"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...


Doh! You mean Doug is wrong again? Who would have thunk it?


Iraq is headed for a civil war. It seems inevitable. The sooner it
happens, the better, because then Iraqis will be deciding their future.
Right now, Americans think they are deciding Iraq's future, which is the
height of arrogance.

The sad thing is, I'm sure that when Iraq has its civil war, we'll end up
backing the wrong side. Again. We almost always back the right-wing
dictators, or the dictator wannabes. We did it in Vietnam, we've done it
in Central and South America. Over and over and over. We've done it in
Iran and in Iraq.

There are no true democracies in the Arab Muslim world. Not a one. There's
nothing even close to a democracy in the Arab Muslim world.

Turkey.

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 21:46:55 -0400, NOYB wrote:


I'm not quoting Limbaugh. I'm quoting the Iraqi PM, al-Jaafari, from an
interview he had with David Gregory less than a month ago:

English is Jaafari's second language. Interesting that you have to rely
on him for a definition of insurgency or terrorism. Although, I suppose
it's better than relying on our President. English appears to be his
second language also.


" I certainly, again, would not call this an insurgency. I would call it a
group of terrorists who are out to kill as many people as possible. That
is easy to do. Anyone can come in and blow himself up and choose the
softest targets possible and carry out acts of terror.

Clearly, we are fighting terrorists in Iraq. Anyone who targets
civilians, is, by definition, a terrorist.


And all of them come from outside Iraq and they admit this freely on TV
when they are interrogated.

BS. If all of these terrorists are coming from outside of Iraq, where are
the bodies? In every study I could find, foreign fighters make up a very
small percentage of those fighting, typically less than 10%.. NOYB, you
have been using this "foreign fighter" argument for some time. Come on
now, show us a source. Where are the numbers?


"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."

So, NOYB, have you read the new studies about just who these foreign
fighters are? It seems they are not al Qaeda. It seems they *weren't*
terrorists at all, although they are now. It seems they "are part of a
new generation of terrorists responding to calls to defend their fellow
Muslims from 'crusaders' and 'infidels.'" In other words, they are *our*
creation.

http://forums.santacruzsentinel.com/...c;f=1;t=002361

Just imagine if the Chump hadn't invaded Iraq. The chances are al Qaeda
would be in ruins, bin Laden may even have been brought to justice, and
quite possibly, the world would be at peace. We are now embroiled in a
problem we created. A problem that might never have existed, if it
weren't for the stupid SOB in the White House. A problem that just isn't
going away.

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 22:35:28 -0400, HarryKrause wrote:


There is NO democracy among the Arab Muslim states.

Lebanon.

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

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

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
...


They'll be a US flag flying over Mecca by the time they are draft
age.

and only if the liebrals take control of congress and the white house

Insurgent attacks are becoming more numerous, more organized and more
deadly.

Don't you mean "terrorist attacks"? The term "insurgency" implies the
bad guys are Iraqis.

Spokemen for the Army (as in "U.S. Army", in other words) say your
either/or theory is bull****. It's been 2 years and you still can't seem
to shake this bad habit. How is that you trust what Limbaugh says more
than what we hear from guys in uniforms who are in Iraq???

I'm not quoting Limbaugh. I'm quoting the Iraqi PM, al-Jaafari, from an
interview he had with David Gregory less than a month ago:


" I certainly, again, would not call this an insurgency. I would call it a
group of terrorists who are out to kill as many people as possible. That
is easy to do. Anyone can come in and blow himself up and choose the
softest targets possible and carry out acts of terror.

And all of them come from outside Iraq and they admit this freely on TV
when they are interrogated.

"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."


http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8335871/

And in interviews I've heard since March or April, a couple of higher-ups in
the Army have said they're finding both in almost equal numbers. I wonder
why the difference in the reports? Do you wonder?

"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
...


They'll be a US flag flying over Mecca by the time they are draft
age.

and only if the liebrals take control of congress and the white
house

Insurgent attacks are becoming more numerous, more organized and more
deadly.

Don't you mean "terrorist attacks"? The term "insurgency" implies the
bad
guys are Iraqis.

Are you unhappy with the current administration?

I couldn't be happier with them.

Same here, though I do wish he would limit domestic spending more.



Separate question:

What if the situation is far worse 6 months from now? What will be
your
reaction to that? Assume for the moment that the definition of "worse"
is
one created by YOU.

We'll have troops in bases over there...but they won't be regularly
patrolling the cities. Instead, they'll be using the bases as staging
areas
for attacks against terrorist cells in Syria and Iran.

We are still free of incidents in the states, let the suicide bombers
flock to bagdad, far better then them coming here.


Noted is how doug ran from the draft question..........only liebrals in
congress have been calling for a draft.

Did I miss a question that was directed at me? Send it over, and make sure
it's reheated.

Meanwhile: You ignored one I directed at you, and NOYB tried to answer it
for you. Here it is again, prefaced by your comment which made me ask the
question:

==============================
They'll be a US flag flying over Mecca by the time they are draft age.

and only if the liebrals take control of congress and the white house

Insurgent attacks are becoming more numerous, more organized and more
deadly. Are you unhappy with the current administration?

Separate question:

What if the situation is far worse 6 months from now? What will be your
reaction to that? Assume for the moment that the definition of "worse" is
one created by YOU.
==============================

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

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

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
...


They'll be a US flag flying over Mecca by the time they are draft
age.

and only if the liebrals take control of congress and the white
house

Insurgent attacks are becoming more numerous, more organized and more
deadly.

Don't you mean "terrorist attacks"? The term "insurgency" implies the
bad guys are Iraqis.

Spokemen for the Army (as in "U.S. Army", in other words) say your
either/or theory is bull****. It's been 2 years and you still can't seem
to shake this bad habit. How is that you trust what Limbaugh says more
than what we hear from guys in uniforms who are in Iraq???

I'm not quoting Limbaugh. I'm quoting the Iraqi PM, al-Jaafari, from an
interview he had with David Gregory less than a month ago:


" I certainly, again, would not call this an insurgency. I would call it
a group of terrorists who are out to kill as many people as possible.
That is easy to do. Anyone can come in and blow himself up and choose the
softest targets possible and carry out acts of terror.

And all of them come from outside Iraq and they admit this freely on TV
when they are interrogated.

"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."


http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8335871/

And in interviews I've heard since March or April, a couple of higher-ups
in the Army have said they're finding both in almost equal numbers. I
wonder why the difference in the reports?

Is there a difference? Show me a source. Because until then, I'm going
with the Iraqi PM's interpretation...since he's there, and you're not.

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

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

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
...


They'll be a US flag flying over Mecca by the time they are draft
age.

and only if the liebrals take control of congress and the white
house

Insurgent attacks are becoming more numerous, more organized and more
deadly.

Don't you mean "terrorist attacks"? The term "insurgency" implies the
bad guys are Iraqis.

Spokemen for the Army (as in "U.S. Army", in other words) say your
either/or theory is bull****. It's been 2 years and you still can't
seem to shake this bad habit. How is that you trust what Limbaugh says
more than what we hear from guys in uniforms who are in Iraq???

I'm not quoting Limbaugh. I'm quoting the Iraqi PM, al-Jaafari, from an
interview he had with David Gregory less than a month ago:


" I certainly, again, would not call this an insurgency. I would call it
a group of terrorists who are out to kill as many people as possible.
That is easy to do. Anyone can come in and blow himself up and choose
the softest targets possible and carry out acts of terror.

And all of them come from outside Iraq and they admit this freely on TV
when they are interrogated.

"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."


http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8335871/

And in interviews I've heard since March or April, a couple of higher-ups
in the Army have said they're finding both in almost equal numbers. I
wonder why the difference in the reports?

Is there a difference? Show me a source. Because until then, I'm going
with the Iraqi PM's interpretation...since he's there, and you're not.


Do me a favor, OK? If I tell you I heard an American military official on
the radio, accept the fact that I heard it. Usually, I'm either in the car
or working in the kitchen when I listen to the news and although I love you
dearly, I am not going to take notes just for you. Incidentally, these
people were THERE in Iraq, not desk jockies sitting in the Pentagon.

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 14:35:52 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:


Do me a favor, OK? If I tell you I heard an American military official on
the radio, accept the fact that I heard it. Usually, I'm either in the car
or working in the kitchen when I listen to the news and although I love
you dearly, I am not going to take notes just for you. Incidentally, these
people were THERE in Iraq, not desk jockies sitting in the Pentagon.

Kind of depends on your definition of terms. While *all* reports I have
read, state that foreign militants are less than 10% of the insurgents, it
seems there are reports that those same militants make up 90% of the
suicide bombers. One caveat, while that 90% number is all over the
internet, it can be generally traced to one article written by Patrick
Quinn and Katherine Shrader and attributed to "one defense official".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlates...109609,00.html

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

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

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
...


They'll be a US flag flying over Mecca by the time they are
draft age.

and only if the liebrals take control of congress and the white
house

Insurgent attacks are becoming more numerous, more organized and
more deadly.

Don't you mean "terrorist attacks"? The term "insurgency" implies
the bad guys are Iraqis.

Spokemen for the Army (as in "U.S. Army", in other words) say your
either/or theory is bull****. It's been 2 years and you still can't
seem to shake this bad habit. How is that you trust what Limbaugh says
more than what we hear from guys in uniforms who are in Iraq???

I'm not quoting Limbaugh. I'm quoting the Iraqi PM, al-Jaafari, from
an interview he had with David Gregory less than a month ago:


" I certainly, again, would not call this an insurgency. I would call
it a group of terrorists who are out to kill as many people as
possible. That is easy to do. Anyone can come in and blow himself up
and choose the softest targets possible and carry out acts of terror.

And all of them come from outside Iraq and they admit this freely on TV
when they are interrogated.

"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."


http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8335871/

And in interviews I've heard since March or April, a couple of
higher-ups in the Army have said they're finding both in almost equal
numbers. I wonder why the difference in the reports?

Is there a difference? Show me a source. Because until then, I'm going
with the Iraqi PM's interpretation...since he's there, and you're not.


Do me a favor, OK? If I tell you I heard an American military official on
the radio, accept the fact that I heard it.

Ok. Fine. You heard it. What is his name? What branch of the military
was/is he with? How long was he in Iraq? Is he still there? If not, when
did he leave? How did he come to the conclusion that we're fighting
domestic-born terrorists (aka--insurgents) vs. foreigners?

I would think that when we find these guys bodies blown to pieces, there's
very little reliable way to determine if they're Iraqi or Syrian/Saudi
Arabian/Iranian/Jordanian/etc.

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

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

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
...


They'll be a US flag flying over Mecca by the time they are
draft age.

and only if the liebrals take control of congress and the white
house

Insurgent attacks are becoming more numerous, more organized and
more deadly.

Don't you mean "terrorist attacks"? The term "insurgency" implies
the bad guys are Iraqis.

Spokemen for the Army (as in "U.S. Army", in other words) say your
either/or theory is bull****. It's been 2 years and you still can't
seem to shake this bad habit. How is that you trust what Limbaugh
says more than what we hear from guys in uniforms who are in Iraq???

I'm not quoting Limbaugh. I'm quoting the Iraqi PM, al-Jaafari, from
an interview he had with David Gregory less than a month ago:


" I certainly, again, would not call this an insurgency. I would call
it a group of terrorists who are out to kill as many people as
possible. That is easy to do. Anyone can come in and blow himself up
and choose the softest targets possible and carry out acts of terror.

And all of them come from outside Iraq and they admit this freely on
TV when they are interrogated.

"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."


http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8335871/

And in interviews I've heard since March or April, a couple of
higher-ups in the Army have said they're finding both in almost equal
numbers. I wonder why the difference in the reports?

Is there a difference? Show me a source. Because until then, I'm going
with the Iraqi PM's interpretation...since he's there, and you're not.


Do me a favor, OK? If I tell you I heard an American military official on
the radio, accept the fact that I heard it.

Ok. Fine. You heard it. What is his name? What branch of the military
was/is he with? How long was he in Iraq? Is he still there? If not,
when did he leave? How did he come to the conclusion that we're fighting
domestic-born terrorists (aka--insurgents) vs. foreigners?

I would think that when we find these guys bodies blown to pieces, there's
very little reliable way to determine if they're Iraqi or Syrian/Saudi
Arabian/Iranian/Jordanian/etc.


your last paragraph. If they're blown to pieces, how does YOUR trusted
source determine their nationality? Smell?