >>> > Doesn't sound like Mr. Bush plans on bringing our troops home anytime > >>> > soon. Get ready for Jeb in 2008. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Okay, you first. I'll be right there in a minute... LMAO!!!!!!!
nJb - 30 Jun 2005 05:08 GMT >>>>Doesn't sound like Mr. Bush plans on bringing our troops home anytime >>>>soon. Get ready for Jeb in 2008. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > NO MATTER HOW MUCH IT COSTS, WE SHOULD ALL BE READY TO DIE FOR ISRAEL! $10 million per day isn't enough? We have to die too?
 Signature Jack
Plonked by Native American
bobo1148atxmissiondotcom
http://photos.yahoo.com/bc/xmissionbobo/
Mickey - 29 Jun 2005 05:19 GMT > >>>>Doesn't sound like Mr. Bush plans on bringing our troops home anytime > >>>>soon. Get ready for Jeb in 2008. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > $10 million per day isn't enough? We have to die too? Nah, just Alex. Then again, he's going to die soon in any case.
Andrealphus - 29 Jun 2005 10:31 GMT >> Doesn't sound like Mr. Bush plans on bringing our troops home anytime >> soon. Get ready for Jeb in 2008. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I wouldnt' be surprised to see Rice run someday in her career and > possibly be the first woman to be President of the U.S. Guilliani? How in the world will he get the Republican nomination? Last I heard he was pro women's rights, and pro gay rights. One of those alone is enough to kill his nomination.
El Conquistador - 29 Jun 2005 12:48 GMT >> Doesn't sound like Mr. Bush plans on bringing our troops home anytime >> soon. Get ready for Jeb in 2008. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Regardless whether you think the war in Iraq was right or wrong, 7 out > of 8 Americans think we should finish the job and stablize the area. "Stabilize the area" you mean murder another 200,000 people? No matter how long we stay there there will be no tranquility
However, I agree with Bush on one count, I think he should dres twins in the uniform and send them to Iraq
I
> think most Americans are willing to support staying there until it's > finished so we don't have to go back again. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I wouldnt' be surprised to see Rice run someday in her career and > possibly be the first woman to be President of the U.S. Another Ayatollah!
El Conquistador - 29 Jun 2005 12:51 GMT WASHINGTON, June 13 (UPI) - Insider notes from United Press International for June 8
(5433 bytes)
A former Bush team member during his first administration is now voicing serious doubts about the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9-11. Former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term Morgan Reynolds comments that the official story about the collapse of the WTC is "bogus" and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7. Reynolds, who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas and is now professor emeritus at Texas A&M University said, "If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America would be compelling." Reynolds commented from his Texas A&M office, "It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7. If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely to be correct either. The government's collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings."
-0-
Two years after President George W. Bush proclaimed "mission accomplished" in Iraq, some thoughtful officers are beginning to question who the insurgents actually are. In a recent interview the head of the US 42nd Infantry Division which covers key trouble spots, including Baquba and Samarra Major General Joseph Taluto said he could understand why some ordinary Iraqis would take up arms against U.S. forces because "they're offended by our presence." Taluto added, "If a good, honest person feels having all these Humvees driving on the road, having us moving people out of the way, having us patrol the streets, having car bombs going off, you can understand how they could (want to fight us). There is a sense of a good resistance, or an accepted resistance. They say 'okay, if you shoot a coalition soldier, that's okay, it's not a bad thing but you shouldn't kill other Iraqis.'" Taluto insisted however that the other foreign forces would not be driven out of Iraq by violence, observing, "If the goal is to have the coalition leave, attacking them isn't the way," he said. "The way to make it happen is to enter the political process cooperate and the coalition will be less aggressive and less visible and eventually it'll go away." Taluto's comments are sure to raise hackles at the Pentagon, which insist that all insurgents are either Baathists or al-Qaida. Taluto observed that "99.9 per cent" of those captured fighting the U.S. were Iraqis.
-0-
Ah well, there's always Argentina. The German government is reportedly blocking the deportation of Nazi war crimes suspects from the U.S. back to Germany to be tried and punished. The German interior ministry has refused to accept the suspects even though the United States already has stripped them of their citizenship because of their World War II history and has asked Germany to accept them; German officials worry the suspects might join neo-Nazi groups. Deputy director of the Office of Special Investigations at the Department of Justice Jonathan Drimmer said, "By and large we're talking about concentration camp guards, we're talking about collaborators, people who were involved in indigenous police forces, that kind of thing." German interior ministry officials said that Washington had not given Berlin enough proof that the suspects were war criminals, despite repeated requests from Germany. Deportation in U.S. court cases requires not criminal, but just civil, proceedings, with a burden of proof of "clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence." German Interior ministry officials noted that if Germany accepted the deportees, they would be supported by the German social system and possibly would involve themselves in the extreme right or anti-Semitic political activities.
-0-
The first conflict that the newly independent United States engaged in began in 1801 with the Barbary States; now descendents of those corsairs have participated in naval exercises with their former enemies. On June 7 Algerian and U.S. Coast Guard warships conducted a joint naval exercise, improving interoperability and developing cooperation in securing the western Mediterranean. The vessels conducted maritime patrol missions, testing their joint capabilities to monitor and board suspicious vehicles and interdict illegal migration. U.S. Coast Guard Capt. Robert Wyner said Washington regards Algeria as a strategic partner in the war against terrorism and that Algeria would play a major role in U.S. efforts to bolster the stability of North Africa and counter the threat of al-Qaida. Interestingly enough, former counterterrorism adviser Richard A. Clarke closed Boston harbor on 9-11 because of concerns that al-Qaida terrorists were stowaways aboard liquefied natural gas tankers from Algeria bound for Boston's Everett LNG facility.
-0-
Official WTC report false.
Mickey - 29 Jun 2005 13:50 GMT > WASHINGTON, June 13 (UPI) - Insider notes from United Press > International for June 8 THE TRUTH ABOUT 9-11!!!!
So, it has been 3.5 years, and it is time the truth about 9-11 is known to all.
One day, Elvis, the gray aliens and Charles K. Johnson, the president of the Flat Earth society were hanging out, having a few beers (and some pills for Elvis, of course), when Elvis came up with the idea to crash a few jets into buildings, just to alleviate the boredom of living in abstentia in the hills of Afghanistan. This sat real well with the flat earthers, as people were getting too close to figuring out that the world ISN'T flat, and this would serve as a great diversion. The grays, on the other hand, had concerns. They expressed that they were worried as to who would get the blame. Elvis said "Oh, they will blame the Arabs, I will see to that." The grays said "Ah, but the anti-Semites will find a way to blame the Jews for it.". Elvis started laughing HARD. "Blame the Jews? Why would anyone blame the Jews? Why would they attack their strongest ally? Why would they attack and kill their fellow Jews? Nah, no one would be that stupid.". The grays reminded him that Muslims do nto need things to make sense, they just need to convince themselves by repeating a lie 10,000 times" Charlie Johnson said "sh.t, that hasn't worked for us, heaven knows we've repeted the lie about the flat earth for decades now." Ah, said the grays, but the world is a lot dumber now, you have idiots ragings on the internet about conspiracies all over the place. Just then, JFK walked in "Boy, this playing dead for 40 years is a bitch and a half", he said. "So, what are you guys up to?, he asked. Charlie said "We're planning to crash some jets into buildings in New York City and Washington". JFK replied "Hey, that sounds like fun, can I help?" Elvis said "Well, the grays seem to think people will blame the Jews for it". JFK let loose a hearty belly laugh; "Blame the Jews? Why would anyone in their right mind blame the Jews? What on earth would THEY have to gain by attacking their closest ally? I think those grays have been eating the mushrooms again." By now, JFK was really interested in the logistics of all this, and started asking questions as to HOW this could be implemented. Elvis suggested they simply mind control the Jets into the buildings, but JFK had a better idea. He suggested a massive storm, which would push the jets into the buildings. Well, as these things go, one thing lead to another and the debate raged on for weeks. Just then, Osama's Your Mamma walked in, caught a few snippets of the conversation and said "I want in". Elvis wasn't sure about bringing an outsider in, but Charlie said "Hey, with groups like ours, you have to take anyone you can get.", so they invited Osama to have a seat. Osama then said "Why all this muss and fuss with storms and mind control, I have idiots who will do anything I tell them to, as long as I promise them virgins and el-lax". Well, now the planning began in earnest. Elvis asked "Where do you get people who WILLINGLY kill themselves in an attack which will only lead to more of them getting killed?" "Abdullah's used camel lot", said Osama. "Abdullah is great that way, he points out the stupid ones for me. You know how hard it is to tell a stupid one from the rest? It's an art form, and Abdullah has it down pat. "Who's Pat", asked Elvis, ever in search of a piece of a.s and all. A few more days of debate, and they had the details hammered out, and as we all know, Sept. 11, 2001 came.
And this is how the WTC attack was planned and carried out. So, next time you see Elvis, JFK or a gray alient, do not hesitate to express your displeasure.
Sonewriter - 29 Jun 2005 12:58 GMT [...]
>I don't think Jeb will run personally. I look for a Guilliani... Rudi Guiliani supports gay and lesbian rights, racial justice and supports for the accessibility of higher education to all. These are things some more radical republicans don't favor, so how is it the radicalism in the party going to support a progressive individual?
Mickey - 29 Jun 2005 13:51 GMT > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > things some more radical republicans don't favor, so how is it the > radicalism in the party going to support a progressive individual? Ah, that's an easy one. Republicans will chose whoever they think will win. Better a republican that is more left-leaning than a democrat.
Mickey
Bill Baker - 29 Jun 2005 15:24 GMT On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 08:51:58 -0400, "Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote
>> [...] >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Ah, that's an easy one. Republicans will chose whoever they think will win. > Better a republican that is more left-leaning than a democrat. Yeah, that's why John McCain won the 2000 Republican primary.
 Signature Lurlean Lie #9: Sodomy is more important to you than anything else. news:7908c278.0311091020.3d97495b@posting.google.com
Mickey - 29 Jun 2005 18:28 GMT > On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 08:51:58 -0400, "Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Yeah, that's why John McCain won the 2000 Republican primary. Huh? It wasn't a choice between McCain and a democrat, it was a choice between McCain and Bush, as the shrub eventually "won" the election.
Mickey
Bill Baker - 30 Jun 2005 01:26 GMT On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 13:28:29 -0400, "Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote
>> > Better a republican that is more left-leaning than a democrat. >> >> Yeah, that's why John McCain won the 2000 Republican primary. > > Huh? It wasn't a choice between McCain and a democrat, it was a choice > between McCain and Bush, as the shrub eventually "won" the election. Well, duh. Since when have the Republicans ever chosen a Democrat to run?
 Signature Lurlean Lie #41: "Straight people signs the queer agenda too a lot of the time." news:1110439734.742801.89260@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
Mickey - 29 Jun 2005 11:22 GMT > On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 13:28:29 -0400, "Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Well, duh. Since when have the Republicans ever chosen a Democrat to run? Exactly, they select the candidate most likely to win. They do this MUCH better than the Democrats do. What's the old saying "I belong to no organized political party, I am a Democrat"?
Ray Fischer - 30 Jun 2005 06:57 GMT >> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 13:28:29 -0400, "Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Exactly, they select the candidate most likely to win. They do this MUCH >better than the Democrats do. No, they're just a lot less moral and far better liars.
 Signature Ray Fischer rfischer@sonic.net
Bill Baker - 30 Jun 2005 08:41 GMT > > On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 13:28:29 -0400, "Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Exactly, they select the candidate most likely to win. Which is usually not "a republican that is more left-leaning".
> They do this MUCH better than the Democrats do. You mean like when the Democrats chose Bill Clinton? Or John Kerry (who came the closest to beating a wartime president out of all challengers in U.S. history)?
> What's the old saying "I belong to no organized political party, I am a > Democrat"? Sounds like a saying that was made up by a Republican.
Mickey - 29 Jun 2005 13:10 GMT > > > On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 13:28:29 -0400, "Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote > > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Which is usually not "a republican that is more left-leaning". Agreed. However, Rudy is a different story, as he has a very high "hero" factor in the eyes of many Americans.
> > They do this MUCH better than the Democrats do. > > You mean like when the Democrats chose Bill Clinton? Or John Kerry > (who came the closest to beating a wartime president out of all > challengers in U.S. history)? Clinton was a great choice, he is the ultimate political animal. Kerry, otoh, came with so much baggage, and was SO far to the left, he was almost unelectable.
> > What's the old saying "I belong to no organized political party, I am a > > Democrat"? > > Sounds like a saying that was made up by a Republican. Actually, a democrat.
Mickey
Bill Baker - 30 Jun 2005 13:50 GMT On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 08:10:24 -0400, "Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote
>> > > On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 13:28:29 -0400, "Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> >> > > wrote in message news:<1dydnazI1bZURF_fRVn-tg@comcast.com>... [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Agreed. However, Rudy is a different story, as he has a very high "hero" > factor in the eyes of many Americans. Possibly, but there is still his support of abortion and gay rights which would cancel out any hero factor in the eyes of many right-wingers.
>> > They do this MUCH better than the Democrats do. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > otoh, came with so much baggage, and was SO far to the left, he was almost > unelectable. He was not far to the left, that is one of the Republican lies trotted out during an election in an attempt to discredit him. And he was far from unelectable. He got a higher percentage of the votes than Clinton ever did.
>> > What's the old saying "I belong to no organized political party, I am a >> > Democrat"? >> >> Sounds like a saying that was made up by a Republican. > > Actually, a democrat. Which one, Zell Miller?
 Signature Lurlean Lie #26: "This refers to Curtsybear's claim" news:1dcee589.0408292015.6a28d5f7@posting.google.com
Mickey - 29 Jun 2005 14:20 GMT > On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 08:10:24 -0400, "Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Possibly, but there is still his support of abortion and gay rights which > would cancel out any hero factor in the eyes of many right-wingers. Many, but he'd make it up with votes from Democrats.
> >> > They do this MUCH better than the Democrats do. > >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > unelectable. He got a higher percentage of the votes than Clinton ever > did. No, Clinton was a centrist. As to the higher percentage, Kerry ran in a 2 man race, Clinton in a 3 man race. Hardly a fiar comparison.
> >> > What's the old saying "I belong to no organized political party, I am a > >> > Democrat"? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Which one, Zell Miller? Nope, Will Rogers.
Mickey
Bill Baker - 30 Jun 2005 14:45 GMT On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 09:20:17 -0400, "Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote
>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 08:10:24 -0400, "Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Many, but he'd make it up with votes from Democrats. Well, I'd probably vote for him. But the fact that many Democrats would vote for him would probably make the extreme right-wingers not want him even more.
>> >> > They do this MUCH better than the Democrats do. >> >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > No, Clinton was a centrist. Never said he wasn't.
> As to the higher percentage, Kerry ran in a 2 man race, Clinton in a 3 > man race. Hardly a fiar comparison. Perot took a negligible amount of votes away from both candidates. Even factoring in the people who voted for Perot and assuming they would have voted for Clinton, Kerry still got a higher percentage.
>> >> > What's the old saying "I belong to no organized political party, I >> >> > am a Democrat"? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Nope, Will Rogers. Ah, you mean the same person who said, "I don't want to lay the blame on the Republicans for the Depression. They're not smart enough to think up all those things that have happened."
 Signature Funny Sister Lurlean quote #173: "But I don't hate nobody you faggot!" --Lurlean causes everyone's irony meter to simultaneously explode.
Mickey - 29 Jun 2005 16:26 GMT > On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 09:20:17 -0400, "Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > vote for him would probably make the extreme right-wingers not want him > even more. Which could only be a GOOD thing.
> >> >> > They do this MUCH better than the Democrats do. > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > factoring in the people who voted for Perot and assuming they would have > voted for Clinton, Kerry still got a higher percentage. Hi there :) If you think 19% is negligible, I'd like you to open a bank so I can deposit some money :)
> >> >> > What's the old saying "I belong to no organized political party, I > >> >> > am a Democrat"? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > the Republicans for the Depression. They're not smart enough to think up > all those things that have happened." That's the one :)
Mickey
> -- > Funny Sister Lurlean quote #173: > "But I don't hate nobody you faggot!" --Lurlean causes everyone's irony meter > to simultaneously explode. Bill Baker - 30 Jun 2005 17:53 GMT On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 11:26:49 -0400, "Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote
>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 09:20:17 -0400, "Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Which could only be a GOOD thing. Agreed, but that also means that it will be a cold day in hell before Giuliani ever gets the Republican nomination.
>> >> >> > They do this MUCH better than the Democrats do. >> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Hi there :) If you think 19% is negligible, I'd like you to open a bank > so I can deposit some money :) You got me there. I was going by memory, and I guess it's not as reliable as I thought. :-)
How about this: Kerry got a larger percentage of the votes than Bush did in 2000, and a higher percentage of votes of any challenger of a wartime president.
>> >> >> > What's the old saying "I belong to no organized political >> >> >> > party, I am a Democrat"? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > That's the one :) So it sounds like he didn't have much respect for either party.
 Signature Lurlean Lie #10: I'm sure old Curt-See-Bare (deep throats) all the time. news:7908c278.0310151920.29215c3f@posting.google.com
Mickey - 29 Jun 2005 17:59 GMT > On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 11:26:49 -0400, "Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > Agreed, but that also means that it will be a cold day in hell before > Giuliani ever gets the Republican nomination. I'm not so sure of that.
> >> >> >> > They do this MUCH better than the Democrats do. > >> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > in 2000, and a higher percentage of votes of any challenger of a wartime > president. Now I'm confused. Kerry ran in 2004, and got a lower % of the vote. Gore ran in 2000, and got a higher %, but wasn't the challenger.
> >> >> >> > What's the old saying "I belong to no organized political > >> >> >> > party, I am a Democrat"? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > So it sounds like he didn't have much respect for either party. No, he was a staunch Democrat, he just knew they aren't as well organized as the Republicans.
Mickey
Bill Baker - 30 Jun 2005 18:06 GMT On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 12:59:20 -0400, "Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote
>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 11:26:49 -0400, "Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > I'm not so sure of that. Optimism can be a good thing.
>> >> >> >> > They do this MUCH better than the Democrats do. >> >> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Now I'm confused. Kerry ran in 2004, and got a lower % of the vote. Gore > ran in 2000, and got a higher %, but wasn't the challenger. My point was that Kerry was far from unelectable.
>> >> >> >> > What's the old saying "I belong to no organized political >> >> >> >> > party, I am a Democrat"? [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > No, he was a staunch Democrat, he just knew they aren't as well > organized as the Republicans. In other words, he saw the Republicans as the Mafia of politics? :-)
 Signature Funny Lurlean quote #20: "You got to come to our Church and pay your tithes. Then you'll see the Finger of God!" --Lurlean offers viewings of the only picture of God stuck in rush hour traffic.
Mickey - 29 Jun 2005 18:33 GMT > On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 12:59:20 -0400, "Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Optimism can be a good thing. Except at the poker table.
> >> >> > As to the higher percentage, Kerry ran in a 2 man race, Clinton in > >> >> > a 3 man race. Hardly a fiar comparison. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > My point was that Kerry was far from unelectable. I thnk he was. The fact that he got SO many votes, and still wasn't really close says a lot. I thnk the religious right was far too well organized this time around, Bush was their poster child.
> >> >> >> >> > What's the old saying "I belong to no organized political > >> >> >> >> > party, I am a Democrat"? [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > In other words, he saw the Republicans as the Mafia of politics? :-) More or less, yes.
Mickey
Bill Baker - 01 Jul 2005 01:52 GMT On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 13:33:17 -0400, "Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote
>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 12:59:20 -0400, "Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Except at the poker table. True. :-)
>> >> >> > As to the higher percentage, Kerry ran in a 2 man race, Clinton >> >> >> > in a 3 man race. Hardly a fiar comparison. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > close says a lot. I thnk the religious right was far too well organized > this time around, Bush was their poster child. But he *was* really close. He only lost by 3 million votes, the smallest margin of victory for a sitting president since Truman defeated Dewey. In terms of percentage, Bush won by the smallest margin of victory in U.S. history. That says a lot, considering wartime presidents never lose an election, and usually win it by a much wider margin.
>> >> >> >> >> > What's the old saying "I belong to no organized political >> >> >> >> >> > party, I am a Democrat"? [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Mickey
 Signature Funny Lurlean quote #47: But the floodgates are open, and the TIDE is rolling in and drowning the whole country in bean dip. --Lurlean warns about the evils of nachos.
Mickey - 30 Jun 2005 03:29 GMT > On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 13:33:17 -0400, "Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > history. That says a lot, considering wartime presidents never lose an > election, and usually win it by a much wider margin. Agreed. Don't get me wrong, I think Bush is an idiot of nearly epic proportions. I dispise his stance on just about everything, especially his goose stepping devotion to tax cuts for the rich. The ONLY topic I agree with him on is his stance against terrorists and his move to remove the Butcher of Baghdad.
Mickey
Ray Fischer - 01 Jul 2005 05:40 GMT >> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 13:33:17 -0400, "Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] >with him on is his stance against terrorists and his move to remove the >Butcher of Baghdad. Estimate 100,000 people killed because of Bush and his lies.
The double-standard of the neocon.
 Signature Ray Fischer rfischer@sonic.net
Bill Baker - 01 Jul 2005 08:29 GMT > > On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 13:33:17 -0400, "Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > with him on is his stance against terrorists and his move to remove the > Butcher of Baghdad. Well, I think we had no business being in Iraq, and that Bush dropped the ball on the terrorists. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that Saddam is no longer in power, I just think we went about it the wrong way and that Iraq may pay dearly for our mistake.
Mickey - 30 Jun 2005 12:13 GMT > > > On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 13:33:17 -0400, "Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote > > > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > is no longer in power, I just think we went about it the wrong way and > that Iraq may pay dearly for our mistake. I don't think there is a painless way to remove a dictator like that. It is akin gto having a cancerous tumor. You know it will hurt having it removed, you know that you may take out some living cells along with the tumor, but you do it because the alternative (leaving it in) is far worse.
Mickey
Bill Baker - 01 Jul 2005 12:48 GMT On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 07:13:28 -0400, "Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote
>> > > On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 13:33:17 -0400, "Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> > wrote [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > removed, you know that you may take out some living cells along with the > tumor, but you do it because the alternative (leaving it in) is far worse. That's true, but where do we draw the line? Are we going to overthrow every dictator in the world now? What ever happened to letting countries do it on their own? After all, we (Americans) overthrew a dictator (King George III) mostly on our own (with some help from France, of course).
 Signature Funny Sister Lurlean quote #76: "They just elected a uncut ex Nazi as governor of California. I'm afraid he's gonna come down here and GROPE me." --Lurlean demonstrates her paranoid delusions.
Mickey - 30 Jun 2005 15:14 GMT > On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 07:13:28 -0400, "Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > do it on their own? After all, we (Americans) overthrew a dictator (King > George III) mostly on our own (with some help from France, of course). I think there are certain parameters we can use:
A: Said dictator is mass murdering his own people (Saddam qualified here in 3 part harmony and glorious Technicolor) B: Said dictator is a threat to his neighbors (Again, Saddam makes the grade here, he invaded 3 of his neighbors, and launched SCUDS at Israel) C: The probability that he CAN be overthrown by his people is slim
Mickey
Bill Baker - 01 Jul 2005 17:43 GMT On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 10:14:42 -0400, "Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote
>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 07:13:28 -0400, "Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > 3 of his neighbors, and launched SCUDS at Israel) C: The probability > that he CAN be overthrown by his people is slim True, but if the people want it bad enough, they should start a rebellion and the U.S. can back it up. If we wanted to hurry it along, we could send messages (e.g., by dropping leaflets) that the U.S. will back up any rebellion against said dictator. The fact that we barged in, took control and made them do it our way may have damaged the whole process.
 Signature Lurlean Lie #40: "Lesbian recruiters do kill the husbands of women they recruit. Sometimes the recruiter and the wife does it together. They try to make it look like an accident. Usually the fattest one falls on the man and smothers him to death." news:1109819751.602773.80950@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Mickey - 01 Jul 2005 18:05 GMT > On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 10:14:42 -0400, "Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > rebellion against said dictator. The fact that we barged in, took control > and made them do it our way may have damaged the whole process. Excuse please, but the Kurds have been in active rebellion against Saddam for 15 years now. The Shiites tried, but he butchered tens of thousands of them.
Mickey
Bill Baker - 01 Jul 2005 18:27 GMT On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 13:05:38 -0400, "Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote
>> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 10:14:42 -0400, "Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > Saddam for 15 years now. The Shiites tried, but he butchered tens of > thousands of them. But did we go and offer to help the Kurds, or did we just push everyone else aside and do it ourselves?
 Signature Funny Lurlean quote #37: "In our church we can travel thru space and time during our fire baptisms and spirit journey's." --Lurlean gives new meaning to the phrase "spaced out."
trader4@optonline.net - 01 Jul 2005 18:59 GMT "But did we go and offer to help the Kurds, or did we just push everyone else aside and do it ourselves? "
Ahhh, offering help. Another vague liberal concept. What is help to rebels Bill? Is it like Reagan tried to do with the rebels battling for freedom against communists in Nicaragua, only to have liberals denounce it and cut it off? Of is it help ala JFK with the Bay of Pigs, where he trained, armed and enouraged them, then when they landed and ran into trouble, refused air cover? Had Bush 41 done anything to help the Kurds, which he should have, you and all the liberals would be bitching about that. Hindsight is always nice isn't it? Bush 41 didn't do it because he thought like you, that Sadam would soon be overthrown by his own people. But that didn't happen then, did it? And for the record, we didn't push anyone aside, unless you mean the likes of France and Germany, who never would have done anything anyway. They got such big balls about how to save the world, where the hell are they now? Like have they even said anything about what's going on in North Korea? What a joke!
Bill Baker - 01 Jul 2005 19:08 GMT On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 10:59:46 -0700, "trader4@optonline.net"
>> But did we go and offer to help the Kurds, or did we just push everyone >> else aside and do it ourselves? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > are they now? Like have they even said anything about what's going on > in North Korea? What a joke! f.ck off, and don't come back until you can stop telling people what they believe.
 Signature Lurlean Lie #6: I am just posting stuff he claimed himself. news:7908c278.0310191750.679ca7da@posting.google.com
Mickey - 01 Jul 2005 19:08 GMT > On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 13:05:38 -0400, "Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > But did we go and offer to help the Kurds, or did we just push everyone > else aside and do it ourselves? That is a matter of motive, and one can never really discern motive. They did ask for our help, and we did launch a major portion of our offensive from their stronghold.
Mickey
Bill Baker - 01 Jul 2005 19:14 GMT On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 14:08:48 -0400, "Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote
>> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 13:05:38 -0400, "Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > did ask for our help, and we did launch a major portion of our offensive > from their stronghold. Well, that's a good sign at least. I still feel we should have played more of a background role. Freedom's not as special when another country's people dies for it.
 Signature Lurlean Lie #31: Did you know he finally admitted he's got smegma? news:1dcee589.0411282155.61f2adf1@posting.google.com
Mickey - 01 Jul 2005 19:25 GMT > On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 14:08:48 -0400, "Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > more of a background role. Freedom's not as special when another > country's people dies for it. True, but we had help gaining our freedom. The revolutionary war would NEVER have been won without the aid of the French.
Mickey
Bill Baker - 02 Jul 2005 01:09 GMT On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 14:25:46 -0400, "Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote
>> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 14:08:48 -0400, "Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 88 lines] > True, but we had help gaining our freedom. The revolutionary war would > NEVER have been won without the aid of the French. My point exactly.
 Signature Funny Lurlean quote #34: "I hope a piece of the sun falls directly on Baghdad and burns it all up." --Lurlean provides her own commentary to the lyrics "Re, a drop of golden sun"
trader4@optonline.net - 01 Jul 2005 18:38 GMT "True, but if the people want it bad enough, they should start a rebellion and the U.S. can back it up. If we wanted to hurry it along, we could send messages (e.g., by dropping leaflets) that the U.S. will back up any rebellion against said dictator. "
Are you for real? Typical liberal nonsense and denial of the real world, thinking that all you have to do is drop leaflets saying the US will "back up" the rebellion. And what the hell does that mean? Does it mean like Kennedy did at the Bay of Pigs? Give them arms, support them, tell them you'll back them up, then when they land on the beach and things get tough, refuse to do anything? Or do you mean like Bush 41 did by encouraging the Kurds to rise up and then when they did, just stand by and watch as they get slaughtered? Or do you mean like Reagan tried to do in Nicaragua, only to have liberals cut off aid to the the rebels battling for freedom against communists?
"The fact that we barged in, took control and made them do it our way may have damaged the whole process. "
Process? What process? Sadam was in control, there was no process toward ending his regime of genocide and agression.
Bill Baker - 01 Jul 2005 18:49 GMT On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 10:38:28 -0700, "trader4@optonline.net"
>> True, but if the people want it bad enough, they should start a >> rebellion and the U.S. can back it up. If we wanted to hurry it along, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > tried to do in Nicaragua, only to have liberals cut off aid to the the > rebels battling for freedom against communists? f.ck you, a.shole. I said support them and I meant support them. If all you're here to do is sling invective and bullshit, then I suggest you post to alt.someone.who.gives.a.rats.a.s.
And while you're at it, learn how to quote other people's posts. Google doesn't make it that hard.
>> The fact that we barged in, took control and made them do it our way >> may have damaged the whole process. > > Process? What process? Sadam was in control, there was no process > toward ending his regime of genocide and agression. Exactly, there was no process and no plan. Bush f.cked up.
 Signature Funny Lurlean quote #55: "Some sinners get so much radiation on them that they just blow up and leave a little pile of ashes behind. If you're a standing too close, you might get burnt up too!"
trader4@optonline.net - 01 Jul 2005 20:40 GMT "f.ck you, a.shole. I said support them and I meant support them. "
Heh, Bill having a bad hair day? It's hard when you;re up against someone who knows the facts isn't it? And don't think anyone is fooled by you avoiding the question of what "back it up" means. Now you say support rebellion What exactly does that mean? Drop leaflet like you suggested, saying "Heh guys Uncle Sam is with you" Of course, it really doesn;t matter, cause guys like you would bitch no matter what President Bush did. The sad part is you'll do anything to undermine a US President in a time of war. You're a great example of a monday morning quarterback, who's nothing more than a chronic whiner
Bill Baker - 02 Jul 2005 01:12 GMT On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 12:40:18 -0700, "trader4@optonline.net"
>> f.ck you, a.shole. I said support them and I meant support them. > > Heh, Bill having a bad hair day? No, you're being a typical neocon a.shole.
> It's hard when you;re up against someone who knows the facts isn't it? I'll let you know when it happens.
> And don't think anyone is fooled by you avoiding the question of what > "back it up" means. Now you say support rebellion What exactly does > that mean? Drop leaflet like you suggested, saying "Heh guys Uncle Sam > is with you" Of course, it really doesn;t matter, cause guys like you > would bitch no matter what President Bush did. Wrong. You obviously haven't read a word I said.
> The sad part is you'll do anything to undermine a US President in a time > of war. You're a great example of a monday morning quarterback, who's > nothing more than a chronic whiner And my point is proven.
 Signature Funny Lurlean quote #7: "...it's easier for us to purify your charge account if you don't got no pre-set spending limit to impede us." --Lurlean's attempt to explain why her cult isn't a big scam falls flat on its face.
Norma - 01 Jul 2005 19:05 GMT > "True, but if the people want it bad enough, they should start a > rebellion [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Process? What process? Sadam was in control, there was no process > toward ending his regime of genocide and agression. Very true, I spent some time, less than I had planned, in Baghdad, and left because of the cruelty and starvartion/deprivation of the Iraqis in the late '90's/. I was working in Saudi at the time and had to get "permission" to leave this cruel country. The things I saw were egregious, esp. from Saddam's sone Odea. There were cruel people and knew how to break anyone, in the most horrible ways. They ran jungle cats through the starving crowd for entertainment.
Arabs would not initiate a war or do anything to overthrough a leader if left to themselves. I don't mean to say that Bush was right in what he did, but something did have to be done to overthrow Saddam's regime. He made it no secret that he would "seek" WMDs, but apparently didn't have them or moved the makings very quickly into Syria. He also put out the message to those who interacted with the Western countries that he did have them already. Well, it was believed and now we are in this mess.
The best thing we can do is to train the Iraqis and get out as soon as they are able to take over. The tough though, as I worked with Saudization, a plan to get Saudis to take over for ex-pats did NOT work. The differences are the relgion, culture, and the weak educational system that doesn't get the teaching result that are desired. What I learned with my program was that it took at least 2-2 2/2 times for them to learn and then they would often finish and go on to another job that was of less intensity. If we can just find enough Iraqis that are trained, it will be time to get out and let them fight out their own battles.
To think that they were able to do that before is just a dream. It wouldn't have happened, but what is exists now is a nightmare as Bush did not assess or understand the area or the people. Eventually it will result in our having to leave, and having to accept what really happens. It is their country and they have to make the decisions whether or not they meet what our expectations are.
To recap about what I found in the Saudi Kingdom about Saudisation see: It would not be different in Iraq
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/print/2004/707/re8.htm
The problem will be in training and keeping the men who have been trained to protect their own people and country.
Norma
Susan Cohen - 01 Jul 2005 22:47 GMT > "True, but if the people want it bad enough, they should start a > rebellion [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > world, thinking that all you have to do is drop leaflets saying the US > will "back up" the rebellion. And what the hell does that mean? Ask Bush, Sr. who screwed the Kurds by doing just that.
Susan
Andrealphus - 01 Jul 2005 23:14 GMT > "True, but if the people want it bad enough, they should start a > rebellion [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Are you for real? Typical liberal nonsense and denial of the real You should just stop making a fool of yourself. I don't agree with everything Mickey says, but at least he can discuss a topic rationally. You just need to drop out if all you have is invective.
Mickey - 01 Jul 2005 23:35 GMT > > "True, but if the people want it bad enough, they should start a > > rebellion [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > everything Mickey says, but at least he can discuss a topic rationally. You > just need to drop out if all you have is invective. No one should EVER agree with everything someone else says, that would actually be frightening. But everyone should be able to discuss a topic reasonably, assuming all participants are reasonable.
Mickey
Jenn - 01 Jul 2005 23:36 GMT > > > "True, but if the people want it bad enough, they should start a > > > rebellion [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Mickey I think that a lot of people get their "debating" style from talk radio.
Mickey - 01 Jul 2005 23:45 GMT > > > > "True, but if the people want it bad enough, they should start a > > > > rebellion [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > I think that a lot of people get their "debating" style from talk radio. A lot of lazy people, yes. Mercifully, there are still those out there that know how to do research, and enter a debate with facts and knowledge of the topic at hand. Sadly, there are sometimes drowned out by those who think that a debate is where you agree with those that agree with you, and scream at everyone else.
Mickey
Andrealphus - 01 Jul 2005 23:43 GMT >> > "True, but if the people want it bad enough, they should start a >> > rebellion [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Mickey Agreed. Wait, should I agree? LOL!
Mickey - 02 Jul 2005 00:06 GMT > >> > "True, but if the people want it bad enough, they should start a > >> > rebellion [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Agreed. Wait, should I agree? LOL! LOL!!!
Mickey
Katt - 01 Jul 2005 19:58 GMT "Bill Baker" <wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote in message news:pan.2005.07.01.16.43.03.360373@
> True, but if the people want it bad enough, they should start a rebellion > and the U.S. can back it up. If we wanted to hurry it along, we could > send messages (e.g., by dropping leaflets) that the U.S. will back up any > rebellion against said dictator. The fact that we barged in, took control > and made them do it our way may have damaged the whole process. Come on, Bill: you can do better than this: you know Saddam was helped into power by the US -- and that he was even a 'CIA asset' for *40 years*.
You can even do *a whole lot better* -- by just ignoring the idiotic shithead who's wasting your valuable time. That shithead I can't help; and frankly I wouldn't bother to help him if I could. But you are worth something more. So read on.
Because you must surely know that the attack on Iraq has already cost the US in excess of $180,000,000,000 (http://www.costofwar.com/ ) and killed more than 100,000 people, most of them entirely innocent. And you will also realise that however 'secure' Saddam might have looked with all those secret police organisations looking after his worthless hide, the fact remains that, had the US quietly pledged a mere $80,000,000,000 to whomever could hand over Saddam and Uday and Qusay, Washington would have got their f.cking heads on a salver within 72 hours. Plus, there'd still be $100,000,000,000 left to play with; and 100,000 innocent people would still be breathing. And had 'liberating the Iraqi people' and 'reconstructing the country' been anyone's f.cking priority, that's exactly what would have happened.
But it wasn't anyone's priority. Getting 10-15 permanent military bases in a major oil-producing country was a priority. Diverting $200,000,000,000 (and more) of tax-payers' money into the pockets of Washington's rich friends was a priority -- as was installing a compliant puppet regime made up from people on a US-approved voting list, who were 'voted for' by people under violent occupation, whose ballots were then carted off and 'stored' for several days by unknown people in unknown places before being 'counted'... etc etc.
For f.ck's sake, *how hard is it to see all this*...? Have you people all had your brains sucked out through a straw...?
Katt.
trader4@optonline.net - 01 Jul 2005 20:33 GMT *how hard is it to see all this*...? Have you people all had your brains sucked out through a straw...? "
Katt.
That must surely be where your brains went, if you ever had any to begin with, believing that offering a bounty will produce results. The rest of us noticed long ago that offering bounties has not worked in most cases. Offering $50mil didn't produce Sadam, nor has it produced Bin Laden. But rant on if it makes you feel better helping Bill out.
Susan Cohen - 01 Jul 2005 22:48 GMT > *how hard is it to see all this*...? Have you people all > had your brains sucked out through a straw...? " [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > most cases. Offering $50mil didn't produce Sadam, nor has it produced > Bin Laden. But rant on if it makes you feel better helping Bill out. Funny how you deleted the entire post to focus on just that.
Susan
Vlad - 04 Jul 2005 01:04 GMT >*how hard is it to see all this*...? Have you people all >had your brains sucked out through a straw...? " [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >most cases. Offering $50mil didn't produce Sadam, nor has it produced >Bin Laden. But rant on if it makes you feel better helping Bill out. Come on, Bill: you can do better than this: you know Saddam was helped into power by the US -- and that he was even a 'CIA asset' for *40 years*.
You can even do *a whole lot better* -- by just ignoring the idiotic shithead who's wasting your valuable time. That shithead I can't help; and frankly I wouldn't bother to help him if I could. But you are worth something more. So read on.
Because you must surely know that the attack on Iraq has already cost the US in excess of $180,000,000,000 (http://www.costofwar.com/ ) and killed more than 100,000 people, most of them entirely innocent. And you will also realise that however 'secure' Saddam might have looked with all those secret police organisations looking after his worthless hide, the fact remains that, had the US quietly pledged a mere $80,000,000,000 to whomever could hand over Saddam and Uday and Qusay, Washington would have got their f.cking heads on a salver within 72 hours. Plus, there'd still be $100,000,000,000 left to play with; and 100,000 innocent people would still be breathing. And had 'liberating the Iraqi people' and 'reconstructing the country' been anyone's f.cking priority, that's exactly what would have happened.
But it wasn't anyone's priority. Getting 10-15 permanent military bases in a major oil-producing country was a priority. Diverting $200,000,000,000 (and more) of tax-payers' money into the pockets of Washington's rich friends was a priority -- as was installing a compliant puppet regime made up from people on a US-approved voting list, who were 'voted for' by people under violent occupation, whose ballots were then carted off and 'stored' for several days by unknown people in unknown places before being 'counted'... etc etc.
For f.ck's sake, *how hard is it to see all this*...? Have you people all had your brains sucked out through a straw...?
Katt.
Ray Fischer - 02 Jul 2005 03:12 GMT >"Bill Baker" <wbaker@postini.spamcon.org> wrote in message
>> That's true, but where do we draw the line? Are we going to overthrow >> every dictator in the world now? What ever happened to letting countries >> do it on their own? After all, we (Americans) overthrew a dictator (King >> George III) mostly on our own (with some help from France, of course). > >I think there are certain parameters we can use: Why is it that neocons are all in favor of spending hundreds of billions of dollars to help people BUT only if the people are not Americans?
>A: Said dictator is mass murdering his own people (Saddam qualified here in >3 part harmony and glorious Technicolor) Bush is responsible for the deaths of some 100,000 people.
>B: Said dictator is a threat to his neighbors (Again, Saddam makes the >grade here, he invaded 3 of his neighbors, and launched SCUDS at Israel) But when Bush invaded Iraq was no threat to anybody.
 Signature Ray Fischer rfischer@sonic.net
Andrealphus - 01 Jul 2005 12:50 GMT > On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 07:13:28 -0400, "Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > do it on their own? After all, we (Americans) overthrew a dictator (King > George III) mostly on our own (with some help from France, of course). osprey - 01 Jul 2005 22:28 GMT > > > > On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 13:33:17 -0400, "Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> > wrote [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > you know that you may take out some living cells along with the tumor, but > you do it because the alternative (leaving it in) is far worse. I like your analogy.
> Mickey Andrealphus - 01 Jul 2005 23:19 GMT >> > > > On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 13:33:17 -0400, "Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> >> wrote [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > I like your analogy. It is, of course, too simplistic. Some cancers will actually spread faster if some is missed, and kill the patient that much quicker. Some cancers do not require surgery to remove. Some cancers cannot be operated on at all, nor do they respond to Chemo. A good doctor will carefully analyze the situation before running in with a scalpel.
osprey - 01 Jul 2005 23:32 GMT > >> > > > On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 13:33:17 -0400, "Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> > >> wrote [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > nor do they respond to Chemo. A good doctor will carefully analyze the > situation before running in with a scalpel. 10 years of analyzing, more than 300,000 people dead, how many millions in food for oil program stolen, how many U.S. fighter jets did you want to see shot at, several years without U.N. inspectors, and we haven't gotten to the U.N. Resolutions that Saddam violated.
I think we analyzed long enough, he had to go. We did the right thing. Maybe the timing wasn't right like Bill said, but there may be more behind the scenes than the U.S. Government is going to let us know about.
Andrealphus - 01 Jul 2005 23:37 GMT >> >> > > > On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 13:33:17 -0400, "Mickey" >> >> > > > <mickeyb@comcast.net> [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > > 10 years of analyzing, And he still screwed up.
Osprey - 01 Jul 2005 23:49 GMT >>> >> > > > On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 13:33:17 -0400, "Mickey" >>> >> > > > <mickeyb@comcast.net> [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > > And he still screwed up. No, the U.S. Government screwed up. The screw up began after Desert Storm because Bush Sr., in order to keep the coalition together, made a promise not to go after Saddam and after the war we turned our backs on the Kurds. That was the screw up. Has Bush Jr. screwed up? Sure, but name one President who ever sent U.S. troops into war and things went according to plan. You can't, because it has never happened. We did the right thing by getting rid of Saddam. I don't agree with everything about the war, but I do agree getting rid of Saddam was the right thing to do. 10 years of Saddam thumbing his nose up at us and the U.N. and wasting time is enough.
Andrealphus - 02 Jul 2005 00:05 GMT >>>> >> > > > On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 13:33:17 -0400, "Mickey" >>>> >> > > > <mickeyb@comcast.net> [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > > No, the U.S. Government screwed up. He is part of the government, last I heard.
The screw up began after Desert Storm
> because Bush Sr., in order to keep the coalition together, made a promise > not to go after Saddam and after the war we turned our backs on the Kurds. > That was the screw up. I agree, if we were going to take Saddam out, we should have done it then.
> Has Bush Jr. screwed up? Sure, but name one President who ever sent U.S. > troops into war and things went according to plan. You can't, because it > has never happened. So, if little Tommy runs and jumps off a bridge, little Georgie is cleared for the jump?
> We did the right thing by getting rid of Saddam. I think that being rid of Saddam is a good thing, I don't necessarilly agree that it was our job to do so.
I don't agree with
> everything about the war, but I do agree getting rid of Saddam was the > right thing to do. > 10 years of Saddam thumbing his nose up at us and the U.N. and wasting > time is enough. Another 10 years will tell the tale as to whether it was the right thing to do or not.
Osprey - 02 Jul 2005 00:45 GMT >>>>> >> > > > On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 13:33:17 -0400, "Mickey" >>>>> >> > > > <mickeyb@comcast.net> [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] > > I agree, if we were going to take Saddam out, we should have done it then. On that note though, do you understand why Bush didn't go after Saddam? If he had, Desert Storm could have been much worse. It's a double edged sword.
>> Has Bush Jr. screwed up? Sure, but name one President who ever sent U.S. >> troops into war and things went according to plan. You can't, because it >> has never happened. > > So, if little Tommy runs and jumps off a bridge, little Georgie is cleared > for the jump? Did I say that?
>> We did the right thing by getting rid of Saddam. > > I think that being rid of Saddam is a good thing, I don't necessarilly > agree that it was our job to do so. Somebody had to do it, and we know now that the U.N. was doing little to nothing except stealing billions of dollars from a program that was supposed to help those in Iraq who needed it.
> I don't agree with >> everything about the war, but I do agree getting rid of Saddam was the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Another 10 years will tell the tale as to whether it was the right thing > to do or not. Maybe, or maybe longer. We really don't know.
Andrealphus - 02 Jul 2005 01:50 GMT |
|