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

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
news
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
news
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:
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????????

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."

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