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

-----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-----

"two wheels" wrote in message
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.

Do you think that it is possible that French or German troops would serve as
part of a UN peacekeeping force?

I ask, because I see an irony in the current situation. A few months ago,
insults were being hurled at the Fr. and Ger. governments because they
didn't support the Bush administration's views. Now, it looks as if the Fr.
and Ger.s are being asked to send their "boys". Can't you see the irony in
the situation where there are "freedom fries" in the White House, and the US
is asking the French to send young men to sacrifice their lives for a cause
that they do not, and never did, believe in?

Regards

Donal
--

two wheels wrote:



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.

Uh huh. And how is this pertinent to any of your earlier post?


They don't want us to stay forever, but they sure want
American troops providing their security till they can provide
their own.

I suppose that is why the American occupation troops get attacked so
much more frequently than the British occupation troops.

BTW did you catch Donald Runsfeld on the radio yesterday, trying to
answer previous quotes of how the whole war & pacification would only
cost $50B "and that's a top figure."


I don't believe lunatic Bush-haters, who never wanted us
to go to Iraq in the first place.

There are a lot of people who recognize how unjustified the Iraq
invasion was who are not 'lunatic Bush haters.'



...No undertaking, this large, goes exactly as planned.

That's a good excuse. But what about the Bushies total failure to plan
anything at all for the occupation and pacification of Iraq after the
invasion? What about the failure to capture of kill Saddam, which was
one of their main objectives? They were bragging about how they got him
in a bomb raid, but instead they killed a whole block of downtown
Baghdad, innocent people whose only crime was the bad luck to be near
where the Bushies thought Saddam was. And he got away clean, current
whereabouts unknown.


...... Bush's plan (from
the start) was to turn Iraq over to Iraqis as fast as humanly
possible.

Oh really? Is that why there is no plan AT ALL to allow the currently
sitting Iraqi congress to actually make any laws or instigate any policy
for their own country?


....If the UN takes over, militarily, those corrupt
paperpushers will be there forever--like homeless inlaws.....

'Nuff said. And you have the gall to call anybody else a lunatic.

Bye bye

DSK

Thank you Mr. President for caring about our fine country.
Thank you for being willing to allow us to fight for our
freedom against terrorists the world over . . .

Thank God for men like you because there are so many
pathetic animals like Doug King, for example, who hate
this country and work hand and hand with terrorists for
its downfall.

"DSK" wrote in message ...
I suppose that is why the American occupation troops get attacked so
much more frequently than the British occupation troops.

Doug's pat answers come directly from Democrat Party
Headquarters. Only Democrats can proffer such stupidity
and have people like Doug King repeat it. Democrats,
because of their hatred of Republicans and President
George W. Bush in particular, are willing to side with
terrorists and have, in effect, become terrorists themselves

Duh Douggies! British Troops represent a small minority of
the total - it stands to reason they will suffer fewer casualties.
Not only that but they are in Basra which is in the south, an
area which is not loyal to your good friend Saddam.

BTW did you catch Donald Runsfeld on the radio yesterday, trying to
answer previous quotes of how the whole war & pacification would only
cost $50B "and that's a top figure."

Another Democrat Party propaganda attempt. The War against
Terrorism is like any other war - totally unpredictable. War
plans have always changed and evolved. War always costs more
than those against war would like. Only fools like you, Douggie,
actually believe one can put a price tag on a war in its beginning
phases. Why not blame the Democrat Party for the higher than
projected cost of Medicare? You guys made claims for it that
were lower by a factor of a 100 times than it turned out to be?
You assholes are such lying hypocrites!

There are a lot of people who recognize how unjustified the Iraq
invasion was who are not 'lunatic Bush haters.'

There are only a few. The vocal minority like yourself are
motivated primarily by hatred of the President, hatred of
the military, hatred of our country and hatred of George W.
Bush because you think he was the cause of your party's
downfall. You're bitter, hateful and irrational. You can't
stand having your liberal beliefs rejected by the country at
large. Idiots like you never stop repeating Democrat Party
lies such as "unjustified invasion", "war for oil", "no WMD's"
and other such party line crap. The only thing you have in
smaller quantities than intelligence is love for this great
country and those of who are willing to fight for it. You are
selfish cowards who would all be breaking rocks in gulags
if your ideology held sway.

How come you didn't object and call your Mr. Clinton a liar
and a war monger when he stood up and said we must invade
Iraq because of their weapons of mass destruction and the threat
Saddam Hussein represents to the free people of the world? Is
your memory so short or are you so brainwashed you cannot
remember what was said as recently as 1998? Answer me that,
Douggies?

That's a good excuse. But what about the Bushies total failure to plan
anything at all for the occupation and pacification of Iraq after the
invasion?

More Democrat party line statements right from their website. Douggie,
you are such a simpleton. The only total failure to plan is the lie you're
repeating. It's a total failure to plan because it is so easily proven a lie.
Liberals have become so used to lying that they actually think they can
get away with saying anything. You idiots are constantly on the negative
side of important issues. Are you so stupid to think people actually love
to revel in negatism like you do? Your use of the word "Bushies" for
example proves your real agenda. You hate the President and will
do anything, say anything, even work against the best interests of your
country in order to get rid of him - I got news for you - President Bush
isn't going anywhere. You have to do something other than dwell on the
negative and make up lies if you expect to sway the majority of Americans
who love their country and are willing to fight for their freedom and are
not willing to engage in treason like you liberals of late.

What about the failure to capture of kill Saddam, which was
one of their main objectives? They were bragging about how they got him
in a bomb raid, but instead they killed a whole block of downtown
Baghdad, innocent people whose only crime was the bad luck to be near
where the Bushies thought Saddam was. And he got away clean, current
whereabouts unknown.

Whereabouts unknown? You said it Douggies! Maybe there is no
Saddam Hussein? You say there are no WMDs because their
whereabouts are unknown so why not say there is no Saddam
Hussein because we haven't found him yet? See how stupid and
irrational you and your liberal friends and liberal websites you
read are? This is just one example of why you fools haven't a shred
of credibility. You stand for nothing; you're against everything.

Oh really? Is that why there is no plan AT ALL to allow the currently
sitting Iraqi congress to actually make any laws or instigate any policy
for their own country?

More liberal Democrat party line lies. Prove the above statement, please.

Now, liberal Democrats have gotten to the point where they think
they can lie and not even be challenged. Just because you live in
total and abject ignorance as to what the plans are you claim there
are no plans. How can anyone be so stupid? I guess because you
go about your life without a clue you think that's how everyone
does? You're stupid to the point of being dangerous.

Your hatred and bitterness cannot be hidden behind lies and liberal
Democrat rhetoric. You're transparent. You hate the President and
what he represents so much you've allowed that hatred to spill over
onto the military who fights and dies to protect your freedoms. You've
allowed your hatred to justify your attempts to destroy the very country
in which you live and enjoy freedoms you do NOTHING to deserve.
You and your ilk are loathsome. The rejection you feel and the ostracism
you and your political party are experiencing is what you deserve because
these are a direct result of you anti-American activities.

S.Simon - doesn't put up with liberal lies anymore because it's easy
enough to refute them with the truth.

Thank God for men like you because there are so many
pathetic animals like Doug King,

What a horribly ignorant thing to say, even as a troll.

Capt RB

Don't like me talkin' that way about one of your boyfriends?


"Bobsprit" wrote in message ...
Thank God for men like you because there are so many
pathetic animals like Doug King,

What a horribly ignorant thing to say, even as a troll.

Capt RB

Don't like me talkin' that way about one of your boyfriends?

Wow. That's a sad response from a guy with no cash, no boat worth mentioning,
no sex life...no life!

Bwahahahaha!

RB

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

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 09:59:39 -0400, DSK
wrote:

[snip]

....If the UN takes over, militarily, those corrupt
paperpushers will be there forever--like homeless inlaws.....

'Nuff said. And you have the gall to call anybody else a lunatic.

Bye bye

DSK

....based on recent history.

- --------------------------

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/18/opinion/18ROSE.html

Oil, Food and a Whole Lot of Questions
By CLAUDIA ROSETT
New York Times, April 18, 2003

excerpt:
- --------------------------

The oil-for-food program is no ordinary relief effort. Not only
does it involve astronomical amounts of money, it also operates
with alarming secrecy. Intended to ease the human cost of economic
sanctions by letting Iraq sell oil and use the profits for staples
like milk and medicine, the program has morphed into big business.
Since its inception, the program has overseen more than $100
billion in contracts for oil exports and relief imports combined.

It also collects a 2.2 percent commission on every barrel - more
than $1 billion to date - that is supposed to cover its
administrative costs. According to staff members, the program's
bank accounts over the past year have held balances upward of $12
billion. With all that money pouring straight from Iraq's oil taps
- - thus obviating the need to wring donations from member countries
- - the oil-for-food program has evolved into a bonanza of jobs and
commercial clout. Before the war it employed some 1,000
international workers and 3,000 Iraqis. (The Iraqi employees -
charged with monitoring Saddam Hussein's imports and distribution
of relief goods - of course all had to be approved by the Baath
Party.)

[snip]

The quantities of goods involved in shipments are confidential, and
almost all descriptions on the contract lists made public by the
United Nations are so generic as to be meaningless. For example, a
deal with Russia approved last Nov. 19 was described on the
contract papers with the enigmatic notation: "goods for resumption
of project." Who are the Russian suppliers? The United Nations
won't say. What were they promised in payment? That's secret.

[snip]

Mr. Annan's office does share more detailed records with the
Security Council members, but none of those countries makes them
public. There is no independent, external audit of the program;
financial oversight goes to officials from a revolving trio of
member states - currently South Africa, the Philippines and, yes,
France.

As for the program's vast bank accounts, the public is told only
that letters of credit are issued by a French bank, BNP Paribas.
Kurdish leaders in northern Iraq, entitled to goods funded by 13
percent of the program's revenues, have been trying for some time
to find out how much interest they are going to receive on $4
billion in relief they are still owed. The United Nations treasurer
told me that that no outside party, not even the Kurds, gets access
to those figures.

Then there is the program's compensation commission, which is
supposed to dole out 25 percent of all oil-for-food proceeds to
people and companies harmed by Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait
in 1990. It has so far dispensed $17.5 billion and approved a
further $26.2 billion. Who decides on compensation claims?
Commission members are picked from a "register of experts" supplied
by Mr. Annan. One staff member told me that that this register
cannot be released because it is "not public." The identities of
the individual claimants are, of course, "confidential."

- --------------------------

tw

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

iD8DBQE/YniS0IEDbd7J/jkRAo67AJ9pMDvoEzDjzpLaSo7sWFyy5W+qagCfTcpk
1DXh3FqNb8Bpo45etvEGPCY=
=wJyw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----