What were the reasons? WMDs? Fallacious from the git-go. Involvement
with the Sept 11th attack? Cooperation with Al-Queda? Equally
fallacious. The UN resolutions about disarming? Iraq offered proof that
they *had* disarmed, which turned out to be correct, but rejected by the
Bush Administration with *no* attempt at diplomacy... nor was there any
serious attempt at getting UN backing to "enforce" this resolution.

Them's the facts.


Dave Hall wrote:
No, they're not. The fact that WMD were not YET found does not mean
that they were never there.

Do you believe in the Tooth Fairy, Dave?
Even Bush himself has given up on WMDs and admits (quietly) that they
were never there.



.. No one ever said that Iraq was directly
involved in 9/11.

Yes they did, Bush & Cheney both claimed so. Cheney did so to the Sept
11th investigating committee, but could not provide any supporting details


...But they do have contacts with terrorists.

Sure, *now* they have plenty.



Diplomacy ended when Saddam threw the weapons inspectors out in 1998.


Then why didn't President Bush campaign on a platform of invading Iraq
in 2000?



We defeated Iraq's armed forces, deposed it's gov't, and are still
occupying the country. There was a *lot* of advice given the Bushies
about what the aftermath of the invasion would be like, all of it
ignored, all of it depressingly accurate... in fact Rumsfeld was even
disengenuous enough to insist (self-contradictorily in the way
ubiquitous among Bushies) that the advice was wrong and he never got it
anyway... and that our Commander-In-Chief insisted almost 2 years and
1200 deaths ago that 'major combat operations are over"...

Them's the facts.


Those are distortions. At the core is factual information.

In other words, they are facts. That you don't like the facts is the
worse for you, not the facts.


No one said that this war would be easy or short.

Did anybody say that the Iraq war was for a GOOD reason? Did anybody say
the Iraq war would increase the security of America, and further
America's strategic interests? Has this war accomplished anything
remotely resembling those goals?

... The fact that it's
still going on is not an indication of failure.

Possibly not, but it's darn sure an indicator of poor planning &
mismanagement.

... We spent more time
rebuilding Germany and Japan after WWII.


Is that relevant? Those countries attacked us.

DSK

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 15:30:30 -0500, HarryKrause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:

No one said that this war would be easy or short. The fact that it's
still going on is not an indication of failure. We spent more time
rebuilding Germany and Japan after WWII.

THOSE are the facts.


Dave


After the Japanese and Germans surrendered, we did not lose more troops
than before we defeated their military.


Irrelevant. Each circumstance is different. This is a different kind
of war. But our objective is the same.

Dave

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 20:34:54 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 07:45:32 -0500, DSK wrote:


*This* is not a war. We invaded a country that did nothing towards us
that warranted it, we "defeated" its crappy armed forces in short order,
and we continue to occupy that country, taking hits and passing them out.

What *this* is a b.s. excuse for a war, perpetrated on a pack of lies.

Dave Hall wrote:

You are entitled to your opinion, as wrong as it seems to be.


What's wrong with the above statements? Minus the invective (which you
certainly indulge in yourself) it is 100% accurate.

We invaded Iraq.

What were the reasons? WMDs? Fallacious from the git-go. Involvement
with the Sept 11th attack? Cooperation with Al-Queda? Equally
fallacious. The UN resolutions about disarming? Iraq offered proof that
they *had* disarmed, which turned out to be correct, but rejected by the
Bush Administration with *no* attempt at diplomacy... nor was there any
serious attempt at getting UN backing to "enforce" this resolution.

Them's the facts.

per the neo-con textbook


No, they're not. The fact that WMD were not YET found does not mean
that they were never there.

We know they were there because we sold them to them.

Along with the former Soviets and along with stuff they made
themselves. All that does is prove the point that Iraq DID have them.
The question then becomes, where did ALL of them go? We only accounted
for SOME of them after the Gulf war.


the fact that
they were deteriorated beyond use is immaterial (I'm talking Chemical
weapons)

No one ever said that Iraq was directly
involved in 9/11. But they do have contacts with terrorists.

And there's a picture of Chaney shaking hands with Saddam -- so
following your logic, WE had contact with terrorists also

Deflection tactic. We had diplomatic contact. They had collaborative
contact with terrorist groups including Al-Qaeda. Saddam offered aid
to those who killed Israelis in the name of Palestine. He was a proven
supporter of terrorism.

THAT is a fact.



The fact
that Iraq disregarded UN resolutions (which they signed to end the
Gulf war) put them in default, and subjected them to a resolution of
that war.

In which case the UN should be fighting the war.

Are you naive or just being a typical liberal? The U.N. has no
military. We are the strong arm of the U.N.


Diplomacy ended when Saddam threw the weapons inspectors out in 1998.

Umm -- The inspectors were back. The US advised them to leave prior to
the bombing.

Yes, but for 4 years Saddam had time to scatter his weapons among the
winds. It's no coincidence that the inspectors were invited back (to
find nothing).

We defeated Iraq's armed forces, deposed it's gov't, and are still
occupying the country. There was a *lot* of advice given the Bushies
about what the aftermath of the invasion would be like, all of it
ignored, all of it depressingly accurate... in fact Rumsfeld was even
disengenuous enough to insist (self-contradictorily in the way
ubiquitous among Bushies) that the advice was wrong and he never got it
anyway... and that our Commander-In-Chief insisted almost 2 years and
1200 deaths ago that 'major combat operations are over"...

Them's the facts.

Per the neo-con textbook


Those are distortions. At the core is factual information. The
conclusions based on them are disingenuous.

No one said that this war would be easy or short.

"We will be greeted with cheers and flowers" Rummy said he had plenty
of troops. The "election" was delayed a year to try to settle things down.

So you'd label the plan a failure or a "lie" because of unforseen
circumstances which delayed (but it still happened and with a turnout
greater than anticipated) the election? Many Iraqis did "cheer" when
we got there. You didn't see much of it though because the
predominately liberally biased media is only interested in
broadcasting the bad news.

Read some correspondence from actual soldiers who were there and saw
these things first hand. I know a few of them, and the stories they
tell are in sharp contract with the doom and gloom that the Dan
Rathers of the world report with a barely contained smile and a
twinkle



The fact that it's
still going on is not an indication of failure. We spent more time
rebuilding Germany and Japan after WWII.

Rebuilding is about as far away from fighting insurgents as I can imagine.

You have to start somewhere. Rebuilding IS going on. Insurgents are
only in small pockets of the country. But since violence is all the
news media reports on, you'd think the whole country was under siege.

Quite a few "brave" Iraqis defied the insurgents to vote in the recent
election. If it was as bad as our news media has conditioned us to
believe, do you think the turnout would have been as great, or that
there would have been more violence at the polling places?

Our actions have had a positive impact. More and more middle eastern
nations are talking about democracy. Elections were held in
Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. In Iran, there is a
growing secular democratic movement. Libya dissolved their nuke
program, Pakistan nearly caught OBL.

Things are looking better. But you leftist doom and gloomers are
calling these efforts a failure simply because they didn't happen in
the same time table as they do in a Rambo or Swartzenegger movie.

Look back in history at our most recent wars. We spent more time in
all of them and lost more lives in single battles than what we've lost
in all of Iraq so far. As far as wars go, this is hardly a "Quagmire".
It is showing all the signs of positive growth. Just because there are
a bunch of thorns on the shaft is no reason to throw away the rose.


Those are the facts.

Dave

Dave Hall wrote:

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 20:34:54 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


Dave Hall wrote:

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 07:45:32 -0500, DSK wrote:



*This* is not a war. We invaded a country that did nothing towards us
that warranted it, we "defeated" its crappy armed forces in short order,
and we continue to occupy that country, taking hits and passing them out.

What *this* is a b.s. excuse for a war, perpetrated on a pack of lies.

Dave Hall wrote:


You are entitled to your opinion, as wrong as it seems to be.


What's wrong with the above statements? Minus the invective (which you
certainly indulge in yourself) it is 100% accurate.

We invaded Iraq.

What were the reasons? WMDs? Fallacious from the git-go. Involvement
with the Sept 11th attack? Cooperation with Al-Queda? Equally
fallacious. The UN resolutions about disarming? Iraq offered proof that
they *had* disarmed, which turned out to be correct, but rejected by the
Bush Administration with *no* attempt at diplomacy... nor was there any
serious attempt at getting UN backing to "enforce" this resolution.

Them's the facts.

per the neo-con textbook


No, they're not. The fact that WMD were not YET found does not mean
that they were never there.

We know they were there because we sold them to them.


Along with the former Soviets and along with stuff they made
themselves. All that does is prove the point that Iraq DID have them.
The question then becomes, where did ALL of them go? We only accounted
for SOME of them after the Gulf war.



the fact that
they were deteriorated beyond use is immaterial (I'm talking Chemical
weapons)

No one ever said that Iraq was directly

involved in 9/11. But they do have contacts with terrorists.

And there's a picture of Chaney shaking hands with Saddam -- so
following your logic, WE had contact with terrorists also


Deflection tactic. We had diplomatic contact. They had collaborative
contact with terrorist groups including Al-Qaeda. Saddam offered aid
to those who killed Israelis in the name of Palestine. He was a proven
supporter of terrorism.

IS selling weapons not collaborating?

THAT is a fact.



The fact

that Iraq disregarded UN resolutions (which they signed to end the
Gulf war) put them in default, and subjected them to a resolution of
that war.

In which case the UN should be fighting the war.


Are you naive or just being a typical liberal? The U.N. has no
military. We are the strong arm of the U.N.

And the nations with us in Gulf War 1 were just observing?



Diplomacy ended when Saddam threw the weapons inspectors out in 1998.

Umm -- The inspectors were back. The US advised them to leave prior to
the bombing.


Yes, but for 4 years Saddam had time to scatter his weapons among the
winds. It's no coincidence that the inspectors were invited back (to
find nothing).

They were invited back because of Un and US pressure (read threats)


We defeated Iraq's armed forces, deposed it's gov't, and are still
occupying the country. There was a *lot* of advice given the Bushies
about what the aftermath of the invasion would be like, all of it
ignored, all of it depressingly accurate... in fact Rumsfeld was even
disengenuous enough to insist (self-contradictorily in the way
ubiquitous among Bushies) that the advice was wrong and he never got it
anyway... and that our Commander-In-Chief insisted almost 2 years and
1200 deaths ago that 'major combat operations are over"...

Them's the facts.

Per the neo-con textbook


Those are distortions. At the core is factual information. The
conclusions based on them are disingenuous.

No one said that this war would be easy or short.

"We will be greeted with cheers and flowers" Rummy said he had plenty
of troops. The "election" was delayed a year to try to settle things down.


So you'd label the plan a failure or a "lie" because of unforseen
circumstances which delayed (but it still happened and with a turnout
greater than anticipated) the election? Many Iraqis did "cheer" when
we got there. You didn't see much of it though because the
predominately liberally biased media is only interested in
broadcasting the bad news.

Read some correspondence from actual soldiers who were there and saw
these things first hand. I know a few of them, and the stories they
tell are in sharp contract with the doom and gloom that the Dan
Rathers of the world report with a barely contained smile and a
twinkle
Try http://www.hackworth.com/



The fact that it's

still going on is not an indication of failure. We spent more time
rebuilding Germany and Japan after WWII.

Rebuilding is about as far away from fighting insurgents as I can imagine.


You have to start somewhere. Rebuilding IS going on. Insurgents are
only in small pockets of the country. But since violence is all the
news media reports on, you'd think the whole country was under siege.

Quite a few "brave" Iraqis defied the insurgents to vote in the recent
election. If it was as bad as our news media has conditioned us to
believe, do you think the turnout would have been as great, or that
there would have been more violence at the polling places?

Our actions have had a positive impact. More and more middle eastern
nations are talking about democracy. Elections were held in
Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. In Iran, there is a
growing secular democratic movement. Libya dissolved their nuke
program, Pakistan nearly caught OBL.

Things are looking better. But you leftist doom and gloomers are
calling these efforts a failure simply because they didn't happen in
the same time table as they do in a Rambo or Swartzenegger movie.

Look back in history at our most recent wars. We spent more time in
all of them and lost more lives in single battles than what we've lost
in all of Iraq so far. As far as wars go, this is hardly a "Quagmire".
It is showing all the signs of positive growth. Just because there are
a bunch of thorns on the shaft is no reason to throw away the rose.


Those are the facts.

Dave

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 07:21:48 -0500, HarryKrause
wrote:


Irrelevant. Each circumstance is different. This is a different kind
of war. But our objective is the same.

Dave

You're quite the giggle. No matter how the facts dispute your claims,
no matter how "off" your comparisons, you're still cheerleading for the
idiot who lied us into a war against an "enemy" that never attacked our
homeland, was not involved in 9-11, and had no WMDs.

But that's just it, there are no "facts" which dispute my claims. The
facts are being used to spin little more than conjecture.

Dave

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:05:03 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 20:34:54 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


Dave Hall wrote:

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 07:45:32 -0500, DSK wrote:



*This* is not a war. We invaded a country that did nothing towards us
that warranted it, we "defeated" its crappy armed forces in short order,
and we continue to occupy that country, taking hits and passing them out.

What *this* is a b.s. excuse for a war, perpetrated on a pack of lies.

Dave Hall wrote:


You are entitled to your opinion, as wrong as it seems to be.


What's wrong with the above statements? Minus the invective (which you
certainly indulge in yourself) it is 100% accurate.

We invaded Iraq.

What were the reasons? WMDs? Fallacious from the git-go. Involvement
with the Sept 11th attack? Cooperation with Al-Queda? Equally
fallacious. The UN resolutions about disarming? Iraq offered proof that
they *had* disarmed, which turned out to be correct, but rejected by the
Bush Administration with *no* attempt at diplomacy... nor was there any
serious attempt at getting UN backing to "enforce" this resolution.

Them's the facts.

per the neo-con textbook


No, they're not. The fact that WMD were not YET found does not mean
that they were never there.

We know they were there because we sold them to them.


Along with the former Soviets and along with stuff they made
themselves. All that does is prove the point that Iraq DID have them.
The question then becomes, where did ALL of them go? We only accounted
for SOME of them after the Gulf war.



the fact that
they were deteriorated beyond use is immaterial (I'm talking Chemical
weapons)

No one ever said that Iraq was directly

involved in 9/11. But they do have contacts with terrorists.

And there's a picture of Chaney shaking hands with Saddam -- so
following your logic, WE had contact with terrorists also


Deflection tactic. We had diplomatic contact. They had collaborative
contact with terrorist groups including Al-Qaeda. Saddam offered aid
to those who killed Israelis in the name of Palestine. He was a proven
supporter of terrorism.

IS selling weapons not collaborating?

We were not selling weapons to further terrorism. We sold them because
Saddan was at the time a lesser evil as he battled our then greater
enemy of Iran.



THAT is a fact.



The fact

that Iraq disregarded UN resolutions (which they signed to end the
Gulf war) put them in default, and subjected them to a resolution of
that war.

In which case the UN should be fighting the war.


Are you naive or just being a typical liberal? The U.N. has no
military. We are the strong arm of the U.N.

And the nations with us in Gulf War 1 were just observing?

We provided the lion's share of the manpower, command and control, and
recon. We led the way, the other joined in. Not much different than
what happened this time around. We had a few less participants and it
wasn't sanctioned by the U.N. (IOW: the French, Germans and Russians),
but we led and others followed.


Diplomacy ended when Saddam threw the weapons inspectors out in 1998.

Umm -- The inspectors were back. The US advised them to leave prior to
the bombing.


Yes, but for 4 years Saddam had time to scatter his weapons among the
winds. It's no coincidence that the inspectors were invited back (to
find nothing).

They were invited back because of Un and US pressure (read threats)

Stall tactic. Saddam knew they'd find nothing. They already removed
the WMD.


We defeated Iraq's armed forces, deposed it's gov't, and are still
occupying the country. There was a *lot* of advice given the Bushies
about what the aftermath of the invasion would be like, all of it
ignored, all of it depressingly accurate... in fact Rumsfeld was even
disengenuous enough to insist (self-contradictorily in the way
ubiquitous among Bushies) that the advice was wrong and he never got it
anyway... and that our Commander-In-Chief insisted almost 2 years and
1200 deaths ago that 'major combat operations are over"...

Them's the facts.

Per the neo-con textbook


Those are distortions. At the core is factual information. The
conclusions based on them are disingenuous.

No one said that this war would be easy or short.

"We will be greeted with cheers and flowers" Rummy said he had plenty
of troops. The "election" was delayed a year to try to settle things down.


So you'd label the plan a failure or a "lie" because of unforseen
circumstances which delayed (but it still happened and with a turnout
greater than anticipated) the election? Many Iraqis did "cheer" when
we got there. You didn't see much of it though because the
predominately liberally biased media is only interested in
broadcasting the bad news.

Read some correspondence from actual soldiers who were there and saw
these things first hand. I know a few of them, and the stories they
tell are in sharp contract with the doom and gloom that the Dan
Rathers of the world report with a barely contained smile and a
twinkle
Try http://www.hackworth.com/


Try:
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtri...680555557.html


Dave

Dave Hall wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:05:03 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


Dave Hall wrote:


On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 20:34:54 GMT, "Jim," wrote:



Dave Hall wrote:


On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 07:45:32 -0500, DSK wrote:




*This* is not a war. We invaded a country that did nothing towards us
that warranted it, we "defeated" its crappy armed forces in short order,
and we continue to occupy that country, taking hits and passing them out.

What *this* is a b.s. excuse for a war, perpetrated on a pack of lies.

Dave Hall wrote:



You are entitled to your opinion, as wrong as it seems to be.


What's wrong with the above statements? Minus the invective (which you
certainly indulge in yourself) it is 100% accurate.

We invaded Iraq.

What were the reasons? WMDs? Fallacious from the git-go. Involvement
with the Sept 11th attack? Cooperation with Al-Queda? Equally
fallacious. The UN resolutions about disarming? Iraq offered proof that
they *had* disarmed, which turned out to be correct, but rejected by the
Bush Administration with *no* attempt at diplomacy... nor was there any
serious attempt at getting UN backing to "enforce" this resolution.

Them's the facts.

per the neo-con textbook


No, they're not. The fact that WMD were not YET found does not mean
that they were never there.

We know they were there because we sold them to them.


Along with the former Soviets and along with stuff they made
themselves. All that does is prove the point that Iraq DID have them.
The question then becomes, where did ALL of them go? We only accounted
for SOME of them after the Gulf war.




the fact that
they were deteriorated beyond use is immaterial (I'm talking Chemical
weapons)

No one ever said that Iraq was directly


involved in 9/11. But they do have contacts with terrorists.

And there's a picture of Chaney shaking hands with Saddam -- so
following your logic, WE had contact with terrorists also


Deflection tactic. We had diplomatic contact. They had collaborative
contact with terrorist groups including Al-Qaeda. Saddam offered aid
to those who killed Israelis in the name of Palestine. He was a proven
supporter of terrorism.

IS selling weapons not collaborating?


We were not selling weapons to further terrorism. We sold them because
Saddan was at the time a lesser evil as he battled our then greater
enemy of Iran.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend -- great moral standing there. So
are you saying poison gas is OK when someone else uses it against our
enemys -- or biological weapons?



THAT is a fact.




The fact


that Iraq disregarded UN resolutions (which they signed to end the
Gulf war) put them in default, and subjected them to a resolution of
that war.

In which case the UN should be fighting the war.


Are you naive or just being a typical liberal? The U.N. has no
military. We are the strong arm of the U.N.

And the nations with us in Gulf War 1 were just observing?


We provided the lion's share of the manpower, command and control, and
recon. We led the way, the other joined in. Not much different than
what happened this time around. We had a few less participants and it
wasn't sanctioned by the U.N. (IOW: the French, Germans and Russians),
but we led and others followed.

I'm sure the other participating nations would appreciate your comments.



Diplomacy ended when Saddam threw the weapons inspectors out in 1998.

Umm -- The inspectors were back. The US advised them to leave prior to
the bombing.


Yes, but for 4 years Saddam had time to scatter his weapons among the
winds. It's no coincidence that the inspectors were invited back (to
find nothing).

They were invited back because of Un and US pressure (read threats)


Stall tactic. Saddam knew they'd find nothing. They already removed
the WMD.

To Where????? When are you going to stop beating that drum? Even Bush
has given up the search.



We defeated Iraq's armed forces, deposed it's gov't, and are still
occupying the country. There was a *lot* of advice given the Bushies
about what the aftermath of the invasion would be like, all of it
ignored, all of it depressingly accurate... in fact Rumsfeld was even
disengenuous enough to insist (self-contradictorily in the way
ubiquitous among Bushies) that the advice was wrong and he never got it
anyway... and that our Commander-In-Chief insisted almost 2 years and
1200 deaths ago that 'major combat operations are over"...

Them's the facts.

Per the neo-con textbook


Those are distortions. At the core is factual information. The
conclusions based on them are disingenuous.

No one said that this war would be easy or short.

"We will be greeted with cheers and flowers" Rummy said he had plenty
of troops. The "election" was delayed a year to try to settle things down.


So you'd label the plan a failure or a "lie" because of unforseen
circumstances which delayed (but it still happened and with a turnout
greater than anticipated) the election? Many Iraqis did "cheer" when
we got there. You didn't see much of it though because the
predominately liberally biased media is only interested in
broadcasting the bad news.

First reports of the election were 80% turnout, then 60, don't know the
latest.

Read some correspondence from actual soldiers who were there and saw
these things first hand. I know a few of them, and the stories they
tell are in sharp contract with the doom and gloom that the Dan
Rathers of the world report with a barely contained smile and a
twinkle

Try http://www.hackworth.com/



Try:
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtri...680555557.html
Is he a paid columnist as are some of the others recently found out?


Dave

'""""You're quite the giggle. No matter how the facts dispute your claims,
no matter how "off" your comparisons, you're still cheerleading for the
idiot who lied us into a war against an "enemy" that never attacked our
homeland, was not involved in 9-11, and had no WMDs.'''''"""



krause,,,

You would prefer to keep the leader in Iraq,, continue to allow him to
reward suicide bomber's families for their successful killing of as many
Americans as they can. Continue to kill on average 45,000 of his own people
every year,, siphon money from the oil for food, have 1% high high wealth
and 98 % poverty, who do not have access to the medicine or food.

krause,, what kind of a socialists are you???






"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
Dave Hall wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 15:30:30 -0500, HarryKrause
wrote:


Dave Hall wrote:


No one said that this war would be easy or short. The fact that it's
still going on is not an indication of failure. We spent more time
rebuilding Germany and Japan after WWII.

THOSE are the facts.


Dave


After the Japanese and Germans surrendered, we did not lose more troops
than before we defeated their military.



Irrelevant. Each circumstance is different. This is a different kind
of war. But our objective is the same.

Dave

You're quite the giggle. No matter how the facts dispute your claims, no
matter how "off" your comparisons, you're still cheerleading for the idiot
who lied us into a war against an "enemy" that never attacked our
homeland, was not involved in 9-11, and had no WMDs.

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:10:27 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:

IS selling weapons not collaborating?


We were not selling weapons to further terrorism. We sold them because
Saddan was at the time a lesser evil as he battled our then greater
enemy of Iran.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend -- great moral standing there.

There is a great bit of truth in that statement. So, are you judging
our actions today by our inability to see the future 20+ years ago?

So
are you saying poison gas is OK when someone else uses it against our
enemys -- or biological weapons?

That depends on who the enemy is and how it affects the "war". We used
a nuke on Japan in WWII.


And the nations with us in Gulf War 1 were just observing?


We provided the lion's share of the manpower, command and control, and
recon. We led the way, the other joined in. Not much different than
what happened this time around. We had a few less participants and it
wasn't sanctioned by the U.N. (IOW: the French, Germans and Russians),
but we led and others followed.

I'm sure the other participating nations would appreciate your comments.

It's not my fault if the truth hurts.


Diplomacy ended when Saddam threw the weapons inspectors out in 1998.

Umm -- The inspectors were back. The US advised them to leave prior to
the bombing.


Yes, but for 4 years Saddam had time to scatter his weapons among the
winds. It's no coincidence that the inspectors were invited back (to
find nothing).

They were invited back because of Un and US pressure (read threats)


Stall tactic. Saddam knew they'd find nothing. They already removed
the WMD.

To Where????? When are you going to stop beating that drum? Even Bush
has given up the search.

Syria. Bush gave up the search because of the likelihood that those
WMD are no longer within the boundaries of Iraq. If we even go to war
with Syria or are otherwise granted access there, you can bet we'll
look for them then.


Those are distortions. At the core is factual information. The
conclusions based on them are disingenuous.

No one said that this war would be easy or short.

"We will be greeted with cheers and flowers" Rummy said he had plenty
of troops. The "election" was delayed a year to try to settle things down.


So you'd label the plan a failure or a "lie" because of unforseen
circumstances which delayed (but it still happened and with a turnout
greater than anticipated) the election? Many Iraqis did "cheer" when
we got there. You didn't see much of it though because the
predominately liberally biased media is only interested in
broadcasting the bad news.

First reports of the election were 80% turnout, then 60, don't know the
latest.

It's still better than the turnout from our own country. And we don't
have to fear terrorists attacking us while we wait to vote. The fact
is that the election defied the naysayers gloomiest predictions, as
Iraqis showup en-masse to take part in the future of their country.



Read some correspondence from actual soldiers who were there and saw
these things first hand. I know a few of them, and the stories they
tell are in sharp contract with the doom and gloom that the Dan
Rathers of the world report with a barely contained smile and a
twinkle

Try http://www.hackworth.com/



Try:
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtri...680555557.html
Is he a paid columnist as are some of the others recently found out?

He's a military officer who was THERE. There are others who write
similar accounts. I've read dozens of them, some in private E-mails.

Is that your standard response when someone paints an entirely
different picture from that which the liberal media wants us to see?

Dave

Dave Hall wrote:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:10:27 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


Dave Hall wrote:


IS selling weapons not collaborating?


We were not selling weapons to further terrorism. We sold them because
Saddan was at the time a lesser evil as he battled our then greater
enemy of Iran.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend -- great moral standing there.


There is a great bit of truth in that statement. So, are you judging
our actions today by our inability to see the future 20+ years ago?
We Knew Saddam was a bad guy 20 years ago


So
are you saying poison gas is OK when someone else uses it against our
enemys -- or biological weapons?


That depends on who the enemy is and how it affects the "war". We used
a nuke on Japan in WWII.
And have paid the price of world opinion ever since.



And the nations with us in Gulf War 1 were just observing?


We provided the lion's share of the manpower, command and control, and
recon. We led the way, the other joined in. Not much different than
what happened this time around. We had a few less participants and it
wasn't sanctioned by the U.N. (IOW: the French, Germans and Russians),
but we led and others followed.

I'm sure the other participating nations would appreciate your comments.


It's not my fault if the truth hurts.

Yet bush is so eager to get other nations to join in again, despite more
and more pulling out.



Diplomacy ended when Saddam threw the weapons inspectors out in 1998.

Umm -- The inspectors were back. The US advised them to leave prior to
the bombing.


Yes, but for 4 years Saddam had time to scatter his weapons among the
winds. It's no coincidence that the inspectors were invited back (to
find nothing).

They were invited back because of Un and US pressure (read threats)


Stall tactic. Saddam knew they'd find nothing. They already removed
the WMD.

To Where????? When are you going to stop beating that drum? Even Bush
has given up the search.


Syria. Bush gave up the search because of the likelihood that those
WMD are no longer within the boundaries of Iraq. If we even go to war
with Syria or are otherwise granted access there, you can bet we'll
look for them then.

You REALLY are desperate to find something. Our own guy Scott Ritter
told bush there were no WMD, as did several intelligence agencys.



Those are distortions. At the core is factual information. The
conclusions based on them are disingenuous.

No one said that this war would be easy or short.

"We will be greeted with cheers and flowers" Rummy said he had plenty
of troops. The "election" was delayed a year to try to settle things down.


So you'd label the plan a failure or a "lie" because of unforseen
circumstances which delayed (but it still happened and with a turnout
greater than anticipated) the election? Many Iraqis did "cheer" when
we got there. You didn't see much of it though because the
predominately liberally biased media is only interested in
broadcasting the bad news.

First reports of the election were 80% turnout, then 60, don't know the
latest.


It's still better than the turnout from our own country. And we don't
have to fear terrorists attacking us while we wait to vote. The fact
is that the election defied the naysayers gloomiest predictions, as
Iraqis showup en-masse to take part in the future of their country.

Some stories I read said the Iraqis were told that they must vote if
they wanted to eat. Also the citizens really had no choice in selecting
candidates.



Read some correspondence from actual soldiers who were there and saw
these things first hand. I know a few of them, and the stories they
tell are in sharp contract with the doom and gloom that the Dan
Rathers of the world report with a barely contained smile and a
twinkle

Try http://www.hackworth.com/

Regularly posts correspondence from the guys over there



Try:
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtri...680555557.html

Is he a paid columnist as are some of the others recently found out?


He's a military officer who was THERE. There are others who write
similar accounts. I've read dozens of them, some in private E-mails.

Is that your standard response when someone paints an entirely
different picture from that which the liberal media wants us to see?

Dave

Given recent revelations, I've become suspicious of any columnist
supporting Bush and cronies.

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 14:06:08 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


Some stories I read said the Iraqis were told that they must vote if
they wanted to eat. Also the citizens really had no choice in selecting
candidates.

Jeeez. "Some stories I read..."

They were 'stories'. They were designed for the gullible. Some folks obviously
bit.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 14:06:08 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


Some stories I read said the Iraqis were told that they must vote if
they wanted to eat. Also the citizens really had no choice in selecting
candidates.

Jeeez. "Some stories I read..."

They were 'stories'. They were designed for the gullible. Some folks
obviously
bit.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

I heard from someone who heard from someone who heard from someone that the
Iraqi's were forced to vote for Herman Munster if they wanted to have water
to drink. Also the citizens really had no choice in selecting a candidate
other than Herman Munster.

How is it that Herman lost?

Someone told me who heard from someone who heard from someone who heard from
someone that Herman Munster declined the position and suggested that Donald
Duck be named instead.

And that's the truth, or so I heard.....and I am sticking with it.

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 09:22:37 -0500, "JimH" wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 14:06:08 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


Some stories I read said the Iraqis were told that they must vote if
they wanted to eat. Also the citizens really had no choice in selecting
candidates.

Jeeez. "Some stories I read..."

They were 'stories'. They were designed for the gullible. Some folks
obviously
bit.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

I heard from someone who heard from someone who heard from someone that the
Iraqi's were forced to vote for Herman Munster if they wanted to have water
to drink. Also the citizens really had no choice in selecting a candidate
other than Herman Munster.

How is it that Herman lost?

Someone told me who heard from someone who heard from someone who heard from
someone that Herman Munster declined the position and suggested that Donald
Duck be named instead.

And that's the truth, or so I heard.....and I am sticking with it.


Good story. It would be much more believable if it started, "Once upon a
time..."


--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 09:22:37 -0500, "JimH" wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 14:06:08 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


Some stories I read said the Iraqis were told that they must vote if
they wanted to eat. Also the citizens really had no choice in selecting
candidates.

Jeeez. "Some stories I read..."

They were 'stories'. They were designed for the gullible. Some folks
obviously
bit.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

I heard from someone who heard from someone who heard from someone that
the
Iraqi's were forced to vote for Herman Munster if they wanted to have
water
to drink. Also the citizens really had no choice in selecting a candidate
other than Herman Munster.

How is it that Herman lost?

Someone told me who heard from someone who heard from someone who heard
from
someone that Herman Munster declined the position and suggested that
Donald
Duck be named instead.

And that's the truth, or so I heard.....and I am sticking with it.


Good story. It would be much more believable if it started, "Once upon a
time..."


--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

Now Jimcomma can also say that he read that the Iraqi's were forced to vote
for Herman Munster if they wanted to have water to drink, that the citizens
really had no choice in selecting a candidate other than Herman Munster and
that Herman declined the position and suggested that Donald Duck be named
instead.

Hey, if you read it then it must be true.

John H wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 14:06:08 GMT, "Jim," wrote:



Some stories I read said the Iraqis were told that they must vote if
they wanted to eat. Also the citizens really had no choice in selecting
candidates.


Jeeez. "Some stories I read..."

They were 'stories'. They were designed for the gullible. Some folks obviously
bit.

And your proof that these were just stories is????????

JimH wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 09:22:37 -0500, "JimH" wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 14:06:08 GMT, "Jim," wrote:



Some stories I read said the Iraqis were told that they must vote if
they wanted to eat. Also the citizens really had no choice in selecting
candidates.

Jeeez. "Some stories I read..."

They were 'stories'. They were designed for the gullible. Some folks
obviously
bit.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

I heard from someone who heard from someone who heard from someone that
the
Iraqi's were forced to vote for Herman Munster if they wanted to have
water
to drink. Also the citizens really had no choice in selecting a candidate
other than Herman Munster.

How is it that Herman lost?

Someone told me who heard from someone who heard from someone who heard
from
someone that Herman Munster declined the position and suggested that
Donald
Duck be named instead.

And that's the truth, or so I heard.....and I am sticking with it.


Good story. It would be much more believable if it started, "Once upon a
time..."


--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."


Now Jimcomma can also say that he read that the Iraqi's were forced to vote
for Herman Munster if they wanted to have water to drink, that the citizens
really had no choice in selecting a candidate other than Herman Munster and
that Herman declined the position and suggested that Donald Duck be named
instead.

Hey, if you read it then it must be true.



Sorta kinda like bush believed all the stories he heard about Saddam?

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 14:59:21 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

JimH wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 09:22:37 -0500, "JimH" wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
m...

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 14:06:08 GMT, "Jim," wrote:



Some stories I read said the Iraqis were told that they must vote if
they wanted to eat. Also the citizens really had no choice in selecting
candidates.

Jeeez. "Some stories I read..."

They were 'stories'. They were designed for the gullible. Some folks
obviously
bit.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

I heard from someone who heard from someone who heard from someone that
the
Iraqi's were forced to vote for Herman Munster if they wanted to have
water
to drink. Also the citizens really had no choice in selecting a candidate
other than Herman Munster.

How is it that Herman lost?

Someone told me who heard from someone who heard from someone who heard
from
someone that Herman Munster declined the position and suggested that
Donald
Duck be named instead.

And that's the truth, or so I heard.....and I am sticking with it.


Good story. It would be much more believable if it started, "Once upon a
time..."


--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."


Now Jimcomma can also say that he read that the Iraqi's were forced to vote
for Herman Munster if they wanted to have water to drink, that the citizens
really had no choice in selecting a candidate other than Herman Munster and
that Herman declined the position and suggested that Donald Duck be named
instead.

Hey, if you read it then it must be true.



Sorta kinda like bush believed all the stories he heard about Saddam?

Are you now saying the CIA, the British Intelligence, and the Russian
Intelligence are telling you these stories?

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 14:55:19 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

John H wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 14:06:08 GMT, "Jim," wrote:



Some stories I read said the Iraqis were told that they must vote if
they wanted to eat. Also the citizens really had no choice in selecting
candidates.


Jeeez. "Some stories I read..."

They were 'stories'. They were designed for the gullible. Some folks obviously
bit.

And your proof that these were just stories is????????

Watch closely..........

"Some stories I read said ...."

There, how's that for proof?

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

John H wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 14:59:21 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


JimH wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
...


On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 09:22:37 -0500, "JimH" wrote:



"John H" wrote in message
om...


On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 14:06:08 GMT, "Jim," wrote:




Some stories I read said the Iraqis were told that they must vote if
they wanted to eat. Also the citizens really had no choice in selecting
candidates.

Jeeez. "Some stories I read..."

They were 'stories'. They were designed for the gullible. Some folks
obviously
bit.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

I heard from someone who heard from someone who heard from someone that
the
Iraqi's were forced to vote for Herman Munster if they wanted to have
water
to drink. Also the citizens really had no choice in selecting a candidate
other than Herman Munster.

How is it that Herman lost?

Someone told me who heard from someone who heard from someone who heard
from
someone that Herman Munster declined the position and suggested that
Donald
Duck be named instead.

And that's the truth, or so I heard.....and I am sticking with it.


Good story. It would be much more believable if it started, "Once upon a
time..."


--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."


Now Jimcomma can also say that he read that the Iraqi's were forced to vote
for Herman Munster if they wanted to have water to drink, that the citizens
really had no choice in selecting a candidate other than Herman Munster and
that Herman declined the position and suggested that Donald Duck be named
instead.

Hey, if you read it then it must be true.



Sorta kinda like bush believed all the stories he heard about Saddam?


Are you now saying the CIA, the British Intelligence, and the Russian
Intelligence are telling you these stories?


Appears I must repeat

Sorta kinda like bush believed all the stories he heard about Saddam?

He beLIEved what he wanted -- I merely reported what I had read -- Could
be propaganda, then again.....

John H wrote:

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 14:55:19 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


John H wrote:

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 14:06:08 GMT, "Jim," wrote:




Some stories I read said the Iraqis were told that they must vote if
they wanted to eat. Also the citizens really had no choice in selecting
candidates.


Jeeez. "Some stories I read..."

They were 'stories'. They were designed for the gullible. Some folks obviously
bit.

And your proof that these were just stories is????????


Watch closely..........

"Some stories I read said ...."

There, how's that for proof?


Actually humorous -- what a lame attempt to discredit. The stories may
well be propaganda, but then again there were these stories about WMD

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 14:06:08 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:10:27 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


Dave Hall wrote:


IS selling weapons not collaborating?


We were not selling weapons to further terrorism. We sold them because
Saddan was at the time a lesser evil as he battled our then greater
enemy of Iran.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend -- great moral standing there.


There is a great bit of truth in that statement. So, are you judging
our actions today by our inability to see the future 20+ years ago?

We Knew Saddam was a bad guy 20 years ago

Did we really? Compared to Khomeni, he was a saint, at least in the
perspective of the current events of the time.





So
are you saying poison gas is OK when someone else uses it against our
enemys -- or biological weapons?


That depends on who the enemy is and how it affects the "war". We used
a nuke on Japan in WWII.

And have paid the price of world opinion ever since.

Really? What "price" have we paid? Japan is one of our closest allies,
especially in business.


And the nations with us in Gulf War 1 were just observing?


We provided the lion's share of the manpower, command and control, and
recon. We led the way, the other joined in. Not much different than
what happened this time around. We had a few less participants and it
wasn't sanctioned by the U.N. (IOW: the French, Germans and Russians),
but we led and others followed.

I'm sure the other participating nations would appreciate your comments.


It's not my fault if the truth hurts.

Yet bush is so eager to get other nations to join in again, despite more
and more pulling out.

Define "eager"? Bush has tempered his initial slamming of those
ingrate nations like France et al, and now wants to normalize
relations again. But he's not pulling a Lewinsky on anyone.


Diplomacy ended when Saddam threw the weapons inspectors out in 1998.

Umm -- The inspectors were back. The US advised them to leave prior to
the bombing.


Yes, but for 4 years Saddam had time to scatter his weapons among the
winds. It's no coincidence that the inspectors were invited back (to
find nothing).

They were invited back because of Un and US pressure (read threats)


Stall tactic. Saddam knew they'd find nothing. They already removed
the WMD.

To Where????? When are you going to stop beating that drum? Even Bush
has given up the search.


Syria. Bush gave up the search because of the likelihood that those
WMD are no longer within the boundaries of Iraq. If we even go to war
with Syria or are otherwise granted access there, you can bet we'll
look for them then.

You REALLY are desperate to find something. Our own guy Scott Ritter
told bush there were no WMD, as did several intelligence agencys.

Scott Ritter is a turncoat, who was likely paid to do so. He was very
pro WMD in the beginning, and then suddenly became a harsh critic of
even his own earlier actions. He smells bad, and I would take his word
for anything.


First reports of the election were 80% turnout, then 60, don't know the
latest.


It's still better than the turnout from our own country. And we don't
have to fear terrorists attacking us while we wait to vote. The fact
is that the election defied the naysayers gloomiest predictions, as
Iraqis showup en-masse to take part in the future of their country.

Some stories I read said the Iraqis were told that they must vote if
they wanted to eat.

Right, "stories". That's all they were.


Also the citizens really had no choice in selecting
candidates.

From what I've seen, they actually had too many choices. It was
somewhat confusing. But it was a far site better than a single choice
that you either made or died for not voting for.




Read some correspondence from actual soldiers who were there and saw
these things first hand. I know a few of them, and the stories they
tell are in sharp contract with the doom and gloom that the Dan
Rathers of the world report with a barely contained smile and a
twinkle

Try http://www.hackworth.com/

Regularly posts correspondence from the guys over there

It stands to reason that there will be a differing of opinions
depending on what part of the country you are in and what battles you
have fought.

Try:
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtri...680555557.html

Is he a paid columnist as are some of the others recently found out?


He's a military officer who was THERE. There are others who write
similar accounts. I've read dozens of them, some in private E-mails.

Is that your standard response when someone paints an entirely
different picture from that which the liberal media wants us to see?

Dave

Given recent revelations, I've become suspicious of any columnist
supporting Bush and cronies.

Why? Does the existence of evidence which shatters your pre-conceived
notions of what this war is all about, make you feel uncomfortable to
the point of denial?

Dave

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 14:55:19 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

John H wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 14:06:08 GMT, "Jim," wrote:



Some stories I read said the Iraqis were told that they must vote if
they wanted to eat. Also the citizens really had no choice in selecting
candidates.


Jeeez. "Some stories I read..."

They were 'stories'. They were designed for the gullible. Some folks obviously
bit.

And your proof that these were just stories is????????

Um, the burden of proof is on the accuser. Where is the proof that
these "stories" are anything but?

Dave

Dave Hall wrote:

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 14:06:08 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


Dave Hall wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:10:27 GMT, "Jim," wrote:



Dave Hall wrote:


IS selling weapons not collaborating?


We were not selling weapons to further terrorism. We sold them because
Saddan was at the time a lesser evil as he battled our then greater
enemy of Iran.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend -- great moral standing there.


There is a great bit of truth in that statement. So, are you judging
our actions today by our inability to see the future 20+ years ago?


We Knew Saddam was a bad guy 20 years ago


Did we really? Compared to Khomeni, he was a saint, at least in the
perspective of the current events of the time.





So
are you saying poison gas is OK when someone else uses it against our
enemys -- or biological weapons?


That depends on who the enemy is and how it affects the "war". We used
a nuke on Japan in WWII.


And have paid the price of world opinion ever since.


Really? What "price" have we paid? Japan is one of our closest allies,
especially in business.

A survey a year or so ago indicated that the world feared the US more
than any other country. Before you say that's a good thing, remember
the playground bully -- eventually 2 or 3 of his victims get together
and put him in his place.



And the nations with us in Gulf War 1 were just observing?


We provided the lion's share of the manpower, command and control, and
recon. We led the way, the other joined in. Not much different than
what happened this time around. We had a few less participants and it
wasn't sanctioned by the U.N. (IOW: the French, Germans and Russians),
but we led and others followed.

I'm sure the other participating nations would appreciate your comments.


It's not my fault if the truth hurts.

Yet bush is so eager to get other nations to join in again, despite more
and more pulling out.


Define "eager"? Bush has tempered his initial slamming of those
ingrate nations like France et al, and now wants to normalize
relations again. But he's not pulling a Lewinsky on anyone.

He has bribed most (if not all) the current participants.



Diplomacy ended when Saddam threw the weapons inspectors out in 1998.

Umm -- The inspectors were back. The US advised them to leave prior to
the bombing.


Yes, but for 4 years Saddam had time to scatter his weapons among the
winds. It's no coincidence that the inspectors were invited back (to
find nothing).

They were invited back because of Un and US pressure (read threats)


Stall tactic. Saddam knew they'd find nothing. They already removed
the WMD.

To Where????? When are you going to stop beating that drum? Even Bush
has given up the search.


Syria. Bush gave up the search because of the likelihood that those
WMD are no longer within the boundaries of Iraq. If we even go to war
with Syria or are otherwise granted access there, you can bet we'll
look for them then.

You REALLY are desperate to find something. Our own guy Scott Ritter
told bush there were no WMD, as did several intelligence agencys.


Scott Ritter is a turncoat, who was likely paid to do so. He was very
pro WMD in the beginning, and then suddenly became a harsh critic of
even his own earlier actions. He smells bad, and I would take his word
for anything.

"I would take his word for anything."

NOTE --- I did NOT doctor the above -- perhaps a slip revealing your
true beliefs (I can't spell Freudian)



First reports of the election were 80% turnout, then 60, don't know the

latest.


It's still better than the turnout from our own country. And we don't
have to fear terrorists attacking us while we wait to vote. The fact
is that the election defied the naysayers gloomiest predictions, as
Iraqis showup en-masse to take part in the future of their country.

Some stories I read said the Iraqis were told that they must vote if
they wanted to eat.


Right, "stories". That's all they were.



Also the citizens really had no choice in selecting
candidates.


From what I've seen, they actually had too many choices. It was
somewhat confusing. But it was a far site better than a single choice
that you either made or died for not voting for.




Read some correspondence from actual soldiers who were there and saw
these things first hand. I know a few of them, and the stories they
tell are in sharp contract with the doom and gloom that the Dan
Rathers of the world report with a barely contained smile and a
twinkle

Try http://www.hackworth.com/

Regularly posts correspondence from the guys over there


It stands to reason that there will be a differing of opinions
depending on what part of the country you are in and what battles you
have fought.

And Hackworth seems to have gained the trust of the grunt types who
write him regularly.


Try:
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtri...680555557.html

Is he a paid columnist as are some of the others recently found out?


He's a military officer who was THERE. There are others who write
similar accounts. I've read dozens of them, some in private E-mails.

Is that your standard response when someone paints an entirely
different picture from that which the liberal media wants us to see?

Dave

Given recent revelations, I've become suspicious of any columnist
supporting Bush and cronies.


Why? Does the existence of evidence which shatters your pre-conceived
notions of what this war is all about, make you feel uncomfortable to
the point of denial?

The revelation that columnists can be and have been bought, makes me
more than a little suspicious of those supporting the one with the money.

Dave

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 21:16:54 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 14:06:08 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


Dave Hall wrote:

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:10:27 GMT, "Jim," wrote:



Dave Hall wrote:


IS selling weapons not collaborating?


We were not selling weapons to further terrorism. We sold them because
Saddan was at the time a lesser evil as he battled our then greater
enemy of Iran.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend -- great moral standing there.


There is a great bit of truth in that statement. So, are you judging
our actions today by our inability to see the future 20+ years ago?


We Knew Saddam was a bad guy 20 years ago


Did we really? Compared to Khomeni, he was a saint, at least in the
perspective of the current events of the time.





So
are you saying poison gas is OK when someone else uses it against our
enemys -- or biological weapons?


That depends on who the enemy is and how it affects the "war". We used
a nuke on Japan in WWII.


And have paid the price of world opinion ever since.


Really? What "price" have we paid? Japan is one of our closest allies,
especially in business.

A survey a year or so ago indicated that the world feared the US more
than any other country. Before you say that's a good thing, remember
the playground bully -- eventually 2 or 3 of his victims get together
and put him in his place.

I've seen similar reports that claim that the U.S. was also the
biggest "terrorist". But you have to take the perspective of the
people selected for these surveys into consideration when analyzing
this data.

We don't bully or terrorize anyone. But we do stand up for what's
right. Self determination and democracy is a far better life than one
of oppression and despotism.



It's not my fault if the truth hurts.

Yet bush is so eager to get other nations to join in again, despite more
and more pulling out.


Define "eager"? Bush has tempered his initial slamming of those
ingrate nations like France et al, and now wants to normalize
relations again. But he's not pulling a Lewinsky on anyone.

He has bribed most (if not all) the current participants.

Proof please? Where has he "bribed" anyone?


Diplomacy ended when Saddam threw the weapons inspectors out in 1998.

Umm -- The inspectors were back. The US advised them to leave prior to
the bombing.


Yes, but for 4 years Saddam had time to scatter his weapons among the
winds. It's no coincidence that the inspectors were invited back (to
find nothing).

They were invited back because of Un and US pressure (read threats)


Stall tactic. Saddam knew they'd find nothing. They already removed
the WMD.

To Where????? When are you going to stop beating that drum? Even Bush
has given up the search.


Syria. Bush gave up the search because of the likelihood that those
WMD are no longer within the boundaries of Iraq. If we even go to war
with Syria or are otherwise granted access there, you can bet we'll
look for them then.

You REALLY are desperate to find something. Our own guy Scott Ritter
told bush there were no WMD, as did several intelligence agencys.


Scott Ritter is a turncoat, who was likely paid to do so. He was very
pro WMD in the beginning, and then suddenly became a harsh critic of
even his own earlier actions. He smells bad, and I would take his word
for anything.

"I would take his word for anything."

NOTE --- I did NOT doctor the above -- perhaps a slip revealing your
true beliefs (I can't spell Freudian)

"Would NOT" would be the correct statement. At least you (seemingly)
understood my intent if not the typo.

Which leaves me a bit puzzled as to a lack of any additional comment.

Some stories I read said the Iraqis were told that they must vote if
they wanted to eat.


Right, "stories". That's all they were.



Also the citizens really had no choice in selecting
candidates.


From what I've seen, they actually had too many choices. It was
somewhat confusing. But it was a far site better than a single choice
that you either made or died for not voting for.




Read some correspondence from actual soldiers who were there and saw
these things first hand. I know a few of them, and the stories they
tell are in sharp contract with the doom and gloom that the Dan
Rathers of the world report with a barely contained smile and a
twinkle

Try http://www.hackworth.com/

Regularly posts correspondence from the guys over there


It stands to reason that there will be a differing of opinions
depending on what part of the country you are in and what battles you
have fought.

And Hackworth seems to have gained the trust of the grunt types who
write him regularly.

Hackworth used to be a straight shooter and regular contributor to
talk radio. Evidently he's had a change of heart.


Try:
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtri...680555557.html

Is he a paid columnist as are some of the others recently found out?


He's a military officer who was THERE. There are others who write
similar accounts. I've read dozens of them, some in private E-mails.

Is that your standard response when someone paints an entirely
different picture from that which the liberal media wants us to see?

Dave

Given recent revelations, I've become suspicious of any columnist
supporting Bush and cronies.


Why? Does the existence of evidence which shatters your pre-conceived
notions of what this war is all about, make you feel uncomfortable to
the point of denial?

The revelation that columnists can be and have been bought, makes me
more than a little suspicious of those supporting the one with the money.


That works both ways. Michael Moore and George Soros, among other
notable liberals, both have a sizable sum of money to "sway" writers.

With that in mind, it would be intellectually dishonest of you (or
anyone) to accept as 100% truth one "side", and discard the other as
"propaganda" based on an unequal application of the "bias" rule.

Dave

Dave Hall wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 21:16:54 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


Dave Hall wrote:


On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 14:06:08 GMT, "Jim," wrote:



Dave Hall wrote:


On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:10:27 GMT, "Jim," wrote:




Dave Hall wrote:


IS selling weapons not collaborating?


We were not selling weapons to further terrorism. We sold them because
Saddan was at the time a lesser evil as he battled our then greater
enemy of Iran.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend -- great moral standing there.


There is a great bit of truth in that statement. So, are you judging
our actions today by our inability to see the future 20+ years ago?


We Knew Saddam was a bad guy 20 years ago


Did we really? Compared to Khomeni, he was a saint, at least in the
perspective of the current events of the time.





So
are you saying poison gas is OK when someone else uses it against our
enemys -- or biological weapons?


That depends on who the enemy is and how it affects the "war". We used
a nuke on Japan in WWII.


And have paid the price of world opinion ever since.


Really? What "price" have we paid? Japan is one of our closest allies,
especially in business.

A survey a year or so ago indicated that the world feared the US more
than any other country. Before you say that's a good thing, remember
the playground bully -- eventually 2 or 3 of his victims get together
and put him in his place.


I've seen similar reports that claim that the U.S. was also the
biggest "terrorist". But you have to take the perspective of the
people selected for these surveys into consideration when analyzing
this data.

We don't bully or terrorize anyone. But we do stand up for what's
right. Self determination and democracy is a far better life than one
of oppression and despotism.

I expect I could find more than a few Iraqis who disagree with you



It's not my fault if the truth hurts.

Yet bush is so eager to get other nations to join in again, despite more
and more pulling out.


Define "eager"? Bush has tempered his initial slamming of those
ingrate nations like France et al, and now wants to normalize
relations again. But he's not pulling a Lewinsky on anyone.

He has bribed most (if not all) the current participants.


Proof please? Where has he "bribed" anyone?

the coalition of the bought -- read up a little on the "incentives" they
were offered to join.



Diplomacy ended when Saddam threw the weapons inspectors out in 1998.

Umm -- The inspectors were back. The US advised them to leave prior to
the bombing.


Yes, but for 4 years Saddam had time to scatter his weapons among the
winds. It's no coincidence that the inspectors were invited back (to
find nothing).

They were invited back because of Un and US pressure (read threats)


Stall tactic. Saddam knew they'd find nothing. They already removed
the WMD.

To Where????? When are you going to stop beating that drum? Even Bush
has given up the search.


Syria. Bush gave up the search because of the likelihood that those
WMD are no longer within the boundaries of Iraq. If we even go to war
with Syria or are otherwise granted access there, you can bet we'll
look for them then.

You REALLY are desperate to find something. Our own guy Scott Ritter
told bush there were no WMD, as did several intelligence agencys.


Scott Ritter is a turncoat, who was likely paid to do so. He was very
pro WMD in the beginning, and then suddenly became a harsh critic of
even his own earlier actions. He smells bad, and I would take his word
for anything.

"I would take his word for anything."

NOTE --- I did NOT doctor the above -- perhaps a slip revealing your
true beliefs (I can't spell Freudian)


"Would NOT" would be the correct statement. At least you (seemingly)
understood my intent if not the typo.

Which leaves me a bit puzzled as to a lack of any additional comment.

I thought you said it all. Why was he appointed if he could not be
trusted? When he speaks out against the war, suddenly he's booted out,
or quits -- lots of others like him are no longer with the administration.


Some stories I read said the Iraqis were told that they must vote if
they wanted to eat.


Right, "stories". That's all they were.




Also the citizens really had no choice in selecting
candidates.


From what I've seen, they actually had too many choices. It was
somewhat confusing. But it was a far site better than a single choice
that you either made or died for not voting for.




Read some correspondence from actual soldiers who were there and saw
these things first hand. I know a few of them, and the stories they
tell are in sharp contract with the doom and gloom that the Dan
Rathers of the world report with a barely contained smile and a
twinkle

Try http://www.hackworth.com/

Regularly posts correspondence from the guys over there


It stands to reason that there will be a differing of opinions
depending on what part of the country you are in and what battles you
have fought.

And Hackworth seems to have gained the trust of the grunt types who
write him regularly.


Hackworth used to be a straight shooter and regular contributor to
talk radio. Evidently he's had a change of heart.

He realized the guys on the ground, and those coming back wounded were
getting shorted -- and began to holler -- the neo-cons don't like dissent.



Try:
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtri...680555557.html

Is he a paid columnist as are some of the others recently found out?


He's a military officer who was THERE. There are others who write
similar accounts. I've read dozens of them, some in private E-mails.

Is that your standard response when someone paints an entirely
different picture from that which the liberal media wants us to see?

Dave

Given recent revelations, I've become suspicious of any columnist
supporting Bush and cronies.


Why? Does the existence of evidence which shatters your pre-conceived
notions of what this war is all about, make you feel uncomfortable to
the point of denial?

The revelation that columnists can be and have been bought, makes me
more than a little suspicious of those supporting the one with the money.


That works both ways. Michael Moore and George Soros, among other
notable liberals, both have a sizable sum of money to "sway" writers.

More uses his money o speak for himself, and Soros tells where his money
goes. Bush was found out.

With that in mind, it would be intellectually dishonest of you (or
anyone) to accept as 100% truth one "side", and discard the other as
"propaganda" based on an unequal application of the "bias" rule.

Dave

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:21:00 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

A survey a year or so ago indicated that the world feared the US more
than any other country. Before you say that's a good thing, remember
the playground bully -- eventually 2 or 3 of his victims get together
and put him in his place.


I've seen similar reports that claim that the U.S. was also the
biggest "terrorist". But you have to take the perspective of the
people selected for these surveys into consideration when analyzing
this data.

We don't bully or terrorize anyone. But we do stand up for what's
right. Self determination and democracy is a far better life than one
of oppression and despotism.

I expect I could find more than a few Iraqis who disagree with you

Yes, but the opinions of Saddam loyalists, insurgent fighters, muslim
extremists, and people caught in the middle of a bad situation have
either a bias or an agenda, and their opinions should be suspect.

Many Iraqi's don't trust us (especially after we failed to back up
their uprising at the end of the Gulf War), but in the end, we will
deliver them a better government. One that they can take part in
running. How is that terrorism on our part?


It's not my fault if the truth hurts.

Yet bush is so eager to get other nations to join in again, despite more
and more pulling out.


Define "eager"? Bush has tempered his initial slamming of those
ingrate nations like France et al, and now wants to normalize
relations again. But he's not pulling a Lewinsky on anyone.

He has bribed most (if not all) the current participants.


Proof please? Where has he "bribed" anyone?

the coalition of the bought -- read up a little on the "incentives" they
were offered to join.

According to what factual account? Remember, editorial opinions are
tainted with bias. Just like those "stories" of bribing Iraqi voters.


Scott Ritter is a turncoat, who was likely paid to do so. He was very
pro WMD in the beginning, and then suddenly became a harsh critic of
even his own earlier actions. He smells bad, and I would take his word
for anything.

"I would take his word for anything."

NOTE --- I did NOT doctor the above -- perhaps a slip revealing your
true beliefs (I can't spell Freudian)


"Would NOT" would be the correct statement. At least you (seemingly)
understood my intent if not the typo.

Which leaves me a bit puzzled as to a lack of any additional comment.

I thought you said it all. Why was he appointed if he could not be
trusted? When he speaks out against the war, suddenly he's booted out,
or quits -- lots of others like him are no longer with the administration.

Same thing with Richard Clarke.

When one does a sudden 180 on their ideals, it is certainly
suspicious. One wonders how many zeroes were on the big check.....



And Hackworth seems to have gained the trust of the grunt types who
write him regularly.


Hackworth used to be a straight shooter and regular contributor to
talk radio. Evidently he's had a change of heart.

He realized the guys on the ground, and those coming back wounded were
getting shorted -- and began to holler -- the neo-cons don't like dissent.

There is nothing stronger than a united front. A front displaying
dissent is a sign of something less than solidarity, and a potential
weakness to be exploited by our enemies. That was part of the reason
why we basically lost Vietnam. The enemy only needs top hold out long
enough to allow our own country to implode under increasing dissent.
The enemy doesn't defeat us, we defeat ourselves by questioning our
original mission.


I agree with him that the "grunts" should be compensated better. But
that shouldn't change how they feel about the war in general.



Why? Does the existence of evidence which shatters your pre-conceived
notions of what this war is all about, make you feel uncomfortable to
the point of denial?

The revelation that columnists can be and have been bought, makes me
more than a little suspicious of those supporting the one with the money.


That works both ways. Michael Moore and George Soros, among other
notable liberals, both have a sizable sum of money to "sway" writers.

More uses his money o speak for himself

He speaks a bunch of crap, but his money allows him to,present it in
such a way as to cause some people to wonder.

, and Soros tells where his money
goes. Bush was found out.

"Found out"? By whom? In what way? What "columnists" are on Bush's
payroll?

Dave

Dave Hall wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:21:00 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


A survey a year or so ago indicated that the world feared the US more
than any other country. Before you say that's a good thing, remember
the playground bully -- eventually 2 or 3 of his victims get together
and put him in his place.


I've seen similar reports that claim that the U.S. was also the
biggest "terrorist". But you have to take the perspective of the
people selected for these surveys into consideration when analyzing
this data.

We don't bully or terrorize anyone. But we do stand up for what's
right. Self determination and democracy is a far better life than one
of oppression and despotism.

I expect I could find more than a few Iraqis who disagree with you


Yes, but the opinions of Saddam loyalists, insurgent fighters, muslim
extremists, and people caught in the middle of a bad situation have
either a bias or an agenda, and their opinions should be suspect.

Many Iraqi's don't trust us (especially after we failed to back up
their uprising at the end of the Gulf War), but in the end, we will
deliver them a better government. One that they can take part in
running. How is that terrorism on our part?

Can you give me any good reason *WHY* the Iraqis *SHOULD* trust us?



It's not my fault if the truth hurts.

Yet bush is so eager to get other nations to join in again, despite more
and more pulling out.


Define "eager"? Bush has tempered his initial slamming of those
ingrate nations like France et al, and now wants to normalize
relations again. But he's not pulling a Lewinsky on anyone.

He has bribed most (if not all) the current participants.


Proof please? Where has he "bribed" anyone?

the coalition of the bought -- read up a little on the "incentives" they
were offered to join.

Do your homework -- bush wanted to count something like 50 countries as
part of the coalition -- countries like Haiti, which offered no more
than (iM?)moral support. the Ukrainians got loans, as did the polish.
the only country who *MIGHT* be there on their own is Britain, and their
about to pull out just as soon as they dump Blair.


According to what factual account? Remember, editorial opinions are
tainted with bias. Just like those "stories" of bribing Iraqi voters.



Scott Ritter is a turncoat, who was likely paid to do so. He was very
pro WMD in the beginning, and then suddenly became a harsh critic of
even his own earlier actions. He smells bad, and I would take his word
for anything.

"I would take his word for anything."

NOTE --- I did NOT doctor the above -- perhaps a slip revealing your
true beliefs (I can't spell Freudian)


"Would NOT" would be the correct statement. At least you (seemingly)
understood my intent if not the typo.

Which leaves me a bit puzzled as to a lack of any additional comment.

I thought you said it all. Why was he appointed if he could not be
trusted? When he speaks out against the war, suddenly he's booted out,
or quits -- lots of others like him are no longer with the administration.


Same thing with Richard Clarke.

When one does a sudden 180 on their ideals, it is certainly
suspicious. One wonders how many zeroes were on the big check.....




And Hackworth seems to have gained the trust of the grunt types who
write him regularly.


Hackworth used to be a straight shooter and regular contributor to
talk radio. Evidently he's had a change of heart.

He realized the guys on the ground, and those coming back wounded were
getting shorted -- and began to holler -- the neo-cons don't like dissent.


There is nothing stronger than a united front. A front displaying
dissent is a sign of something less than solidarity, and a potential
weakness to be exploited by our enemies. That was part of the reason
why we basically lost Vietnam. The enemy only needs top hold out long
enough to allow our own country to implode under increasing dissent.
The enemy doesn't defeat us, we defeat ourselves by questioning our
original mission.

My COuntry right or wrong -- *BULL*****


I agree with him that the "grunts" should be compensated better. But
that shouldn't change how they feel about the war in general.




Why? Does the existence of evidence which shatters your pre-conceived
notions of what this war is all about, make you feel uncomfortable to
the point of denial?

The revelation that columnists can be and have been bought, makes me
more than a little suspicious of those supporting the one with the money.


That works both ways. Michael Moore and George Soros, among other
notable liberals, both have a sizable sum of money to "sway" writers.

More uses his money o speak for himself


He speaks a bunch of crap, but his money allows him to,present it in
such a way as to cause some people to wonder.


, and Soros tells where his money
goes. Bush was found out.


"Found out"? By whom? In what way? What "columnists" are on Bush's
payroll?

Dave -- do you ever actually READ the news? I'm not going to play this
game with you. Stick your head even further up the ass of O'Reilly or
whatever fox "newsman" you like -- it won't change facts.

Dave

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 21:26:46 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:21:00 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


A survey a year or so ago indicated that the world feared the US more
than any other country. Before you say that's a good thing, remember
the playground bully -- eventually 2 or 3 of his victims get together
and put him in his place.


I've seen similar reports that claim that the U.S. was also the
biggest "terrorist". But you have to take the perspective of the
people selected for these surveys into consideration when analyzing
this data.

We don't bully or terrorize anyone. But we do stand up for what's
right. Self determination and democracy is a far better life than one
of oppression and despotism.

I expect I could find more than a few Iraqis who disagree with you


Yes, but the opinions of Saddam loyalists, insurgent fighters, muslim
extremists, and people caught in the middle of a bad situation have
either a bias or an agenda, and their opinions should be suspect.

Many Iraqi's don't trust us (especially after we failed to back up
their uprising at the end of the Gulf War), but in the end, we will
deliver them a better government. One that they can take part in
running. How is that terrorism on our part?

Can you give me any good reason *WHY* the Iraqis *SHOULD* trust us?

Because we will leave them far better off than when we found them.
They just don't realize that yet.


It's not my fault if the truth hurts.

Yet bush is so eager to get other nations to join in again, despite more
and more pulling out.


Define "eager"? Bush has tempered his initial slamming of those
ingrate nations like France et al, and now wants to normalize
relations again. But he's not pulling a Lewinsky on anyone.

He has bribed most (if not all) the current participants.


Proof please? Where has he "bribed" anyone?

the coalition of the bought -- read up a little on the "incentives" they
were offered to join.

Do your homework -- bush wanted to count something like 50 countries as
part of the coalition -- countries like Haiti, which offered no more
than (iM?)moral support. the Ukrainians got loans, as did the polish.
the only country who *MIGHT* be there on their own is Britain, and their
about to pull out just as soon as they dump Blair.

So you consider mutual compensation and consideration for services
rendered to be akin to "bribes"? Maybe you should look at other more
recent wars to see who helps who and what the cost for that help was.



There is nothing stronger than a united front. A front displaying
dissent is a sign of something less than solidarity, and a potential
weakness to be exploited by our enemies. That was part of the reason
why we basically lost Vietnam. The enemy only needs top hold out long
enough to allow our own country to implode under increasing dissent.
The enemy doesn't defeat us, we defeat ourselves by questioning our
original mission.

My COuntry right or wrong -- *BULL*****

We, as simple citizens are not qualified or in a position to
accurately determine what is "right or "wrong" when it comes to
foreign policy. We don't know the whole story and we are far to easily
influenced by agenda driven propaganda. That's why we elect
representatives to make those decisions for us. All you do when you
protest their decisions is basically state that you don't trust the
very people we elect, and you undermine the military and the mission.


Granted, there will be differing viewpoints on any one issue. But
there is a process to determine who wins. Majority rules is pretty
much that process. It is disingenuous for the losing minority to usurp
the majority wishes by proliferating propaganda campaigns solely to
undermine their efforts.


"Found out"? By whom? In what way? What "columnists" are on Bush's
payroll?

Dave -- do you ever actually READ the news?

Yes, and I've seen nothing credible to back up your statement.


I'm not going to play this
game with you.

Game? Making you account for the source of your opinions is hardly a
game. Who made the claim that there are columnists on Bush's payroll?
Where is their evidence? Are they truly being paid by Bush, or is it a
simple matter of disingenuously blurring the distinction between
conservative leaning news source, with Bush himself?


Stick your head even further up the ass of O'Reilly or
whatever fox "newsman" you like -- it won't change facts.

Look at your last statement. You basically assumed that because I
don't buy into the same line of bunk that you did, that I must be a
Fox news or O'Reilly disciple. You discredit those sources, yet assume
that your sources are factual and unbiased. And then you have the
nerve to claim your op-ed "news" to be "facts". Incredible!

Dave