HarryKrause wrote:
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.

hmmm, I suppose we should have backed Ho Chi Minh (like jane fonda did)
Pol Pot, Mau Tsi Tong and the likes....

Harry, you should know there is no "right" or "left" wing dictators.
just "Least Butcherous" and "More Butcherous"

Like Italian politics was described to me in the 70's "The guy that
rules the country is the guy with the biggest gun"

"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. 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. //////////////////
Going the way we are there will never be a solution, as far as I see it most
insurgents terrorists come in from neighboring countries mostly Syria and
Iran, so threaten these countries with air strikes on their economic sites,
make it plain do the job or take the consequences.

"-rick-" wrote in message
...
thunder wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 21:46:55 -0400, NOYB wrote:

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?

There was a US General on Faux News (of all places) this morning
addressing that very question.

Who was the General? Is he on active duty, or is he a "former General" who
doesn't really have his finger on the pulse over there? Was he interviewed
while in Iraq, or was he sitting in Fox News' broadcast building?

If you can provide his name (or even the name of the person who interviewed
him) we can read the transcript and see exactly who this General was and
what he actually said (not that I don't believe somebody like you who refers
to Fox News as Faux News). Time to put up or shut up.

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 03:45:43 -0700, Tim wrote:


hmmm, I suppose we should have backed Ho Chi Minh (like jane fonda did)
Pol Pot, Mau Tsi Tong and the likes....

Uh, we did back Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, and Mao Tse Tung. Ho and Mao during
WWII. Pol Pot against the Vietnamese, after the "Killing Fields". Oh,
and we also supported Saddam in his war with Iran, but then, we also
supported Iran against Iraq. Rather duplicitous, don't you think?

"-rick-" wrote in message
...
thunder wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 21:46:55 -0400, NOYB wrote:

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?

There was a US General on Faux News (of all places) this morning
addressing that very question. He flatly stated that 95% of the
insurgency are disenfranchised Sunni Iraqis and maybe 5% tops are foreign.


What the reporters are reporting vs. what the statistics actually show has
created a completely skewed and erroneous picture of what is actually taking
place. If you read the following article, you'll see a slant by the
journalist to suggest that the terrorists are actually domestic insurgents.
However, I've clipped two important passages with statistics that completely
refute his claim.

First passage:
" increasingly violent suicide and roadside bombings are expected to
continue at a rate of 65 daily -- about 500 a week"

Second passage:
"Only two or three of the hundreds of suicide bombings that have occurred
since the war began appear to have been committed by Iraqis, apparently
radical Kurds from the north, according to the military intelligence
assessment.
The foreigners detained by U.S. forces in Iraq have come mostly from Egypt
and, second, Saudi Arabia, with others from Libya, Sudan and Tunisia, U.S.
military officials said.

Some recently discovered roadside bombs bear the earmarks of Hezbollah,
suggesting that insurgents have been schooled outside of Iraq."



So if the bombings are occurring at a rate of 500 week, and only 200-300
have been committed by Iraqis since March of 2003 (roughly 120 weeks), it's
logical to conclude that an *extreme* minority (less than 1%) of the attacks
are by Iraqis rather than by foreigners.

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


What the reporters are reporting vs. what the statistics actually show has
created a completely skewed and erroneous picture of what is actually
taking place.

remaining puke removed

None of this really matters, now does it? We created an environment which
did not exist before, where it's basically a free-for-all for whoever can
get their hands on explosives. I'm sure there are people in our government
who occasionally review plans which were much better, but rejected by your
president, who preferred a video game to a chess game. He needed something
that more closely resembled Armageddon, for no other reason than a sick need
to see the world as a bible story.

Meanwhile: Islamic loonies also considered Saddam to be an infidel. Why do
you suppose they didn't bring their carnage to Iraq when he was in power?

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:45:21 +0000, NOYB wrote:


"-rick-" wrote in message
...
thunder wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 21:46:55 -0400, NOYB wrote:

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?

There was a US General on Faux News (of all places) this morning
addressing that very question.

Who was the General? Is he on active duty, or is he a "former General"
who doesn't really have his finger on the pulse over there? Was he
interviewed while in Iraq, or was he sitting in Fox News' broadcast
building?

If you can provide his name (or even the name of the person who
interviewed him) we can read the transcript and see exactly who this
General was and what he actually said (not that I don't believe somebody
like you who refers to Fox News as Faux News). Time to put up or shut up.

Put up or shut up? Damn, if I wasn't asking for your sources up-thread.
Is this a little bait and switch? Here is one source that says foreign
militants are "perhaps as little as 5%":

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniont...1n5terror.html

"As little as 10%":

http://www.boston.com/news/world/mid...error_in_iraq/

Now, perhaps you will share a source or two in support of your belief that
we are fighting mainly "foreign militants".

thunder wrote:
Put up or shut up? Damn, if I wasn't asking for your sources up-thread.
Is this a little bait and switch? Here is one source that says foreign
militants are "perhaps as little as 5%":

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniont...1n5terror.html

"As little as 10%":

http://www.boston.com/news/world/mid...error_in_iraq/

Now, perhaps you will share a source or two in support of your belief that
we are fighting mainly "foreign militants".


Why, that's what President Bush and Vice President Cheney are saying all
the time. They also say that Iraq was involved in the Sept 11th mass
murders. You don't think they'd *lie* do you??!?

DSK

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 13:10:48 +0000, NOYB wrote:


So if the bombings are occurring at a rate of 500 week, and only 200-300
have been committed by Iraqis since March of 2003 (roughly 120 weeks),
it's logical to conclude that an *extreme* minority (less than 1%) of the
attacks are by Iraqis rather than by foreigners.

Geez, NOYB, I sure it was a simple oversight on your part and you really
weren't trying to mislead us. "Only two or three of the hundreds of
*suicide* bombings since the war began in March 2003 appear to have been
committed by Iraqis." As opposed to " Increasingly violent suicide *and*
roadside bombings are expected to continue at a rate of 65 daily -
nearly 500 a week." The article goes on to say "There is no significant
number of Iraqis who are willing to blow themselves up."

I'm also sure this wasn't an intentional omission. "The increased
visibility of foreign fighters, whose numbers have sometimes been
estimated as low as *5% of the insurgency*, has helped cement a loose bond
between the fledgling Iraqi government and security forces and their
American counterparts, one senior defense official in Baghdad said.

Or, "Although the insurgency could sustain itself in the short term, with
an estimated 100 to 200 foreign fighters entering the country from Syria
each month." While estimates of the total size of the insurgency are
generally @20,000.

So, from your article, I read, that the foreign militants are looking for
their 70 virgins, while the Iraqis *still* make up the majority of the
insurgency.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...ck=1&cset=true

NOYB wrote:
"-rick-" wrote in message

There was a US General on Faux News (of all places) this morning
addressing that very question.


Who was the General? Is he on active duty, or is he a "former General" who
doesn't really have his finger on the pulse over there? Was he interviewed
while in Iraq, or was he sitting in Fox News' broadcast building?

If you can provide his name (or even the name of the person who interviewed
him) we can read the transcript and see exactly who this General was and
what he actually said (not that I don't believe somebody like you who refers
to Fox News as Faux News). Time to put up or shut up.

Calling it faux news is a cheap shot but generally deserved.

The story aired between about 9:30 and 10 AM PDT 7/25/05. It appeared
that the general was on active duty. He was shown in uniform commenting
from Iraq. I was exercising on the elliptical without glasses and
couldn't read his name on the 13" tube across the room. I'm sure they
introduced him but I was paying attention to the newspaper until the
discussion moved to the make up of the insurgency.

A more diligent or competent researcher could probably find a transcript
(LexisNexis?). I briefly searched the Foxnews site but didn't find a
reference to that particular story. Sorry, but it's now exceeded my
struggle/fun ratio threshold.

-rick-