"DSK" wrote in message
...
"NOBBY" wrote
... And all of them come from outside Iraq and they admit this freely on
TV when they are interrogated.


Funny, that's not what the Army intel and CIA guys say. I read a report
the other week that said only about 1/4 of the terrorists in Iraq were
'foreign fighters.'

Unnamed sources, eh Doug? These are the words of the Prime Minister of
Iraq. Since he's there, he's in a lot better position to evaluate the
situation than you and a bunch of unnamed sources



"Insurgents" only refers to people who have a social base and have
support. They carried out either armed uprising or peaceful uprising like
Gandhi but these are no such thing. They are terrorists.

NOYB wrote:
Unnamed sources, eh Doug?

???

The Army and the CIA are 'unnamed sources'?

... These are the words of the Prime Minister of
Iraq. Since he's there, he's in a lot better position to evaluate the
situation than you and a bunch of unnamed sources

He's also a politician, and likely to say a lot of things that aren't
quite strictly true... possibly he's been misinformed himself, possibly
trying to put a spin things, possibly trying to curry favor with the
Bush/Cheney Administration.

So, are you going to address the question here? What sources did Vice
President Cheney use to gather his info that the insurgency is on it's
last legs? Do you agree with his statement? What about President Bush's
statement... only last night... that the U.S. military *will* withdraw
from Iraq? Wanna revise your statement that we'll be there forever?

And how about President Bush linking Iraq with Sept 11th... again &
again? I was surprised to hear him mention Osama Bin Laden, since he
remains uncaptured and since it's now public knowledge that Bush pulled
troops off the hunt so as to invade Iraq. I was also surprised to hear
him say that the Army didn't want more troops. If that's true, then why
did Rumsfeld fire all those generals for saying we would need more
troops? Why is the Army upset about missing recruiting goals if they
don't need more?

These little inconsistencies tend to make one believe that either Bush &
Cheney are seriously deluded, or else they are politically constrained
from admitting the truth. Maybe you can explain?

DSK

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
...
"NOBBY" wrote
... And all of them come from outside Iraq and they admit this freely
on
TV when they are interrogated.


Funny, that's not what the Army intel and CIA guys say. I read a report
the other week that said only about 1/4 of the terrorists in Iraq were
'foreign fighters.'

Unnamed sources, eh Doug? These are the words of the Prime Minister of
Iraq. Since he's there, he's in a lot better position to evaluate the
situation than you and a bunch of unnamed sources.

While the majority of 'terrorists' may be from Iraq, almost all of the
suicide bombers are from other countries (mostly Saudi). Without the
suicide attacks, the other terrorists would be meaningless and quickly
disposed of.




"Insurgents" only refers to people who have a social base and have
support. They carried out either armed uprising or peaceful uprising
like
Gandhi but these are no such thing. They are terrorists.

"DSK" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
Unnamed sources, eh Doug?

???

The Army and the CIA are 'unnamed sources'?

You're being intentionally obtuse. Specifically, which members of the Army
and CIA?


... These are the words of the Prime Minister of Iraq. Since he's
there, he's in a lot better position to evaluate the situation than you
and a bunch of unnamed sources

He's also a politician, and likely to say a lot of things that aren't
quite strictly true... possibly he's been misinformed himself, possibly
trying to put a spin things, possibly trying to curry favor with the
Bush/Cheney Administration.

So, are you going to address the question here? What sources did Vice
President Cheney use to gather his info that the insurgency is on it's
last legs?

Perhaps he asked the Prime Minister.


Do you agree with his statement?

Yes. The "insurgency" was composed of the Saddam faithful who tried to get
the American forces out of there. The terrorists are a completely different
group.

What about President Bush's statement... only last night... that the U.S.
military *will* withdraw from Iraq? Wanna revise your statement that we'll
be there forever?

Nope. We'll always have bases there. We just won't have a US troop
presence in the major cities.


And how about President Bush linking Iraq with Sept 11th... again & again?
I was surprised to hear him mention Osama Bin Laden,

A lot of things surprise you. All along, Bush has spoken of Iraq's ties to
terrorists. I doubt there's a single American that doesn't believe we're
fighting al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq right now.

since he remains uncaptured and since it's now public knowledge that Bush
pulled troops off the hunt so as to invade Iraq. I was also surprised to
hear him say that the Army didn't want more troops. If that's true, then
why did Rumsfeld fire all those generals for saying we would need more
troops?

Which generals?

Why is the Army upset about missing recruiting goals if they don't need
more?


They don't need more in Iraq.

These little inconsistencies tend to make one believe that either Bush &
Cheney are seriously deluded, or else they are politically constrained
from admitting the truth. Maybe you can explain?

I already did.

"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

You're being intentionally obtuse. Specifically, which members of the
Army and CIA?


Which generals?


This tactic is getting old. You use it to deflate the value of what he just
said, but you're assuming one or more things:

1) He lying - totally fabricating the existence of what he read or heard in
the news. Not likely.

2) The personnel quoted are somehow not to be trusted, AND that YOU are in
the magical position of being able to determine who can be trusted. This, of
course, is bull****.

3) The person you're conversing with is your research assistant, and has the
time or inclination to dig into the news from a month or two ago and present
you with cut & pasted info. Sorry. No cigar.

Address what he said based on the assumption that the generals have names,
but those names are not important at the moment.

Terry Spragg wrote:



Canada has 1/3 of the world's reserves, hardly scratched. Tar sand is
profitable at 35$ / bbl, but no one can be bothered to invest in
refineries or new wells, YET!

You figure it out.

Terry K


Keep that quiet...if George B finds out, he'll be invading us.

On 29 Jun 2005 05:12:43 -0700, wrote:



John H wrote:

Doug, why do you find name-calling necessary? Do you feel it legitimizes your
argument?

John, how come you find it okay if YOU, JimH, Fritz and NOYB call
people names, but when someone who is debating you, as opposed to being
in your circle jerk does it, it's bad?

Have I called someone a name recently, or are you referring to the name calling
of Harry (who was telling lies about me) for which I apologized to the group
quite a while back?

Have *you* ever apologized for your name calling?
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

You're being intentionally obtuse. Specifically, which members of the
Army and CIA?


Which generals?


This tactic is getting old. You use it to deflate the value of what he
just said, but you're assuming one or more things:

1) He lying - totally fabricating the existence of what he read or heard
in the news. Not likely.

2) The personnel quoted are somehow not to be trusted, AND that YOU are in
the magical position of being able to determine who can be trusted. This,
of course, is bull****.

3) The person you're conversing with is your research assistant, and has
the time or inclination to dig into the news from a month or two ago and
present you with cut & pasted info. Sorry. No cigar.

Address what he said based on the assumption that the generals have names,
but those names are not important at the moment.

Why? The generals could just have an axe to grind. That is...if the
generals even exist.


And I'm not choosing who to trust. I'm just choosing to trust people who go
"on the record" vs. those who don't.

As for me "addressing what he said", my response is this: The insurgency has
all but shriveled up and died...but now there's a cabal of terrorists from
other countries arbitrarily blowing people up so that it makes the evening
news...and gives people like you some ammunition to take pot shots at our
President.

That's not my opinion. That's the opinion of the PM of Iraq, and the VP of
the US...folks who are willing to "go on the record" with their opinions.

"Don White" wrote in message
...
Terry Spragg wrote:



Canada has 1/3 of the world's reserves, hardly scratched. Tar sand is
profitable at 35$ / bbl, but no one can be bothered to invest in
refineries or new wells, YET!

You figure it out.

Terry K


Keep that quiet...if George B finds out, he'll be invading us.

Not "if", Don. *When*.

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

You're being intentionally obtuse. Specifically, which members of the
Army and CIA?


Which generals?


This tactic is getting old. You use it to deflate the value of what he
just said, but you're assuming one or more things:

1) He lying - totally fabricating the existence of what he read or heard
in the news. Not likely.

2) The personnel quoted are somehow not to be trusted, AND that YOU are
in the magical position of being able to determine who can be trusted.
This, of course, is bull****.

3) The person you're conversing with is your research assistant, and has
the time or inclination to dig into the news from a month or two ago and
present you with cut & pasted info. Sorry. No cigar.

Address what he said based on the assumption that the generals have
names, but those names are not important at the moment.

Why? The generals could just have an axe to grind. That is...if the
generals even exist.

How would YOU know the difference between the truth, and an axe to grind.
Would knowing a general's name tell you this?



And I'm not choosing who to trust. I'm just choosing to trust people who
go "on the record" vs. those who don't.

There's no logical reason for the truth of a statement to be based on
whether a person gives his name or not.



As for me "addressing what he said", my response is this: The insurgency
has all but shriveled up and died...but now there's a cabal of terrorists
from other countries arbitrarily blowing people up so that it makes the
evening news...and gives people like you some ammunition to take pot shots
at our President.

That's not my opinion. That's the opinion of the PM of Iraq, and the VP of
the US...folks who are willing to "go on the record" with their opinions.

Meanwhile, "some general" (whose name I've forgotten since I heard the
broadcast a month ago) said that the fighters he was encountering were
mostly locals. You will now say that yes, they could be locals, but hidden
somewhere in a dark basement is their boss, who's Syrian. Blah blah
blah.....