John McCain is one of the bravest, giving, and honorable men ever to
have served his country. He is deserving of the highest levels of
respect.People of good intent my not want him to be president, based on
political views, but that does not detract from his lifetime of
dedication to his heritage and nation.

cheers

I am one lifetime Democrat, who will vote for McCain.

I agree most heartedly. McCain is running on the Republican ticket,
but he is truly an Independent, who is not tied to party dictates, as are
the other candidates. He has a track record to prove his independence.
Pulling out of Iraq without stabilizing the area is one of the worst things
we can do. Until we can free ourselves from the dependency on oil
(and that will not happen overnight), we need to keep that region safe
from certain factions who are trying to unstablize the Western world. It
is true that there have not been any more terror attacks on the scale of
9/11, but if these crazies get a hold of the oil and the revenue it brings
in,
they will have the capability to do lots more damage. We are still seeing
terror attacks in Europe and Asia, so the terrorist threat is not gone.

True, we are continuing to lose troops in Iraq, but putting things in
perspective, we lost almost as many troops in one day (D-Day), than we have
lost
in the entire Iraq war. In those days, we did not see the daily names of
soldiers
and sailors lost in WWII because of lack of modern communications and
concerns for support of the war. Now we see daily reports of every single
causualty on our TV's. It keeps the TV networks and newspapers in business,
but does little to support our troops.

Sherwin

"sherwindu" wrote in message
...




John McCain is one of the bravest, giving, and honorable men ever to
have served his country. He is deserving of the highest levels of
respect.People of good intent my not want him to be president, based on
political views, but that does not detract from his lifetime of
dedication to his heritage and nation.

cheers

I am one lifetime Democrat, who will vote for McCain.

I agree most heartedly. McCain is running on the Republican ticket,
but he is truly an Independent, who is not tied to party dictates, as
are
the other candidates. He has a track record to prove his independence.
Pulling out of Iraq without stabilizing the area is one of the worst
things
we can do. Until we can free ourselves from the dependency on oil
(and that will not happen overnight), we need to keep that region safe
from certain factions who are trying to unstablize the Western world.
It
is true that there have not been any more terror attacks on the scale of
9/11, but if these crazies get a hold of the oil and the revenue it
brings
in,
they will have the capability to do lots more damage. We are still
seeing
terror attacks in Europe and Asia, so the terrorist threat is not gone.

True, we are continuing to lose troops in Iraq, but putting things in
perspective, we lost almost as many troops in one day (D-Day), than we
have
lost
in the entire Iraq war. In those days, we did not see the daily names
of
soldiers
and sailors lost in WWII because of lack of modern communications and
concerns for support of the war. Now we see daily reports of every
single
causualty on our TV's. It keeps the TV networks and newspapers in
business,
but does little to support our troops.

Sherwin

History will write the final page in all this. It is far past sad and into
pathetic when we have the list of candidates we have, their pasts, and their
current Three Stooges behavior.

Romney is the ONLY choice in my book. The others are moral whores.

Steve

sherwindu wrote

John McCain is one of the bravest, giving, and honorable men
ever to have served his country. He is deserving of the highest
levels of respect.People of good intent my not want him to be
president, based on political views, but that does not detract
from his lifetime of dedication to his heritage and nation.

I am one lifetime Democrat, who will vote for McCain.

I agree most heartedly. McCain is running on the Republican
ticket, but he is truly an Independent, who is not tied to party
dictates, as are the other candidates. He has a track record
to prove his independence. Pulling out of Iraq without stabilizing
the area is one of the worst things we can do.

Correct. But none of the other candidates that have
any chance of getting elected want to do that either.

Until we can free ourselves from the dependency
on oil (and that will not happen overnight),

It wont happen at all, you watch.

we need to keep that region safe from certain factions
who are trying to unstablize the Western world.

So you support the invasion of Iran too ?

After the fiasco that Iraq turned into ?

It is true that there have not been any more terror attacks on the scale of 9/11,

And not even any even close to that in the US either.

but if these crazies get a hold of the oil and the revenue it
brings in, they will have the capability to do lots more damage.

Wrong. Thats what funded 9/11.

We are still seeing terror attacks in Europe
and Asia, so the terrorist threat is not gone.

Corse it isnt. BUT the invasion of Iraq actually dramatically
increased the terrorist threat, it didnt reduce it.

True, we are continuing to lose troops in Iraq, but putting
things in perspective, we lost almost as many troops in
one day (D-Day), than we have lost in the entire Iraq war.

Correct. BUT WW2 was just a tad more important than Iraq can ever be.

In those days, we did not see the daily names of soldiers and
sailors lost in WWII because of lack of modern communications
and concerns for support of the war. Now we see daily reports
of every single causualty on our TV's. It keeps the TV networks
and newspapers in business, but does little to support our troops.

Irrelevant to whether Iraq should have ever been invaded in the first place.

SteveB wrote:
"sherwindu" wrote in message
...




John McCain is one of the bravest, giving, and honorable men ever to
have served his country. He is deserving of the highest levels of
respect.People of good intent my not want him to be president,
based on political views, but that does not detract from his
lifetime of dedication to his heritage and nation.

cheers

I am one lifetime Democrat, who will vote for McCain.

I agree most heartedly. McCain is running on the Republican
ticket, but he is truly an Independent, who is not tied to party
dictates, as are
the other candidates. He has a track record to prove his
independence. Pulling out of Iraq without stabilizing the area is
one of the worst things
we can do. Until we can free ourselves from the dependency on oil
(and that will not happen overnight), we need to keep that region
safe from certain factions who are trying to unstablize the
Western world. It
is true that there have not been any more terror attacks on the
scale of 9/11, but if these crazies get a hold of the oil and the
revenue it brings
in,
they will have the capability to do lots more damage. We are still
seeing
terror attacks in Europe and Asia, so the terrorist threat is not
gone. True, we are continuing to lose troops in Iraq, but putting things
in perspective, we lost almost as many troops in one day (D-Day),
than we have
lost
in the entire Iraq war. In those days, we did not see the daily
names of
soldiers
and sailors lost in WWII because of lack of modern communications
and concerns for support of the war. Now we see daily reports of
every single
causualty on our TV's. It keeps the TV networks and newspapers in
business,
but does little to support our troops.

History will write the final page in all this.

Unlikely. 'history' is still disputing what the romans got up to.

It is far past sad and into pathetic when we have the list of candidates we have, their pasts, and their current Three
Stooges behavior.

Romney is the ONLY choice in my book. The others are moral whores.

Romney is a fool.

On Feb 2, 1:24*am, sherwindu wrote:
John McCain is one of the bravest, giving, and honorable men ever to
have served his country. *He is deserving of the highest levels of
respect.People of good intent my not want him to be president, based on
political views, but that does not detract from his lifetime of
dedication to his heritage and nation.

cheers

* *I am one lifetime Democrat, who will vote for McCain.

* *I agree most heartedly. *McCain is running on the Republican ticket,
* *but he is truly an Independent, who is not tied to party dictates, as are
* *the other candidates. *He has a track record to prove his independence.
* *Pulling out of Iraq without stabilizing the area is one of the worst things
* *we can do. *Until we can free ourselves from the dependency on oil
* *(and that will not happen overnight), we need to keep that region safe
* *from certain factions who are trying to unstablize the Western world. *It
* *is true that there have not been any more terror attacks on the scale of
* *9/11, but if these crazies get a hold of the oil and the revenue it brings
in,
* *they will have the capability to do lots more damage. *We are still seeing
* *terror attacks in Europe and Asia, so the terrorist threat is not gone.


Let's say by some miracle, the US became energy independent next
year. Your statement implies that at that point we could just ignore
the Middle East and the oil that is there. No more problems. In
fact, oil is a worldwide commodity, with demand growing. No matter
what we do, there will be a market for it and the huge oil revenue
will flow there for decades to come. The notion that the US reducing
our dependence on Middle Eastern oil means we can just ignore that
region is a popular but naive position. Suppose Al Qaeda takes over
Iraq or Saudi Arabia? How much revenue do they have now and how much
would they have then? It takes probably .000001% of the Middle East
oil revenue to finance all terrorism. BTW, how much oil did Germany,
Japan have? Yet they managed to start two world wars, didn't they?






* *True, we are continuing to lose troops in Iraq, but putting things in
* *perspective, we lost almost as many *troops in one day (D-Day), than we have
lost
* *in the entire Iraq war. *In those days, we did not see the daily names of
soldiers
* *and sailors lost in WWII because of lack of modern communications and
* *concerns for support of the war. *Now we see daily reports of every single
* *causualty on our TV's. *It keeps the TV networks and newspapers in business,
* *but does little to support our troops.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Sherwin

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
SteveB wrote:
"sherwindu" wrote in message
...




John McCain is one of the bravest, giving, and honorable men ever to
have served his country. He is deserving of the highest levels of
respect.People of good intent my not want him to be president,
based on political views, but that does not detract from his
lifetime of dedication to his heritage and nation.

cheers

I am one lifetime Democrat, who will vote for McCain.

I agree most heartedly. McCain is running on the Republican
ticket, but he is truly an Independent, who is not tied to party
dictates, as are
the other candidates. He has a track record to prove his
independence. Pulling out of Iraq without stabilizing the area is
one of the worst things
we can do. Until we can free ourselves from the dependency on oil
(and that will not happen overnight), we need to keep that region
safe from certain factions who are trying to unstablize the
Western world. It
is true that there have not been any more terror attacks on the
scale of 9/11, but if these crazies get a hold of the oil and the
revenue it brings
in,
they will have the capability to do lots more damage. We are still
seeing
terror attacks in Europe and Asia, so the terrorist threat is not
gone. True, we are continuing to lose troops in Iraq, but putting things
in perspective, we lost almost as many troops in one day (D-Day),
than we have
lost
in the entire Iraq war. In those days, we did not see the daily
names of
soldiers
and sailors lost in WWII because of lack of modern communications
and concerns for support of the war. Now we see daily reports of
every single
causualty on our TV's. It keeps the TV networks and newspapers in
business,
but does little to support our troops.

History will write the final page in all this.

Unlikely. 'history' is still disputing what the romans got up to.

It is far past sad and into pathetic when we have the list of candidates
we have, their pasts, and their current Three Stooges behavior.

Romney is the ONLY choice in my book. The others are moral whores.

Romney is a fool.


YOU say it, therefore, it must be true.

All hail Rod!

Rod Speed wrote:

Romney is the ONLY choice in my book. The others are moral whores.

Romney is a fool.

Dr. Lawrence J. Peter (discoverer of "The Peter Principle") once said: "I
have been studying politics all my life and have yet to discover whether we
are being led by well-meaning fools or by really intelligent people who are
just putting us on."

I think both Romney and McCain are well-meaning fools, there's not an ounce
of guile between them: what you see is what you get. Meanwhile O'bama* and
Clinton are intelligent people who are trying to jerk us around.

---
*I think the addition of an apostrophe to his name will make him seem more
Irish, thereby appealing to the Catholic vote.

wrote:


Let's say by some miracle, the US became energy independent next
year. Your statement implies that at that point we could just ignore
the Middle East and the oil that is there. No more problems. In
fact, oil is a worldwide commodity, with demand growing. No matter
what we do, there will be a market for it and the huge oil revenue
will flow there for decades to come. The notion that the US reducing
our dependence on Middle Eastern oil means we can just ignore that
region is a popular but naive position. Suppose Al Qaeda takes over
Iraq or Saudi Arabia? How much revenue do they have now and how much
would they have then? It takes probably .000001% of the Middle East
oil revenue to finance all terrorism. BTW, how much oil did Germany,
Japan have? Yet they managed to start two world wars, didn't they?



Energy independence is mostly a myth. Oil is fungible. Because oil is the
gold of energy, prices of alternative energy affects the price of oil.

Suppose something happened in the U.S. (drilling in ANWAR or offshore
Florida, massive increase in the use of coal or nuclear, etc.) such that
this new source of energy worked out to be 10% less costly than current oil
prices.

The oil that the U.S. does not now import now becomes a glut, driving down
the world-wide price by 10%.

More of something drives down the price. As the price goes down, demand
increases. Increased demand raises the price. Soon, we're back to where we
were, only more energy is being consumed.

You want REAL energy independence? And energy independence on the cheap?

Declare Saudia Arabia to be the 51st state.

Lest you think that's a joke, there is a proposal floating around that Saudi
Arabia (and perhaps others) should have their oil administered by an outside
party (the U.N.?) under the rubric of a "world resource" to be used for the
good of all mankind!

In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

Pulling out of Iraq without stabilizing
the area is one of the worst things we can do.

Running from Vietnam wasn't so bad. ****ed off a lot of or Vietnamese
supporters but it was good for America because otherwise we would have
stayed and bled even more lives away.

Obviously, there is a political faction in Iraq that is using American
muscle for their own ends. Let's cut the crap.

It's time to go home.
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

Billy wrote:

Running from Vietnam wasn't so bad. ****ed off a lot of or Vietnamese
supporters but it was good for America because otherwise we would have
stayed and bled even more lives away.

Obviously, there is a political faction in Iraq that is using American
muscle for their own ends. Let's cut the crap.

It's time to go home.

Why? Because of American lives lost?

Not a good reason. The Americans that are there are volunteers and
recognized that their life or limb might be lost. They signed up in spite of
that possibility. In fact, 85% of those who've served in Iraq or Afghanistan
have re-enlisted at the first opportunity.

To them, it's the job they want to do. Just like a firefighter or policeman
understands the risks in his chosen profession, our warrior class accepts
similar risks.

To our warriors, the chance to kill people and blow things up is their
life's work. Sitting around at Fort ********, Louisiana just won't cut it.
Look, who would ever become a fireman if there was no or little chance of
fighting a fire? Likewise, who would ever become a soldier if there were no
wars.

No, we need a war every ten or fifteen years just to keep the tip of the
spear sharp and encourage new recruits.

As a corollary, where had you rather have 180,000 people who want to kill?
There, or back here?

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Billy wrote:

Running from Vietnam wasn't so bad. ****ed off a lot of or Vietnamese
supporters but it was good for America because otherwise we would have
stayed and bled even more lives away.

Obviously, there is a political faction in Iraq that is using American
muscle for their own ends. Let's cut the crap.

It's time to go home.

Why? Because of American lives lost?

Not a good reason. The Americans that are there are volunteers and
recognized that their life or limb might be lost. They signed up in spite of
that possibility. In fact, 85% of those who've served in Iraq or Afghanistan
have re-enlisted at the first opportunity.

To them, it's the job they want to do. Just like a firefighter or policeman
understands the risks in his chosen profession, our warrior class accepts
similar risks.

To our warriors, the chance to kill people and blow things up is their
life's work. Sitting around at Fort ********, Louisiana just won't cut it.
Look, who would ever become a fireman if there was no or little chance of
fighting a fire? Likewise, who would ever become a soldier if there were no
wars.

No, we need a war every ten or fifteen years just to keep the tip of the
spear sharp and encourage new recruits.

As a corollary, where had you rather have 180,000 people who want to kill?
There, or back here?

Re-enliste? Some just kill them selves. Some leave the country when
their tour is extended. Most re-enlist, not because they believe in the
fight but because their buddies, who caught their backs, are still there
and they feel guilty about being out, when their friends are still in
the meat-grinder.

American lives lost? Are you crazy? Each one of them had a name. Each
one of them had a mother and a father who loved them. Each one of them
are patriots who answered the call of their country. How did they know
that the commander in chief was a jive-ass, draft-dodging, mother-****er
who was just going to be helping himself, his daddy, and his friends to
make a little money. Welcome to the New American Century. All Profit,
All the Time. Hell, the ones who got killed are the lucky ones. It's the
other 90% who got broke and are coming home with post-traumatic stress
disorder, who are going to suffer. And you want to put a happy face on
it? Jesus Christ man, the troops did what they were told. They went to
Bagdad and occupied the Ministry of Oil and left the munition dumps
unprotected.

The people of Bagdad were happy to see us. They wanted to thank us. But
we treated them like dirt and kicked them in the teeth.
----------
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...age-grows-afte
r-fallujah-massacre-537969.html

Iraqi rage grows after Fallujah massacre

By Phil Reeves in Fallujah
Sunday, 4 May 2003

Nearly a week after troops from the 82nd Airborne Division randomly
opened fire on a crowd of demonstrators here, prompting the US military
to announce an inquiry, commanders have yet to speak to the doctors who
counted the bodies.

Nor, by late yesterday, had US commanders been to the home of a
13-year-old boy who was among the dead, even though it is located less
than a mile from the main American base in Fallujah, a conservative
Sunni town 35 miles west of Baghdad.

The Americans' conduct over the Fallujah affair * and their highly
implausible version of events * has compounded the anger in Iraq over
the killings, in which 13 people died after being hit by a hail of US
bullets outside a school which the troops were occupying. It combines
all the worst elements of the occupation: panicky troops firing at
Iraqis instead of seeking to engage with them or understand their
circumstances, then insisting that local people have no cause for anger.
---------

Iraqis, in general, respected the US until "W" made them mad enough to
strap a bomb to their backs, may he burn in Hell. If arabs want to kill
westerners now, it's because "W" pushed until they pushed back. "W"
needed a war on terror so that the military-industrial complex could
keep on socking it away. Or was Eisenhower, a real soldier, just full of
crap?

American G.I.s are doing the honorable thing. The Iraqi resistance is
doing the honorable thing. And "W"? Like Iran 1953, "W" is backing the
wackos to keep the pot boiling. We arm both the Sunni and Shia militias.

Wake up. You are being played for a chump.
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

Billy wrote:
It's time to go home.

Why? Because of American lives lost?

Not a good reason. The Americans that are there are volunteers and
recognized that their life or limb might be lost. They signed up in
spite of that possibility. In fact, 85% of those who've served in
Iraq or Afghanistan have re-enlisted at the first opportunity.

To them, it's the job they want to do. Just like a firefighter or
policeman understands the risks in his chosen profession, our
warrior class accepts similar risks.

To our warriors, the chance to kill people and blow things up is
their life's work. Sitting around at Fort ********, Louisiana just
won't cut it. Look, who would ever become a fireman if there was no
or little chance of fighting a fire? Likewise, who would ever become
a soldier if there were no wars.

No, we need a war every ten or fifteen years just to keep the tip of
the spear sharp and encourage new recruits.

As a corollary, where had you rather have 180,000 people who want to
kill? There, or back here?

Re-enliste? Some just kill them selves. Some leave the country when
their tour is extended. Most re-enlist, not because they believe in
the fight but because their buddies, who caught their backs, are
still there and they feel guilty about being out, when their friends
are still in the meat-grinder.

Right. Of the 15% who don't re-enlist, some were casualties, some retire,
some move on to other endeavors, some are pussy-whipped by whining wives or
sweethearts.



American lives lost? Are you crazy? Each one of them had a name. Each
one of them had a mother and a father who loved them. Each one of them
are patriots who answered the call of their country. How did they
know that the commander in chief was a jive-ass, draft-dodging,
mother-****er who was just going to be helping himself, his daddy,
and his friends to make a little money.

What difference does the president make in their decision? As for being a
draft-dodger, if the worst you can say about Bush is, that in time of war,
he joined the National Guard...

Welcome to the New American
Century. All Profit, All the Time.

Proft is good.

Hell, the ones who got killed are
the lucky ones. It's the other 90% who got broke and are coming home
with post-traumatic stress disorder, who are going to suffer.

Regrettably, you're correct. We'll do the best we can to provide for them,
but, ultimately, that was the choice they made.

And you
want to put a happy face on it? Jesus Christ man, the troops did what
they were told. They went to Bagdad and occupied the Ministry of Oil
and left the munition dumps unprotected.

Well, yeah. But they did kill a great number of terrorists and potential
terrorists.


The people of Bagdad were happy to see us. They wanted to thank us.
But we treated them like dirt and kicked them in the teeth.
----------
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...age-grows-afte
r-fallujah-massacre-537969.html

Iraqi rage grows after Fallujah massacre

By Phil Reeves in Fallujah
Sunday, 4 May 2003

Nearly a week after troops from the 82nd Airborne Division randomly
opened fire on a crowd of demonstrators here, prompting the US
military to announce an inquiry, commanders have yet to speak to the
doctors who counted the bodies.


[...]

Potential terrorists.



Iraqis, in general, respected the US until "W" made them mad enough to
strap a bomb to their backs, may he burn in Hell. If arabs want to
kill westerners now, it's because "W" pushed until they pushed back.
"W" needed a war on terror so that the military-industrial complex
could keep on socking it away. Or was Eisenhower, a real soldier,
just full of crap?

Uh, who "pushed" the Arabs into the World Trade Center?

Eisenhower, according to his former superior, Douglas McArthur, "...would
make an adequate staff officer."


American G.I.s are doing the honorable thing. The Iraqi resistance is
doing the honorable thing. And "W"? Like Iran 1953, "W" is backing the
wackos to keep the pot boiling. We arm both the Sunni and Shia
militias.

There is no "Iraqi Resistance." Virtually every one (that we have killed or
know about) of the bombers, insurgents, and leaders of such in Iraq are not
from Iraq. Except for Sadaam, of course.


Wake up. You are being played for a chump.

I'm a volunteer. I accept the risks.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Billy wrote:
It's time to go home.

Why? Because of American lives lost?

Not a good reason. The Americans that are there are volunteers and
recognized that their life or limb might be lost. They signed up in
spite of that possibility. In fact, 85% of those who've served in
Iraq or Afghanistan have re-enlisted at the first opportunity.

To them, it's the job they want to do. Just like a firefighter or
policeman understands the risks in his chosen profession, our
warrior class accepts similar risks.

To our warriors, the chance to kill people and blow things up is
their life's work. Sitting around at Fort ********, Louisiana just
won't cut it. Look, who would ever become a fireman if there was no
or little chance of fighting a fire? Likewise, who would ever become
a soldier if there were no wars.

No, we need a war every ten or fifteen years just to keep the tip of
the spear sharp and encourage new recruits.

As a corollary, where had you rather have 180,000 people who want to
kill? There, or back here?

Re-enliste? Some just kill them selves. Some leave the country when
their tour is extended. Most re-enlist, not because they believe in
the fight but because their buddies, who caught their backs, are
still there and they feel guilty about being out, when their friends
are still in the meat-grinder.

Right. Of the 15% who don't re-enlist, some were casualties, some retire,
some move on to other endeavors, some are pussy-whipped by whining wives or
sweethearts.



American lives lost? Are you crazy? Each one of them had a name. Each
one of them had a mother and a father who loved them. Each one of them
are patriots who answered the call of their country. How did they
know that the commander in chief was a jive-ass, draft-dodging,
mother-****er who was just going to be helping himself, his daddy,
and his friends to make a little money.

What difference does the president make in their decision? As for being a
draft-dodger, if the worst you can say about Bush is, that in time of war,
he joined the National Guard...

The Air National Guard and then didn't show up. The guy is all hat and
no cattle.

Welcome to the New American
Century. All Profit, All the Time.

Proft is good.

It's blood money from people who trusted him.


Hell, the ones who got killed are
the lucky ones. It's the other 90% who got broke and are coming home
with post-traumatic stress disorder, who are going to suffer.

Regrettably, you're correct. We'll do the best we can to provide for them,
but, ultimately, that was the choice they made.

Like Walter Reed. As soon as the spot light is off the VA, it will be
business as usual.

And you
want to put a happy face on it? Jesus Christ man, the troops did what
they were told. They went to Bagdad and occupied the Ministry of Oil
and left the munition dumps unprotected.

Well, yeah. But they did kill a great number of terrorists and potential
terrorists.

Once they saw that we were an occupying force, the **** hit the fan.


The people of Bagdad were happy to see us. They wanted to thank us.
But we treated them like dirt and kicked them in the teeth.
----------
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...age-grows-afte
r-fallujah-massacre-537969.html

Iraqi rage grows after Fallujah massacre

By Phil Reeves in Fallujah
Sunday, 4 May 2003

Nearly a week after troops from the 82nd Airborne Division randomly
opened fire on a crowd of demonstrators here, prompting the US
military to announce an inquiry, commanders have yet to speak to the
doctors who counted the bodies.


[...]

Potential terrorists.

My ass, it was the ****in' PTA. The war was over. The 82nd Airborne set
up shop in a neighborhood school. The locals wanted to send their kids
back to school. They demonstrated and got shot. Not the way to win the
hearts and minds of the locals.



Iraqis, in general, respected the US until "W" made them mad enough to
strap a bomb to their backs, may he burn in Hell. If arabs want to
kill westerners now, it's because "W" pushed until they pushed back.
"W" needed a war on terror so that the military-industrial complex
could keep on socking it away. Or was Eisenhower, a real soldier,
just full of crap?

Uh, who "pushed" the Arabs into the World Trade Center?

The World Trade Organization, that's who. Part of their job is to
squeeze the last dime or drop of blood out of a debtor nation by getting
them to follow 18th century neo-liberal economic policies. This includes
cutting all social services and extensive privatization. Only problem
is, wherever it is employed, it doesn't work and riots break out.
Sometimes, as Ward Churchill has pointed out, when you push people, they
push back.

Eisenhower, according to his former superior, Douglas McArthur, "...would
make an adequate staff officer."


American G.I.s are doing the honorable thing. The Iraqi resistance is
doing the honorable thing. And "W"? Like Iran 1953, "W" is backing the
wackos to keep the pot boiling. We arm both the Sunni and Shia
militias.

There is no "Iraqi Resistance." Virtually every one (that we have killed or
know about) of the bombers, insurgents, and leaders of such in Iraq are not
from Iraq. Except for Sadaam, of course.


Want to corroborate that? No DoD press releases please. In the mean
time, I would direct you to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency .


Wake up. You are being played for a chump.

I'm a volunteer. I accept the risks.
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

Billy wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Billy wrote:
It's time to go home.

Why? Because of American lives lost?

Not a good reason. The Americans that are there are volunteers and
recognized that their life or limb might be lost. They signed up in
spite of that possibility. In fact, 85% of those who've served in
Iraq or Afghanistan have re-enlisted at the first opportunity.

To them, it's the job they want to do. Just like a firefighter or
policeman understands the risks in his chosen profession, our
warrior class accepts similar risks.

To our warriors, the chance to kill people and blow things up is
their life's work. Sitting around at Fort ********, Louisiana just
won't cut it. Look, who would ever become a fireman if there was no
or little chance of fighting a fire? Likewise, who would ever
become a soldier if there were no wars.

No, we need a war every ten or fifteen years just to keep the tip
of the spear sharp and encourage new recruits.

As a corollary, where had you rather have 180,000 people who want
to kill? There, or back here?

Re-enliste? Some just kill them selves. Some leave the country when
their tour is extended. Most re-enlist, not because they believe in
the fight but because their buddies, who caught their backs, are
still there and they feel guilty about being out, when their friends
are still in the meat-grinder.

Right. Of the 15% who don't re-enlist, some were casualties, some
retire, some move on to other endeavors, some are pussy-whipped by
whining wives or sweethearts.



American lives lost? Are you crazy? Each one of them had a name.
Each one of them had a mother and a father who loved them. Each one
of them are patriots who answered the call of their country. How
did they know that the commander in chief was a jive-ass,
draft-dodging, mother-****er who was just going to be helping
himself, his daddy, and his friends to make a little money.

What difference does the president make in their decision? As for
being a draft-dodger, if the worst you can say about Bush is, that
in time of war, he joined the National Guard...

The Air National Guard and then didn't show up. The guy is all hat and
no cattle.

Welcome to the New American
Century. All Profit, All the Time.

Proft is good.

It's blood money from people who trusted him.


Hell, the ones who got killed are
the lucky ones. It's the other 90% who got broke and are coming home
with post-traumatic stress disorder, who are going to suffer.

Regrettably, you're correct. We'll do the best we can to provide for
them, but, ultimately, that was the choice they made.

Like Walter Reed. As soon as the spot light is off the VA, it will be
business as usual.

And you want to put a happy face on it? Jesus Christ man, the
troops did what they were told. They went to Bagdad and occupied
the Ministry of Oil and left the munition dumps unprotected.

Well, yeah. But they did kill a great number of terrorists and potential terrorists.

Once they saw that we were an occupying force, the **** hit the fan.

It did indeed. And even pulling out immediately after the surrender wouldnt have worked either.

The people of Bagdad were happy to see us. They wanted to thank us.
But we treated them like dirt and kicked them in the teeth.
----------
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...age-grows-afte
r-fallujah-massacre-537969.html

Iraqi rage grows after Fallujah massacre

By Phil Reeves in Fallujah
Sunday, 4 May 2003

Nearly a week after troops from the 82nd Airborne Division randomly
opened fire on a crowd of demonstrators here, prompting the US
military to announce an inquiry, commanders have yet to speak to the
doctors who counted the bodies.


[...]

Potential terrorists.

My ass, it was the ****in' PTA. The war was over. The 82nd Airborne
set up shop in a neighborhood school. The locals wanted to send their
kids back to school. They demonstrated and got shot. Not the way to
win the hearts and minds of the locals.

That was never the real problem.

Iraqis, in general, respected the US until "W" made them mad enough
to strap a bomb to their backs, may he burn in Hell. If arabs want
to kill westerners now, it's because "W" pushed until they pushed
back. "W" needed a war on terror so that the military-industrial
complex could keep on socking it away. Or was Eisenhower, a real
soldier, just full of crap?

Uh, who "pushed" the Arabs into the World Trade Center?

The World Trade Organization, that's who.

Nope.

Part of their job is to squeeze the last dime or drop of blood out of a debtor
nation by getting them to follow 18th century neo-liberal economic policies.

Nope, thats the World Bank, and entirely different operation.

This includes cutting all social services and extensive privatization.

That didnt happen in any country the fools involved in WTC came from.

Didnt happen in Saudi because they have plenty of oil revenues and dont
have to give a damn what the world bank thinks they should do. Didnt
happen in Egypt either. Or any other middle eastern country either.

Only problem is, wherever it is employed, it doesn't work and riots break out.

Didnt happen in any middle eastern country for that reason.

Sometimes, as Ward Churchill has pointed
out, when you push people, they push back.

Yes, but thats not what was driving the attacks on the WTC.

Eisenhower, according to his former superior, Douglas
McArthur, "...would make an adequate staff officer."

American G.I.s are doing the honorable thing. The Iraqi resistance
is doing the honorable thing. And "W"? Like Iran 1953, "W" is
backing the wackos to keep the pot boiling. We arm both the Sunni
and Shia militias.

There is no "Iraqi Resistance." Virtually every one (that we have
killed or know about) of the bombers, insurgents, and leaders of
such in Iraq are not from Iraq. Except for Sadaam, of course.

Pig ignorant lie.

Want to corroborate that? No DoD press releases please.
In the mean time, I would direct you to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency .

Yeah, his claim is a pig ignorant lie.

Wake up. You are being played for a chump.

I'm a volunteer. I accept the risks.

And there will always be some who want to get involved in that sort of situation.

In article ,
sherwindu wrote:

True, we are continuing to lose troops in Iraq, but putting things in
perspective, we lost almost as many troops in one day (D-Day), than we
have
lost
in the entire Iraq war. In those days, we did not see the daily names of
soldiers
and sailors lost in WWII because of lack of modern communications and
concerns for support of the war. Now we see daily reports of every single
causualty on our TV's. It keeps the TV networks and newspapers in
business,
but does little to support our troops.

Sherwin

With this kind of support who needs enemies? In WWII we didn't shot the
people that we were liberating. In WWII we didn't shot journalists who
weren't embedded with our citzen army. In WWII we weren't lied to about
why we were at war. True, this isn't like Vietnam, except for the
bullets, except for the bombs. No more vain-glorious Doo-Doo politics.
Bring our children home.

--
Bush Behind Bars

Billy
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/

Billy wrote:

What difference does the president make in their decision? As for
being a draft-dodger, if the worst you can say about Bush is, that
in time of war, he joined the National Guard...

The Air National Guard and then didn't show up. The guy is all hat and
no cattle.

He qualified as a pilot for a close attack fighter and it wasn't a
correspondence course. Of the three squadrons in his unit, two were already
deployed in VietNam and his was scheduled to rotate in when the Pentagon
took the plane in which he was qualified out of combat (because that model
crashed a lot). His job was, therefore, made redudant. Had the National
Guard been a private business, he would have been "let go."


Welcome to the New American
Century. All Profit, All the Time.

Proft is good.

It's blood money from people who trusted him.

Whatever. Profit is good.



Hell, the ones who got killed are
the lucky ones. It's the other 90% who got broke and are coming home
with post-traumatic stress disorder, who are going to suffer.

Regrettably, you're correct. We'll do the best we can to provide for
them, but, ultimately, that was the choice they made.

Like Walter Reed. As soon as the spot light is off the VA, it will be
business as usual.

I agree. VA hospitals are much like other governmental agencies; resting
grounds for the incompetent, the lame, and the lazy. And I'm not talking
about the patients. Fortunately, there is a fix: Abolish VA hospitals. Have
the government pay for veteran's treatments at private facilities. There are
more private hospitals and they are better located.



And you
want to put a happy face on it? Jesus Christ man, the troops did
what they were told. They went to Bagdad and occupied the Ministry
of Oil and left the munition dumps unprotected.

Well, yeah. But they did kill a great number of terrorists and
potential terrorists.

Once they saw that we were an occupying force, the **** hit the fan.

And we killed them so fast, we couldn't stack the bodies fast enough. I was
particularily amused by those bands of miscreants using Toyota pickups with
a .50 cal mounted on the back attacking Abrams tanks and Bradleys.




The people of Bagdad were happy to see us. They wanted to thank us.
But we treated them like dirt and kicked them in the teeth.
----------
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...age-grows-afte
r-fallujah-massacre-537969.html

Iraqi rage grows after Fallujah massacre

By Phil Reeves in Fallujah
Sunday, 4 May 2003

Nearly a week after troops from the 82nd Airborne Division randomly
opened fire on a crowd of demonstrators here, prompting the US
military to announce an inquiry, commanders have yet to speak to the
doctors who counted the bodies.


[...]

Potential terrorists.

My ass, it was the ****in' PTA. The war was over. The 82nd Airborne
set up shop in a neighborhood school. The locals wanted to send their
kids back to school. They demonstrated and got shot. Not the way to
win the hearts and minds of the locals.

Strange they'd have to go to school to learn you don't "demonstrate" against
heavily armed troops. And where'd the come up with the notion that
"demonstrating" would get them anywhere? I'm sure in 34 years of Sadaam's
rule that little trick never came up.



Uh, who "pushed" the Arabs into the World Trade Center?

The World Trade Organization, that's who. Part of their job is to
squeeze the last dime or drop of blood out of a debtor nation by
getting them to follow 18th century neo-liberal economic policies.
This includes cutting all social services and extensive
privatization. Only problem is, wherever it is employed, it doesn't
work and riots break out. Sometimes, as Ward Churchill has pointed
out, when you push people, they push back.

Ward Churchill (the faux Indian) and the WTO? I'm sure, in your view, that
the Illuminati, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the Masons played only
minor roles else you would have mentioned them.



There is no "Iraqi Resistance." Virtually every one (that we have
killed or know about) of the bombers, insurgents, and leaders of
such in Iraq are not from Iraq. Except for Sadaam, of course.


Want to corroborate that? No DoD press releases please. In the mean
time, I would direct you to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency .

Well, it's the DOD that keeps track of that sort of thing. And Wikipedia is
not allowed to be used as source material in elementary schools, so I guess
we'll just have to disagree. In the meantime, here's an NBC report
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8293410/

You may be right about the numbers. I suspect someone from Saudi Arabia or
Yemen or wherever comes to Iraq with his pockets bulging and hires those who
do the actual work.

Wake up. You are being played for a chump.

I'm a volunteer. I accept the risks.

On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 11:46:54 -0600, "HeyBub" wrote:

Billy wrote:

What difference does the president make in their decision? As for
being a draft-dodger, if the worst you can say about Bush is, that
in time of war, he joined the National Guard...

The Air National Guard and then didn't show up. The guy is all hat and
no cattle.

He qualified as a pilot for a close attack fighter

No -- he never finished his training.

And the Deuces in the TXANG were not "close attack" fighters -- they
were entirely air interceptors. There is no record that Dubya ever
trained in ground attacks, nor is there a record he ever flew a single
operational air intercept mission.

As for combat service, the Deuce wasn't a very good close attack
fighter in the first place. Not Nearly enough time on target to make
it work well, ntm the fact that it really wasn't designed to do that.

... and it wasn't a
correspondence course. Of the three squadrons in his unit, two were already
deployed in VietNam

There were some in SE Asia, no question. But few actually in Viet
Nam.

There were some few on standby alert at the major air bases (I saw
some of them parked on the flight line at Bien Hoa), but after an
early and very abortive attempt at using them for ground attack, that
mission was ended.

They remained thereafter mostly as vehicles for senior command
personnel to get some flight time, turning JP4 into noise, and keeping
their pilot ratings up without taking up the flight time of a Needed
aircraft. Supposedly they were there in case the NVAF ever came south
with combat aircraft, but they never really did during the time the
Deuces were there.

The one and only Kill a Deuce got was from a mission flown not out of
Viet Nam but out of Thailand, when it shot down a NVAF transport
aircraft, if memory serves.

... and his was scheduled to rotate in when the Pentagon
took the plane in which he was qualified

He was never fully "qualified" in the Deuce. He didn't finish the
training that would have allowed him to become fully operational.

Dubya quite voluntarily took himself off of flight status -- he was
not involuntarily removed from it. The reasons why he did that are
open to considerable speculation, but that's the Fact of what
happened.

He was not "let go" in any sense of the term. The TXANG continued to
fly the Deuce for some time after Dubya stopped trying to fly them.
He could have continued to do that. He chose not to.

HeyBub wrote:
Billy wrote:

What difference does the president make in their decision? As for
being a draft-dodger, if the worst you can say about Bush is, that
in time of war, he joined the National Guard...

The Air National Guard and then didn't show up. The guy is all hat
and no cattle.

He qualified as a pilot for a close attack fighter and it wasn't a
correspondence course. Of the three squadrons in his unit, two were
already deployed in VietNam and his was scheduled to rotate in when
the Pentagon took the plane in which he was qualified out of combat
(because that model crashed a lot). His job was, therefore, made
redudant. Had the National Guard been a private business, he would
have been "let go."

Welcome to the New American
Century. All Profit, All the Time.

Proft is good.

It's blood money from people who trusted him.

Whatever. Profit is good.



Hell, the ones who got killed are
the lucky ones. It's the other 90% who got broke and are coming
home with post-traumatic stress disorder, who are going to suffer.

Regrettably, you're correct. We'll do the best we can to provide for
them, but, ultimately, that was the choice they made.

Like Walter Reed. As soon as the spot light is off the VA, it will be
business as usual.

I agree. VA hospitals are much like other governmental agencies;
resting grounds for the incompetent, the lame, and the lazy. And I'm
not talking about the patients. Fortunately, there is a fix: Abolish
VA hospitals. Have the government pay for veteran's treatments at
private facilities. There are more private hospitals and they are
better located.


And you
want to put a happy face on it? Jesus Christ man, the troops did
what they were told. They went to Bagdad and occupied the Ministry
of Oil and left the munition dumps unprotected.

Well, yeah. But they did kill a great number of terrorists and
potential terrorists.

Once they saw that we were an occupying force, the **** hit the fan.

And we killed them so fast, we couldn't stack the bodies fast enough.
I was particularily amused by those bands of miscreants using Toyota
pickups with a .50 cal mounted on the back attacking Abrams tanks and
Bradleys.



The people of Bagdad were happy to see us. They wanted to thank us.
But we treated them like dirt and kicked them in the teeth.
----------
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...age-grows-afte
r-fallujah-massacre-537969.html

Iraqi rage grows after Fallujah massacre

By Phil Reeves in Fallujah
Sunday, 4 May 2003

Nearly a week after troops from the 82nd Airborne Division randomly
opened fire on a crowd of demonstrators here, prompting the US
military to announce an inquiry, commanders have yet to speak to
the doctors who counted the bodies.


[...]

Potential terrorists.

My ass, it was the ****in' PTA. The war was over. The 82nd Airborne
set up shop in a neighborhood school. The locals wanted to send their
kids back to school. They demonstrated and got shot. Not the way to
win the hearts and minds of the locals.

Strange they'd have to go to school to learn you don't "demonstrate"
against heavily armed troops. And where'd the come up with the notion
that "demonstrating" would get them anywhere? I'm sure in 34 years of
Sadaam's rule that little trick never came up.



Uh, who "pushed" the Arabs into the World Trade Center?

The World Trade Organization, that's who. Part of their job is to
squeeze the last dime or drop of blood out of a debtor nation by
getting them to follow 18th century neo-liberal economic policies.
This includes cutting all social services and extensive
privatization. Only problem is, wherever it is employed, it doesn't
work and riots break out. Sometimes, as Ward Churchill has pointed
out, when you push people, they push back.

Ward Churchill (the faux Indian) and the WTO? I'm sure, in your view,
that the Illuminati, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the Masons
played only minor roles else you would have mentioned them.



There is no "Iraqi Resistance." Virtually every one (that we have
killed or know about) of the bombers, insurgents, and leaders of
such in Iraq are not from Iraq. Except for Sadaam, of course.


Want to corroborate that? No DoD press releases please. In the mean
time, I would direct you to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency .

Well, it's the DOD that keeps track of that sort of thing. And
Wikipedia is not allowed to be used as source material in elementary
schools, so I guess we'll just have to disagree. In the meantime,
here's an NBC report http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8293410/

You may be right about the numbers. I suspect someone from Saudi
Arabia or Yemen or wherever comes to Iraq with his pockets bulging
and hires those who do the actual work.

They dont have to be hired. Youre so pig ignorant that
you likely havent even heard of the mahdi army.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahdi_Army

Wake up. You are being played for a chump.

I'm a volunteer. I accept the risks.

In article ,
sherwindu wrote:


John McCain is one of the bravest, giving, and honorable men ever to
have served his country. He is deserving of the highest levels of
respect.People of good intent my not want him to be president, based on
political views, but that does not detract from his lifetime of
dedication to his heritage and nation.

cheers

I am one lifetime Democrat, who will vote for McCain.

I agree most heartedly. McCain is running on the Republican ticket,
but he is truly an Independent, who is not tied to party dictates, as are
the other candidates. He has a track record to prove his independence.
Pulling out of Iraq without stabilizing the area is one of the worst
things
we can do. Until we can free ourselves from the dependency on oil
(and that will not happen overnight), we need to keep that region safe
from certain factions who are trying to unstablize the Western world. It
is true that there have not been any more terror attacks on the scale of
9/11, but if these crazies get a hold of the oil and the revenue it brings
in,
they will have the capability to do lots more damage. We are still seeing
terror attacks in Europe and Asia, so the terrorist threat is not gone.

True, we are continuing to lose troops in Iraq, but putting things in
perspective, we lost almost as many troops in one day (D-Day), than we
have
lost
in the entire Iraq war. In those days, we did not see the daily names of
soldiers
and sailors lost in WWII because of lack of modern communications and
concerns for support of the war. Now we see daily reports of every single
causualty on our TV's. It keeps the TV networks and newspapers in
business,
but does little to support our troops.

Sherwin

So if we didn't know how we were lied to and cheated and, didn't know
what was going on, we would be in a better position to support our
children who patriotically answered our nation's call? But then again,
Doo Doo is a crazed, bigoted Zionist (god, I hate being redundant) whose
first allegiance seems to be to Israel.

Bring our boys and girls home NOW.
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Billy wrote:

What difference does the president make in their decision? As for
being a draft-dodger, if the worst you can say about Bush is, that
in time of war, he joined the National Guard...

The Air National Guard and then didn't show up. The guy is all hat and
no cattle.

He qualified as a pilot for a close attack fighter and it wasn't a
correspondence course. Of the three squadrons in his unit, two were already
deployed in VietNam and his was scheduled to rotate in when the Pentagon
took the plane in which he was qualified out of combat (because that model
crashed a lot). His job was, therefore, made redudant. Had the National
Guard been a private business, he would have been "let go."

" . . . it should be noted that at the time Bush was accepted in the
Texas Air National Guard, there was a waiting list of roughly 500 men
and it usually took about a year and a half to get to the top of the
list.

When asked about the waiting list issue, Bush spokesman at the time,
David Beckwith, claimed that Bush was more qualified. "A lot of people
weren't qualified" he said, "so special commissions were offered to
those willing to undergo the extra training required."

However, Charles Shoemake, chief of personnel at the Texas Guard from
1972 to 1980, publicly denied that there was a shortage of pilots or
qualified applicants. "We had so many people coming in who were
super-qualified," he said.

Any claim that Bush was more qualified than 500 other men is laughable
being he only scored 25% on the Pilot Aptitude Test, which happens to be
the lowest score permitted for a wannabe pilot at the time.

http://www.counterpunch.org/pringle05292007.html


Welcome to the New American
Century. All Profit, All the Time.

Proft is good.

It's blood money from people who trusted him.

Whatever. Profit is good.
Blood is better. Especially, if it's yours and not spilled all over the
place.



Hell, the ones who got killed are
the lucky ones. It's the other 90% who got broke and are coming home
with post-traumatic stress disorder, who are going to suffer.

Regrettably, you're correct. We'll do the best we can to provide for
them, but, ultimately, that was the choice they made.

Like Walter Reed. As soon as the spot light is off the VA, it will be
business as usual.

I agree. VA hospitals are much like other governmental agencies; resting
grounds for the incompetent, the lame, and the lazy. And I'm not talking
about the patients. Fortunately, there is a fix: Abolish VA hospitals. Have
the government pay for veteran's treatments at private facilities. There are
more private hospitals and they are better located.



And you
want to put a happy face on it? Jesus Christ man, the troops did
what they were told. They went to Bagdad and occupied the Ministry
of Oil and left the munition dumps unprotected.

Well, yeah. But they did kill a great number of terrorists and
potential terrorists.

Once they saw that we were an occupying force, the **** hit the fan.

And we killed them so fast, we couldn't stack the bodies fast enough. I was
particularily amused by those bands of miscreants using Toyota pickups with
a .50 cal mounted on the back attacking Abrams tanks and Bradleys.

You'll probably find the WWII Polish cavalry attack on German Panzers
humorous too. One man's fool is another man's hero.





The people of Bagdad were happy to see us. They wanted to thank us.
But we treated them like dirt and kicked them in the teeth.
----------
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...age-grows-afte
r-fallujah-massacre-537969.html

Iraqi rage grows after Fallujah massacre

By Phil Reeves in Fallujah
Sunday, 4 May 2003

Nearly a week after troops from the 82nd Airborne Division randomly
opened fire on a crowd of demonstrators here, prompting the US
military to announce an inquiry, commanders have yet to speak to the
doctors who counted the bodies.


[...]

Potential terrorists.

My ass, it was the ****in' PTA. The war was over. The 82nd Airborne
set up shop in a neighborhood school. The locals wanted to send their
kids back to school. They demonstrated and got shot. Not the way to
win the hearts and minds of the locals.

Strange they'd have to go to school to learn you don't "demonstrate" against
heavily armed troops. And where'd the come up with the notion that
"demonstrating" would get them anywhere? I'm sure in 34 years of Sadaam's
rule that little trick never came up.

You dodged the question. Only the 82nd Airborne said there were shots
fired from the crowd. This wasn't substantiated by foreign journalists.
These folks went out to meet an invading army to ask for their
children's schoolhouse back. Are we having a conversation or, are we
just here jerkin' off?


Uh, who "pushed" the Arabs into the World Trade Center?

The World Trade Organization, that's who. Part of their job is to
squeeze the last dime or drop of blood out of a debtor nation by
getting them to follow 18th century neo-liberal economic policies.
This includes cutting all social services and extensive
privatization. Only problem is, wherever it is employed, it doesn't
work and riots break out. Sometimes, as Ward Churchill has pointed
out, when you push people, they push back.

Ward Churchill (the faux Indian) and the WTO? I'm sure, in your view, that
the Illuminati, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the Masons played only
minor roles else you would have mentioned them.

Doctor "faux Indian", if that means anything to you. Don't like that
reference? Try, "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" by John Perkins.




There is no "Iraqi Resistance." Virtually every one (that we have
killed or know about) of the bombers, insurgents, and leaders of
such in Iraq are not from Iraq. Except for Sadaam, of course.


Want to corroborate that? No DoD press releases please. In the mean
time, I would direct you to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency .

Well, it's the DOD that keeps track of that sort of thing. And Wikipedia is
not allowed to be used as source material in elementary schools, so I guess
we'll just have to disagree. In the meantime, here's an NBC report
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8293410/
From the above website:
The NBC News analysis of Web site postings found that 55 percent of
foreign insurgents came from Saudi Arabia, 13 percent from Syria, 9
percent from North Africa and 3 percent from Europe.

FOREIGN INSURGENTS, not locals.
(Side note: we are selling $20 billion worth of armaments to the Saudis
and their neighbors this year and, GIVING $30 billion in weapons to
Israel.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/28/2834/
It's just like in Iraq, where we arm both the Sunnis and the Shias. They
kill each other some and, they both kill Americans.)

You may be right about the numbers. I suspect someone from Saudi Arabia or
Yemen or wherever comes to Iraq with his pockets bulging and hires those who
do the actual work.

Wake up. You are being played for a chump.

I'm a volunteer. I accept the risks.

Thanks for being patriotic, just don't leave your brain under the bunk.
These damn wars are costing America lives, health care, education,
infrastructure, loss of civil rights, and indebting the US to China.
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

Billy wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Billy wrote:
It's time to go home.

Why? Because of American lives lost?

Not a good reason. The Americans that are there are volunteers and
recognized that their life or limb might be lost. They signed up in
spite of that possibility. In fact, 85% of those who've served in
Iraq or Afghanistan have re-enlisted at the first opportunity.

To them, it's the job they want to do. Just like a firefighter or
policeman understands the risks in his chosen profession, our
warrior class accepts similar risks.

To our warriors, the chance to kill people and blow things up is
their life's work. Sitting around at Fort ********, Louisiana just
won't cut it. Look, who would ever become a fireman if there was no
or little chance of fighting a fire? Likewise, who would ever
become a soldier if there were no wars.

No, we need a war every ten or fifteen years just to keep the tip
of the spear sharp and encourage new recruits.

As a corollary, where had you rather have 180,000 people who want
to kill? There, or back here?

Re-enliste? Some just kill them selves. Some leave the country when
their tour is extended. Most re-enlist, not because they believe in
the fight but because their buddies, who caught their backs, are
still there and they feel guilty about being out, when their friends
are still in the meat-grinder.

Right. Of the 15% who don't re-enlist, some were casualties, some
retire, some move on to other endeavors, some are pussy-whipped by
whining wives or sweethearts.



American lives lost? Are you crazy? Each one of them had a name.
Each one of them had a mother and a father who loved them. Each one
of them are patriots who answered the call of their country. How
did they know that the commander in chief was a jive-ass,
draft-dodging, mother-****er who was just going to be helping
himself, his daddy, and his friends to make a little money.

What difference does the president make in their decision? As for
being a draft-dodger, if the worst you can say about Bush is, that
in time of war, he joined the National Guard...

The Air National Guard and then didn't show up. The guy is all hat and
no cattle.

Welcome to the New American
Century. All Profit, All the Time.

Proft is good.

It's blood money from people who trusted him.


Hell, the ones who got killed are
the lucky ones. It's the other 90% who got broke and are coming home
with post-traumatic stress disorder, who are going to suffer.

Regrettably, you're correct. We'll do the best we can to provide for
them, but, ultimately, that was the choice they made.

Like Walter Reed. As soon as the spot light is off the VA, it will be
business as usual.

And you want to put a happy face on it? Jesus Christ man, the
troops did what they were told. They went to Bagdad and occupied
the Ministry of Oil and left the munition dumps unprotected.

Well, yeah. But they did kill a great number of terrorists and potential
terrorists.

Once they saw that we were an occupying force, the **** hit the fan.

It did indeed. And even pulling out immediately after the surrender wouldnt
have worked either.

The people of Bagdad were happy to see us. They wanted to thank us.
But we treated them like dirt and kicked them in the teeth.
----------
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...age-grows-afte
r-fallujah-massacre-537969.html

Iraqi rage grows after Fallujah massacre

By Phil Reeves in Fallujah
Sunday, 4 May 2003

Nearly a week after troops from the 82nd Airborne Division randomly
opened fire on a crowd of demonstrators here, prompting the US
military to announce an inquiry, commanders have yet to speak to the
doctors who counted the bodies.


[...]

Potential terrorists.

My ass, it was the ****in' PTA. The war was over. The 82nd Airborne
set up shop in a neighborhood school. The locals wanted to send their
kids back to school. They demonstrated and got shot. Not the way to
win the hearts and minds of the locals.

That was never the real problem.

It is now. We don't have enough troops or bayonets to insure the peace.
Finally, it comes down to negotiations, not force.

Iraqis, in general, respected the US until "W" made them mad enough
to strap a bomb to their backs, may he burn in Hell. If arabs want
to kill westerners now, it's because "W" pushed until they pushed
back. "W" needed a war on terror so that the military-industrial
complex could keep on socking it away. Or was Eisenhower, a real
soldier, just full of crap?

Uh, who "pushed" the Arabs into the World Trade Center?

The World Trade Organization, that's who.

Nope.

Part of their job is to squeeze the last dime or drop of blood out of a
debtor
nation by getting them to follow 18th century neo-liberal economic
policies.

Nope, thats the World Bank, and entirely different operation.

This includes cutting all social services and extensive privatization.

That didnt happen in any country the fools involved in WTC came from.

Didnt happen in Saudi because they have plenty of oil revenues and dont
have to give a damn what the world bank thinks they should do. Didnt
happen in Egypt either. Or any other middle eastern country either.

Only problem is, wherever it is employed, it doesn't work and riots break
out.

Didnt happen in any middle eastern country for that reason.

Sometimes, as Ward Churchill has pointed
out, when you push people, they push back.

Yes, but thats not what was driving the attacks on the WTC.

Eisenhower, according to his former superior, Douglas
McArthur, "...would make an adequate staff officer."

American G.I.s are doing the honorable thing. The Iraqi resistance
is doing the honorable thing. And "W"? Like Iran 1953, "W" is
backing the wackos to keep the pot boiling. We arm both the Sunni
and Shia militias.

There is no "Iraqi Resistance." Virtually every one (that we have
killed or know about) of the bombers, insurgents, and leaders of
such in Iraq are not from Iraq. Except for Sadaam, of course.

Pig ignorant lie.

Want to corroborate that? No DoD press releases please.
In the mean time, I would direct you to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency .

Yeah, his claim is a pig ignorant lie.

Wake up. You are being played for a chump.

I'm a volunteer. I accept the risks.

And there will always be some who want to get involved in that sort of
situation.
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

Billy wrote

These damn wars are costing America lives, health
care, education, infrastructure, loss of civil rights,

Just like WW2 and the cold war did eh ?

Are you seriously claiming that post 9/11, the US should have
done nothing about the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan ?

And just yawned when Saddam invaded Kuwait ?

and indebting the US to China.

Nope, its the trade with china thats doing that.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Billy wrote

These damn wars are costing America lives, health
care, education, infrastructure, loss of civil rights,

Just like WW2 and the cold war did eh ?

Are you seriously claiming that post 9/11, the US should have
done nothing about the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan ?

And just yawned when Saddam invaded Kuwait ?

Americans aren't even smart enough to know the difference between home
repair and politics. How could we expect them to make any kind of
intelligent decisions at all?

Calab wrote:

Americans aren't even smart enough to know the difference between home
repair and politics. How could we expect them to make any kind of
intelligent decisions at all?

The Irony Meter just pegged itself.

Billy wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Billy wrote
HeyBub wrote
Billy wrote
HeyBub wrote
Billy wrote

It's time to go home.

Why? Because of American lives lost?

Not a good reason. The Americans that are there are volunteers
and recognized that their life or limb might be lost. They signed
up in spite of that possibility. In fact, 85% of those who've served
in Iraq or Afghanistan have re-enlisted at the first opportunity.

To them, it's the job they want to do. Just like a firefighter
or policeman understands the risks in his chosen profession,
our warrior class accepts similar risks.

To our warriors, the chance to kill people and blow things up
is their life's work. Sitting around at Fort ********, Louisiana
just won't cut it. Look, who would ever become a fireman if
there was no or little chance of fighting a fire? Likewise,
who would ever become a soldier if there were no wars.

No, we need a war every ten or fifteen years just to keep
the tip of the spear sharp and encourage new recruits.

As a corollary, where had you rather have 180,000
people who want to kill? There, or back here?

Re-enliste? Some just kill them selves. Some leave the
country when their tour is extended. Most re-enlist, not
because they believe in the fight but because their buddies,
who caught their backs, are still there and they feel guilty
about being out, when their friends are still in the meat-grinder.

Right. Of the 15% who don't re-enlist, some were casualties,
some retire, some move on to other endeavors, some are
pussy-whipped by whining wives or sweethearts.

American lives lost? Are you crazy? Each one of them had a name.
Each one of them had a mother and a father who loved them. Each
one of them are patriots who answered the call of their country.
How did they know that the commander in chief was a jive-ass,
draft-dodging, mother-****er who was just going to be helping
himself, his daddy, and his friends to make a little money.

What difference does the president make in their decision?
As for being a draft-dodger, if the worst you can say about
Bush is, that in time of war, he joined the National Guard...

The Air National Guard and then didn't show up.
The guy is all hat and no cattle.

Welcome to the New American Century. All Profit, All the Time.

Proft is good.

It's blood money from people who trusted him.

Hell, the ones who got killed are the lucky ones. It's the
other 90% who got broke and are coming home with
post-traumatic stress disorder, who are going to suffer.

Regrettably, you're correct. We'll do the best we can to provide
for them, but, ultimately, that was the choice they made.

Like Walter Reed. As soon as the spot light
is off the VA, it will be business as usual.

And you want to put a happy face on it? Jesus Christ man, the
troops did what they were told. They went to Bagdad and occupied
the Ministry of Oil and left the munition dumps unprotected.

Well, yeah. But they did kill a great number of terrorists and potential terrorists.

Once they saw that we were an occupying force, the **** hit the fan.

It did indeed. And even pulling out immediately
after the surrender wouldnt have worked either.

The people of Bagdad were happy to see us. They wanted to thank
us. But we treated them like dirt and kicked them in the teeth.
----------
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...age-grows-afte
r-fallujah-massacre-537969.html

Iraqi rage grows after Fallujah massacre

By Phil Reeves in Fallujah
Sunday, 4 May 2003

Nearly a week after troops from the 82nd Airborne Division
randomly opened fire on a crowd of demonstrators here,
prompting the US military to announce an inquiry, commanders
have yet to speak to the doctors who counted the bodies.

Potential terrorists.

My ass, it was the ****in' PTA. The war was over. The 82nd
Airborne set up shop in a neighborhood school. The locals
wanted to send their kids back to school. They demonstrated
and got shot. Not the way to win the hearts and minds of the locals.

That was never the real problem.

It is now.

Nope. The real problem now is that it degenerated into a full
civil war very quickly after the surrender and its never going
to be possible to keep the lid on a full civil war with US troops.

We don't have enough troops or bayonets to insure the
peace. Finally, it comes down to negotiations, not force.

Yes, but once a full civil war has developed, it takes quite
a while before they get so sick of the consequences of a
full civil war that they are prepared to negotiate.

It took the stupid irish something like 3 centurys, and it still hasnt
really happened in the Balkans, they've had to give up completely
and let the various ethnic groups have their own enclaves.

Iraq will likely end up like that too. It already has with the Kurds particularly.

Iraqis, in general, respected the US until "W" made them mad
enough to strap a bomb to their backs, may he burn in Hell. If
arabs want to kill westerners now, it's because "W" pushed
until they pushed back. "W" needed a war on terror so that
the military-industrial complex could keep on socking it away.
Or was Eisenhower, a real soldier, just full of crap?

Uh, who "pushed" the Arabs into the World Trade Center?

The World Trade Organization, that's who.

Nope.

Part of their job is to squeeze the last dime or drop of blood out of a debtor
nation by getting them to follow 18th century neo-liberal economic policies.

Nope, thats the World Bank, and entirely different operation.

This includes cutting all social services and extensive privatization.

That didnt happen in any country the fools involved in WTC came from.

Didnt happen in Saudi because they have plenty of oil revenues and
dont have to give a damn what the world bank thinks they should do.
Didnt happen in Egypt either. Or any other middle eastern country either.

Only problem is, wherever it is employed, it doesn't work and riots break out.

Didnt happen in any middle eastern country for that reason.

Sometimes, as Ward Churchill has pointed
out, when you push people, they push back.

Yes, but thats not what was driving the attacks on the WTC.

Eisenhower, according to his former superior, Douglas
McArthur, "...would make an adequate staff officer."

American G.I.s are doing the honorable thing. The Iraqi resistance is
doing the honorable thing. And "W"? Like Iran 1953, "W" is backing the
wackos to keep the pot boiling. We arm both the Sunni and Shia militias.

There is no "Iraqi Resistance." Virtually every one (that we have
killed or know about) of the bombers, insurgents, and leaders of
such in Iraq are not from Iraq. Except for Sadaam, of course.

Pig ignorant lie.

Want to corroborate that? No DoD press releases please.
In the mean time, I would direct you to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency .

Yeah, his claim is a pig ignorant lie.

Wake up. You are being played for a chump.

I'm a volunteer. I accept the risks.

And there will always be some who want to get involved in that sort of situation.

"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
news:TPJpj.2325$eD3.1955@trndny05...
Calab wrote:

Americans aren't even smart enough to know the difference between home
repair and politics. How could we expect them to make any kind of
intelligent decisions at all?

The Irony Meter just pegged itself.

Because I happened to leave the mn.politics group as included? I didn't
start the thread.

(mn.politics? Minnesota has politics?)

In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

Billy wrote

These damn wars are costing America lives, health
care, education, infrastructure, loss of civil rights,

Just like WW2 and the cold war did eh ?
This is an elective war in Iraq, unlike WWII. Afghanistan had a debt to
Osama because of his efforts in fighting the Russians. That said we were
welcomed into Iraq and we screwed it up. Afghanistan is ruled by war
lords. The US has lots of experience in manufacturing insurgencies,
remember Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile? Death squads, I mean
insurgencies, plus air strikes at their infrastructure would have made
either country pay heavily. The only reason to be in Iraq is to secure
the oil. What we are doing in Afghanistan makes no sense. It's like we
didn't learn from the Russians or from our own experiences in Somalia.

Are you seriously claiming that post 9/11, the US should have
done nothing about the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan ?

There are many more volunteers now than there was before our invasion.
The whole world was sympathetic with the US after 9/11 but now that's
gone.

In any event, our satellites can see small object on the ground. Let
them build them up and we can knock them down.

And just yawned when Saddam invaded Kuwait ?
I don't know. To the best of my knowledge, Saddam ask for permission to
invade first. We told him that local politics were of no interest to us.
I've heard that this is contested but that is what we were told at the
time. Also, the Kuwaitis apparently were slant drilling into Iraq to
extract oil.

and indebting the US to China.

Nope, its the trade with china thats doing that.
China presently holds some $400 billion of American bonds. This is in
addition to the trade deficiet.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...655458,00.html
The numbers here are low but that is because it was four years ago but
this verifies my claim and you can look up the numbers to verify my
assertion.

By the way, Japan owns $700 billion of American bonds. The money goes
into the military-industrial complex and the tax-payer owns the
liability for the debt.

Come on Rod. I can't be responsible for your education. Make an effort.
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

Billy wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Billy wrote

These damn wars are costing America lives, health
care, education, infrastructure, loss of civil rights,

Just like WW2 and the cold war did eh ?

This is an elective war in Iraq, unlike WWII.

Yes, but just like the cold war and Korea.

Afghanistan had a debt to Osama because of his efforts in fighting the Russians.

It had a MUCH bigger debt to the US for the logistical
support against the russians, particularly stinger missiles.

That said we were welcomed into Iraq

Thats arguable. One of the most striking things was that the vast
majority of Iraqis essentially said 'thanks for getting rid of Saddam,
now **** off out of our country right now and dont come back' and
started blowing up any yanks they could when that didnt happen.

Even the stupid Saudis didnt do much of that after
first Gulf War was won very convincingly indeed.

and we screwed it up.

Nope, THEY screwed it up very comprehensively indeed.

Not only did they start looting everything that wasnt nailed down
in days, but they started ripping each others throats out in days
and that eventually deteriorated into a full scale civil war.

Nothing like that ever happened as WW2 ended and dont try claiming
that that was because not enough US troops were used, not that many
were used to occupy Japan either and that worked fine essentially because
even the stupid Japs had enough sense to realise that once the jackboot
of their military machine was removed from their throats, the only thing
that made any sense whatever was to get on with rebuilding the country.

Afghanistan is ruled by war lords.

It aint JUST warlords. They were actually stupid enough to do essentially
the same thing after they finally had got rid of the russians, started ripping
each others throats out very enthusiastically indeed and Afghanistan ended
up such a complete shambles that it was easy for the talibums to rock up
from Pakistan and take over with bugger all resistance.

The US has lots of experience in manufacturing
insurgencies, remember Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile?

Nothing like what happened in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Those never had US troops on the ground involved.

Remember Germany, Japan, Korea ?

Death squads, I mean insurgencies, plus air strikes at their
infrastructure would have made either country pay heavily.

Didnt work in Yugoslavia. It took troops on the ground to stop it.

The only reason to be in Iraq is to secure the oil.

Wrong. The shrub and his puppeteers are actually so stupid that they
actually believed that they could rock up, get rid of Saddam and that
they would be welcomed by the stupid ragheads and that they would
just have democratic elections and they'd all live happily ever after.

They were that stupid about Vietnam too, and there wasnt any oil involved there.

No oil in Somalia or Beurut either.

What we are doing in Afghanistan makes no sense.

Are you seriously suggesting that nothing should have been done
about the terrorist training camps post 9/11 when it became obvious
to anyone except a complete fool what terrorists could get up to ?

It's like we didn't learn from the Russians
or from our own experiences in Somalia.

Afghanstan wont end up anything like either of those, you watch.

Wont end up anything like Vietnam either.

Are you seriously claiming that post 9/11, the US should have
done nothing about the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan ?

There are many more volunteers now than there was before our invasion.

Not in Afghanistan there arent.

The whole world was sympathetic with the US after 9/11 but now that's gone.

Have fun explaining the considerable number of
european and other troops in Afghanistan right now.

In any event, our satellites can see small object on the ground.
Let them build them up and we can knock them down.

Doesnt work. That was tried in Kosovo and Somalia.

And just yawned when Saddam invaded Kuwait ?

I don't know. To the best of my knowledge,
Saddam ask for permission to invade first.

Like hell he did.

We told him that local politics were of no interest to us.

Pig ignorant lie.

I've heard that this is contested

Corse it is. And even Saddam noticed what the US thought
of the invasion of Kuwait once it had happened and he didnt
care until he was ****ed over very comprehensively indeed.

but that is what we were told at the time.

Only by pig ignorant fools.

The same fools that proclaimed that it was absolutely guaranteed to produce WW3 too.

Also, the Kuwaitis apparently were slant drilling into Iraq to extract oil.

Another pig ignorant lie.

and indebting the US to China.

Nope, its the trade with china thats doing that.

China presently holds some $400 billion of American bonds.
This is in addition to the trade deficiet.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...655458,00.html

Nothing to do with 'these damned wars' as you pig ignorantly claimed.

The shrub's dad even got everyone else to pay for the first gulf war.

The numbers here are low but that is because it
was four years ago but this verifies my claim

No it doesnt prove a damned thing about that being due to
your pig ignorant claim that its due to 'these damned wars'

and you can look up the numbers to verify my assertion.

The numbers aint the problem, its your stupid pig
ignorant claim that they are due to 'these damned wars'

They clearly arent when the shrub's dad got everyone else to pay for the first gulf war.

By the way, Japan owns $700 billion of American bonds.

Yes.

The money goes into the military-industrial complex

Nope.

and the tax-payer owns the liability for the debt.

Come on Rod. I can't be responsible for your education. Make an effort.

You've got everything just plain wrong. You aint educating
anyone, just flaunting your complete pig ignorance of the basics.

So ignorant that you cant even work out the difference between
the world bank and the WTO or what is driving the ragheads either.

In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

Billy wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Billy wrote

These damn wars are costing America lives, health
care, education, infrastructure, loss of civil rights,

Just like WW2 and the cold war did eh ?

This is an elective war in Iraq, unlike WWII.

Yes, but just like the cold war and Korea.

Afghanistan had a debt to Osama because of his efforts in fighting the
Russians.

It had a MUCH bigger debt to the US for the logistical
support against the russians, particularly stinger missiles.

That said we were welcomed into Iraq

Thats arguable. One of the most striking things was that the vast
majority of Iraqis essentially said 'thanks for getting rid of Saddam,
now **** off out of our country right now and dont come back' and
started blowing up any yanks they could when that didnt happen.

Even the stupid Saudis didnt do much of that after
first Gulf War was won very convincingly indeed.

and we screwed it up.

Nope, THEY screwed it up very comprehensively indeed.

Not only did they start looting everything that wasnt nailed down
in days, but they started ripping each others throats out in days
and that eventually deteriorated into a full scale civil war.

Nothing like that ever happened as WW2 ended and dont try claiming
that that was because not enough US troops were used, not that many
were used to occupy Japan either and that worked fine essentially because
even the stupid Japs had enough sense to realise that once the jackboot
of their military machine was removed from their throats, the only thing
that made any sense whatever was to get on with rebuilding the country.

Afghanistan is ruled by war lords.

It aint JUST warlords. They were actually stupid enough to do essentially
the same thing after they finally had got rid of the russians, started
ripping
each others throats out very enthusiastically indeed and Afghanistan ended
up such a complete shambles that it was easy for the talibums to rock up
from Pakistan and take over with bugger all resistance.

The US has lots of experience in manufacturing
insurgencies, remember Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile?

Nothing like what happened in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Those never had US troops on the ground involved.

Remember Germany, Japan, Korea ?

Death squads, I mean insurgencies, plus air strikes at their
infrastructure would have made either country pay heavily.

Didnt work in Yugoslavia. It took troops on the ground to stop it.

The only reason to be in Iraq is to secure the oil.

Wrong. The shrub and his puppeteers are actually so stupid that they
actually believed that they could rock up, get rid of Saddam and that
they would be welcomed by the stupid ragheads and that they would
just have democratic elections and they'd all live happily ever after.

They were that stupid about Vietnam too, and there wasnt any oil involved
there.

No oil in Somalia or Beurut either.

What we are doing in Afghanistan makes no sense.

Are you seriously suggesting that nothing should have been done
about the terrorist training camps post 9/11 when it became obvious
to anyone except a complete fool what terrorists could get up to ?

It's like we didn't learn from the Russians
or from our own experiences in Somalia.

Afghanstan wont end up anything like either of those, you watch.

Wont end up anything like Vietnam either.

Are you seriously claiming that post 9/11, the US should have
done nothing about the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan ?

There are many more volunteers now than there was before our invasion.

Not in Afghanistan there arent.

The whole world was sympathetic with the US after 9/11 but now that's gone.

Have fun explaining the considerable number of
european and other troops in Afghanistan right now.

In any event, our satellites can see small object on the ground.
Let them build them up and we can knock them down.

Doesnt work. That was tried in Kosovo and Somalia.

And just yawned when Saddam invaded Kuwait ?

I don't know. To the best of my knowledge,
Saddam ask for permission to invade first.

Like hell he did.

We told him that local politics were of no interest to us.

Pig ignorant lie.

I've heard that this is contested

Corse it is. And even Saddam noticed what the US thought
of the invasion of Kuwait once it had happened and he didnt
care until he was ****ed over very comprehensively indeed.

but that is what we were told at the time.

Only by pig ignorant fools.

The same fools that proclaimed that it was absolutely guaranteed to produce
WW3 too.

Also, the Kuwaitis apparently were slant drilling into Iraq to extract oil.

Another pig ignorant lie.

and indebting the US to China.

Nope, its the trade with china thats doing that.

China presently holds some $400 billion of American bonds.
This is in addition to the trade deficiet.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...655458,00.html

Nothing to do with 'these damned wars' as you pig ignorantly claimed.

The shrub's dad even got everyone else to pay for the first gulf war.

The numbers here are low but that is because it
was four years ago but this verifies my claim

No it doesnt prove a damned thing about that being due to
your pig ignorant claim that its due to 'these damned wars'

and you can look up the numbers to verify my assertion.

The numbers aint the problem, its your stupid pig
ignorant claim that they are due to 'these damned wars'

They clearly arent when the shrub's dad got everyone else to pay for the
first gulf war.

By the way, Japan owns $700 billion of American bonds.

Yes.

The money goes into the military-industrial complex

Nope.

and the tax-payer owns the liability for the debt.

Come on Rod. I can't be responsible for your education. Make an effort.

You've got everything just plain wrong. You aint educating
anyone, just flaunting your complete pig ignorance of the basics.

So ignorant that you cant even work out the difference between
the world bank and the WTO or what is driving the ragheads either.

Also nothin' I can do about your cranial-rectal inversion. Talking to a
fence post would be more illuminating. Bye.
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

Billy wrote:
In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

Billy wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Billy wrote

These damn wars are costing America lives, health
care, education, infrastructure, loss of civil rights,

Just like WW2 and the cold war did eh ?

This is an elective war in Iraq, unlike WWII.

Yes, but just like the cold war and Korea.

Afghanistan had a debt to Osama because of his efforts in fighting
the Russians.

It had a MUCH bigger debt to the US for the logistical
support against the russians, particularly stinger missiles.

That said we were welcomed into Iraq

Thats arguable. One of the most striking things was that the vast
majority of Iraqis essentially said 'thanks for getting rid of
Saddam,
now **** off out of our country right now and dont come back' and
started blowing up any yanks they could when that didnt happen.

Even the stupid Saudis didnt do much of that after
first Gulf War was won very convincingly indeed.

and we screwed it up.

Nope, THEY screwed it up very comprehensively indeed.

Not only did they start looting everything that wasnt nailed down
in days, but they started ripping each others throats out in days
and that eventually deteriorated into a full scale civil war.

Nothing like that ever happened as WW2 ended and dont try claiming
that that was because not enough US troops were used, not that many
were used to occupy Japan either and that worked fine essentially
because even the stupid Japs had enough sense to realise that once
the jackboot
of their military machine was removed from their throats, the only
thing that made any sense whatever was to get on with rebuilding the
country.

Afghanistan is ruled by war lords.

It aint JUST warlords. They were actually stupid enough to do
essentially the same thing after they finally had got rid of the
russians, started ripping
each others throats out very enthusiastically indeed and Afghanistan
ended up such a complete shambles that it was easy for the talibums
to rock up from Pakistan and take over with bugger all resistance.

The US has lots of experience in manufacturing
insurgencies, remember Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile?

Nothing like what happened in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Those never had US troops on the ground involved.

Remember Germany, Japan, Korea ?

Death squads, I mean insurgencies, plus air strikes at their
infrastructure would have made either country pay heavily.

Didnt work in Yugoslavia. It took troops on the ground to stop it.

The only reason to be in Iraq is to secure the oil.

Wrong. The shrub and his puppeteers are actually so stupid that they
actually believed that they could rock up, get rid of Saddam and that
they would be welcomed by the stupid ragheads and that they would
just have democratic elections and they'd all live happily ever
after.

They were that stupid about Vietnam too, and there wasnt any oil
involved there.

No oil in Somalia or Beurut either.

What we are doing in Afghanistan makes no sense.

Are you seriously suggesting that nothing should have been done
about the terrorist training camps post 9/11 when it became obvious
to anyone except a complete fool what terrorists could get up to ?

It's like we didn't learn from the Russians
or from our own experiences in Somalia.

Afghanstan wont end up anything like either of those, you watch.

Wont end up anything like Vietnam either.

Are you seriously claiming that post 9/11, the US should have
done nothing about the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan ?

There are many more volunteers now than there was before our
invasion.

Not in Afghanistan there arent.

The whole world was sympathetic with the US after 9/11 but now
that's gone.

Have fun explaining the considerable number of
european and other troops in Afghanistan right now.

In any event, our satellites can see small object on the ground.
Let them build them up and we can knock them down.

Doesnt work. That was tried in Kosovo and Somalia.

And just yawned when Saddam invaded Kuwait ?

I don't know. To the best of my knowledge,
Saddam ask for permission to invade first.

Like hell he did.

We told him that local politics were of no interest to us.

Pig ignorant lie.

I've heard that this is contested

Corse it is. And even Saddam noticed what the US thought
of the invasion of Kuwait once it had happened and he didnt
care until he was ****ed over very comprehensively indeed.

but that is what we were told at the time.

Only by pig ignorant fools.

The same fools that proclaimed that it was absolutely guaranteed to
produce WW3 too.

Also, the Kuwaitis apparently were slant drilling into Iraq to
extract oil.

Another pig ignorant lie.

and indebting the US to China.

Nope, its the trade with china thats doing that.

China presently holds some $400 billion of American bonds.
This is in addition to the trade deficiet.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...655458,00.html

Nothing to do with 'these damned wars' as you pig ignorantly claimed.

The shrub's dad even got everyone else to pay for the first gulf war.

The numbers here are low but that is because it
was four years ago but this verifies my claim

No it doesnt prove a damned thing about that being due to
your pig ignorant claim that its due to 'these damned wars'

and you can look up the numbers to verify my assertion.

The numbers aint the problem, its your stupid pig
ignorant claim that they are due to 'these damned wars'

They clearly arent when the shrub's dad got everyone else to pay for
the first gulf war.

By the way, Japan owns $700 billion of American bonds.

Yes.

The money goes into the military-industrial complex

Nope.

and the tax-payer owns the liability for the debt.

Come on Rod. I can't be responsible for your education. Make an
effort.

You've got everything just plain wrong. You aint educating
anyone, just flaunting your complete pig ignorance of the basics.

So ignorant that you cant even work out the difference between
the world bank and the WTO or what is driving the ragheads either.

Also nothin' I can do about your cranial-rectal inversion.
Talking to a fence post would be more illuminating. Bye.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

So stupid that it doesnt even realise how terminally pig
ignorant it is on every single issue thats been discussed.

Billy wrote:

In article ,
sherwindu wrote:


John McCain is one of the bravest, giving, and honorable men ever to
have served his country. He is deserving of the highest levels of
respect.People of good intent my not want him to be president, based on
political views, but that does not detract from his lifetime of
dedication to his heritage and nation.

cheers

I am one lifetime Democrat, who will vote for McCain.

I agree most heartedly. McCain is running on the Republican ticket,
but he is truly an Independent, who is not tied to party dictates, as are
the other candidates. He has a track record to prove his independence.
Pulling out of Iraq without stabilizing the area is one of the worst
things
we can do. Until we can free ourselves from the dependency on oil
(and that will not happen overnight), we need to keep that region safe
from certain factions who are trying to unstablize the Western world. It
is true that there have not been any more terror attacks on the scale of
9/11, but if these crazies get a hold of the oil and the revenue it brings
in,
they will have the capability to do lots more damage. We are still seeing
terror attacks in Europe and Asia, so the terrorist threat is not gone.

True, we are continuing to lose troops in Iraq, but putting things in
perspective, we lost almost as many troops in one day (D-Day), than we
have
lost
in the entire Iraq war. In those days, we did not see the daily names of
soldiers
and sailors lost in WWII because of lack of modern communications and
concerns for support of the war. Now we see daily reports of every single
causualty on our TV's. It keeps the TV networks and newspapers in
business,
but does little to support our troops.

Sherwin

So if we didn't know how we were lied to and cheated and, didn't know
what was going on, we would be in a better position to support our
children who patriotically answered our nation's call?

Hey Billy Goat,

Do you have any children in Iraq? I doubt it. Point is, we are not supporting

our troops in Iraq by undermining them with reports of casualties there. If
you
ask the troops over there, most of them want to stay and get the job done.

But then again,
Doo Doo is a crazed, bigoted Zionist (god, I hate being redundant) whose
first allegiance seems to be to Israel.

What have you done to support this country? Have you served in the U.S.
military? I did.
You like to stick labels on people. I see no conflict between supporting Israel
and the
USA at the same time. Is your first allegiance to the Palestinians?

Sherwin



Bring our boys and girls home NOW.

So we can send them back again to clean up the mess we left.

Billy wrote:

So if we didn't know how we were lied to and cheated and, didn't know
what was going on, we would be in a better position to support our
children who patriotically answered our nation's call?

What's lying and cheating got to do with it? You think we approved the war
because of lies? We approved the war for the opportunity to kill Islamic
Extremists.


But then again,
Doo Doo is a crazed, bigoted Zionist (god, I hate being redundant)
whose first allegiance seems to be to Israel.

We need Israel. Israel can field 18 divisions of infantry and armor on 72
hours notice. This is a 50% larger force than the authorized strength of the
U.S. ground military (10 Army and 2 Marine divisions).

Israel can deploy 625,000 troops, engaged in combat, on three fronts, in
three days with the first quarter-million coming on line in 24 hours. Israel
can fight a sustained war without significant resupply for 30 days - the
best endurance that NATO ever achieved when facing the Soviets was ten days.


Bring our boys and girls home NOW.

Why? These are our warrior class. They exist to kill and blow things up.
They fight for honor, family, home, and glory. Now you've got to ask
yourself just one question: do you want them over there, or roaming our
cities over here?

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Billy wrote:

So if we didn't know how we were lied to and cheated and, didn't know
what was going on, we would be in a better position to support our
children who patriotically answered our nation's call?

What's lying and cheating got to do with it? You think we approved the war
because of lies? We approved the war for the opportunity to kill Islamic
Extremists.
If your not going to keep this real, I may as well walk.


But then again,
Doo Doo is a crazed, bigoted, land stealing, Zionist (god, I hate being
redundant) whose first allegiance seems to be to Israel.

We need Israel. Israel can field 18 divisions of infantry and armor on 72
hours notice. This is a 50% larger force than the authorized strength of the
U.S. ground military (10 Army and 2 Marine divisions).

We need a fascist, murdering, land stealing, pariah state for an ally?
Part of the reason that the arab people are ****ed-off at us is our
unwavering support of the Zionists. They couldn't just come and buy
land. They had to steal it. Putting a muzzle on these thugs would go a
long way to settling the region down.

Israel can deploy 625,000 troops, engaged in combat, on three fronts, in
three days with the first quarter-million coming on line in 24 hours. Israel
can fight a sustained war without significant resupply for 30 days - the
best endurance that NATO ever achieved when facing the Soviets was ten days.

Yeah, and they broke their teeth on Hezbollah.

Bring our boys and girls home NOW.

Why? These are our warrior class. They exist to kill and blow things up.
They fight for honor, family, home, and glory. Now you've got to ask
yourself just one question: do you want them over there, or roaming our
cities over here?

And you are a Spartan? Even the Spartans weren't as nutty as you sound.
You want a warrior class? Look at the samurai. They weren't two
dimensional cartoons. They learned gardening, the tea ceremony,
painting, flower arranging, and poetry but one on one they were bad
dudes. Manchurian farm boys brought them down.

You, you seem to like to posture, posing the bad-boy, either that or you
need clinical help. Comic strip characters aren't real. In Korea, if
there was a noise on the perimeter, an 18 year old jar-head would pull
the pin on a grenade and go check it out. Meanwhile, the oldest guy in
camp (27) would put his head in the lowest place he could find. You want
more Americans with PTSD, when the reason they are in that situation is
a lie? You ain't their buddy.
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

In article ,
sherwindu wrote:

Billy wrote:

In article ,
sherwindu wrote:


So if we didn't know how we were lied to and cheated and, didn't know
what was going on, we would be in a better position to support our
children who patriotically answered our nation's call?

Hey Billy Goat,

Do you have any children in Iraq? I doubt it. Point is, we are not
supporting

our troops in Iraq by undermining them with reports of casualties there.
If
you
ask the troops over there, most of them want to stay and get the job
done.
And this is why you watch Fox News? So you won't know your ass from a
hole in the ground?

But then again, Doo Doo is a crazed, bigoted, land stealing Zionist
(god, I hate being redundant) whose first allegiance seems to be to
Israel.

What have you done to support this country? Have you served in the U.S.
military? I did.
You like to stick labels on people. I see no conflict between supporting
Israel
and the
USA at the same time. Is your first allegiance to the Palestinians?
Nay. My first allegiance is to people who want to raise their children
in peace and take care of their parents when they are old.My first
allegiance is to people who want to spend time with their families and
friends.My first allegiance is to people who want to garden/raise
animals. My first allegiance is to people who want to meet people from
other places and find out how they live and eat. My first allegiance is
to people who want life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all.

Sherwin



Bring our boys and girls home NOW.

So we can send them back again to clean up the mess we left.

When it comes to making a mess, leave it to Doo-Doo.
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

HeyBub wrote
Billy wrote

So if we didn't know how we were lied to and cheated and, didn't know what was going on, we would be in a better
position to support our children who patriotically answered our nation's call?

What's lying and cheating got to do with it? You think we approved the war because of lies? We approved the war for
the opportunity to kill Islamic Extremists.

Pity saddam wasnt even that. Neither was his regime.

But then again, Doo Doo is a crazed, bigoted Zionist (god, I hate being redundant) whose first allegiance seems to be
to Israel.

We need Israel.

Nope, it wouldnt matter a damn if the ragheads wiped it out completely.

Israel can field 18 divisions of infantry and armor on 72 hours notice.

In fact steps were taken to keep them out of the first Gulf War, because if
they had got involved, all the other middle eastern countrys wouldnt have got
involved and there wouldnt have been anywhere like Saudi to operate from.

It wouldnt have been possible to kick Saddam out of Kuwait from Isreal.

This is a 50% larger force than the authorized strength of the U.S. ground military (10 Army and 2 Marine divisions).

It aint about grunts in boots anymore.

Israel can deploy 625,000 troops, engaged in combat, on three fronts,
in three days with the first quarter-million coming on line in 24 hours.

Fat lot of good that would have been when driving Saddam out of Kuwait.

Or for invading Iraq either.

Israel can fight a sustained war without significant resupply for 30 days

Depends entirely on what sort of war it is.

- the best endurance that NATO ever achieved when facing the Soviets was ten days.

Isreal never tried it against the Soviets, just some ****wits like the Egyptians.

Bring our boys and girls home NOW.

Why?

Because its costing an immense amount of money to get involved in what is just another civil war.

These are our warrior class.

They've passed their useby date. No one is going to attack america militarily again.

They exist to kill and blow things up. They fight for honor, family, home, and glory.

Many of them do it to get american citizenship.

Now you've got to ask yourself just one question: do you want them over there, or roaming our cities over here?

That was survived fine up until Iraq was invaded. And the first Gulf War
didnt stop fools like McVeigh doing obscenitys back in america anyway.