-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 14:06:55 -0400, DSK
wrote:



two wheels wrote:


Over 100 US lives will be lost today in traffic accidents.

And this makes it OK that US soldiers are being killed in Iraq,
and that
US citizens at home and abroad are at greater risk of terrorist
attack?

The best logic the Bushies can come up with... "Oh well, you'd
probably
die in a traffic accident anyway, what are you complaining
about..."

That's
not the measure. The measure should be, is there progress being
made? Yes.

Where? On what grounds? No progress visible to anybody with their
eyes &
ears open.


The average incident in which an American soldier (in
Iraq) is killed or injured in gunfire, lasts about three
minutes.
In most all cases, the terrorist shooters will never be able to
shoot anyone ever again.

So, in your opinion we are trading American soldiers lives for
terrorist
lives? That logic might have won World War 2, but it won't win
this.
Especially when the Bushies makes it increasingly easy to recruit
new
terrorists.


And increasingly, the terrorists are being
killed or arrested first, because more and more Iraqis are
providing information about where they can be found.

Maybe so, if you actually believe the propaganda. Of course, Iraqi
terrorists have NO connection or correlation to Al Queda and the
Sept
11th terrorists. So 'progress' in Iraq whether fallacious or
factual is
not going to help the overall situation one bit.

Of course, to the Bush propagandists, facts are totally
irrelevant...
sort of like facts are irrelevant to the North Korean regime...
spooky,
huh?

DSK

Who do I believe? I believe people that have ACTUALLY BEEN IN Iraq,
and have seen with their own eyes that most Iraqis don't want us to
leave YET. They don't want us to stay forever, but they sure want
American troops providing their security till they can provide
their own. I don't believe lunatic Bush-haters, who never wanted us
to go to Iraq in the first place. I don't see any "human shields"
racing to Iraq now to surround UN headquarters. They were there for
Saddam, but now, they're not interested. As Iraqis face the future,
they do have ONE big advantage--they're not defeatist liberal
thumbsuckers.

No undertaking, this large, goes exactly as planned. But on the
whole, given the kind of sabotage that Saddam could've done, I
think history will report that the war was prosecuted about as well
as the situation allowed--no better, no worse. Bush's plan (from
the start) was to turn Iraq over to Iraqis as fast as humanly
possible. If the UN takes over, militarily, those corrupt
paperpushers will be there forever--like homeless inlaws. The only
thing the UN does well is the humanitarian stuff. And, we're not
asking the UN for more "boots on ground." Any UN-sanctioned troops
(that might come) are not there to increase the overall number, but
to provide replacements so that American reservists can go home.
Americans need to be rotated out. That's what the UN-sanctioned
troops would be for.

two wheels


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQE/YNO00IEDbd7J/jkRAuvlAJ909V/1O8NUxjjuztfUY7LNDEirDgCeIipS
s7Y/G3y6PxdOjwOzpE+pq2k=
=ba7b
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----