Two years later....

Bin Laden and those behind 9/11 still free....
US lives continue to be lost....
US Economy still DIW....
US Citizens lied to about the war on Iraq...
US Citizens lied to about air safety after WTC attack...

Just something else to remember.

RB

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

On 11 Sep 2003 17:04:11 GMT, (Bobsprit) wrote:

Two years later....

[snip]

US lives continue to be lost....

[snip]

RB

Over 100 US lives will be lost today in traffic accidents. That's
not the measure. The measure should be, is there progress being
made? Yes. 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. And increasingly, the terrorists are being
killed or arrested first, because more and more Iraqis are
providing information about where they can be found.


two wheels


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

iD8DBQE/YLIR0IEDbd7J/jkRAknlAJ4nwi8F+UUAGnRMXLbdv78MmRHKFwCg77XJ
loTkkt/leL/M84VfqQ+ZJJE=
=KuDw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"two wheels" wrote in message
...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 11 Sep 2003 17:04:11 GMT, (Bobsprit) wrote:

Two years later....

[snip]

US lives continue to be lost....

[snip]

RB

Over 100 US lives will be lost today in traffic accidents. That's
not the measure. The measure should be, is there progress being
made? Yes. 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. And increasingly, the terrorists are being
killed or arrested first, because more and more Iraqis are
providing information about where they can be found.

If it is all going so well, how do you explain the fact that Bush is now
asking for International assistance?

The fact is that there are terrorist incidents on a daily basis. The war on
Terrorism has done nothing to reduce terrorist activity. In fact it has
increased it.

The rest of the world tried to tell Bush that attacking Iraq was wrong.
Now that the rest of the world has been proved to be correct, Bush wants
then to send troops.

A few months ago Bush seemed to think that the UN was irrelevant - now he
wants to negotiate.

Perhaps it might be a good time to rename the "freedom fries"??? After
all, why should you expect France to send troops to help clear up the mess
that Bush and Rumsfeld have made?


Regards

Donal
--

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
--

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 18:56:01 +0100, "Donal"
wrote this crap:


The fact is that there are terrorist incidents on a daily basis. The war on
Terrorism has done nothing to reduce terrorist activity. In fact it has
increased it.


Iraqis Optimistic, Love America

September 10, 2003


I urge you to read Karl Zinsmeister's column on the Wall Street
Journal's website, OpinionJournal.com, headlined: "What Iraqis Really
Think - We Asked Them. What They Told Us Is Largely Reassuring."
Zinsmeister holds the J.B. Fuqua chair at the American Enterprise
Institute, and is the author of "Boots on the Ground: A Month With the
82nd Airborne in the Battle for Iraq." He surveyed the Iraqi people
with the Zogby polling people, and it's amazing how like America the
Iraqis want to be. This is the sort of stuff that's just not being
reported - or mentioned by any of the Democrats.



Zinsmeister: "The results show that the Iraqi public is more sensible,
stable and moderate than commonly portrayed, and that Iraq is not so
fanatical, or resentful of the U.S., after all. Iraqis are optimistic.
Seven out of 10 say they expect their country and their personal lives
will be better five years from now. On both fronts, 32% say things
will become much better. The toughest part of reconstructing their
nation, Iraqis say by 3 to 1, will be politics, not economics. They
are nervous about democracy. Asked which is closer to their own view -
'Democracy can work well in Iraq,' or 'Democracy is a Western way of
doing things' - five out of 10 said democracy is Western and won't
work in Iraq.

"One in 10 wasn't sure. And four out of 10 said democracy can work in
Iraq. There were interesting divergences. Sunnis were negative on
democracy by more than 2 to 1; but, critically, the majority Shiites
were as likely to say democracy would work for Iraqis as not. People
age 18-29 are much more rosy about democracy than other Iraqis, and
women are significantly more positive than men. Asked to name one
country they would most like Iraq to model its new government on from
five possibilities - neighboring, Baathist Syria; neighbor and Islamic
monarchy Saudi Arabia; neighbor and Islamist republic Iran; Arab
lodestar Egypt; or the U.S. - the most popular model by far was the
U.S."

Do you hear me, my friends? Mo "Younger adults are especially
favorable toward the U.S., and Shiites are more admiring than Sunnis."
Of course we know that it's always young people who make things
happen. I'm getting to that age where I understand the phrase "youth
is wasted on the young." Zinsmeister closes by saying that none of
this means the rebuilding will be easy, and that 50%-to-36% said the
US would hurt Iraq over the next five years. Of course, they just
lived through a war where we had to drop a lot of ammo on them so this
is understandable.

The good news is, less than 30% knew or heard of anyone killed in the
spring fighting. Meanwhile, 50% had a family member, neighbor or
friend who had been killed by Saddam's thugs. What about Democrat
demands that we bring our troops home today? Well, the Iraqis
disagree. Fully two-thirds of those surveyed want coalition troops to
stay in their nation for at least another year. This survey is not all
rosy, but it shows far more reason for optimism in it than we are
hearing from any other source. It's truly uplifting in its
implications, and I'm happy to be able to pass it on.





Ave Imperator Bush!
Bush Was Right! Four More Years!

Horvath wrote in :

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 18:56:01 +0100, "Donal"
wrote this crap:


The fact is that there are terrorist incidents on a daily basis. The
war on Terrorism has done nothing to reduce terrorist activity. In
fact it has increased it.


Iraqis Optimistic, Love America

September 10, 2003


I urge you to read Karl Zinsmeister's column on the Wall Street
Journal's website, OpinionJournal.com, headlined: "What Iraqis Really
Think - We Asked Them. What They Told Us Is Largely Reassuring."


Uhhh huh,


We'll see.


Bertie

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.