Discussion:
Al Queda can't vote. Will you vote for them?
(too old to reply)
Russell Patterson
2006-11-03 13:06:30 UTC
Permalink
They want Democrats to win back Congress. Don't let them win! Get out
and vote if you don't want it to happen.
Gary Carson
2006-11-03 13:19:55 UTC
Permalink
They want Democrats to win back Congress. Don't let them win! Get out
and vote if you don't want it to happen.
No, they don't.  Iraq is of huge value to them as a recruiting tool.  They very
much would prefer we stay the course.


The insurgents want us to leave.  Al Queda wants us to stay.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com



_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com
doG si BWG
2006-11-03 15:56:59 UTC
Permalink
If you actually believe that, YOU ARE A DAMN FOOL
Post by Gary Carson
They want Democrats to win back Congress. Don't let them win! Get out
and vote if you don't want it to happen.
No, they don't.  Iraq is of huge value to them as a recruiting tool.  They very
much would prefer we stay the course.
The insurgents want us to leave.  Al Queda wants us to stay.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com
Bob
2006-11-03 16:41:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by doG si BWG
If you actually believe that, YOU ARE A DAMN FOOL
No, he's completely right. Why would Al Qaeda want us to leave Iraq?
We're doing exactly what they want there.

Gary is also correct about the difference between the Iraqi insurgents,
who do want us to leave Iraq, and Al Qaeda, who wants us to stay. Of
course, that's far too complex an analysis for those who don't know the
difference between Sunni and Shiite.

- Bob T.
Post by doG si BWG
They want Democrats to win back Congress. Don't let them win! Get out
and vote if you don't want it to happen.
No, they don't. Iraq is of huge value to them as a recruiting tool. They
very
much would prefer we stay the course.
The insurgents want us to leave. Al Queda wants us to stay.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com
Bryan Kimmes
2006-11-03 19:44:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by doG si BWG
If you actually believe that, YOU ARE A DAMN FOOL
No, he's completely right. Why would Al Qaeda want us to leave Iraq?
We're doing exactly what they want there.
Gary is also correct about the difference between the Iraqi insurgents,
who do want us to leave Iraq, and Al Qaeda, who wants us to stay. Of
course, that's far too complex an analysis for those who don't know the
difference between Sunni and Shiite.
- Bob T.
A difference between Iraqi insurgents and Al Qadea?!? What a development, you
should tell Irish Mike about this immediatly.

Bryan
Post by doG si BWG
They want Democrats to win back Congress. Don't let them win! Get out
and vote if you don't want it to happen.
No, they don't. Iraq is of huge value to them as a recruiting tool. They
very
much would prefer we stay the course.
The insurgents want us to leave. Al Queda wants us to stay.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com/
_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - /
_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
Peg Smith
2006-11-03 20:52:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bryan Kimmes
Post by Bob
Gary is also correct about the difference between the Iraqi insurgents,
who do want us to leave Iraq, and Al Qaeda, who wants us to stay. Of
course, that's far too complex an analysis for those who don't know the
difference between Sunni and Shiite.
- Bob T.
A difference between Iraqi insurgents and Al Qadea?!? What a development, you
should tell Irish Mike about this immediatly.
Irish Mike wouldn't get a clue if he rubbed himself with clue musk and
stood in the middle of a clue herd during clue mating season.

Peg
w***@earthlink.net
2006-11-03 20:58:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peg Smith
Post by Bryan Kimmes
Post by Bob
Gary is also correct about the difference between the Iraqi insurgents,
who do want us to leave Iraq, and Al Qaeda, who wants us to stay. Of
course, that's far too complex an analysis for those who don't know the
difference between Sunni and Shiite.
- Bob T.
A difference between Iraqi insurgents and Al Qadea?!? What a development, you
should tell Irish Mike about this immediatly.
Irish Mike wouldn't get a clue if he rubbed himself with clue musk and
stood in the middle of a clue herd during clue mating season.
Peg
maybe not....retarded clues get confused all the time....

mikey u139352 www.unificationwars.com
Susan
2006-11-06 15:46:07 UTC
Permalink
ouch
Post by Peg Smith
Irish Mike wouldn't get a clue if he rubbed himself with clue musk and
stood in the middle of a clue herd during clue mating season.
Peg
Gary Carson
2006-11-03 18:39:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by doG si BWG
If you actually believe that, YOU ARE A DAMN FOOL
You're right.  Al Queda doesn't matter anyway.  We need to make sure those damn
queers don't get married.
Post by doG si BWG
Post by Gary Carson
They want Democrats to win back Congress. Don't let them win! Get out
and vote if you don't want it to happen.
No, they don't.  Iraq is of huge value to them as a recruiting tool.  They very
much would prefer we stay the course.
The insurgents want us to leave.  Al Queda wants us to stay.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com



_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com
phlash74
2006-11-06 08:02:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Carson
If you actually believe that, YOU ARE A DAMN FOOLYou're right. Al Queda doesn't matter anyway. We need to make sure those damn
queers don't get married.
As long as we stay focused on what's really important in this world.
:)

At least we have common ground with Al Qaeda on this issue. Maybe we
can use this as our opening salvo in negotiations, you know, bring Al
Qaeda into the family of nations. We'll give them Iran and Syria, as
long as they let us keep Iraq and Saudi Arabia. That gives us ~60% of
the oil, which should maintain prices around $2.30 a gallon. People
seem to be OK with that.

Michael
A Man Beaten by Jacks
2006-11-03 19:19:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by doG si BWG
If you actually believe that, YOU ARE A DAMN FOOL
If you don't realize that al Qaeda considers our presence in Iraq one of their
best recruiting tools, you're a stupid motherfucking piece of shit who should
go suck a tailpipe to improve the gene pool.
goshin
2006-11-06 07:47:32 UTC
Permalink
They want Democrats to win back Congress. Don't let them win! Get out
and vote if you don't want it to happen.
No, they don't. Iraq is of huge value to them as a recruiting tool. They very
much would prefer we stay the course.
The insurgents want us to leave. Al Queda wants us to stay.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com
i'd MUCH rather have high recruiting in a centralized area where the new
recruits can be dealt with now, than the alternative
Russell Patterson
2006-11-03 13:22:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Russell Patterson
They want Democrats to win back Congress. Don't let them win! Get out
and vote if you don't want it to happen.
Sorry, forgot to put OT up front.
Minor Glitch
2006-11-04 00:54:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Russell Patterson
Post by Russell Patterson
They want Democrats to win back Congress. Don't let them win! Get out
and vote if you don't want it to happen.
Sorry, forgot to put OT up front.
Don't worry about it. The content of your post makes it clear that you
are a dumb fuck. Dems will have a majority of more than 40 seats in the
house after the election on Tuesday. Senate will be no more than a 2 seat
majority one way or the other... Bush could have fixed much of this by
firing Rumsfeld after his reelection... but he is a bigger dum fuck than
Russell.
-mg

---- 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
FL Turbo
2006-11-04 01:21:41 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 16:54:37 -0800, "Minor Glitch"
Post by Minor Glitch
Post by Russell Patterson
Post by Russell Patterson
They want Democrats to win back Congress. Don't let them win! Get out
and vote if you don't want it to happen.
Sorry, forgot to put OT up front.
Don't worry about it. The content of your post makes it clear that you
are a dumb fuck. Dems will have a majority of more than 40 seats in the
house after the election on Tuesday. Senate will be no more than a 2 seat
majority one way or the other... Bush could have fixed much of this by
firing Rumsfeld after his reelection... but he is a bigger dum fuck than
Russell.
-mg
A majority of 40??
You been down at the Moonbat caves drinking their Koolaid?

Rummy is my hero.
If only for his great ability to bitch-slap reporters asking
stupid/insulting questions.

Bush should have taken lessons from him on dealing with that pack of
White House reporters that do ask the same kind of questions.

Come to think of it, Lynne Cheney is damn good at that, too.
Bryan Kimmes
2006-11-04 05:40:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by FL Turbo
Rummy is my hero.
If only for his great ability to bitch-slap reporters asking
stupid/insulting questions.
His handling of the media is entertaining, almost on a Bill Parcells level, but
that is irrelevant. To be honest, he should never have to speak to the media.
Donald Rumsfield should have no time to speak with the media.

The issue is his handling of Iraq. I know I don't have to tell you, a war is a
very serious thing, and is not something you can EVER be over-prepared for.

Rummy told Bush he could deliver Iraq, and at some point Rummy told Bush "We
won, the war is over." Or something to that effect. Bush gets way to much credit
for Iraq, he put his trust in Rummy.

Saddam, all his minions, and the "Elite" Republican Guard were all easily taken
care of in under a month. Now what? George Bush Sr. said himself it was a
horrible idea to oust Saddam, it would start a civil war.

Rummy gambled with a lot of lives, American and Iraqi. He bet the house that
Democracy would take hold (this could still happen, but it seems to be getting
worse). Now that Civil War that Sr. spoke of may have started.

How would you grade Rummy on his Iraq performance(to this point)?

What percentage of people on RGP would be fired for such a lack of preparation
at their places of employment?

Do you think you could have done a better job of preparing for postwar Iraq
yourself?

I don't think Donald Rumsfield is really a hero of yours.

Bryan
Post by FL Turbo
Bush should have taken lessons from him on dealing with that pack of
White House reporters that do ask the same kind of questions.
Come to think of it, Lynne Cheney is damn good at that, too.
_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com
FL Turbo
2006-11-04 16:39:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bryan Kimmes
Post by FL Turbo
Rummy is my hero.
If only for his great ability to bitch-slap reporters asking
stupid/insulting questions.
His handling of the media is entertaining, almost on a Bill Parcells level, but
that is irrelevant. To be honest, he should never have to speak to the media.
Donald Rumsfield should have no time to speak with the media.
Don't be silly.
If he never talked to the media, they would tack a claim that he was
dodging them right on to their other charges.
Post by Bryan Kimmes
The issue is his handling of Iraq. I know I don't have to tell you, a war is a
very serious thing, and is not something you can EVER be over-prepared for.
If you take that all the way to its conclusion, you could never go to
war.
You would always have to be sitting there preparing for a war.

Actually, it probably worked quite well back in the day, with the Evil
Empire and the NATO troops facing off.

We still have that situation on the North and South Korean border, but
it is breaking down due to the realities of the 21st Century.

Viet Nam was a case where the old military strategy didn't work.

Rumsfeld had the distinction of being the youngest SECDEF.
He now also has the distinction of being the oldest SECDEF.

At the very least, you have to give him credit for knowing how things
operated in the Pentagon.

Early on, he had the "vision" of transforming the military to deal
with the new "asymmetric" warfare.

As in any large beaurocracy, changing it becomes a huge problem.
People in charge are very understandably opposed to someone who comes
in and wants to make fundamental changes in the way they do things.

It shouldn't be any surprise to find out that there are a whole batch
of Pentagon Generals who hate his guts.

And that was even before the Iraq unpleasantness.
Post by Bryan Kimmes
Rummy told Bush he could deliver Iraq, and at some point Rummy told Bush "We
won, the war is over." Or something to that effect. Bush gets way to much credit
for Iraq, he put his trust in Rummy.
Contrary to the simplistic notion that Bush is "run by Somebody", he
does indeed listen to all his advisors and then makes up his own mind.

There are a whole batch of journalists and pundits that have been
screaming about how he never listens to anybody.

You can translate that to:
"But, But, he doesn't listen to MEEEE !! "
Post by Bryan Kimmes
Saddam, all his minions, and the "Elite" Republican Guard were all easily taken
care of in under a month. Now what? George Bush Sr. said himself it was a
horrible idea to oust Saddam, it would start a civil war.
Rummy gambled with a lot of lives, American and Iraqi. He bet the house that
Democracy would take hold (this could still happen, but it seems to be getting
worse). Now that Civil War that Sr. spoke of may have started.
Yes, Sectarian Violence or Civil War, take your pick.
I don't know.
There have been confident predictions of that Civil War for quite a
while now, but we will have to wait and see.

I'm sticking with Sectarian Violence for the moment.
Post by Bryan Kimmes
How would you grade Rummy on his Iraq performance(to this point)?
I am not qualified to grade him any more than John Kerry is.
My only claim is that I read a lot.

Just to digress for a moment into some gratuitous Kerry Bashing.

This is a pretty stodgy VRWC blog.
I like mine quite a bit more snarky, but this little blurb does well.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110009178

---------------------------------------------
Centipede Mouth
How many feet can John Kerry fit in that mouth of his? Here he is on
"Imus in the Morning" today:

Kerry: These guys have failed America. The people who owe an apology
are people like Donald Rumsfeld, who didn't send enough troops, who
didn't listen to the generals, who has made every mistake in the book.
. . .

Imus: . . . Senator John McCain, he seems to think--he seems to agree
with the Bush administration about your comments. And you know him,
obviously, better than I do, but I know him pretty well. And he
probably knows what you meant, too.

Kerry: I'm sorry that John McCain has said what he said. John McCain's
been a friend for a long time. But I have to tell you, I think John
McCain is wrong about this.

John McCain has been a cheerleader for a policy that is incorrect.
John McCain says we ought to send another 100,000 troops over there.
First of all, we don't have another 100,000 troops. Secondly, if you
send them over there, it's going to do exactly what's already
happened, which is attract more terrorists and more jihadists. Our own
generals are telling us that it's the numbers of troops that are the
problem.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
So the administration didn't send enough troops and it sent too many
troops? If only we had such a decisive, principled leader as
president!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<snarky snicker>
Post by Bryan Kimmes
What percentage of people on RGP would be fired for such a lack of preparation
at their places of employment?
Do you think you could have done a better job of preparing for postwar Iraq
yourself?
I am just as much of an Armchair General as anybody on RGP.
Post by Bryan Kimmes
I don't think Donald Rumsfield is really a hero of yours.
Bryan
No, not really.

Absolutely no doubt that Bush and his entire staff have made a whole
lot of mistakes in Iraq.

The only problem I have is this:

I can't think of anybody I know about that could start doing it
better.

A whole lot of people waving their arms in the air and yelling, but
not a definite Plan in the whole crowd, except those saying Get Out,
Get Out.
Minor Glitch
2006-11-04 07:22:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by FL Turbo
On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 16:54:37 -0800, "Minor Glitch"
Post by Minor Glitch
Post by Russell Patterson
Post by Russell Patterson
They want Democrats to win back Congress. Don't let them win! Get out
and vote if you don't want it to happen.
Sorry, forgot to put OT up front.
Don't worry about it. The content of your post makes it clear that you
are a dumb fuck. Dems will have a majority of more than 40 seats in the
house after the election on Tuesday. Senate will be no more than a 2 seat
majority one way or the other... Bush could have fixed much of this by
firing Rumsfeld after his reelection... but he is a bigger dum fuck than
Russell.
-mg
A majority of 40??
You been down at the Moonbat caves drinking their Koolaid?
I will put money on the Dems having a majority of 30 or more. Care to
make a wager?

-mg

--- 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
FL Turbo
2006-11-04 15:26:07 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 23:22:46 -0800, "Minor Glitch"
Post by Minor Glitch
Post by FL Turbo
Post by Minor Glitch
Don't worry about it. The content of your post makes it clear that you
are a dumb fuck. Dems will have a majority of more than 40 seats in the
house after the election on Tuesday. Senate will be no more than a 2 seat
majority one way or the other... Bush could have fixed much of this by
firing Rumsfeld after his reelection... but he is a bigger dum fuck than
Russell.
-mg
A majority of 40??
You been down at the Moonbat caves drinking their Koolaid?
I will put money on the Dems having a majority of 30 or more. Care to
make a wager?
-mg
Not me.

While it is true that I do know almost everything, I still don't know
what's going to happen next.

I have my own stock of Koolaid, right next to the spray cans of
NEENER NEENER!!
a***@gmail.com
2006-11-03 13:25:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Russell Patterson
They want Democrats to win back Congress. Don't let them win! Get out
and vote if you don't want it to happen.
Nonsense, they want Americans to be afraid and to spend billions of
dollars fighting them. Osama Bin Laden has said numerous times his main
goal is to draw America into conflict and Bush played right into his
hand. Of course, the Democrats would have gone into Afghanistan too
like most of the world, but Iraq? Certainly not. If anyone is playing
into Al-Queda's plans it's the Bush administration.
Thermos
2006-11-03 19:15:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Russell Patterson
They want Democrats to win back Congress. Don't let them win! Get out
and vote if you don't want it to happen.
When Dick Cheney tells this lie its more true, but at least more
eloquently stated.
--
_________________________________________
This message is not intended to annoy, but may anyway.
OrangeSFO
2006-11-03 19:31:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Russell Patterson
They want Democrats to win back Congress. Don't let them win! Get out
and vote if you don't want it to happen.
The scare tactics of the Terrified Right are sitting unsold on the
shelf like three-day old bread. Nobody's buying anymore, pal.
skillsaw777
2006-11-03 19:53:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Russell Patterson
They want Democrats to win back Congress. Don't let them win! Get out
and vote if you don't want it to happen.
Russell your fear is only equaled by the ignorance bomb you just set
off.

George W. Bush IS the worst president ever and this has been the worst
administration ever. PERIOD.

YOU are just another BRAINWASHED MORON. YOU REALIZE that our government
is being spearheaded towards a nazi facist entity?
You realize that this administration is tearing up America and
America's relations?

I'd love to see the loyalty you would practice in 1940's Germany.
Russell Patterson
2006-11-03 22:42:20 UTC
Permalink
On 3 Nov 2006 11:53:29 -0800, "skillsaw777"
Post by skillsaw777
Russell your fear is only equaled by the ignorance bomb you just set
off.
George W. Bush IS the worst president ever and this has been the worst
administration ever. PERIOD.
That statement says more about your ignorance. Carter might have been
a good person, but at least in my lifetime he has to be the worst
President. Clinton is not far behind. How many attacks on US
personnel and property went unanswered?
Post by skillsaw777
YOU are just another BRAINWASHED MORON. YOU REALIZE that our government
is being spearheaded towards a nazi facist entity?
You realize that this administration is tearing up America and
America's relations?
I'd love to see the loyalty you would practice in 1940's Germany.
Who attacked Hitler's Germany before he started his campaign of world
conquest? The Jews? From within? Talk about moronic! There is
absolutely no comparison here. Your rantings seem to be more closely
aligned to Hitler's by the way.
Bob
2006-11-03 22:59:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Russell Patterson
On 3 Nov 2006 11:53:29 -0800, "skillsaw777"
Post by skillsaw777
Russell your fear is only equaled by the ignorance bomb you just set
off.
George W. Bush IS the worst president ever and this has been the worst
administration ever. PERIOD.
That statement says more about your ignorance. Carter might have been
a good person, but at least in my lifetime he has to be the worst
President. Clinton is not far behind.
Nonsense, historians don't agree with you at all. Carter doesn't get
very high rankings, but neither do Nixon, Ford, or Bush Senior. You
sound like the old-timers who still won't admit that FDR might have
done some good things for the country despite his so-called
"socialism".
Post by Russell Patterson
How many attacks on US personnel and property went unanswered?
I assume you are repeating canards about the Clinton administration.
The exact number depends on how you define "attacks" and "unanswered",
but one fair answer is "zero".

- Bob T.
Post by Russell Patterson
Post by skillsaw777
YOU are just another BRAINWASHED MORON. YOU REALIZE that our government
is being spearheaded towards a nazi facist entity?
You realize that this administration is tearing up America and
America's relations?
I'd love to see the loyalty you would practice in 1940's Germany.
Who attacked Hitler's Germany before he started his campaign of world
conquest? The Jews? From within? Talk about moronic! There is
absolutely no comparison here. Your rantings seem to be more closely
aligned to Hitler's by the way.
Barking Toad
2006-11-04 00:43:53 UTC
Permalink
If FDR was so wonderful why did we fight Germany during WWII when it was the
Japanese who bombed Pearl Harbor(who by the way could've waited 40 years and
bought it).

We should pull out all our troops around the world, since everyone hates us
anyway and put them along border of Mexico and Canada. If something happens
which threaten US security around the world then we send them to take care of
it, i.e. North Korea, Iran, Syria, what have you. After business is taken care
of, bring them home and let Allah and Buddha take care of them instead of US
taxpayer. 
Post by Russell Patterson
On 3 Nov 2006 11:53:29 -0800, "skillsaw777"
Post by skillsaw777
Russell your fear is only equaled by the ignorance bomb you just set
off.
George W. Bush IS the worst president ever and this has been the worst
administration ever. PERIOD.
That statement says more about your ignorance. Carter might have been
a good person, but at least in my lifetime he has to be the worst
President. Clinton is not far behind.
Nonsense, historians don't agree with you at all. Carter doesn't get
very high rankings, but neither do Nixon, Ford, or Bush Senior. You
sound like the old-timers who still won't admit that FDR might have
done some good things for the country despite his so-called
"socialism".
Post by Russell Patterson
How many attacks on US personnel and property went unanswered?
I assume you are repeating canards about the Clinton administration.
The exact number depends on how you define "attacks" and "unanswered",
but one fair answer is "zero".
- Bob T.
Post by Russell Patterson
Post by skillsaw777
YOU are just another BRAINWASHED MORON. YOU REALIZE that our government
is being spearheaded towards a nazi facist entity?
You realize that this administration is tearing up America and
America's relations?
I'd love to see the loyalty you would practice in 1940's Germany.
Who attacked Hitler's Germany before he started his campaign of world
conquest? The Jews? From within? Talk about moronic! There is
absolutely no comparison here. Your rantings seem to be more closely
aligned to Hitler's by the way.
_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com
Keith Willoughby
2006-11-04 01:31:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barking Toad
If FDR was so wonderful why did we fight Germany during WWII when it
was the Japanese who bombed Pearl Harbor
Germany declared war on the USA.
--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
It's the only language they understand
Thermos
2006-11-04 02:42:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith Willoughby
Post by Barking Toad
If FDR was so wonderful why did we fight Germany during WWII when it
was the Japanese who bombed Pearl Harbor
Germany declared war on the USA.
Details, details, Keith.
--
_________________________________________
This message is not intended to annoy, but may anyway.
Peg Smith
2006-11-03 23:44:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Russell Patterson
Post by skillsaw777
George W. Bush IS the worst president ever and this has been the worst
administration ever. PERIOD.
That statement says more about your ignorance. Carter might have been
a good person, but at least in my lifetime he has to be the worst
President.
Sure didn't take you long to forget Nixon. Lying about ending the
Vietnam war (he escalated it) and his involvement with the Watergate
scandal isn't as bad as Carter's tenure? Yikes!

Peg
Gary Carson
2006-11-04 00:04:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peg Smith
Post by skillsaw777
George W. Bush IS the worst president ever and this has been the worst
administration ever. PERIOD.
That statement says more about your ignorance. Carter might have been
a good person, but at least in my lifetime he has to be the worst
President.
Sure didn't take you long to forget Nixon. Lying about ending the
Vietnam war (he escalated it)
It was all part of his secret plan.

But by then I'd finished my obligation and was no longer draft eligible.  So I
didn't give a shit.

Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com



_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com
skillsaw777
2006-11-04 01:19:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Russell Patterson
That statement says more about your ignorance. Carter might have been
a good person, but at least in my lifetime he has to be the worst
President. Clinton is not far behind. How many attacks on US
personnel and property went unanswered?
Clinton didn't have the opportunity to go after the Cole, because the
CIA did not have enough information to say that a certain entity was
100% behind the attack. Clinton has answered for this publicly.
Since when did Carter cause a War to make all of his buddies richer?
Post by Russell Patterson
Who attacked Hitler's Germany before he started his campaign of world
conquest? The Jews? From within? Talk about moronic! There is
absolutely no comparison here. Your rantings seem to be more closely
aligned to Hitler's by the way.
You completely miss the point because your another dumb fuck follower.
If George W. came to your home, fucked you wife, killed your children,
and then shit in your hand on his way out.... you would smear the feces
on your face and carry on like you were having the time of your life.
You are one of a legion of fucking idiots.

I compared you to Nazi Germany because you embrace this
Administration's Ideals.
You follow Absolutes. That is no different than the ideals in Nazi
Germany.
Your post...If the Democrats win - Terrorists Win is an Absolute
Statement. Its a single-minded way of thinking that prays on the fears
of the ignorant.

You should be ashamed that you are THIS far behind in life.
Russell Patterson
2006-11-04 06:40:19 UTC
Permalink
On 3 Nov 2006 17:19:01 -0800, "skillsaw777"
Post by skillsaw777
Your post...If the Democrats win - Terrorists Win is an Absolute
Statement. Its a single-minded way of thinking that prays on the fears
of the ignorant.
If we pull out of Iraq while there is still the strife that has been
going on, the bad guys will have won at least a battle if not the war.
If you can't see that then count yourself as one of the ignorant.

At the very least we cannot leave until the Iraqi forces that we have
put in place have control over a large portion of the country.

By the way, if you can't put together an argument for your cause
without resorting to calling people derogatory names, then your
arguments only seem weaker. If you have good points to make you won't
need to utilize your gutter language.
skillsaw777
2006-11-04 09:02:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Russell Patterson
Post by Russell Patterson
By the way, if you can't put together an argument for your cause
without resorting to calling people derogatory names, then your
arguments only seem weaker. If you have good points to make you won't
need to utilize your gutter language.
There is no argument. I used the words to describe you, because anyone
who can still blindly support G.W.Bush and the Republican
Administration lacks a clear sense of judgement and brain power.

We can't pull out right now?

What happens in 10 years when the country is still fighting tooth and
nail against us?

Do you not know that this region will always be fighting until one
ethnicity completely kills the others?
Russell Patterson
2006-11-04 14:47:02 UTC
Permalink
On 4 Nov 2006 01:02:17 -0800, "skillsaw777"
Post by skillsaw777
Post by Russell Patterson
Post by Russell Patterson
By the way, if you can't put together an argument for your cause
without resorting to calling people derogatory names, then your
arguments only seem weaker. If you have good points to make you won't
need to utilize your gutter language.
There is no argument. I used the words to describe you, because anyone
who can still blindly support G.W.Bush and the Republican
Administration lacks a clear sense of judgement and brain power.
And the same could be said about someone who blindly supports John
Kerry, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, etc. It is all relative to one's own
beliefs. I may feel the same way about you for your beliefs, but I
won't demean my position by calling you names. You do more damage to
your own cause than you realize. In this regard you are the _____
here. (Insert whatever derogatory name you like to use)
Post by skillsaw777
We can't pull out right now?
What happens in 10 years when the country is still fighting tooth and
nail against us?
Do you not know that this region will always be fighting until one
ethnicity completely kills the others?
Russell Patterson
2006-11-04 14:50:23 UTC
Permalink
On 4 Nov 2006 01:02:17 -0800, "skillsaw777"
Post by skillsaw777
Post by Russell Patterson
Post by Russell Patterson
By the way, if you can't put together an argument for your cause
without resorting to calling people derogatory names, then your
arguments only seem weaker. If you have good points to make you won't
need to utilize your gutter language.
There is no argument. I used the words to describe you, because anyone
who can still blindly support G.W.Bush and the Republican
Administration lacks a clear sense of judgement and brain power.
We can't pull out right now?
What happens in 10 years when the country is still fighting tooth and
nail against us?
First off, it is not the country fighting us. The country is actually
on our side and is happy we are there, at least for the moment. When
the insurgents/terrorists are under control we will get out and leave
the country a better place.

Second, if we are there for ten years then that is ten more years with
less of a chance that we will have a terrorist attack within our own
borders. Note that we have not had one since we have been in Iraq.
Post by skillsaw777
Do you not know that this region will always be fighting until one
ethnicity completely kills the others?
I guess the problem would be solved then.
Bob
2006-11-04 15:29:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Russell Patterson
Post by skillsaw777
What happens in 10 years when the country is still fighting tooth and
nail against us?
First off, it is not the country fighting us. The country is actually
on our side and is happy we are there, at least for the moment. When
the insurgents/terrorists are under control we will get out and leave
the country a better place.
Yes, the country loves us - if only the people who lived there felt the
same way!
Post by Russell Patterson
Second, if we are there for ten years then that is ten more years with
less of a chance that we will have a terrorist attack within our own
borders.
Nonsense. Fighting in Iraq is making it _more_ likely that we will
suffer future terrorist attacks, not less. There are hundreds of
thousands of Iraqis who have lost close relatives in this war. Some of
them will doubtless seek revenge.
Post by Russell Patterson
Note that we have not had one [terrorist attack] since we have been in Iraq.
This is meaningless. First, it ignores the terrorist attacks that have
occurred inside Iraq and Afghanistan. Second, it ignores the terrorist
attacks that have been made against our allies Britain and Spain.
Third, it assumes that there would likely have been more terrorist
attacks if we hadn't invaded Iraq, which is an assumption without
merit. Foreign terrorist attacks inside the US are extremely rare -
when was the last one that did not involve the World Trade Center?
Post by Russell Patterson
Post by skillsaw777
Do you not know that this region will always be fighting until one
ethnicity completely kills the others?
I guess the problem would be solved then.
That would be a great acheivement, wouldn't it? "I'm not a nation
builder - I'm an ethnic cleanser!"

- Bob T.
Russell Patterson
2006-11-06 01:46:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob
Post by Russell Patterson
Note that we have not had one [terrorist attack] since we have been in Iraq.
This is meaningless. First, it ignores the terrorist attacks that have
occurred inside Iraq and Afghanistan.
I did not ignore it, In fact I was pointing that out. They are over
there and NOT over here! I'll give you that I did not specify that I
was talking about attacks here in the US, but thanks for helping me
make my point.
Bryan Kimmes
2006-11-06 03:15:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Russell Patterson
Note that we have not had one [terrorist attack] since we have been in Iraq.
This is meaningless. First, it ignores the terrorist attacks that have
occurred inside Iraq and Afghanistan.
I did not ignore it, In fact I was pointing that out. They are over
there and NOT over here!
Who are you speaking about when you say "they are over there....."?
  I'll give you that I did not specify that I
was talking about attacks here in the US, but thanks for helping me
make my point.
The "No terrorist attacks on our soil..." argument is flawed.

We are not actually saving American lives, some simple math could illustrate
this. I just need a couple pieces of information.

How many more 9/11 type attacks would have occurred had we never entered Iraq?

Do you value the life of a WTC type victim more than that of an American
soldier?

Bryan



 

_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com
Russell Patterson
2006-11-06 05:55:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bryan Kimmes
The "No terrorist attacks on our soil..." argument is flawed.
We are not actually saving American lives, some simple math could illustrate
this. I just need a couple pieces of information.
How many more 9/11 type attacks would have occurred had we never entered Iraq?
One would have been too many. Look at how many unanswered attacks
occurred under Clinton's watch. Had we not moved the theater of
operations to Iraq, based on the average number of attacks under
Clinton we probably would have had about two more. You wanted an
answer that you thought would be impossible to come up with, but there
it is.
Post by Bryan Kimmes
Do you value the life of a WTC type victim more than that of an American
soldier?
No, but I value the life of both much more than I value the life of a
terrorist, and if you haven't been keeping score our valiant soldiers
are "keeping the virgins busy" in Iraq.
Post by Bryan Kimmes
Bryan
 
_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com
Bob
2006-11-06 06:06:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Russell Patterson
Post by Bryan Kimmes
How many more 9/11 type attacks would have occurred had we never entered Iraq?
One would have been too many. Look at how many unanswered attacks
occurred under Clinton's watch.
That would be zero - zero unanswered attacks occurred under Clinton's
watch.
Post by Russell Patterson
Had we not moved the theater of
operations to Iraq, based on the average number of attacks under
Clinton we probably would have had about two more.
Let's see, there was the bombing of the WTC in 1993, then... no further
attacks in the US while Clinton was president.
Post by Russell Patterson
You wanted an
answer that you thought would be impossible to come up with, but there it is.
Sadly, your answer is nonsense. There is no reason to believe that al
Qaeda would have launched an attack in the USA in the past three years
if we hadn't invaded Iraq. Since we've been in Iraq, there have been
two major al Qaeda strikes on our allies - if the invasion of Iraq was
such a distraction to al Qaeda, why didn't it prevent those attacks?
Post by Russell Patterson
Post by Bryan Kimmes
Do you value the life of a WTC type victim more than that of an American
soldier?
No, but I value the life of both much more than I value the life of a
terrorist, and if you haven't been keeping score our valiant soldiers
are "keeping the virgins busy" in Iraq.
No, they aren't. Instead, they are giving al Qaeda a recruitment
incentive.

- Bob T.
Post by Russell Patterson
Post by Bryan Kimmes
Bryan
_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com
Russell Patterson
2006-11-06 14:43:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob
Post by Russell Patterson
One would have been too many. Look at how many unanswered attacks
occurred under Clinton's watch.
That would be zero - zero unanswered attacks occurred under Clinton's
watch.
Where have you been? Explain all those attacks on: The USS Cole, The
US Embassies, The WTC (first attack) just as a minimum, and then tell
us what Clinton did to ensure it wouldn't happen again.
Post by Bob
Post by Russell Patterson
Had we not moved the theater of
operations to Iraq, based on the average number of attacks under
Clinton we probably would have had about two more.
Let's see, there was the bombing of the WTC in 1993, then... no further
attacks in the US while Clinton was president.
The one you admit to here went unanswered. Embassies are considered
to be on the soil of the occupants country, not the host country. What
was Clinton's response for those?
Post by Bob
Sadly, your answer is nonsense. There is no reason to believe that al
Qaeda would have launched an attack in the USA in the past three years
if we hadn't invaded Iraq. Since we've been in Iraq, there have been
two major al Qaeda strikes on our allies - if the invasion of Iraq was
such a distraction to al Qaeda, why didn't it prevent those attacks?
Because they didn't have to go any further than Iraq to get to our
military, whereas they had to seek out our allies' home territory for
an attack to try to get them to stop supporting us.
Post by Bob
Post by Russell Patterson
Post by Bryan Kimmes
Do you value the life of a WTC type victim more than that of an American
soldier?
No, but I value the life of both much more than I value the life of a
terrorist, and if you haven't been keeping score our valiant soldiers
are "keeping the virgins busy" in Iraq.
No, they aren't.
And you know this how? Are you over there sticking flowers in the
business end of our soldiers rifles so they don't hurt anyone?
Post by Bob
Instead, they are giving al Qaeda a recruitment
incentive.
That will work, until they start running out of fodder to send against
our soldiers. At that point the virgins might have to take over.

You really don't understand the mind of our enemy here do you? You
think the only reason they hate us is because we are over there? They
hate us for our success in creating a society that makes theirs appear
to be from the stone age, just for one example.

Look at the countries that tried appeasement, by thinking, if we just
let them move into the country and don't offend them, we will all just
get along, and they will leave us alone. France is a great example.
Even Great Britain tried this, and they got their trains and buses
blown up by homegrown islamic fascists.
Post by Bob
- Bob T.
Post by Russell Patterson
Post by Bryan Kimmes
Bryan
Bob
2006-11-06 15:42:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Russell Patterson
Post by Bob
Post by Russell Patterson
One would have been too many. Look at how many unanswered attacks
occurred under Clinton's watch.
That would be zero - zero unanswered attacks occurred under Clinton's
watch.
Where have you been? Explain all those attacks on: The USS Cole, The
US Embassies, The WTC (first attack) just as a minimum, and then tell
us what Clinton did to ensure it wouldn't happen again.
You said "unanswered attacks", and the answer is indeed zero. The
Clinton administration caught, prosecuted and convicted the perps of
the first WTC attack. He responded with missiles to the attacks on the
US embassies. He would have responded to the Cole attack, but ran out
of time before the next administration took office. President Gore
would have gone after Al Qaeda hard in response to the Cole attacks,
but President Bush had other concerns he felt were more important.

Oh, and President Gore would not have taken the month of August, 2001
as a vacation, especially after receiving a PDB entitled "Bin Laden
determined to attack in US".
Post by Russell Patterson
Post by Bob
Sadly, your answer is nonsense. There is no reason to believe that al
Qaeda would have launched an attack in the USA in the past three years
if we hadn't invaded Iraq. Since we've been in Iraq, there have been
two major al Qaeda strikes on our allies - if the invasion of Iraq was
such a distraction to al Qaeda, why didn't it prevent those attacks?
Because they didn't have to go any further than Iraq to get to our
military, whereas they had to seek out our allies' home territory for
an attack to try to get them to stop supporting us.
This doesn't answer anything.
Post by Russell Patterson
You really don't understand the mind of our enemy here do you? You
think the only reason they hate us is because we are over there? They
hate us for our success in creating a society that makes theirs appear
to be from the stone age, just for one example.
Nonsense - turn off Fox News and use your brain. Most Muslims don't
give a shit what we do at home, as long as we don't interfere in their
home. Do you remember what Osama bin Laden's number one complaint was?
US troops in Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden and his ilk don't "envy" our
society - they think we are decadent.
Post by Russell Patterson
Look at the countries that tried appeasement, by thinking, if we just
let them move into the country and don't offend them, we will all just
get along, and they will leave us alone. France is a great example.
Even Great Britain tried this, and they got their trains and buses
blown up by homegrown islamic fascists.
You are contradicting yourself. Great Britain didn't try "appeasement"
- they invaded Iraq right along with us. The train bombers claimed
they were responding to the invasion of Iraq, but of course you, with
your great understanding of Muslim motivations, know that is was
actually envy.

- Bob T.
DaVoice
2006-11-06 20:22:15 UTC
Permalink
"Bob" <***@synapse-cs.com> wrote

<snip>
Post by Bob
You said "unanswered attacks", and the answer is indeed zero. The
Clinton administration caught, prosecuted and convicted the perps of
the first WTC attack. He responded with missiles to the attacks on the
US embassies. He would have responded to the Cole attack, but ran out
of time before the next administration took office. President Gore
would have gone after Al Qaeda hard in response to the Cole attacks,
but President Bush had other concerns he felt were more important.
Oh, and President Gore would not have taken the month of August, 2001
as a vacation, especially after receiving a PDB entitled "Bin Laden
determined to attack in US".
You have what proof to base that statement on? Gore would have cowered in
the corner, IMHO. I *was* very pro-Bush in 2000 and voted for him as the
lesser of two evils in 2004. I think his foreign policy is horrible now
(Iraq post-war especially) but am extremely PISSED at the administration and
the Congress/Senate for continually stripping us of our rights. I believe
the Dem's will control the House, and the Rep's will hold or tie in the
Senate (which still holds the majority). Do you believe that any of the
acts that have been passed will be repealed by the "new crop"? HELL NO.
They're all politicians, they're all full of shit. The only things the
Dem's have "promised" to attempt to repeal is tax cuts. I'd rather they
leave the tax cuts in place and repeal the laws that are TAKING AWAY OUR
LIBERTIES AND FREEDOM.

Fuck the G.O.P. and Fuck the Dem's. They're all just the same in different
packaging.

Rick "DaVoice" Charles
Peg Smith
2006-11-06 20:44:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by DaVoice
Fuck the G.O.P. and Fuck the Dem's. They're all just the same in different
packaging.
Hot damn, we found something we agree on.

Peg
Peg Smith
2006-11-06 16:17:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Russell Patterson
You really don't understand the mind of our enemy here do you? You
think the only reason they hate us is because we are over there? They
hate us for our success in creating a society that makes theirs appear
to be from the stone age, just for one example.
Oh, for god's sake! Are you getting all of your news and sociology
from Limbaugh and Coulter?

<ploink!>

Peg
Bryan Kimmes
2006-11-06 22:02:49 UTC
Permalink
You really don't understand the mind of our enemy here do you? You
think the only reason they hate us is because we are over there?
No I'm sure they would be alright with it if we didn't try to run the place.

If the United States never tries to have any influence at all in the Middle East
NONE of this ever happens.

To the muslim world, the 'united states' would be nothing more than a myth.

Bryan


_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
skillsaw777
2006-11-06 06:39:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Russell Patterson
First off, it is not the country fighting us. The country is actually
on our side and is happy we are there, at least for the moment. When
the insurgents/terrorists are under control we will get out and leave
the country a better place.
I can tell that you get most of your news from Fox. With that said, you
have been misinformed.
There are many people from Iraq who are fighting us and they ARE NOT :

A. Insurgents
B. Terrorists

Or whatever word you wish to call them. From Man to child there are
many people living in Iraq that want us gone and they are doing what
they can to make things harder for our soldiers.

How do I know this?

I have spoken to a Close Relative and a Friend at separate times who
were both over there for a combined 2 years.

THESE PEOPLE served in the military. THEY WERE THERE.

One was in Intelligence, while the other was sweeping buildings looking
for weapons caches.

Out of all the stories I was told one sticks out in my mind.

My friend was in the back of a humvee on a routine mission through the
streets of Baghdad.
The vehicle was crawling along about 15 mph when he got nailed in the
head with a AA battery.
He looked up to see many children on several roofs throwing anything
they could get their hands on at the caravan as it passed by.
This was a day to day occurance.

And let me say that this attitude shows no signs of letting up.
Gary Carson
2006-11-06 09:43:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by skillsaw777
First off, it is not the country fighting us. The country is actually
on our side and is happy we are there, at least for the moment. When
the insurgents/terrorists are under control we will get out and leave
the country a better place.
I can tell that you get most of your news from Fox. With that said, you
have been misinformed.
A. Insurgents
B. Terrorists
Or whatever word you wish to call them. From Man to child there are
many people living in Iraq that want us gone and they are doing what
they can to make things harder for our soldiers.
How do I know this?
I have spoken to a Close Relative and a Friend at separate times who
were both over there for a combined 2 years.
THESE PEOPLE served in the military. THEY WERE THERE.
One was in Intelligence, while the other was sweeping buildings looking
for weapons caches.
Out of all the stories I was told one sticks out in my mind.
My friend was in the back of a humvee on a routine mission through the
streets of Baghdad.
The vehicle was crawling along about 15 mph when he got nailed in the
head with a AA battery.
He looked up to see many children on several roofs throwing anything
they could get their hands on at the caravan as it passed by.
This was a day to day occurance.
And let me say that this attitude shows no signs of letting up.
A couple of years ago a large rock hit the top of my car, thrown from an
overpass by a couple of kids.  It was on a hiway between Austin and Houston.  I
pulled off and stopped when it hit and I saw the kids scurry off the overpass
into the brush.

Kids do that sort of thing.  American kids do, Iraqi kids do.  It's usually not
political.

I agree that they want us out.  But kids throwing stuff from rooftops isn't
really evidence of that.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com



_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com
goshin
2006-11-03 21:35:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Russell Patterson
They want Democrats to win back Congress. Don't let them win! Get out
and vote if you don't want it to happen.
the entire notion of al qaeda preferring us to stay in iraq while the
insurgents want us to leave has already been squashed under the heel of
rational people.

on another note, our troops are *still* in europe but world war 2 is
long over, why don't we bring those troops home? everyday our troops
stand post along the dmz in korea, you haven't mentioned anything about
bringing those troops home yet they've been there decades.
art_classmn
2006-11-04 00:12:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by goshin
Post by Russell Patterson
They want Democrats to win back Congress. Don't let them win! Get out
and vote if you don't want it to happen.
the entire notion of al qaeda preferring us to stay in iraq while the
insurgents want us to leave has already been squashed under the heel of
rational people.
on another note, our troops are *still* in europe but world war 2 is
long over, why don't we bring those troops home? everyday our troops
stand post along the dmz in korea, you haven't mentioned anything about
bringing those troops home yet they've been there decades.
Another neocon who completely dismisses American combat casualties in
his so-called reasoning.

Over 100 Americans were murdered in Iraq last month. Do you give a
shit?

Here is a list of Americans killed just in the past week:

Marine Lance Cpl. Minhee Kim, 20 Ann Arbor, Michigan
Marine Cpl. Gary A. Koehler, 21 Ypsilanti, Michigan
Marine Pfc. Jason Franco, 18 Corona, California
Marine Sgt. Michael R. Weidemann, 23 Newport, Rhode Island
Army Sgt. Kenneth E. Bostic, 21 Hawthorne, Nevada
Army Sgt. Kraig D. Foyteck, 26 Skokie, Illinois
Army Sgt. Michael T. Seeley, 27 Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada
Marine Lance Cpl. Troy D. Nealey, 24 Eaton Rapids, Michigan
Marine Sgt. Luke J. Zimmerman, 24 Luxemburg, Wisconsin

Do you think those fallen men came from wealthy families? How much do
you think these Pfcs, Cpls, Sgts and their families received in the
Bush tax cuts? How do you think Bush's policies, including his
SecDef's fucked up war policies, help these men?

And how do you neocons treat them? You don't even take their sacrifice
into account when you say stupid asinine shit like:

"We still have troops in Europe, don't we?????"

These men are being killed in because of Bush's idiotic "Stay the
course" strategy.
goshin
2006-11-04 00:52:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by art_classmn
Post by goshin
Post by Russell Patterson
They want Democrats to win back Congress. Don't let them win! Get out
and vote if you don't want it to happen.
the entire notion of al qaeda preferring us to stay in iraq while the
insurgents want us to leave has already been squashed under the heel of
rational people.
on another note, our troops are *still* in europe but world war 2 is
long over, why don't we bring those troops home? everyday our troops
stand post along the dmz in korea, you haven't mentioned anything about
bringing those troops home yet they've been there decades.
Another neocon who completely dismisses American combat casualties in
his so-called reasoning.
Over 100 Americans were murdered in Iraq last month. Do you give a
shit?
Marine Lance Cpl. Minhee Kim, 20 Ann Arbor, Michigan
Marine Cpl. Gary A. Koehler, 21 Ypsilanti, Michigan
Marine Pfc. Jason Franco, 18 Corona, California
Marine Sgt. Michael R. Weidemann, 23 Newport, Rhode Island
Army Sgt. Kenneth E. Bostic, 21 Hawthorne, Nevada
Army Sgt. Kraig D. Foyteck, 26 Skokie, Illinois
Army Sgt. Michael T. Seeley, 27 Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada
Marine Lance Cpl. Troy D. Nealey, 24 Eaton Rapids, Michigan
Marine Sgt. Luke J. Zimmerman, 24 Luxemburg, Wisconsin
Do you think those fallen men came from wealthy families? How much do
you think these Pfcs, Cpls, Sgts and their families received in the
Bush tax cuts? How do you think Bush's policies, including his
SecDef's fucked up war policies, help these men?
And how do you neocons treat them? You don't even take their sacrifice
"We still have troops in Europe, don't we?????"
These men are being killed in because of Bush's idiotic "Stay the
course" strategy.
ya think a running death toll in normandy would have been appropriate?
yer the one who doesn't give it shit about the actual person who got
killed in iraq, nor do you give a shit about the fallen soldiers family,
it's all about talking point see," i told you so" bullshit. the left is
actually HAPPY to report the death of a soldier and don't mourn their loss.

you still haven't addressed the point about our troops in europe, korea,
and elsewhere. our troops are killed or wounded everyday in europe,
korea, at sea, etc. you don't mention them at all .. why not? our
troops are fighting the scumbags who attacked us ... repeatedly ... and
nothing was done about it during the favored cigar administration.
art_classmn
2006-11-04 17:48:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by goshin
ya think a running death toll in normandy would have been appropriate?
You mean if it turned out that Hilter had not rolled over Europe,
attacked the Soviet Union, declared war on the US, did not possess a
powerful army and was not exterminating Jews?

Yes. In the event all those things never really happened, there would
definitely had been demands to justify those killed at Normandy.
Post by goshin
yer the one who doesn't give it shit about the actual person who got
killed in iraq, nor do you give a shit about the fallen soldiers family,
it's all about talking point see," i told you so" bullshit. the left is
actually HAPPY to report the death of a soldier and don't mourn their loss.
That is a lie and you know it. The Bush Administration was warned of
US casualities inflicted in a drawn out conflit. They laughed those
warnings off. The fact remains that Iraq did not and does not pose a
threat that warranted an invasion and occupation.

The troops on the ground can certainly be pulled out of Iraq while air
power remains a vital presence in the area - just as it has since the
first Gulf War. It is up to the Iraqis to secure their own country.
Post by goshin
you still haven't addressed the point about our troops in europe, korea,
and elsewhere. our troops are killed or wounded everyday in europe,
korea, at sea, etc. you don't mention them at all .. why not?
Please cite combat casualties in Europe and Korea.
Post by goshin
troops are fighting the scumbags who attacked us ... repeatedly ...
In Afghanistan they are fighting those who hosted our attackers. This
is not the case in Iraq.
Post by goshin
nothing was done about it during the favored cigar administration.
So it is your assertion that "the favored cigar administration" left
some business to be done? Then why is is that the Bush Administration
never did a thing about it?
goshin
2006-11-06 07:39:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by art_classmn
Post by goshin
ya think a running death toll in normandy would have been appropriate?
You mean if it turned out that Hilter had not rolled over Europe,
attacked the Soviet Union, declared war on the US, did not possess a
powerful army and was not exterminating Jews?
Yes. In the event all those things never really happened, there would
definitely had been demands to justify those killed at Normandy.
a running death toll of us troops spread out in the "news" would have
been disastrous for the war effort in ww2, just as it is today
Post by art_classmn
Post by goshin
yer the one who doesn't give it shit about the actual person who got
killed in iraq, nor do you give a shit about the fallen soldiers family,
it's all about talking point see," i told you so" bullshit. the left is
actually HAPPY to report the death of a soldier and don't mourn their loss.
That is a lie and you know it. The Bush Administration was warned of
US casualities inflicted in a drawn out conflit. They laughed those
warnings off. The fact remains that Iraq did not and does not pose a
threat that warranted an invasion and occupation.
it's not a lie, the left is overjoyed to report the death of a us
soldier so that they can say, "see we are losing too many soldiers we
have to pull out". iraq during the clinton admin fired multiple times
on us air craft, attempted many more times to move sams into the no fly
zone. iraq has always been an avenue for terrorists supporters and arms
Post by art_classmn
The troops on the ground can certainly be pulled out of Iraq while air
power remains a vital presence in the area - just as it has since the
first Gulf War. It is up to the Iraqis to secure their own country.
Post by goshin
you still haven't addressed the point about our troops in europe, korea,
and elsewhere. our troops are killed or wounded everyday in europe,
korea, at sea, etc. you don't mention them at all .. why not?
Please cite combat casualties in Europe and Korea.
i said troops get killed all the time in europe and korea .. and no one
is screaming to bring them home. i didn't say they were combat casualties
Post by art_classmn
Post by goshin
troops are fighting the scumbags who attacked us ... repeatedly ...
In Afghanistan they are fighting those who hosted our attackers. This
is not the case in Iraq.
then why is it that al quada also considers iraq to be the theater of
war ( world war 3 he calls it ). are you one of those fluff heads that
think we were there simply over wmds ( which were found )
Post by art_classmn
Post by goshin
nothing was done about it during the favored cigar administration.
So it is your assertion that "the favored cigar administration" left
some business to be done? Then why is is that the Bush Administration
never did a thing about it?
bush was in office how long before we were attacked? do you remember
anything of the bush administration pre 9/11?
Bob
2006-11-06 15:32:42 UTC
Permalink
goshin wrote:
.
Post by goshin
Post by art_classmn
That is a lie and you know it. The Bush Administration was warned of
US casualities inflicted in a drawn out conflit. They laughed those
warnings off. The fact remains that Iraq did not and does not pose a
threat that warranted an invasion and occupation.
it's not a lie, the left is overjoyed to report the death of a us
soldier so that they can say, "see we are losing too many soldiers we
have to pull out".
Whereas the right would prefer that the American people not realize
that troops are dying in Iraq - let's just pretend everything is
wonderful, and maybe it will all work out!
Post by goshin
iraq during the clinton admin fired multiple times
on us air craft, attempted many more times to move sams into the no fly
zone. iraq has always been an avenue for terrorists supporters and arms
Yes, Saddam took pot shots at our planes in the no fly zones. So what?
He never hit an American plane, and he was rule of Iraq at the time.
It had nothing to do with terrorism!
Post by goshin
i said troops get killed all the time in europe and korea .. and no one
is screaming to bring them home. i didn't say they were combat casualties
In other words, you had no point. Troops get killed in the United
States, too - training accidents happen everywhere. If they are not
combat deaths, they have nothing to do with the War in Iraq.
Post by goshin
Post by art_classmn
Post by goshin
troops are fighting the scumbags who attacked us ... repeatedly ...
In Afghanistan they are fighting those who hosted our attackers. This
is not the case in Iraq.
then why is it that al quada also considers iraq to be the theater of
war ( world war 3 he calls it ). are you one of those fluff heads that
think we were there simply over wmds ( which were found )
No, they weren't. Do you learn all your "facts" from Fox News? Even
Bush and Cheney have admitted that we found no WMD's in Iraq.
Post by goshin
bush was in office how long before we were attacked? do you remember
anything of the bush administration pre 9/11?
Yes, that was when the Bush administration was ignoring
counter-terrorism in favor of building ABM's. I remember it well, but
you obviously don't. They had nine months to follow up on the Cole
attacks of late 2000, but they did nothing. Remember the title of the
Presidential Daily Briefing from August 6, 2001? "Bin Laden determined
to attack inside US". What did Bush do? He told the officer who
delivered the report "OK, you've covered your ass now." and stayed on
vacation for the rest of the month.

- Bob T.
FL Turbo
2006-11-04 01:02:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by art_classmn
Post by goshin
Post by Russell Patterson
They want Democrats to win back Congress. Don't let them win! Get out
and vote if you don't want it to happen.
the entire notion of al qaeda preferring us to stay in iraq while the
insurgents want us to leave has already been squashed under the heel of
rational people.
on another note, our troops are *still* in europe but world war 2 is
long over, why don't we bring those troops home? everyday our troops
stand post along the dmz in korea, you haven't mentioned anything about
bringing those troops home yet they've been there decades.
Another neocon who completely dismisses American combat casualties in
his so-called reasoning.
Over 100 Americans were murdered in Iraq last month. Do you give a
shit?
This is a great opportunity for me to compare this to an earlier
conflict, namely the Viet Nam conflict.

Just a few numbers for you from Viet Nam.

From roughly a 10 year period.
Roughly 52,000 deaths.

That is an average of 100 per WEEK.
That is an average of 450 per MONTH.
That is over a 10 YEAR length of time.

Those numbers are picked only to make the math easier.
I think the peak number was about 500 in one week.

If anyone wants to pick any other count for any other period or length
of time, feel free to do so.
Bob
2006-11-04 02:03:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by FL Turbo
Just a few numbers for you from Viet Nam.
From roughly a 10 year period.
Roughly 52,000 deaths.
That is an average of 100 per WEEK.
That is an average of 450 per MONTH.
That is over a 10 YEAR length of time.
We lost over 100 in October. I know that's only 22% of the Vietnam
average, but it's still quite significant. It is especially
significant when the war was entered into voluntarily based on false
pretenses.

- Bob T.
Peg Smith
2006-11-04 02:28:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob
It is especially
significant when the war was entered into voluntarily
...as was the Vietnam War.
Post by Bob
based on false
pretenses.
...as was the Vietnam War (re: Tonkin Resolution).

Peg
skillsaw777
2006-11-04 02:32:41 UTC
Permalink
It is especially
Post by Bob
significant when the war was entered into voluntarily based on false
pretenses.
- Bob T.
And without an O.K. from the United Nations.

Funny that Cheney took time to secure Halliburton's bid for the
Re-Building Contracts while he was helping with the bombing plans for
Iraq.

Talk about being a World Class Crook.

He and many of his associates are like a huge cancer. They are just as
big of a threat to the world today as any legitimate terrorist
organization.
FL Turbo
2006-11-04 02:40:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob
Post by FL Turbo
Just a few numbers for you from Viet Nam.
From roughly a 10 year period.
Roughly 52,000 deaths.
That is an average of 100 per WEEK.
That is an average of 450 per MONTH.
That is over a 10 YEAR length of time.
We lost over 100 in October. I know that's only 22% of the Vietnam
average, but it's still quite significant. It is especially
significant when the war was entered into voluntarily based on false
pretenses.
This is probably a good time to refer to the latest news.

This is courtesy of one of the premiere VRWC blogs.

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So I Guess The FMSO Documents Are Legit
Over the past year or so, I have provided CQ readers with a number of
translations from key Iraqi Intelligence Service documents that have
been translated by either the FMSO or by Joseph Shahda of the Free
Republic website. I even engaged two interpreters to verify one
particularly explosive memo last April, after Shahda published his own
translation. That memo dealt with IIS plans to get volunteers for
suicide missions to 'strike American interests".

One particular criticism that appeared with each new translation was
that the documents were never proven genuine, although no one could
explain the logic behind the US government hiding these documents in
Iraqi Arabic among an avalanche of mundanity, only to shove it onto a
shelf for years until Congress authorized their release to the
Internet. Now we find another verification of their authenticity, this
time from the New York Times, which reports today that the documents
constitute a national-security threat:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Material deleted here that could make a guy's glaze over)


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That appears to indicate that by invading in 2003, we followed the
best intelligence of the UN inspectors to head off the development of
an Iraqi nuke. This intelligence put Saddam far ahead of Iran in the
nuclear pursuit, and made it much more urgent to take some definitive
action against Saddam before he could build and deploy it. And bear in
mind that this intelligence came from the UN, and not from the United
States. The inspectors themselves developed it, and they meant to keep
it secret. The FMSO site blew their cover, and they're very unhappy
about it.

What other highlights has the Times now authenticated? We have plenty:

* 2001 IIS memo directing its agents to test mass grave sites in
southern Iraq for radiation, and to use "trusted news agencies" to
leak rumors about the lack of credibility of Coalition reporting on
the subject. They specify CNN.

* The Blessed July operation, in which Saddam's sons planned a series
of assassinations in London, Iran, and southern Iraq

* Saddam's early contacts with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda from
1994-7

* UNMOVIC knew of a renewed effort to make ricin from castor beans in
2002, but never reported it

* The continued development of delivery mechanisms for biological and
chemical weapons by the notorious "Dr. Germ" in 2002

Actually, we have much, much more. All of these documents underscore
the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and show that his regime continued
their work on banned weapons programs. We have made this case over and
over again, but some people refused to believe the documents were
genuine. Now we have no less of an authority than the New York Times
to verify that the IIS documentation is not only genuine, but presents
a powerful argument for the military action to remove Saddam from
power.

The Times wanted readers to cluck their tongues at the Bush
administration for releasing the documents, although Congress actually
did that. However, the net result should be a complete re-evaluation
of the threat Saddam posed by critics of the war. Let's see if the
Times figures this out for themselves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The gratuitous insult to the NY Times aside, the whole story is that
the often repeated charge that the invasion of Iraq was based on false
premises needs to be examined in light of all the evidence and not
just some of it.

All I know is that first is The Story, and then there is the Rest of
The Story.
Bryan Kimmes
2006-11-04 06:15:08 UTC
Permalink
On 3 Nov 2006 16:12:00 -0800, "art_classmn"
Post by art_classmn
Post by goshin
They want Democrats to win back Congress. Don't let them win! Get out
and vote if you don't want it to happen.
the entire notion of al qaeda preferring us to stay in iraq while the
insurgents want us to leave has already been squashed under the heel of
rational people.
on another note, our troops are *still* in europe but world war 2 is
long over, why don't we bring those troops home? everyday our troops
stand post along the dmz in korea, you haven't mentioned anything about
bringing those troops home yet they've been there decades.
Another neocon who completely dismisses American combat casualties in
his so-called reasoning.
Over 100 Americans were murdered in Iraq last month. Do you give a
shit?
This is a great opportunity for me to compare this to an earlier
conflict, namely the Viet Nam conflict.
Just a few numbers for you from Viet Nam.
From roughly a 10 year period.
Roughly 52,000 deaths.
That is an average of 100 per WEEK.
That is an average of 450 per MONTH.
That is over a 10 YEAR length of time.
Those numbers are picked only to make the math easier.
I think the peak number was about 500 in one week.
If anyone wants to pick any other count for any other period or length
of time, feel free to do so.
You should consider the advances the military has made since then (body armor,
medical treatment). Just because the fatality number is down, doesn't mean it is
going any better.

Bryan

_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
art_classmn
2006-11-04 17:53:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by FL Turbo
Post by art_classmn
Post by goshin
Post by Russell Patterson
They want Democrats to win back Congress. Don't let them win! Get out
and vote if you don't want it to happen.
the entire notion of al qaeda preferring us to stay in iraq while the
insurgents want us to leave has already been squashed under the heel of
rational people.
on another note, our troops are *still* in europe but world war 2 is
long over, why don't we bring those troops home? everyday our troops
stand post along the dmz in korea, you haven't mentioned anything about
bringing those troops home yet they've been there decades.
Another neocon who completely dismisses American combat casualties in
his so-called reasoning.
Over 100 Americans were murdered in Iraq last month. Do you give a
shit?
This is a great opportunity for me to compare this to an earlier
conflict, namely the Viet Nam conflict.
You can compare them to Vietnam if you want. The poster I was
responding to was referring to our troops in Europe and Korea, directly
comparing their situation to the troops in Iraq. He completely
dismissed the fact that our troops in Iraq are dying in what has become
a war of attrition.

There is an insurgency in Iraq because the people of Iraq have allowed
one to exist. The US did the heavy lifting. Saddam is powerless and
in prison. The Iraqis must finish the job. If they choose not to,
then to hell with them.

Our troops are needed elsewhere.
goshin
2006-11-06 07:46:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by art_classmn
Post by FL Turbo
Post by art_classmn
Post by goshin
Post by Russell Patterson
They want Democrats to win back Congress. Don't let them win! Get out
and vote if you don't want it to happen.
the entire notion of al qaeda preferring us to stay in iraq while the
insurgents want us to leave has already been squashed under the heel of
rational people.
on another note, our troops are *still* in europe but world war 2 is
long over, why don't we bring those troops home? everyday our troops
stand post along the dmz in korea, you haven't mentioned anything about
bringing those troops home yet they've been there decades.
Another neocon who completely dismisses American combat casualties in
his so-called reasoning.
Over 100 Americans were murdered in Iraq last month. Do you give a
shit?
This is a great opportunity for me to compare this to an earlier
conflict, namely the Viet Nam conflict.
You can compare them to Vietnam if you want. The poster I was
responding to was referring to our troops in Europe and Korea, directly
comparing their situation to the troops in Iraq. He completely
dismissed the fact that our troops in Iraq are dying in what has become
a war of attrition.
There is an insurgency in Iraq because the people of Iraq have allowed
one to exist. The US did the heavy lifting. Saddam is powerless and
in prison. The Iraqis must finish the job. If they choose not to,
then to hell with them.
Our troops are needed elsewhere.
i wasn't directly comparing the situation of the troops in iraq to the
troops elsewhere around the world. i was simply suggesting that the
left in this country is becoming more and more isolationist. if we were
to bring the troops home from iraq right now, leave iraq to fend for
itself, why would we not also bring home our troops from korea and leave
korea to fend for itself, and from europe ( after all germany and russia
aren't threats anymore ). the same reasoning applies ( or lack there of )

i do agree with you that if the iraqi's can't finish the job then to
hell with them. most of the modern day iraqi's aren't iraqi at all. a
good portion of them are arab ( and not much liked by the original
locals .. same for the kurds ). however, having another dictator ruling
with an iron fist while his son's commit rape torture and murder on a
whim certainly can't be in anyone's interest. which is why i support
having the US ( and possibly the UN if they could manage to get their
heads out of their ass ) support iraq's new government until they can
handle the job.
Bryan Kimmes
2006-11-06 22:16:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by goshin
On 3 Nov 2006 16:12:00 -0800, "art_classmn"
Post by art_classmn
Post by goshin
They want Democrats to win back Congress. Don't let them win! Get out
and vote if you don't want it to happen.
the entire notion of al qaeda preferring us to stay in iraq while the
insurgents want us to leave has already been squashed under the heel of
rational people.
on another note, our troops are *still* in europe but world war 2 is
long over, why don't we bring those troops home? everyday our troops
stand post along the dmz in korea, you haven't mentioned anything about
bringing those troops home yet they've been there decades.
Another neocon who completely dismisses American combat casualties in
his so-called reasoning.
Over 100 Americans were murdered in Iraq last month. Do you give a
shit?
This is a great opportunity for me to compare this to an earlier
conflict, namely the Viet Nam conflict.
You can compare them to Vietnam if you want. The poster I was
responding to was referring to our troops in Europe and Korea, directly
comparing their situation to the troops in Iraq. He completely
dismissed the fact that our troops in Iraq are dying in what has become
a war of attrition.
There is an insurgency in Iraq because the people of Iraq have allowed
one to exist. The US did the heavy lifting. Saddam is powerless and
in prison. The Iraqis must finish the job. If they choose not to,
then to hell with them.
Our troops are needed elsewhere.
i wasn't directly comparing the situation of the troops in iraq to the
troops elsewhere around the world. i was simply suggesting that the
left in this country is becoming more and more isolationist. if we were
to bring the troops home from iraq right now, leave iraq to fend for
itself, why would we not also bring home our troops from korea and leave
korea to fend for itself, and from europe ( after all germany and russia
aren't threats anymore ). the same reasoning applies ( or lack there of )
No the same reasoning does not apply, not even close. Iraq is on the brink of a
Civil War, and is getting worse everyday.

Korea and Europe are not currently combat zones.
Post by goshin
most of the modern day iraqi's aren't iraqi at all. a
good portion of them are arab ( and not much liked by the original
locals .. same for the kurds ).
ok.....

Bryan


_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
KilgoreTrout
2006-11-07 01:37:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by FL Turbo
Post by art_classmn
Another neocon who completely dismisses American combat casualties in
his so-called reasoning.
Over 100 Americans were murdered in Iraq last month. Do you give a
shit?
This is a great opportunity for me to compare this to an earlier
conflict, namely the Viet Nam conflict.
Just a few numbers for you from Viet Nam.
A few "spun" numbers, reinterpreted to deliberately misrepresent things.

Reprehensible, FL. Seriously.
Post by FL Turbo
From roughly a 10 year period.
Roughly 52,000 deaths.
Yeah, I see where yer going with this. It would *almost* make sense if
there was a flat rate of deaths throughout those 10 years. Almost.

Of course nothing could be further from the truth.
Post by FL Turbo
That is an average of 100 per WEEK.
That is an average of 450 per MONTH.
That is over a 10 YEAR length of time.
Those numbers are picked only to make the math easier.
I think the peak number was about 500 in one week.
No, you picked those numbers to support yer argument, which is at odds
with reality.
Post by FL Turbo
If anyone wants to pick any other count for any other period or length
of time, feel free to do so.
OK. I will assume yer ten year period. It ain't right, but it'll do.
Since we pulled most of our troops out in '73, I will go '63-'73.

Year US Casualties

1963 118
1964 206
1965 1863

So, how many US Casualties through the first three years in Iraq, FL?

The big years in Vietnam where 67, 68, and 66. 11,000 (67), 16,000 (68),
and 11,000 (69).

Years 5, 6, and 7 (by yer count).

So, what was yer point in bringing Vietnam numbers into this, again?

Now let's examine the real issue; through the "ten year" period you set,
have any idea how many US Troops entered the country of Vietnam? How
about comparing *that* to what we have deployed in Iraq.

If a member of the US military, during Vietnam, didn't *choose* to do more
than one tour, how long was he in country, FL?

How does that compare to Iraq?

Got any guess why we don't currently have the draft?

_____________________________________________________________________ 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
FL Turbo
2006-11-07 04:21:04 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 17:37:52 -0800, "KilgoreTrout"
Post by KilgoreTrout
Post by FL Turbo
Post by art_classmn
Another neocon who completely dismisses American combat casualties in
his so-called reasoning.
Over 100 Americans were murdered in Iraq last month. Do you give a
shit?
This is a great opportunity for me to compare this to an earlier
conflict, namely the Viet Nam conflict.
Just a few numbers for you from Viet Nam.
A few "spun" numbers, reinterpreted to deliberately misrepresent things.
What's the spin?
The total for the entire VN fiasco is 58,000
Post by KilgoreTrout
Reprehensible, FL. Seriously.
I am reprehensible?
Very well then, I am reprehensible.
Post by KilgoreTrout
Post by FL Turbo
From roughly a 10 year period.
Roughly 52,000 deaths.
Yeah, I see where yer going with this. It would *almost* make sense if
there was a flat rate of deaths throughout those 10 years. Almost.
Of course nothing could be further from the truth.
I never imagined anyone would think It was a flat rate.
Maybe I was wrong.

That's why I said average.
Post by KilgoreTrout
Post by FL Turbo
That is an average of 100 per WEEK.
That is an average of 450 per MONTH.
That is over a 10 YEAR length of time.
Those numbers are picked only to make the math easier.
I think the peak number was about 500 in one week.
No, you picked those numbers to support yer argument, which is at odds
with reality.
Numbers over a 10 year period are at odds with reality?

I don't think so.
Post by KilgoreTrout
Post by FL Turbo
If anyone wants to pick any other count for any other period or length
of time, feel free to do so.
OK. I will assume yer ten year period. It ain't right, but it'll do.
Since we pulled most of our troops out in '73, I will go '63-'73.
Year US Casualties
1963 118
1964 206
1965 1863
So, how many US Casualties through the first three years in Iraq, FL?
The big years in Vietnam where 67, 68, and 66. 11,000 (67), 16,000 (68),
and 11,000 (69).
Years 5, 6, and 7 (by yer count).
Well, I'm far too laz...., er I mean busy to do the math so I'll have
to ask you what the averages are.
What are they?

(You get extra bonus points for showing the minimum, maximum, median
and standard deviation.)
Post by KilgoreTrout
So, what was yer point in bringing Vietnam numbers into this, again?
To give a little perspective to someone seeing the number of deaths in
Iraq, by comparing it to the VN war.

There are comparisons and there are contrasts.

There is no lack of people making comparisons between the Nam war and
the war in Iraq.

I am one of them.

The war in Iraq is just like Nam where it is and unlike the war in Nam
where it isn't.
Post by KilgoreTrout
Now let's examine the real issue; through the "ten year" period you set,
have any idea how many US Troops entered the country of Vietnam? How
about comparing *that* to what we have deployed in Iraq.
I think it was around 500,000 wasn't it?
Post by KilgoreTrout
If a member of the US military, during Vietnam, didn't *choose* to do more
than one tour, how long was he in country, FL?
How does that compare to Iraq?
I have no idea.
Post by KilgoreTrout
Got any guess why we don't currently have the draft?
I would guess that after VN, there was no need to draft people any
more.
Just my guess, mind you.


BTW,
I think Hassan Nasrallah studied the Nam War.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Leader of the terrorist organization Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah,
tells Muslims in the Middle East that the US will abandon them the
same way it left Vietnam:

----------------------------
When I talk about an [American] failure, I'm not saying that the
Americans' plan for the region has collapsed, and that they are
packing up their things and leaving, like what happened in the final
days in Vietnam. But I would like to tell you clearly... I am one of
those people who see a very clear picture. In our childhood... When we
were young boys... I cannot forget the sight of the American forces
leaving Vietnam in helicopters, which carried their officers and
soldiers. Some Vietnamese, who had fought alongside the Americans,
tried to climb into these helicopters, but the [Americans] threw them
to the ground, abandoned them, and left.

This is the sight I anticipate in our region, but I am not saying it
will happen in months. It will take years. The Americans will gather
their belongings and leave this region - the entire region. They have
no future whatsoever in our region. They will leave the Middle East,
and the Arab and Islamic worlds, like they left Vietnam.

I advise all those who place their trust in the Americans to learn the
lesson of Vietnam, and to learn the lesson of the South Lebanese Army
with the Israelis, and to know that when the Americans lose this war ?
and lose it they will, Allah willing - they will abandon them to their
fate, just like they did to all those who placed their trust in them
throughout history.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KilgoreTrout
2006-11-07 04:57:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by FL Turbo
Post by KilgoreTrout
No, you picked those numbers to support yer argument, which is at odds
with reality.
Numbers over a 10 year period are at odds with reality?
I don't think so.
Did I claim the numbers were at odds with reality?

Are the numbers yer argument, or are they evidence meant to support yer
argument?
Post by FL Turbo
Post by KilgoreTrout
Post by FL Turbo
If anyone wants to pick any other count for any other period or length
of time, feel free to do so.
OK. I will assume yer ten year period. It ain't right, but it'll do.
Since we pulled most of our troops out in '73, I will go '63-'73.
Year US Casualties
1963 118
1964 206
1965 1863
So, how many US Casualties through the first three years in Iraq, FL?
The big years in Vietnam where 67, 68, and 66. 11,000 (67), 16,000 (68),
and 11,000 (69).
Years 5, 6, and 7 (by yer count).
Well, I'm far too laz...., er I mean busy to do the math so I'll have
to ask you what the averages are.
What are they?
The poster you responded to had just quoted an estimate of the number of
Americans killed in Iraq last month; his obvious point being that the cost
(in terms of US live lost) is too high. You counter this by claiming:

"This is a great opportunity for me to compare this to an earlier
conflict, namely the Viet Nam conflict.

Just a few numbers for you from Viet Nam."

So, it seems as if yer counterargument is going to be to point out that
the number of deaths during Viet Nam was much higher.

This is the argument you are making, correct? So stop posturing as if I
am somehow disputing the "numbers", or claiming the "numbers are at odds
with reality".

Quite unseemly, FL.

To support yer argument, you use the total deaths in Vietnam, averaged out
over a ten-year period. This is the "spin" you add to the numbers. The
reason this is spin, as I pointed out, is that the deaths over that
ten-year period form a bell-curve, peaking right in the middle years of
our involvement.

As I pointed out, when you compare the first three years of 'Nam with the
first three years of Iraq, there are actually more deaths over that
time-period in Iraq.

Making yer entire argument an exercise is misdirection and
misrepresentation.

------- 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
FL Turbo
2006-11-07 12:48:55 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 20:57:57 -0800, "KilgoreTrout"
Post by KilgoreTrout
Post by FL Turbo
Post by KilgoreTrout
No, you picked those numbers to support yer argument, which is at odds
with reality.
Numbers over a 10 year period are at odds with reality?
I don't think so.
Did I claim the numbers were at odds with reality?
Are the numbers yer argument, or are they evidence meant to support yer
argument?
I didn't present any arguments.

I just posted those numbers in response to the OP who was very
disturbed about the 100+ casualties in October '06.

To digress for a moment.
Here is a site that might interest those who are reprehensible enough
to look at casualty numbers.

http://icasualties.org/oif/

10/06 105
01/05 107
11/04 137
04/04 135
Post by KilgoreTrout
Post by FL Turbo
Post by KilgoreTrout
Post by FL Turbo
If anyone wants to pick any other count for any other period or length
of time, feel free to do so.
OK. I will assume yer ten year period. It ain't right, but it'll do.
Since we pulled most of our troops out in '73, I will go '63-'73.
Year US Casualties
1963 118
1964 206
1965 1863
So, how many US Casualties through the first three years in Iraq, FL?
The big years in Vietnam where 67, 68, and 66. 11,000 (67), 16,000 (68),
and 11,000 (69).
Years 5, 6, and 7 (by yer count).
So you have presented two 3 year periods from Nam.
Fair enough.
It's what I asked for.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If anyone wants to pick any other count for any other period or length
of time, feel free to do so.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where do you want to go from there?
Post by KilgoreTrout
Post by FL Turbo
Well, I'm far too laz...., er I mean busy to do the math so I'll have
to ask you what the averages are.
What are they?
The poster you responded to had just quoted an estimate of the number of
Americans killed in Iraq last month; his obvious point being that the cost
I got the distinct impression that the OP thought that any number of
casualties would be unacceptable.

The question of whether they are "too high" or not is a topic beyond
the scope of this discussion.
Post by KilgoreTrout
"This is a great opportunity for me to compare this to an earlier
conflict, namely the Viet Nam conflict.
Just a few numbers for you from Viet Nam."
So, it seems as if yer counterargument is going to be to point out that
the number of deaths during Viet Nam was much higher.
This is the argument you are making, correct? So stop posturing as if I
am somehow disputing the "numbers", or claiming the "numbers are at odds
with reality".
As I have pointed out, I didn't make any argument.
I just threw out some numbers and invited the interested observer to
pick any other count or time period of his choice.

Fair enough.
It's what I asked for.
Post by KilgoreTrout
Quite unseemly, FL.
Well, I am quite encouraged here.

I have gone down from reprehensible to merely unseemly.
Post by KilgoreTrout
To support yer argument, you use the total deaths in Vietnam, averaged out
over a ten-year period. This is the "spin" you add to the numbers. The
reason this is spin, as I pointed out, is that the deaths over that
ten-year period form a bell-curve, peaking right in the middle years of
our involvement.
Actually I picked a number (52,000) somewhat less than the total of
58,000 to make the math easier.

(52 weeks in a year, ya know.)
Post by KilgoreTrout
As I pointed out, when you compare the first three years of 'Nam with the
first three years of Iraq, there are actually more deaths over that
time-period in Iraq.
Making yer entire argument an exercise is misdirection and
misrepresentation.
KilgoreTrout
2006-11-07 23:42:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by FL Turbo
On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 20:57:57 -0800, "KilgoreTrout"
Post by KilgoreTrout
Post by FL Turbo
Post by KilgoreTrout
No, you picked those numbers to support yer argument, which is at odds
with reality.
Numbers over a 10 year period are at odds with reality?
I don't think so.
Did I claim the numbers were at odds with reality?
Are the numbers yer argument, or are they evidence meant to support yer
argument?
I didn't present any arguments.
So you just posted the numbers at random, in a vacuum?
Post by FL Turbo
I just posted those numbers in response to the OP who was very
disturbed about the 100+ casualties in October '06.
But "in response" shouldn't be read as "presenting a counterargument",
right?

So, why, FL? Why did you decide to post exactly that data "in response"?
What was your point?

____________________________________________________________________ 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
FL Turbo
2006-11-08 12:20:16 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 15:42:55 -0800, "KilgoreTrout"
Post by KilgoreTrout
Post by FL Turbo
On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 20:57:57 -0800, "KilgoreTrout"
Post by KilgoreTrout
Post by FL Turbo
Post by KilgoreTrout
No, you picked those numbers to support yer argument, which is at odds
with reality.
Numbers over a 10 year period are at odds with reality?
I don't think so.
Did I claim the numbers were at odds with reality?
Are the numbers yer argument, or are they evidence meant to support yer
argument?
I didn't present any arguments.
So you just posted the numbers at random, in a vacuum?
They weren't random, they were selected for a 10 year period.
As you pointed out, numbers picked over different lengths and periods
of time can give a different picture.
Post by KilgoreTrout
Post by FL Turbo
I just posted those numbers in response to the OP who was very
disturbed about the 100+ casualties in October '06.
But "in response" shouldn't be read as "presenting a counterargument",
right?
Yes, one can read it that way.
Post by KilgoreTrout
So, why, FL? Why did you decide to post exactly that data "in response"?
What was your point?
To offer a little perspective about the 100 casualties in October '06.
Bob
2006-11-08 14:52:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by FL Turbo
To offer a little perspective about the 100 casualties in October '06.
The Iraq War - buy it today! Now available for only 25% as many
American casualties as Vietnam.

- Bob T.
FL Turbo
2006-11-09 02:36:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob
Post by FL Turbo
To offer a little perspective about the 100 casualties in October '06.
The Iraq War - buy it today! Now available for only 25% as many
American casualties as Vietnam.
- Bob T.
25%?
Not even close.

It would take another 14 years at the same rate of casualties to even
get to 25% of the Nam War.
Russell Patterson
2006-11-09 14:04:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by FL Turbo
Post by Bob
Post by FL Turbo
To offer a little perspective about the 100 casualties in October '06.
The Iraq War - buy it today! Now available for only 25% as many
American casualties as Vietnam.
- Bob T.
25%?
Not even close.
It would take another 14 years at the same rate of casualties to even
get to 25% of the Nam War.
All this comparison of Iraq to Vietnam has been apples to oranges up
til now. However, if we pull out without victory it will become
apples to apples.
art_classmn
2006-11-10 14:50:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Russell Patterson
All this comparison of Iraq to Vietnam has been apples to oranges up
til now. However, if we pull out without victory it will become
apples to apples.
What horseshit. You claim there is no comparison to Vietnam....until
it suits you.

Then you use the term "without victory". We already won. "Mission
Accomplished", remember?

The task of securing the peace belongs to the Iraqis. It is their
victory or their loss.

The South Vietnamese made their choice and lost. The Iraqis have to
make theirs, we cannot make it for them.
Big Candy
2006-11-05 23:37:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Russell Patterson
They want Democrats to win back Congress. Don't let them win! Get out
and vote if you don't want it to happen.
Why is this shit in here?
Peg Smith
2006-11-06 01:44:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Big Candy
Post by Russell Patterson
They want Democrats to win back Congress. Don't let them win! Get out
and vote if you don't want it to happen.
Why is this shit in here?
Welcome to rec.griping.politics. Filter it or live with it, it won't
go away.

Peg
Burned
2007-02-02 23:32:33 UTC
Permalink
That's the most idiotic BS I've ever heard. Have you been hit in the head
with a shovel recently?

Bush and gang have done more for the radical Islamists than Al Quaeda
ever could. They have made it obvious to all potential victims of US-
aggression that the only way to avoid such aggression is to
develop/obtain nukes. With the aid of the USA's fascist aggression, they
have destabilized the entire region .. and could end up controlling twice
as many nation-states as they did prior, needless to say the job of
recruiters for future terrorist actions has been made much, much easier.

Meanwhile, back at home, the US is bankrupt, and the massive majority of
US citizens have completely lost faith in government - and rightly so.
They are finally waking up to the fact that it isn't a democracy at all,
nor a republic, but an oligarchical fascist tyranny, that is destroying
the planet.

Bush and gang, a group of right-wing radicals, dragged the Republican
Party away from it's heart and soul, and turned it into a digusting
monster, and all you who let it happen, or actively supported it, should
now STFU and fall on your swords. You have done more harm to the US than
your tiny little monkey brains could possibly comprehend.

P.S.
Fuck you. :)
Post by Russell Patterson
They want Democrats to win back Congress. Don't let them win! Get out
and vote if you don't want it to happen.
FL Turbo
2007-02-03 01:01:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Burned
That's the most idiotic BS I've ever heard. Have you been hit in the head
with a shovel recently?
Bush and gang have done more for the radical Islamists than Al Quaeda
ever could. They have made it obvious to all potential victims of US-
aggression that the only way to avoid such aggression is to
develop/obtain nukes. With the aid of the USA's fascist aggression, they
have destabilized the entire region .. and could end up controlling twice
as many nation-states as they did prior, needless to say the job of
recruiters for future terrorist actions has been made much, much easier.
Meanwhile, back at home, the US is bankrupt, and the massive majority of
US citizens have completely lost faith in government - and rightly so.
They are finally waking up to the fact that it isn't a democracy at all,
nor a republic, but an oligarchical fascist tyranny, that is destroying
the planet.
Bush and gang, a group of right-wing radicals, dragged the Republican
Party away from it's heart and soul, and turned it into a digusting
monster, and all you who let it happen, or actively supported it, should
now STFU and fall on your swords. You have done more harm to the US than
your tiny little monkey brains could possibly comprehend.
Did you just come out of hibernation?
It's already February of '07, in case you didn't know.

Pelosi and Reid and Teddy and Hillary and Obama and Schumer and Murtha
are now in full stride.

Whatever.

You did do a pretty good job of reciting the major Moonbat talking
points.

I give it a B+

I especially liked the line about
"... an oligarchical fascist tyranny, that is destroying the planet."

PS
Be very, very careful.
Karl Rove knows where you live.
WuzYoungOnceToo
2007-02-03 01:16:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Burned
That's the most idiotic BS I've ever heard. Have you been hit in the head
with a shovel recently?
Bush and gang have done more for the radical Islamists than Al Quaeda
ever could. They have made it obvious to all potential victims of US-
aggression that the only way to avoid such aggression is to
develop/obtain nukes.
That's always an interesting charge. How many countries do you know
were actively pursuing nuclear weapons prior to 2002 vs. how many you
know are pursuing them now because they fear invasion by the U.S.? I
can name at least one (Lybia) that was pursuing them before, but is no
longer. I await your lists and calculation of the difference between
them.
Post by Burned
With the aid of the USA's fascist aggression, they
have destabilized the entire region ..
Which region is that? Are you referring to the previously amazingly
stable Middle East?
Post by Burned
Meanwhile, back at home, the US is bankrupt
Uhm, no...no it's not.
Post by Burned
and the massive majority of
US citizens have completely lost faith in government - and rightly so.
They are finally waking up to the fact that it isn't a democracy at all,
nor a republic, but an oligarchical fascist tyranny, that is destroying
the planet.
Whew. For a minute there I thought you were just some hyperbolic nut-
job.

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...