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