Jack wrote:
The only apology that I can think that the "conservative" intelligent
persons of the US have to make, is that we provided a public school system
that could unleash people that cannot understand the real issues of the war.

What, cheap oil and getting revenge for W's daddy?


This war is not lost! The campaign is actually going quite well.

If by 'the campaign' you mean the scramble for dollars by Bush &
Cheney's cronies, then yeah it's great. However, the overall strategic
outlook in terms of conventional military strength has not looked so
bleak for the U.S. since the British marched in and burned the White
House in 1812. We are heavily in debt, have very little uncommitted
strength, and no credibibility.

If you look at the anti-terrorist picture, it's possibly worse. Instead
of isolated bases in Afghanistan, anti-US terrorists now have a
centralized location. Instead of using irrational religious dogma to try
and make recruits hate America, now they flock into terrorist cells with
a burning desire to kill Americans even if it means becoming a suicide
bomber. Instead of learning how to home-brew primitive bombs from books,
now they have live-fire exercises with sophisticated IEDs. Yeah, it's
going well.


Unfortunately, due to most of the network news medias bias you won't be able
to see the victories.

You mean, Fox News and the Rush Limbaugh Hair Club For Angry White Men
isn't giving us the truth?

Face facts, the mainstream media now is biased very heavily towards
promoting President Bush and his agenda. How many times have you heard
about how terrible Howard Dean is, and how many times have you heard
about Halliburton's ongoing theft & fraud investigation?


... You might actually have to do a little research to
find the truth. But I can see from the original post, that research would
be out of the question.

I can see from your post that facing actual facts in the real world is
out o the question, so go ahead with your 'research.' Maybe you can tell
us how the insurgency is on it's last legs.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Jack wrote:
The only apology that I can think that the "conservative" intelligent
persons of the US have to make, is that we provided a public school
system that could unleash people that cannot understand the real issues
of the war.

What, cheap oil and getting revenge for W's daddy?


This war is not lost! The campaign is actually going quite well.

If by 'the campaign' you mean the scramble for dollars by Bush & Cheney's
cronies, then yeah it's great. However, the overall strategic outlook in
terms of conventional military strength has not looked so bleak for the
U.S. since the British marched in and burned the White House in 1812. We
are heavily in debt, have very little uncommitted strength, and no
credibibility.

_________________________________________________

Just what type of debt do you really think we're in? If you take the
entire monetary cost of the war, thus far; How many (federal only)tax
income days to the government do you think this war has consumed? And by
that question, lets make sure that we are talking about the entire war all
the way back to day one. I realize that I'm asking someone a question
that hasn't the information necessary to answer, therefore I will answer it
for you. If you take the entire war costs, it would take approximately 6
days to pay for it. Now I will admit one thing, that the Bush presidency
has spent more than any presidency that I can recall, but don't keep saying
or eluding that this war is costing this country in the fashion that you
are, because someone will call you to the carpet about it. Also, when you
say that this is a "....scramble for dollars..." please tell us what you
mean. Its a cheap shot to throw that statement out with out backing it
up. Please tell us exactly what type and amounts of money that Bush and
Cheney have made from this? And BTW, if your going to attempt to bring
Haliburton into this conversation, then you had better do your homework
because I have and am prepared to slam your slander with facts, it won't be
pretty. You also say that ".... overall look of military strength has not
looked so bleak....". Just what do you want us to do to prove our
strength? Shall we go in and carpet bomb some area? Shall we use
nukes? Shall we send in more troops? Just what would your strategy be?
You love to slam the current thought processes, but offer none of your own.
You love to tell of the failures (in your eyes) but offer no change or
charge of your own. Why not participate in the progress of the nation
rather than the sit on the sidelines and yell at the referee. Since you
want us to show our strength, lets go, send in 250,000 more troops, that
should add to the confusion, I mean security.
________________________________________________

If you look at the anti-terrorist picture, it's possibly worse. Instead of
isolated bases in Afghanistan, anti-US terrorists now have a centralized
location. Instead of using irrational religious dogma to try and make
recruits hate America, now they flock into terrorist cells with a burning
desire to kill Americans even if it means becoming a suicide bomber.
Instead of learning how to home-brew primitive bombs from books, now they
have live-fire exercises with sophisticated IEDs. Yeah, it's going well.

_________________________________________________
I definitely like your way better, lets not do what we've done, lets sit by
and wait for them to come to us instead of getting them all together so that
we can easier target them. Yep, you should definitely be in charge.
_________________________________________________






Unfortunately, due to most of the network news medias bias you won't be
able to see the victories.

You mean, Fox News and the Rush Limbaugh Hair Club For Angry White Men
isn't giving us the truth?

Face facts, the mainstream media now is biased very heavily towards
promoting President Bush and his agenda. How many times have you heard
about how terrible Howard Dean is, and how many times have you heard about
Halliburton's ongoing theft & fraud investigation?


... You might actually have to do a little research to find the truth.
But I can see from the original post, that research would be out of the
question.

I can see from your post that facing actual facts in the real world is out
o the question, so go ahead with your 'research.' Maybe you can tell us
how the insurgency is on it's last legs.

DSK

_________________________________________________
I don't think that I have to, why not do some research and let us know what
you find out. I'm anxious to see your responses. I love political
debates.
_______________________________________________

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 23:24:27 GMT, "Jack" wrote:


"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Jack wrote:
The only apology that I can think that the "conservative" intelligent
persons of the US have to make, is that we provided a public school
system that could unleash people that cannot understand the real issues
of the war.

What, cheap oil and getting revenge for W's daddy?


This war is not lost! The campaign is actually going quite well.

If by 'the campaign' you mean the scramble for dollars by Bush & Cheney's
cronies, then yeah it's great. However, the overall strategic outlook in
terms of conventional military strength has not looked so bleak for the
U.S. since the British marched in and burned the White House in 1812. We
are heavily in debt, have very little uncommitted strength, and no
credibibility.

_______________________________________________ __

Just what type of debt do you really think we're in? If you take the
entire monetary cost of the war, thus far; How many (federal only)tax
income days to the government do you think this war has consumed? And by
that question, lets make sure that we are talking about the entire war all
the way back to day one. I realize that I'm asking someone a question
that hasn't the information necessary to answer, therefore I will answer it
for you. If you take the entire war costs, it would take approximately 6
days to pay for it. Now I will admit one thing, that the Bush presidency
has spent more than any presidency that I can recall, but don't keep saying
or eluding that this war is costing this country in the fashion that you
are, because someone will call you to the carpet about it. Also, when you
say that this is a "....scramble for dollars..." please tell us what you
mean. Its a cheap shot to throw that statement out with out backing it
up. Please tell us exactly what type and amounts of money that Bush and
Cheney have made from this? And BTW, if your going to attempt to bring
Haliburton into this conversation, then you had better do your homework
because I have and am prepared to slam your slander with facts, it won't be
pretty. You also say that ".... overall look of military strength has not
looked so bleak....". Just what do you want us to do to prove our
strength? Shall we go in and carpet bomb some area? Shall we use
nukes? Shall we send in more troops? Just what would your strategy be?
You love to slam the current thought processes, but offer none of your own.
You love to tell of the failures (in your eyes) but offer no change or
charge of your own. Why not participate in the progress of the nation
rather than the sit on the sidelines and yell at the referee. Since you
want us to show our strength, lets go, send in 250,000 more troops, that
should add to the confusion, I mean security.
_______________________________________________ _

If you look at the anti-terrorist picture, it's possibly worse. Instead of
isolated bases in Afghanistan, anti-US terrorists now have a centralized
location. Instead of using irrational religious dogma to try and make
recruits hate America, now they flock into terrorist cells with a burning
desire to kill Americans even if it means becoming a suicide bomber.
Instead of learning how to home-brew primitive bombs from books, now they
have live-fire exercises with sophisticated IEDs. Yeah, it's going well.

_______________________________________________ __
I definitely like your way better, lets not do what we've done, lets sit by
and wait for them to come to us instead of getting them all together so that
we can easier target them. Yep, you should definitely be in charge.
_______________________________________________ __






Unfortunately, due to most of the network news medias bias you won't be
able to see the victories.

You mean, Fox News and the Rush Limbaugh Hair Club For Angry White Men
isn't giving us the truth?

Face facts, the mainstream media now is biased very heavily towards
promoting President Bush and his agenda. How many times have you heard
about how terrible Howard Dean is, and how many times have you heard about
Halliburton's ongoing theft & fraud investigation?


... You might actually have to do a little research to find the truth.
But I can see from the original post, that research would be out of the
question.

I can see from your post that facing actual facts in the real world is out
o the question, so go ahead with your 'research.' Maybe you can tell us
how the insurgency is on it's last legs.

DSK

_______________________________________________ __
I don't think that I have to, why not do some research and let us know what
you find out. I'm anxious to see your responses. I love political
debates.
_______________________________________________



DSK, you'd better start hurling insults, 'cause you've just been well pegged!
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 23:24:27 +0000, Jack wrote:


Just what type of debt do you really think we're in? If you take the
entire monetary cost of the war, thus far; How many (federal only)tax
income days to the government do you think this war has consumed? And
by that question, lets make sure that we are talking about the entire war
all the way back to day one. I realize that I'm asking someone a
question that hasn't the information necessary to answer, therefore I will
answer it for you. If you take the entire war costs, it would take
approximately 6 days to pay for it.

Help me out here, I'm having a little trouble understanding your math.
According to the National Priorities Project, the cost of the Iraq War
stands at $180 billion. The federal budget has revenues of $1.862
trillion (2004 est.). Now, I'll admit all those zeros confuse me, but by
my calculations it would take over a month of revenues to pay, not under a
week. Of course, we are only talking dollars, not the 1,700 young
American lives this folly has cost.

War cost:
http://costofwar.com/

Federal budget:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...k/geos/us.html


Now I will admit one thing, that
the Bush presidency has spent more than any presidency that I can recall,
but don't keep saying or eluding that this war is costing this country in
the fashion that you are, because someone will call you to the carpet
about it. Also, when you say that this is a "....scramble for
dollars..." please tell us what you mean. Its a cheap shot to throw
that statement out with out backing it up. Please tell us exactly what
type and amounts of money that Bush and Cheney have made from this? And
BTW, if your going to attempt to bring Haliburton into this conversation,
then you had better do your homework because I have and am prepared to
slam your slander with facts, it won't be pretty. You also say that
".... overall look of military strength has not looked so bleak....".
Just what do you want us to do to prove our strength? Shall we go in
and carpet bomb some area? Shall we use nukes? Shall we send in more
troops? Just what would your strategy be? You love to slam the current
thought processes, but offer none of your own. You love to tell of the
failures (in your eyes) but offer no change or charge of your own. Why
not participate in the progress of the nation rather than the sit on the
sidelines and yell at the referee. Since you want us to show our
strength, lets go, send in 250,000 more troops, that should add to the
confusion, I mean security.

250,000 more troops? Hmm, I don't think we can do it. Let's see, the
Army has 500,000 active duty troops, the Marines 176,000. We now have
@140,000 troops in Iraq. An additional 250,000 would bring the total to
390,000 out of 676,000 active duty troops. Nope, can't do it without
skimping on training or support.

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 23:24:27 +0000, Jack wrote:
Just what type of debt do you really think we're in? If you take the
entire monetary cost of the war, thus far....
.... If you take the entire war costs, it would take
approximately 6 days to pay for it.


thunder wrote:
Help me out here, I'm having a little trouble understanding your math.

That's because Jack's statements completely & totally seperated from
reality.


Jack wrote:
Just what do you want us to do to prove our strength?

Umm, how about fighting terrorists instead of creating more faster than
we can kill them?

How about Catching & punishing Osama Bin Laden and the remaining Sept
11th plotters, including the remaining officials of the Taliban gov't
that sheltered them?

How about *successfully* concluding the business of rebuilding
Afghanistan, and at least taking some more positive steps in Iraq?

... Shall we go in
and carpet bomb some area? Shall we use nukes?

Actually, if we have a credible deterrent and chose targets properly,
this would totally make sense. Given decent military & counter-terrorist
intelligence, the U.S. could say "The next terrorist act against
Americans will bring a devasting carpet bomb attack (or nuke) against
the home city of the terrorists." Of course, the problem here is that we
have to be able to pick the right target, or we're just terrorists, too.

President Bush's credibility is kind of an open question... nobody
doubts he's willing to use American military strength, it's his choice
of targets that is a bit off-kilter. And that's the whole key to success
here, otherwise it's like saying to unruly children 'Be good or I'll
spank the next door neighbor's kids.'


.... You love to slam the current
thought processes, but offer none of your own.

Wrong. Wrong twice, actually. I don't 'love' to slam anybody, but the
current administration has made a train wreck of pretty much every
single thing they've done... and the facts on the ground support that
conclusion. And I offer observations, facts, and possible solutions,
over & over.... but hey, if you don't insist that your opponent has
nothing to offer then you get kicked out of the Rush Limbaugh Hair Club
for Angry Stupid White Men. If you keep saying it over & over, people
start believing it.


thunder wrote:
250,000 more troops? Hmm, I don't think we can do it. Let's see, the
Army has 500,000 active duty troops, the Marines 176,000. We now have
@140,000 troops in Iraq. An additional 250,000 would bring the total to
390,000 out of 676,000 active duty troops. Nope, can't do it without
skimping on training or support.

Or a draft. One reason why we could afford to put 1/2 million men into
Viet Nam was that they were mostly draftees being pai almost nothing...
and feeding them was done by draftees, not expensive contractors.

One thing that is glaringly obvious to me is that the majority of young
people don't support Bush & Cheney, and very very few of them support
this war enough to volunteer for it. How many volunteered for Viet Nam?
A few, but nowhere near enough for an occupation force 500,000 strong.
Young people are voting with their feet, and Bush is losing this one.

Regards
Doug King

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Jack wrote:
The only apology that I can think that the "conservative" intelligent
persons of the US have to make, is that we provided a public school
system
that could unleash people that cannot understand the real issues of the
war.

What, cheap oil

Dunno about you, but being into BOATS, and the rigs
that HAUL them, *plus* your regular commute vechile,
hell YA 'cheap oil' is a good, noble, and a *GOOD*
thing! - what idiot thinks that cheap oil is a BAD thing ??

and getting revenge for W's daddy?

Liberal *or* republican, any rogue leader making
and attempt on an American Presients life IS a
reason to go to war! How can you NOT see that ??



This war is not lost! The campaign is actually going quite well.

If you look at the anti-terrorist picture, it's possibly worse.

It will get a lot worse before it gets better, yeah, and thats
because the problem is a lot bigger, and deeper that you
think. No matter what you say/do, you can't change the
fact that Dubya's SERIOUS about this, not afraid, and
will see this to the end, and oh yeah, guess what? ...WIN!



You mean, Fox News and the Rush Limbaugh Hair Club For Angry White Men
isn't giving us the truth?

The problem (manifested w/ this assertion), is that you are
not of the caliber to "accept" the truth - you are only able
to accept the truth that YOU want to hear - thats what
seperates us.



Face facts, the mainstream media now is biased very heavily towards
promoting President Bush and his agenda.

Really? What channel are ya watching, casue I want to see it,
and I want to see what you are calling "mainstream" media.


How many times have you heard
about how terrible Howard Dean is,

Not enough. Dude, did ya see the whites
of his teeth in that "Scream" ? dude, it was
of "warewolf proportions". You want dat ?


and how many times have you heard
about Halliburton's ongoing theft & fraud investigation?

Many thats because 'Screnin Howy' is more scary...


... You might actually have to do a little research to
find the truth. But I can see from the original post, that research
would
be out of the question.

I can see from your post that facing actual facts in the real world is
out o the question, so go ahead with your 'research.' Maybe you can tell
us how the insurgency is on it's last legs.

Newsflash: We're takin on M.I. (Militant Islam),
and neither you, nor I can change that. Might as
well join in and be on the winning side for a change.



DSK