On 27 Oct 2004 10:10:01 -0700, Elmar <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thought there were no WMD???????????
> So 350 tons of HIGH explosives could NOT cause MASS DESTRUCTION??????
Well, technically that's _A_ massively destructive weapon, but not a
Weapon of Mass Destruction (chemical, biological, or nuclear weapon).
OK, well, technically technically, explosives are chemicals, but that's
still not really the definition.
> How much more could Liberal Dems talk out of both sides of their mouths?????
Close. The real question is "Why do they believe that these were there
when we got there, but they don't believe that the Sarin shells and the
like that we also knew he had weren't there when we got there, when both of
them aren't in obvious locations now"?
> PUHLEASE!!!!!!!
There's also that bit about Kerry pretending they were there when we
got there, when people who were there at the time say they weren't. But,
like his role model Clinton, he doesn't let facts get in the way of his
speeches.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Thought there were no WMD???????????
>
> So 350 tons of HIGH explosives could NOT cause MASS DESTRUCTION??????
>
Puhlease yourself!
You can't change the definition of WMDs just so you can claim you
weren't wrong when you believed Bush et al.
A WMD is nuclear (as in mushroom cloud), biological (as in anthrax), or
chemical (as in nerve gas or mustard gas).
What's missing in Iraq is plain old plastic explosive.
There is NO nation of any consequence that does NOT have plastique! Do
you want to invade them all?
You should probably go into politics, you seem to be capable of twisting
the truth as much as any politician.
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
<snip> Maybe Bush thinks it was worth the deaths of 1100 plus Americans to
recover those, I do not.
OMG!! Ok. Now that I'm over my initial reaction to this remark let me help
you with this. September 11, 2001 we were attacked by terrorists on our
home soil. We watched people having to decide if it was better to die in
the fires or jump to their deaths. Our economy came to a screeching halt
due to the fear we had of being vulnerable. Our children were effected. We
were effected. Do I really need to remind you how you felt? How the world
felt?
Fast forward to today...to Iraq. Ask yourself these following questions.
Are we being attacked by terrorists today? I'll help you with the answer.
Yes. Where? In Iraq. You mean we are not being attacked here? Nope. But
we are being attacked there? Yep. Why there and not here? Good question.
Because that is the location of the front line on the war on terror that we
chose. That is the location we orchestrated. But what was wrong with
Afghanistan? Ask yourself this question...did the terrorists rallying to
fight us there? Not really. Why not? Because they fled to other places.
To do what? Regroup.
Anyone who believes the sole reason for invading Iraq was WMDs is a fool.
Anyone who believes taking out Osama would bring an end to this is equally a
fool. And don't waste yours and my time by telling me that was what Bush
told us. No it wasn't. It's what the media focused on but it wasn't the
only reason. And the possibility still exists that we may very well find
evidence. The possibility of WMDs was/is important. But it isn't THE most
important part of the equation. This isn't a fast food version of war. You
don't pull up, order peace and pull to the next window.
1100 plus Americans have died. That is an indisputable fact. You have
reduced it to a man making an error based on supposition. I for one choose
to think they have died in an effort to give us back that which we have
lost. You do not think the death of 1100 Americans is worth this effort.
What has to happen before you do? You see, that is what you really have to
ask yourself. How many more non-combatant innocent civilian lives would it
take before you approve of risking the lives of those who have chosen to
fight for us? That is the key word.....chosen. Chose if needed to defend.
Every American soldier.... every civilian employee in Iraq made a choice.
America made a choice. We chose to fight. Tuesday you have a choice.
Whether you choose Kerry or Bush you need to remember what's ahead of
us.....not what's behind us. If we learn from our mistakes then ask
yourself.... who is better prepared to lead us the next 4 years?
>
> In Iraq we are fighting an insurgency that did not exist there befor
> we invaded. That those insurgent has chosen to ally themselves with
> AL Quaida and other paramilitary groups that have attacked us in the
> past is no surprise. The people our military kills and captures in
> Iraq are pretty much all Iraqi--at least that is what the DOD says.
>
True, but those same insurgents had their eyes on us soil, now it's Iraq. Why, they understand that if a
democratic form of government is established there, their toast.
>
> > You mean we are not being attacked here? Nope. But
> > we are being attacked there? Yep. Why there and not here? Good question.
> > Because that is the location of the front line on the war on terror that we
> > chose.
>
> We chose to open up a second war in Iraq, against a different enemy.
> We avoided the mistake the Soviets had made in Afghanistan, we did
> not get mired down with ground troops fighting Afghan Insurgents in
> an endless war. Then we went and made EXACTLY the same mistake in
> Iraq.
>
Wrong, nobody disputes that Saddam was a financial supporter of terrorism and hates the US. Direct ties with
9/11 can't be proven.
>
> Al Quaida and others who ARE the enemy are dispersed among at least
> 30 countries. Do you think we can invade them all? We certainly
> have destroyed any chance of convincing the governments of those
> countries to crack down and cooperate.
>
Oh, so we stick our heads in the sand and plead "pretty please let us alone, pretty please" ? Libya already
has stopped and turned over it's nuke program. You are free by strength, not by being messengers of "feel good"
diplomacy.
> What crap! Prior to the invasion of Iraq we had the support and the
> cooperation of the world, including the moderate Arabs. We were the
> liberators of Kuwait and Afghanistan. We ahd the support of the world
> when we demanded that Iraq resubmit to weapons inspections and Iraq
> complied.
What crap, our relationship with Europe has been not good for decades. You want to side with France, Germany and
Russia, when they were accepting Saddams bribes, what a bunch of sh....
>
>
> Then we submitted forged documents to the IAEA and bad intel to
> UNSCOM, and then, after IAEA certified that Iraq was incompliance
> with the ban on nuclear weapons program and UNMOVIC had declared it
> was receiving 'unprecedented' cooperation from the Iraqi government,
> we went ahead and invaded anyways.
>
> We proved to the world that we cannot be trusted. Now we are the
> (new) oppressors of Iraq. Now we lost all of the support we had
> after September 11. Now those paramilitary groups that threaten us
> can operate freely in Iraq and can recruti there are throughout the
> world.
>
> What do you think we gained?
>
3+ years of no major terror attacks on US soil, pretty damned important! I want a President that makes
decisions on my families security, not what a bunch of socialists want.
>
> > You do not think the death of 1100 Americans is worth this effort.
>
> What do you think the destablization of Iraq has acomplished? I'll
> grant you that if Iraq becomse a democracy and that democracy does not
> elect to make war with Israel or massacre the Kurds then that will
> be a long-term improvment. That is a big IF. Right now, is there
> not still the risk that Iraq will be torn apart in civil war or
> become a fundamentalist religious state aligned with Iran?
Destabilization of Iraq? We have destroyed over 600 tons of weapons cache's in Iraq and the lunatic that
controlled them no longer has a job. If you would get you head out of the sand and look beyond the news media,
you would find a country that has more open schools, hospitals, electricity than they have had in the last 25
years.
>
> How prepared are we for a nuclear attack from North Korea or
> a renewed Taliban offensive in Afghanistan?
So who gave nuke capability to North Korea? Mr. Clinton, and your supporting a guy who has stated he wants to do
the same for Iran!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh yea worring about North Korea plus Iran makes a lot of sense!
>
>
> Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
> Gulf of Tonkin, LBJ, Vietnam, 1964, all over again. Maybe you
> don't remember that.
Oh yes I do, this is not the same, not even close!!
>
> > If we learn from our mistakes then ask
> > yourself.... who is better prepared to lead us the next 4 years?
>
> Agreed, if we learn from our mistakes we won't make the same mistake
> we did four years ago.
BS, you can't put a guy in office that has done nothing but promise what the audience he is talking too at the
time, what they want to hear. Unfortunately when he says 2 + 2 = 3 there are people like you that buy it, even
thought the mathematicians say 2 + 2 = 4.
"mel" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>
> Actually that's not fair. What I truly suspect is you wouldn't even
> hesitate to allow those men to do what they need to do and if any perished
> you'd lift them up as heroes...and....I don't think you'd blame the mayor if
> he'd ordered the effort.
No, but I still sure would vote against him if I thought that the
balance of his discretionary policy decisions were overwhelmingly
wrong across the board.
Overwhelm-
1: upset,overthrow
2 a: to cover up completely
b: to overcome by superior force or numbers
c: to overpower in thought or feeling
You, Bob and I have all used this word yet we've used it in different
context. When I say overwhelming force I do not mean a presence that will
hopefully cause the insurgents to "feel" they are overpowered. When I say
"not JUST more troops" I mean that merely increasing the numbers without the
intent of actually crushing the enemy is merely increasing the numbers of
our casualties. As we should have learned in Vietnam, you have to fight a
war without hamstringing your military for the sake of public opinion. As
you have stated, the insurgents are using that against us. Your candidate
is using that to further his career.
As I stated earlier, "we" are a tad bit too squeamish when it comes to the
reality of war.
> Please Fred, without talking about anything but this moment on, tell me how
> you can argue that placing more troops in Iraq, in essence increasing the
> number of "sitting ducks" makes any sense?
Can't speak for Fred but... Massive numbers of troops reinforcing each
other can overwhelm and intimidate an enemy where small number are just
that... sitting ducks.
bob g.
>
>
As a long term member of a combined city/rural fire protection district.
Fires in the rural district presented virtually no threat to the
town. We could surround the town and keep any fire away. It never
occurred to any of us to think of how the rural fire presented a risk to
us. These folks traded in our town. (Some of the funds we had for
equipment came about because we responded to their fires) but that's
beside the point. We considered them to be "Our fires". The innocent
Iraqis, slaughtered by Sadaam were "our human brothers". Sometimes
humanitarian efforts require more than saving old clothes and sending them.
bob g.
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> I think that phil's thoughts got ahead of his writing. I could
> probably guess at what he meant, but it better to point out that
> what he wrote didn't make sense than to guess wrong.
>
> "mel" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>>
>>Actually that's not fair. What I truly suspect is you wouldn't even
>>hesitate to allow those men to do what they need to do and if any perished
>>you'd lift them up as heroes...and....I don't think you'd blame the mayor if
>>he'd ordered the effort.
>
>
> That's true because a fire next door is an imminent danger.
>
> I'd get upset if the FD started a practice fire next door and
> it got out of hand because they weren't prepared to put out what
> they started. Then I'd call the Fire Chief a dumb-ass and
> want him replaced. How about you?
>
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> On 27 Oct 2004 17:13:50 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >There's also that bit about Kerry pretending they were there when we
> >got there, when people who were there at the time say they weren't. But,
> >like his role model Clinton, he doesn't let facts get in the way of his
> >speeches.
>
> The camera crew and the troops they filmed were all
> lying as well, eh ? Your hero, Joe Goebbels, would
> applaud your efforts.
>
Did you miss the Pentagon press briefing yesterday in which the Major
in charge of EOD in that region indicated he had destroyed a significant
quantity of explosives from that site? Total tonnage by the way is less
than 1/1000 of all ordnance thus far destroyed.
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> > On 27 Oct 2004 17:13:50 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >There's also that bit about Kerry pretending they were there when we
> > >got there, when people who were there at the time say they weren't. But,
> > >like his role model Clinton, he doesn't let facts get in the way of his
> > >speeches.
> >
> > The camera crew and the troops they filmed were all
> > lying as well, eh ? Your hero, Joe Goebbels, would
> > applaud your efforts.
> >
>
> Did you miss the Pentagon press briefing yesterday in which the Major
> in charge of EOD in that region indicated he had destroyed a significant
> quantity of explosives from that site? Total tonnage by the way is less
> than 1/1000 of all ordnance thus far destroyed.
The latest on this is that the Major destroyed a different cache of
weapons at the same facility--the ones destroyed did not have the U.N.
seal on them, were from a different part of the facility, and were not
"plastic explosives" but other ordinance (see AP reports on Sunday,
10/30). These same reports raise the issue of the total amount of
captured/destroyed/to-be-desroyed weapons. While the White House says
some 400,000 tons of weapons have been or will be destroyed, there are
some 250,000 known tons yet to be secured or found. I have yet to see
independent verification of these figures, and I have a difficult time
trusting WH figures.
Personally, I think a commander-in-chief bears responsibility for the
conduct of military operations under his watch. If those operations
go FUBAR, he takes the fall; after all, he's the guy who hires his
advisors, takes their advise and makes the decisions. If any of these
parts fail, it's his failure--it's his responsibility--this is called
the "chain of command". He's said he doesn't think his running of the
war needs to change. That's twice the failure, in my book.
Dan
Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> ???
>
> Close. The real question is "Why do they believe that these were there
> when we got there,
The explosives in question (actually explosive precursors) were inventoried
and lockup up by the IAEA as part of the weapons inspections program
WE insisted on. The type of explosive was classified as 'dual use'
maeaning that it was suitable for the chemical explosive used in an
implosion bomb. As such, it was not prohibitted to Iraq, but Iraq
was required to account for it. For example, a few months before
the invasion Iraq notified the IAEA that it was moving some portion
to another site, ISTR it was officially intended so a conventional
use.
IAEA is STILL responsible for monitoring this dual-use material
as well as the nuclear materials that they had inventoried and
sealed. But, except for when we needed them to clean up the
mess at Tuwaitha, we have not allowed IAEA or UNMOVIC to
reinventory the WMD-related sites. UNMOVIC and IAEA have had
to rely on satellite recon to continue their monitoring program.
The quarterly reprots to teh UN are posted online at the UN website
and also at the Federation of American Scientists website.
> but they don't believe that the Sarin shells and the
> like that we also knew he had weren't there when we got there, when both of
> them aren't in obvious locations now"?
>
Not sure what you're getting at here but you may recall that Iraq
used chemical munitions during the war with Iran, and against the
Kurds. Iraq also moved some chemical munitions to forward positions
during the 1991 war and then abandoned those positions leaving them
behind. Not all munitions detonate properly upon impact, indeed
a 10% failure rate is considered normal for US artillery shells.
If you will read the Duelfer report (not just the summary) you'll
find that the mustard and sarin munitions that have turned up in
Iraq are consistant with duds recovered from old battlefields and
test ranges, or long-abandoned caches, not stockpiles being hoarded
and stored in recent years. Check out the photos showing the con-
ditions of some of these munitions.
Maybe Bush thinks it was worth the deaths of 1100 plus Americans to
recover those, I do not.
--
FF
"mel" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> <snip> Maybe Bush thinks it was worth the deaths of 1100 plus Americans to
> recover those, I do not.
>
>
> OMG!! Ok. Now that I'm over my initial reaction to this remark let me help
> you with this. September 11, 2001 we were attacked by terrorists on our
> home soil. We watched people having to decide if it was better to die in
> the fires or jump to their deaths. Our economy came to a screeching halt
> due to the fear we had of being vulnerable. Our children were effected. We
> were effected. Do I really need to remind you how you felt? How the world
> felt?
>
>
> Fast forward to today...to Iraq. Ask yourself these following questions.
> Are we being attacked by terrorists today? I'll help you with the answer.
> Yes. Where? In Iraq.
In Iraq we are fighting an insurgency that did not exist there befor
we invaded. That those insurgent has chosen to ally themselves with
AL Quaida and other paramilitary groups that have attacked us in the
past is no surprise. The people our military kills and captures in
Iraq are pretty much all Iraqi--at least that is what the DOD says.
> You mean we are not being attacked here? Nope. But
> we are being attacked there? Yep. Why there and not here? Good question.
> Because that is the location of the front line on the war on terror that we
> chose.
We chose to open up a second war in Iraq, against a different enemy.
We avoided the mistake the Soviets had made in Afghanistan, we did
not get mired down with ground troops fighting Afghan Insurgents in
an endless war. Then we went and made EXACTLY the same mistake in
Iraq.
Al Quaida and others who ARE the enemy are dispersed among at least
30 countries. Do you think we can invade them all? We certainly
have destroyed any chance of convincing the governments of those
countries to crack down and cooperate.
> That is the location we orchestrated. But what was wrong with
> Afghanistan? Ask yourself this question...did the terrorists rallying to
> fight us there? Not really. Why not? Because they fled to other places.
Certainly not to Iraq. Looks like they mostly fled to Pakistan, though
some did wind up in Iraqi-Kurdistan, out of the reach of Saddam Hussein
and close enough to slip over the border into Iran. Given the good
relationship we had with the Kurds, maybe we should have struck there
instead of invading Iraq from the South, giving time for Zarqawi and
his followers to get away.
>
> Anyone who believes the sole reason for invading Iraq was WMDs is a fool.
> Anyone who believes taking out Osama would bring an end to this is equally a
> fool. And don't waste yours and my time by telling me that was what Bush
> told us. No it wasn't.
You are quite correct that was not only one reason he gave. That one
gets a lot of attention because the campaign of lies and deception he
used to promote it.
Notice that Lybia has given up its WMD programs, but has not turned over
any Al Quaida suspects to us?
It is not JUST about Osama bin Laden but it doesn't make any sense
forget about him either.
> ...
>
> 1100 plus Americans have died. That is an indisputable fact. You have
> reduced it to a man making an error based on supposition. I for one choose
> to think they have died in an effort to give us back that which we have
> lost.
What crap! Prior to the invasion of Iraq we had the support and the
cooperation of the world, including the moderate Arabs. We were the
liberators of Kuwait and Afghanistan. We ahd the support of the world
when we demanded that Iraq resubmit to weapons inspections and Iraq
complied.
Then we submitted forged documents to the IAEA and bad intel to
UNSCOM, and then, after IAEA certified that Iraq was incompliance
with the ban on nuclear weapons program and UNMOVIC had declared it
was receiving 'unprecedented' cooperation from the Iraqi government,
we went ahead and invaded anyways.
We proved to the world that we cannot be trusted. Now we are the
(new) oppressors of Iraq. Now we lost all of the support we had
after September 11. Now those paramilitary groups that threaten us
can operate freely in Iraq and can recruti there are throughout the
world.
What do you think we gained?
> You do not think the death of 1100 Americans is worth this effort.
What do you think the destablization of Iraq has acomplished? I'll
grant you that if Iraq becomse a democracy and that democracy does not
elect to make war with Israel or massacre the Kurds then that will
be a long-term improvment. That is a big IF. Right now, is there
not still the risk that Iraq will be torn apart in civil war or
become a fundamentalist religious state aligned with Iran?
> What has to happen before you do? You see, that is what you really have to
> ask yourself. How many more non-combatant innocent civilian lives would it
> take before you approve of risking the lives of those who have chosen to
> fight for us?
The question you have to ask yourself is have ANY civilian lives been
saved by de-stabilizing Iraq? Or is there not now a greater danger
to civilians as the Iraqi insurgency may seek to open a new front
in the war for Iraq, on American soil? Historically Al Quaida has
spaced their attacks on American assets 2-4 years apart. The
current lull is typical in that respect.
How well disposed is our military to stop Al Quaida and others
from regrouping now that our military is bogged down in Iraq?
How prepared are we for a nuclear attack from North Korea or
a renewed Taliban offensive in Afghanistan?
>
> Every American soldier.... every civilian employee in Iraq made a choice.
> America made a choice. We chose to fight. Tuesday you have a choice.
> Whether you choose Kerry or Bush you need to remember what's ahead of
> us.....not what's behind us.
Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Gulf of Tonkin, LBJ, Vietnam, 1964, all over again. Maybe you
don't remember that.
> If we learn from our mistakes then ask
> yourself.... who is better prepared to lead us the next 4 years?
Agreed, if we learn from our mistakes we won't make the same mistake
we did four years ago.
--
FF
Phil <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >
> > In Iraq we are fighting an insurgency that did not exist there befor
> > we invaded. That those insurgent has chosen to ally themselves with
> > AL Quaida and other paramilitary groups that have attacked us in the
> > past is no surprise. The people our military kills and captures in
> > Iraq are pretty much all Iraqi--at least that is what the DOD says.
> >
>
> True, but those same insurgents had their eyes on us soil,
> now it's Iraq.
You honestly think that the Iraqis were interested in coming over here
to attack us in the US? That's nonsense.
> Why, they understand that if a
> democratic form of government is established there, their toast.
>
Huh, Iraq is toast if democracy is established there? I'll grant you
that it is unlikely that a Democracy will be established but I think
that would be a good thing.
> >
> > We chose to open up a second war in Iraq, against a different enemy.
> > We avoided the mistake the Soviets had made in Afghanistan, we did
> > not get mired down with ground troops fighting Afghan Insurgents in
> > an endless war. Then we went and made EXACTLY the same mistake in
> > Iraq.
> >
>
> Wrong, nobody disputes that Saddam was a financial supporter
> of terrorism and hates the US.
Saddam Hussein was quite open about support for the suicide bombers
in Israel/Palenstine. The detablization of Iraq and removal of Saddam
Hussein helps Israel in the short term in that regard. In the long
term Israel and the Palestinians have to make their own peace.
In the longer run what emerges in Iraq may or may not be good for
Israel. A Shiite-dominated democracy or theocracy that declares
war on Israel would not be a good thing.
There is no evidence that Saddam Hussein supported any of the attacks
on American assetts, nor any reason to suppose that he would dare
to do so in the future.
Saddam Hussein was a different enemy, one that was contained and
impotent. Now we are bogged down in Iraq the way the Soviets were
in Afghanistan. The Soviets had no trouble defeating the Afghan
military. The Mujahadeen turned out to be a different matter.
> Direct ties with
> 9/11 can't be proven.
Which is completely consistent with there being none.
>
> >
> > Al Quaida and others who ARE the enemy are dispersed among at least
> > 30 countries. Do you think we can invade them all? We certainly
> > have destroyed any chance of convincing the governments of those
> > countries to crack down and cooperate.
> >
>
> Oh, so we stick our heads in the sand and plead "pretty please
> let us alone, pretty please" ?
I disagree.
The example of Afghnistan showed that we were willing to use whatever
force was necessary. Iraq took that to heart and cooperated fully
with the UN inspections program of 2002-2003. Then we invaded anyhow
and now we are fighting who knows how many many factions of the Iraqis
themselves, instead of Saddam Hussein's military.
> Libya already
> has stopped and turned over it's nuke program.
> You are free by strength, not by being messengers of "feel good"
> diplomacy.
Libya was stopped through diplomacy. It is not clear if the example
of Afghanistan would have been enough, the negotionatiosn were secret
and appear to have started befor the invasion of Iraq, but the
invasion
of Iraq may have been the deciding facgtro from Libya's perspective.
>
> > What crap! Prior to the invasion of Iraq we had the support and the
> > cooperation of the world, including the moderate Arabs. We were the
> > liberators of Kuwait and Afghanistan. We ahd the support of the world
> > when we demanded that Iraq resubmit to weapons inspections and Iraq
> > complied.
>
> What crap, our relationship with Europe has been not good
> for decades.
In November 2001 we went ot war with Afghanistan with the full
approval
of the United Nations, including France, Germany, Russia and China,
and
the cooperation of most of Europe. I consider that a good
relationship.
> >
> >
> > Then we submitted forged documents to the IAEA and bad intel to
> > UNMOVIC [FF], and then, after IAEA certified that Iraq was incompliance
> > with the ban on nuclear weapons program and UNMOVIC had declared it
> > was receiving 'unprecedented' cooperation from the Iraqi government,
> > we went ahead and invaded anyways.
> >
> > We proved to the world that we cannot be trusted. Now we are the
> > (new) oppressors of Iraq. Now we lost all of the support we had
> > after September 11. Now those paramilitary groups that threaten us
> > can operate freely in Iraq and can recruti there are throughout the
> > world.
> >
> > What do you think we gained?
> >
>
> 3+ years of no major terror attacks on US soil, pretty
> damned important! I want a President that makes
> decisions on my families security, not what a bunch of socialists want.
Remember the World Trade Center Bombing in 1993, shortly after Clinton
took office? When was the next foreign paramilitary attack on US soil?
I'll remind you, it was EIGHT years later in 2001--shortly after
George
W Bush took office--only GWB had a lot more warning.
There is no reason to believe that the invasion of Iraq has prevented
any attacks within the US. In Iraq, we are not even fighting the
people
who have attacked us in the past.
>
> >
> > > You do not think the death of 1100 Americans is worth this effort.
> >
> > What do you think the destablization of Iraq has acomplished? I'll
> > grant you that if Iraq becomse a democracy and that democracy does not
> > elect to make war with Israel or massacre the Kurds then that will
> > be a long-term improvment. That is a big IF. Right now, is there
> > not still the risk that Iraq will be torn apart in civil war or
> > become a fundamentalist religious state aligned with Iran?
>
> Destabilization of Iraq? We have destroyed over 600 tons
> of weapons cache's in Iraq and the lunatic that
> controlled them no longer has a job.
Non responsive. Do you really argue that Iraq has not been
destabilized?
> If you would get you head out of the sand and look beyond the
> news media, you would find a country that has more open schools,
> hospitals, electricity than they have had in the last 25
> years.
>
Please tell us more, like how you learned that.
> >
> > How prepared are we for a nuclear attack from North Korea or
> > a renewed Taliban offensive in Afghanistan?
>
> So who gave nuke capability to North Korea? Mr. Clinton,
> and your supporting a guy who has stated he wants to do
> the same for Iran!!!!!!!!!!!!
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
Talk about revisionism!
As you know when Clinton was president, North Korea stopped its
nuclear
weapons production, the facilities were sealed and security cameras
installed to monitor the facilites to verify that they remained
undisturbed.
Then Bush took office. Then North Korea took down the cameras,
reopened their facilites, renewed their programs built a half
dozen nuclear bombs and Bush has done nothing at all. Bush
won't even discuss the matter.
What does he want, nuclear war on the Korean Penninsula? That's
where his policies have us headed. Is that his plan, bait North
Korea into attacking so he can justify reprisal?
> Oh yea worring about North Korea plus Iran makes a lot of sense!
Why not?
> >
> > Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
> > Gulf of Tonkin, LBJ, Vietnam, 1964, all over again. Maybe you
> > don't remember that.
>
> Oh yes I do, this is not the same, not even close!!
>
The insurgents in Iraq are using the same tactics Charlie
employed in Vietnam. If we respond the same way we'll get
the same result.
--
FF
"mel" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> I'm going to keep this as simple as possible. You don't have to agree with
> why or how we wound up in Iraq. By your own admission we are facing an
> insurgency that we aren't prepared to face. By "we" I mean the American
> people. Our military is quite capable but "we" are just a tad bit too
> squeamish to allow what it would take.
>
In your opinion, what, exactly would it take?
--
FF
"mel" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Overwhelming force.
What, exactly, would make that force overwhelming, more troops?
--
FF
I think that phil's thoughts got ahead of his writing. I could
probably guess at what he meant, but it better to point out that
what he wrote didn't make sense than to guess wrong.
"mel" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>
> Actually that's not fair. What I truly suspect is you wouldn't even
> hesitate to allow those men to do what they need to do and if any perished
> you'd lift them up as heroes...and....I don't think you'd blame the mayor if
> he'd ordered the effort.
That's true because a fire next door is an imminent danger.
I'd get upset if the FD started a practice fire next door and
it got out of hand because they weren't prepared to put out what
they started. Then I'd call the Fire Chief a dumb-ass and
want him replaced. How about you?
--
FF
Robert Galloway <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > Please Fred, without talking about anything but this moment on, tell me how
> > you can argue that placing more troops in Iraq, in essence increasing the
> > number of "sitting ducks" makes any sense?
>
> Can't speak for Fred but... Massive numbers of troops reinforcing each
> other can overwhelm and intimidate an enemy where small number are just
> that... sitting ducks.
>
> bob g.
>
I'll agree Bob on this one.
Now back to your answer to the question of what you mean by overwhelming
force:
"not JUST more ground troops."
That is stil pretty vague but I suppose you mean more air support
since there isn't much call for naval support.
Can you suggest how that overwhelming force that does not take the
form of ground troops can be effective against guerilla tactics?
Overwhelming force that causes more colateral civilian casualties
is exactly what the insurgents and foreign resistance want. That
is the strategy that won the Vietnam War.
--
FF
Robert Galloway <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> As a long term member of a combined city/rural fire protection district.
> Fires in the rural district presented virtually no threat to the
> town. We could surround the town and keep any fire away. It never
> occurred to any of us to think of how the rural fire presented a risk to
> us. These folks traded in our town. (Some of the funds we had for
> equipment came about because we responded to their fires) but that's
> beside the point. We considered them to be "Our fires". The innocent
> Iraqis, slaughtered by Sadaam were "our human brothers". Sometimes
> humanitarian efforts require more than saving old clothes and sending them.
>
It is one thing to go into a neighboring community to help fight
THEIR fires. It is another to set a backfire that consumes the
community.
--
FF
mel said:
>Every American soldier.... every civilian employee in Iraq made a choice.
>America made a choice. We chose to fight. Tuesday you have a choice.
>Whether you choose Kerry or Bush you need to remember what's ahead of
>us.....not what's behind us. If we learn from our mistakes then ask
>yourself.... who is better prepared to lead us the next 4 years?
Eisenhower.
Greg G.
<snip>Why, they understand that if a
> democratic form of government is established there, their toast.
>
<snip>Huh, Iraq is toast if democracy is established there? I'll grant you
that it is unlikely that a Democracy will be established but I think
that would be a good thing.
I think what Phil meant was those Iraqis who'd slaughter their own people.
The Bathe Party, mass graves, rape & torture chambers, public executions of
women for breaking the rules meant to keep them as a sublevel
citizenry...stuff like that.
<snip>Saddam Hussein was a different enemy, one that was contained and
impotent
If by contained you mean like a wolf in a pen with sheep then yeah...he was
contained. Impotent? I think he was doing an excellent job of screwing his
own people. (see above response) I lived in a rural area once. We had a
volunteer fire department. Close by there was a municipal fire department
that served the local municipality. I could see you living in that city and
trying to stop the municipal fire department from responding to a fire in
the rural area. "Wait guys!" you'd say. "That isn't threatening our city
and you may get killed if you respond! We need to get all the cities around
this area to jointly respond." As the fire grows.....
Actually that's not fair. What I truly suspect is you wouldn't even
hesitate to allow those men to do what they need to do and if any perished
you'd lift them up as heroes...and....I don't think you'd blame the mayor if
he'd ordered the effort.
In article <[email protected]>,
Robert Galloway <[email protected]> wrote:
> The innocent
> Iraqis, slaughtered by Sadaam were "our human brothers". Sometimes
> humanitarian efforts require more than saving old clothes and sending them
How do you reconcile the innocent Iraqis killed by our actions?
--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
____
"To know the world intimately is the beginning of caring."
-- Ann Hayman Zwinger
I'm going to keep this as simple as possible. You don't have to agree with
why or how we wound up in Iraq. By your own admission we are facing an
insurgency that we aren't prepared to face. By "we" I mean the American
people. Our military is quite capable but "we" are just a tad bit too
squeamish to allow what it would take.
Kerry's solution.... more troops in harm's way. Granted he says for a
limited time but more troops none-the-less. That is his plan. I have a big
problem with that. He is willing to sell the lives of men and women in an
effort to appease public opinion...can you say LBJ?
On 27 Oct 2004 17:13:50 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>There's also that bit about Kerry pretending they were there when we
>got there, when people who were there at the time say they weren't. But,
>like his role model Clinton, he doesn't let facts get in the way of his
>speeches.
The camera crew and the troops they filmed were all
lying as well, eh ? Your hero, Joe Goebbels, would
applaud your efforts.
not JUST more ground troops. That is the point you really need to look at
before you tout Kerry as having the better plan from this point on. As I
stated earlier, Kerry wants to double the ground troops to act as police....
not as an offensive force. Our troops will remain in the defensive posture
they are in. The same defensive posture Kerry criticizes as having been
avoidable. The same posture Kerry points to and says," look at them all
dying". Now you can argue how we got here. You can even argue there is a
unavoidable period at this point making necessary for our men and women to
assume such a role before handing it all back over to whatever governing
body Iraq is going to be left with and you can even argue about the
effectiveness of such a body.....
Please Fred, without talking about anything but this moment on, tell me how
you can argue that placing more troops in Iraq, in essence increasing the
number of "sitting ducks" makes any sense?