"DSK" wrote in message
...
Not sure how your Funk & Wagnels defines insurgents...but I went to
Google and entered "insurgents" + "iraq" in the search engine. Google
says there are over 2 million hits.


NOYB wrote:
That's because the news media continues to propagate a lie about who
these terrorists really are.

You mean, the "lie" that actually happens to be how it is in the real
world?

Funny, you seem to have avoided any references about how many foreign
fighters are in the Iraq insurgency.

There is no domestic insurgency. They are almost all foreign fighters. You
ask how many? Who knows. There is no way to count the number of
terrorists that flood across the porous borders from Saudi Arabia, Syria,
Iran, and Jordan.


Why do you keep running away from
factual references, and keep returning to propagandizing?


... If they called them "foreign terrorists", it would be admitting that
Bush is absolutely correct when he says that Iraq is the frontline on
"the global struggle against violent extremism" (fka "the war on
terror").


OTOH if the Bush-Cheney cheerleaders admit the facts that the Iraq
insurgency is not on it's last legs, and that only a very small minority
of foreigners have entered Iraq to fight America,

Admit a falsehood? Why? So you'd feel better?

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
DSK wrote:
Not sure how your Funk & Wagnels defines insurgents...but I went to
Google and entered "insurgents" + "iraq" in the search engine. Google
says there are over 2 million hits.


NOYB wrote:
That's because the news media continues to propagate a lie about who
these terrorists really are.

You mean, the "lie" that actually happens to be how it is in the real
world?

Funny, you seem to have avoided any references about how many foreign
fighters are in the Iraq insurgency. Why do you keep running away from
factual references, and keep returning to propagandizing?


... If they called them "foreign terrorists", it would be admitting
that Bush is absolutely correct when he says that Iraq is the frontline
on "the global struggle against violent extremism" (fka "the war on
terror").


OTOH if the Bush-Cheney cheerleaders admit the facts that the Iraq
insurgency is not on it's last legs, and that only a very small minority
of foreigners have entered Iraq to fight America, then they would also
have to admit the Bush-Cheney Administration's failure to actually fight
terrorism and the long string of lies leading us into war in Iraq.

So, keep spinning & dodging, NOBBY! Maybe you'll be rewarded with a nice
cushy appointment, or maybe you'll have to wait for your reward in
Heaven.

DSK






The Bushbots are no longer fighting a War on Terrorism. The White House
has a new term. I kid you not.

You're citing the NY Times again. Just last Friday, in his speech calling
for the renewal of the Patriot Act, Bush used the phrase "war on terror".
So I'm not really sure where the NY Times is getting its info from.

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
Don White wrote:
NOYB wrote:

It's pretty amazing that 2 1/2 years in a hostile country with
porous borders surrounded by enemy countries has produced fewer
casualties than 1 fateful day in September '01. It wasn't
insurgents who killed those 3,000 Americans on 9/11...and it's not
insurgents who killed 1800 US troops and countless Iraqi civilians
since March 2003.


Not sure how your Funk & Wagnels defines insurgents...but I went to
Google and entered "insurgents" + "iraq" in the search engine.
Google says there are over 2 million hits.
There's no requirement that an insurgent be a native of the country in
which he or she is fighting. Further, NOYB is suffering from "old
think" here. The Muslims are bound together by religion, not by
geography. It's a Muslim insurgency.
That's a good argument to nuke the whole region, eh?


No, it is not.

Let me know when one arises then. The plans are already drafted to
destroy Iran should another 9/11-type attack occur...particularly if it's
with WMD. After 9/11, even you were calling for "bombing Afghanistan into
the stone age". I suspect that we'll strike while the iron is hot next
time.


You keep bringing that up, and you never mention the fact that I changed
my mind after a few days and said so.

That's OK, Harry. As an internet arm-chair quarterback, you're allowed to
vacillate. As the leader of the US, Bush must respond with conviction.
Should a WMD/nuclear attack occur, Tehran will be reduced to ashes before
even you have a chance to "change your mind after a few days".



We aren't going to be tossing nukes at anyone, unless we are attacked with
nukes by a nation-state. Bet on it.

If we're attacked with a nuke, Tehran will be gone. No investigation. No
trial. And you can bet on that.

"DSK" wrote in message
...
NOBBY wrote:
Because the surrounding countries were not as geographically
strategically important. Look at a map and you'll understand.

I understand that Iraq has oil. Looking at a map, it appears there are
lots of better choices for strategic location... including Saudi Arabia,
which we have removed troops from in deference to fundamentalism Moslem's
wishes. Is this how Bush/Cheney are "winning"?

Saudi Arabia doesn't border our biggest threat from the region: Iran.



Southern Iran controls routes west into Afghanistan and the Straits of
Hormuz where so much of the world's oil is shipped thru. Why not plant a
strategic base there?


Because we weren't in a position to invade Iran. We had troops in the Gulf,
in Kuwait, and in Saudi Arabia at our disposal. We thought we had troops
available in Turkey, but the *******s squelched that plan at the last
minute...which allowed a lot of weapons and people to flow back and forth to
and from Syria at the start of the war.



... Iran is surrounded on three side now by US troops. Syria is
surrounded on two sides. Saudi Arabia is surrounded on three sides.

We already had troops in Saudi. I guess it makes more sense to pull them
out so you can threaten to invade later??

We only had troops there in order to invade Iraq if needed. Once we had
Iraq, we didn't need Saudi Arabia.


BTW you seem to be laboring under the illusion that there is some credible
threat that we might invade another Middle East country. The rulers of
these countries don't seem to share that illusion.

Neither did Saddam...until we marched into Baghdad.



... We can hit terror cells in any country in the region as long as we
have troops in Iraq.

So, why haven't we? If there are "terrorist" and/or insurgents coming into
Iraq, then they must exist in these other countries. Why have we not cut
them off at the source??

We've squeezed Syria pretty hard...even so far as getting into border
squirmishes with Saddam-sympathizing Syrian troops.

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

"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

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

"Don White" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

It's pretty amazing that 2 1/2 years in a hostile country with
porous
borders surrounded by enemy countries has produced fewer casualties
than
1 fateful day in September '01. It wasn't insurgents who killed
those
3,000 Americans on 9/11...and it's not insurgents who killed 1800 US
troops and countless Iraqi civilians since March 2003.


Not sure how your Funk & Wagnels defines insurgents...but I went to
Google
and entered "insurgents" + "iraq" in the search engine. Google says
there
are over 2 million hits.

That's because the news media continues to propagate a lie about who
these
terrorists really are. If they called them "foreign terrorists", it
would
be admitting that Bush is absolutely correct when he says that Iraq is
the
frontline on "the global struggle against violent extremism" (fka "the
war
on terror").



It is pretty funny that the new liebral debate tactic is to equal google
hits with fact. LMAO


If we apply Don's logic...
When you do a google search with the words "terrorists" and "Iraq", you
get
8,290,000 hits. That's almost 4 times more hits with the word
"terrorists"
than with the word "insurgents". Using liberal debate tactics, I guess
that
I have just proven that they are terrorists and not insurgents.

Well google returned 78,500 hits for "Hillary Clinton" and Liar.......
as well as 718,000 for "John Kerry" and "stupid"


(Even when I play by the liberal's own rules, I win. It's almost getting
boring arguing with them. I need a better challenge. Perhaps I'll start
playing Devil's Advocate on the conservative newsgroups, and start
promoting
the liberal agenda. I may not win, but at least I'll have more
intelligent
adversaries to argue against.)

NOBBY wrote:
There is no domestic insurgency. They are almost all foreign fighters.

Really? 5% to 10% is "almost all?"

... You
ask how many? Who knows. There is no way to count the number of
terrorists that flood across the porous borders from Saudi Arabia, Syria,
Iran, and Jordan.


So how are you sure there are so many? By your own statements, it might
be a trickle rather than a flood.

So, I tend to rely on the professionals (the Army, the CIA, the DIA, the
State Dept) who say five to ten percent, rather than the political
spinmeisters who say "a flood."


... If they called them "foreign terrorists", it would be admitting that
Bush is absolutely correct when he says that Iraq is the frontline on
"the global struggle against violent extremism" (fka "the war on
terror").


OTOH if the Bush-Cheney cheerleaders admit the facts that the Iraq
insurgency is not on it's last legs, and that only a very small minority
of foreigners have entered Iraq to fight America,


Admit a falsehood?

Yep, a "falsehood" that corresponds more closely to actual facts in the
real world.

... Why? So you'd feel better?


No, so that you would be "honest" which is what we call people who tend
to tell the truth instead of lying all the time. Maybe you'd feel better.

DSK

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
Don White wrote:
NOYB wrote:

It's pretty amazing that 2 1/2 years in a hostile country with
porous borders surrounded by enemy countries has produced fewer
casualties than 1 fateful day in September '01. It wasn't
insurgents who killed those 3,000 Americans on 9/11...and it's not
insurgents who killed 1800 US troops and countless Iraqi civilians
since March 2003.


Not sure how your Funk & Wagnels defines insurgents...but I went to
Google and entered "insurgents" + "iraq" in the search engine.
Google says there are over 2 million hits.
There's no requirement that an insurgent be a native of the country
in which he or she is fighting. Further, NOYB is suffering from "old
think" here. The Muslims are bound together by religion, not by
geography. It's a Muslim insurgency.
That's a good argument to nuke the whole region, eh?


No, it is not.
Let me know when one arises then. The plans are already drafted to
destroy Iran should another 9/11-type attack occur...particularly if
it's with WMD. After 9/11, even you were calling for "bombing
Afghanistan into the stone age". I suspect that we'll strike while the
iron is hot next time.


You keep bringing that up, and you never mention the fact that I changed
my mind after a few days and said so.

That's OK, Harry. As an internet arm-chair quarterback, you're allowed
to vacillate. As the leader of the US, Bush must respond with
conviction. Should a WMD/nuclear attack occur, Tehran will be reduced to
ashes before even you have a chance to "change your mind after a few
days".


We aren't going to be tossing nukes at anyone, unless we are attacked
with nukes by a nation-state. Bet on it.

If we're attacked with a nuke, Tehran will be gone. No investigation.
No trial. And you can bet on that.


Even if it is launched from North Korea?

Especially if it is launched from North Korea. But I was actually referring
to a "suitcase nuke" smuggled in to the states.


North Korea-Iran missile link feared
Tokyo
July 25, 2004

Page Tools
Iran and North Korea could be co-operating on missile development, it
emerged yesterday.
Quoting a senior US official, Japan's Asahi Shimbun daily said it had learnt
that Iran had given data on launch tests to North Korea.

"There is very strong evidence indicating that Iran and North Korea are
co-operating on ballistic missile development," Asahi quoted the US official
as saying.

The comments coincided with a visit to Japan by US Under-secretary of State
John Bolton, part of a drive by Washington to breathe life into six-party
talks aimed at ending a 20-month-old stand-off over North Korea's nuclear
ambitions.

Mr Bolton was scheduled to leave on Saturday after talks with Japanese
officials.

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
DSK wrote:
Not sure how your Funk & Wagnels defines insurgents...but I went to
Google and entered "insurgents" + "iraq" in the search engine.
Google says there are over 2 million hits.
NOYB wrote:
That's because the news media continues to propagate a lie about who
these terrorists really are.
You mean, the "lie" that actually happens to be how it is in the real
world?

Funny, you seem to have avoided any references about how many foreign
fighters are in the Iraq insurgency. Why do you keep running away from
factual references, and keep returning to propagandizing?


... If they called them "foreign terrorists", it would be admitting
that Bush is absolutely correct when he says that Iraq is the
frontline on "the global struggle against violent extremism" (fka
"the war on terror").

OTOH if the Bush-Cheney cheerleaders admit the facts that the Iraq
insurgency is not on it's last legs, and that only a very small
minority of foreigners have entered Iraq to fight America, then they
would also have to admit the Bush-Cheney Administration's failure to
actually fight terrorism and the long string of lies leading us into
war in Iraq.

So, keep spinning & dodging, NOBBY! Maybe you'll be rewarded with a
nice cushy appointment, or maybe you'll have to wait for your reward in
Heaven.

DSK





The Bushbots are no longer fighting a War on Terrorism. The White House
has a new term. I kid you not.

You're citing the NY Times again. Just last Friday, in his speech
calling for the renewal of the Patriot Act, Bush used the phrase "war on
terror". So I'm not really sure where the NY Times is getting its info
from.




That's right. Not only am I a card-carrying member of the ACLU, but...I
also get the Sunday NY Times delivered to my home.

Hey, it's your money. If I'm going to spend money on paper, it's on
Charmin. It's much more comfortable than the NY Times...and about as useful
if you're looking for accurate reporting.

Southern Iran controls routes west into Afghanistan and the Straits of
Hormuz where so much of the world's oil is shipped thru. Why not plant a
strategic base there?


NOYB wrote:
Because we weren't in a position to invade Iran.

We weren't in a position to invade Iraq either. That's why it took a few
months of maneuvering, and buttering up other countries to allow us to
position troops & equipment on the border.

And guess what? We're *still* not in a position to invade Iran.


... We thought we had troops
available in Turkey, but the *******s squelched that plan at the last
minute...which allowed a lot of weapons and people to flow back and forth to
and from Syria at the start of the war.

You know, PO'ing the Turks is one of the stupidest things the
Bush/Cheney Administration has done. Turkey has a strong army, they're
fierce fighters, they have a lot of experience combatting terrorism,
they have a strongly secular government, and they have been strongly
pro-West and especially pro-US for decades. They could (and should IMHO)
be among our staunchest allies in the Middle East.

Instead, we anger them to curry favor with the Kurds, who hate us and
are going to remain more friendly towards Al-Queda no matter what we do.

Smart move, huh? If Bush was playing chess, he might as well have thrown
away his rooks at the start.




... We can hit terror cells in any country in the region as long as we
have troops in Iraq.

So, why haven't we? If there are "terrorist" and/or insurgents coming into
Iraq, then they must exist in these other countries. Why have we not cut
them off at the source??


We've squeezed Syria pretty hard...even so far as getting into border
squirmishes with Saddam-sympathizing Syrian troops.


Really? Is that a fact? When?

The only thing we've done to Syria is get them angry enough to stop
cooperating on counter-terrorist investigations. Another smart strategic
move... like throwing away a knight or two.

I guess next time Bin Laden and/or his friends call 'check' you'll be
cheering about how we're winning. Better start talking about the economy
again!

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
NOBBY wrote:
There is no domestic insurgency. They are almost all foreign fighters.

Really? 5% to 10% is "almost all?"

Those are bull**** numbers. Nobody (including Thunder) has posted a
reliable source for those numbers...yet you continue to cite them as gospel.


... You ask how many? Who knows. There is no way to count the number
of terrorists that flood across the porous borders from Saudi Arabia,
Syria, Iran, and Jordan.


So how are you sure there are so many? By your own statements, it might be
a trickle rather than a flood.



So, I tend to rely on the professionals (the Army, the CIA, the DIA, the
State Dept) who say five to ten percent, rather than the political
spinmeisters who say "a flood."

You're not quoting one single "named" source who states that the number is
5-10%. I've quoted several "named" sources who say that it's much, much
higher.


... If they called them "foreign terrorists", it would be admitting
that Bush is absolutely correct when he says that Iraq is the frontline
on "the global struggle against violent extremism" (fka "the war on
terror").


OTOH if the Bush-Cheney cheerleaders admit the facts that the Iraq
insurgency is not on it's last legs, and that only a very small minority
of foreigners have entered Iraq to fight America,


Admit a falsehood?

Yep, a "falsehood" that corresponds more closely to actual facts in the
real world.


In your world...not the real world.

... Why? So you'd feel better?

No, so that you would be "honest" which is what we call people who tend to
tell the truth instead of lying all the time. Maybe you'd feel better.

You accuse him of lying, and yet can't produce a single on-the-record source
that proves your case.

P. Fritz wrote:
"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Don White" wrote in message
...

NOYB wrote:


It's pretty amazing that 2 1/2 years in a hostile country with porous
borders surrounded by enemy countries has produced fewer casualties

than

1 fateful day in September '01. It wasn't insurgents who killed those
3,000 Americans on 9/11...and it's not insurgents who killed 1800 US
troops and countless Iraqi civilians since March 2003.



Not sure how your Funk & Wagnels defines insurgents...but I went to

Google

and entered "insurgents" + "iraq" in the search engine. Google says

there

are over 2 million hits.

That's because the news media continues to propagate a lie about who these
terrorists really are. If they called them "foreign terrorists", it would
be admitting that Bush is absolutely correct when he says that Iraq is the
frontline on "the global struggle against violent extremism" (fka "the

war

on terror").




It is pretty funny that the new liebral debate tactic is to equal google
hits with fact. LMAO


If you're talking about me...I bend more toward socialists/labour.

There is no domestic insurgency. They are almost all foreign fighters.

Really? 5% to 10% is "almost all?"


NOYB wrote:
Those are bull**** numbers.

No, they're the most accurate & reliable figures available.

... Nobody (including Thunder) has posted a
reliable source for those numbers...yet you continue to cite them as gospel.

Wrong again. Reliable source *have* been quoted. Several times, actually.

You're losing it, NOBBY. Even a five-year-old gets tired of saying "yes
it is, no it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't." Or are you trying out a new
Monty Python skit?


You're not quoting one single "named" source who states that the number is
5-10%. I've quoted several "named" sources who say that it's much, much
higher.


Like who? Vice President Cheney? Totally unbiased, right?

Official Bush/Cheney Policy: When confronted with hard fact, lie. If
confronted with more facts, lie harder.

isn't it time for you to run away from this thread, NOBBY?

DSK

NOYB wrote:
snip...

Syria is surrounded on two sides.

snip

Let me think about this for a minute...must be more George W 'funny talk'.

NOYB wrote:
snip

(Even when I play by the liberal's own rules, I win. It's almost getting
boring arguing with them. I need a better challenge. Perhaps I'll start
playing Devil's Advocate on the conservative newsgroups, and start promoting
the liberal agenda. I may not win, but at least I'll have more intelligent
adversaries to argue against.)


Don't forget to threaten to 'nuke 'em all'...even Texas.

NOYB,
You are sounding like Harry. He thought we should carpet bomb the entire
region. The difference is Harry thought we should remove all citizens and
only destroy their entire infrastructure. That way the citizens die a slow
death.


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

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
Don White wrote:
NOYB wrote:

It's pretty amazing that 2 1/2 years in a hostile country with porous
borders surrounded by enemy countries has produced fewer casualties
than 1 fateful day in September '01. It wasn't insurgents who killed
those 3,000 Americans on 9/11...and it's not insurgents who killed 1800
US troops and countless Iraqi civilians since March 2003.


Not sure how your Funk & Wagnels defines insurgents...but I went to
Google and entered "insurgents" + "iraq" in the search engine. Google
says there are over 2 million hits.


There's no requirement that an insurgent be a native of the country in
which he or she is fighting. Further, NOYB is suffering from "old think"
here. The Muslims are bound together by religion, not by geography. It's
a Muslim insurgency.

That's a good argument to nuke the whole region, eh?

An interesting note, if you Google up "Liberal Asshole" you get 310,000 hits
and "Liberal ****" gives you 961,000 hits.
and last but not least:

"Kevin Noble Pothead" gives you 547 hits.


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

"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

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

"Don White" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

It's pretty amazing that 2 1/2 years in a hostile country with porous
borders surrounded by enemy countries has produced fewer casualties
than
1 fateful day in September '01. It wasn't insurgents who killed
those
3,000 Americans on 9/11...and it's not insurgents who killed 1800 US
troops and countless Iraqi civilians since March 2003.


Not sure how your Funk & Wagnels defines insurgents...but I went to
Google
and entered "insurgents" + "iraq" in the search engine. Google says
there
are over 2 million hits.

That's because the news media continues to propagate a lie about who
these
terrorists really are. If they called them "foreign terrorists", it
would
be admitting that Bush is absolutely correct when he says that Iraq is
the
frontline on "the global struggle against violent extremism" (fka "the
war
on terror").



It is pretty funny that the new liebral debate tactic is to equal google
hits with fact. LMAO


If we apply Don's logic...
When you do a google search with the words "terrorists" and "Iraq", you
get 8,290,000 hits. That's almost 4 times more hits with the word
"terrorists" than with the word "insurgents". Using liberal debate
tactics, I guess that I have just proven that they are terrorists and not
insurgents.

(Even when I play by the liberal's own rules, I win. It's almost getting
boring arguing with them. I need a better challenge. Perhaps I'll start
playing Devil's Advocate on the conservative newsgroups, and start
promoting the liberal agenda. I may not win, but at least I'll have more
intelligent adversaries to argue against.)

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
There is no domestic insurgency. They are almost all foreign fighters.

Really? 5% to 10% is "almost all?"


NOYB wrote:
Those are bull**** numbers.

No, they're the most accurate & reliable figures available.

... Nobody (including Thunder) has posted a reliable source for those
numbers...yet you continue to cite them as gospel.

Wrong again. Reliable source *have* been quoted. Several times, actually.

You're losing it, NOBBY. Even a five-year-old gets tired of saying "yes it
is, no it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't." Or are you trying out a new
Monty Python skit?


You're not quoting one single "named" source who states that the number
is 5-10%. I've quoted several "named" sources who say that it's much,
much higher.


Like who? Vice President Cheney? Totally unbiased, right?

Official Bush/Cheney Policy: When confronted with hard fact, lie. If
confronted with more facts, lie harder.

Cheney said it. PM al-Jaafari said it. The Associated Press said it:

"Most of Iraq's suicide bombers are foreign-born, with the highest
proportion coming from Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf states, according
to an analysis by the Associated Press. "

But rick saw "some General" on "Faux News", and you heard "some government
official" on NPR say that it was mostly Iraqis doing the bombings...and
you've chosen to go with those mysterious un-named sources whose names you
can't remember.

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

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
There is no domestic insurgency. They are almost all foreign
fighters.

Really? 5% to 10% is "almost all?"


NOYB wrote:
Those are bull**** numbers.

No, they're the most accurate & reliable figures available.

... Nobody (including Thunder) has posted a reliable source for those
numbers...yet you continue to cite them as gospel.

Wrong again. Reliable source *have* been quoted. Several times,
actually.

You're losing it, NOBBY. Even a five-year-old gets tired of saying "yes
it
is, no it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't." Or are you trying out a new
Monty Python skit?


You're not quoting one single "named" source who states that the number
is 5-10%. I've quoted several "named" sources who say that it's much,
much higher.


Like who? Vice President Cheney? Totally unbiased, right?

Official Bush/Cheney Policy: When confronted with hard fact, lie. If
confronted with more facts, lie harder.

Cheney said it. PM al-Jaafari said it. The Associated Press said it:

"Most of Iraq's suicide bombers are foreign-born, with the highest
proportion coming from Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf states,
according
to an analysis by the Associated Press. "

But rick saw "some General" on "Faux News", and you heard "some government
official" on NPR say that it was mostly Iraqis doing the bombings...and
you've chosen to go with those mysterious un-named sources whose names you
can't remember.

This is some great wrting about the ongoing in Iraq

http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/2005/07/empty-jars.html

Like who? Vice President Cheney? Totally unbiased, right?

Official Bush/Cheney Policy: When confronted with hard fact, lie. If
confronted with more facts, lie harder.


NOBBY wrote:
Cheney said it.

Very highly biased, as well as being a prodigious liar. Remember, this
is the guy who said "I've never once used my political connections for
profit."


... PM al-Jaafari said it.

Another politician with an axe to grind, as well as with a vested
interest in currying favor with the Bush/Cheney gang.

... The Associated Press said it:

"Most of Iraq's suicide bombers are foreign-born..."

ah, so... you don't know the difference between SUICIDE BOMBERS and
insurgents. Big difference. Most of the attacks that are killing &
maiming our military personnel are NOT suicide attacks.

By their very nature, suicide bombers are a very tiny fraction of the
world wide terrorist network & of the Iraq insurgency.




But rick saw "some General" on "Faux News", and you heard "some government
official" on NPR say that it was mostly Iraqis doing the bombings...

Wrong. "Some Pentagon sources" which are of course highly protected and
some named intel officials, and the U.S. State Dept (*when* the heck is
Condi going to purge those disloyal *******s??) and of course, Fox News
itself.



....and
you've chosen to go with those mysterious un-named sources whose names you
can't remember.


Seems to me like I've remembered quite a lot. You're the one who is
misquoting, taking quotes out of context, quoting the equivalent of
Pepsi advertising as if it were Gospel, and of course outright lying.

Between refusing to distinguish between suicide bombers and the "on it's
last legs" insurgency, as well as refusing to acknowledge others
sources, as well as refusing to quote any of your own *reliable* (ie non
propaganda) sources, you've pretty much admitted that it's all fantasy.

You've done a very good job discrediting the running-dog fascist
lackeys, comrade NOBBY. Maybe as a reward, you'll get a little red star.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
Southern Iran controls routes west into Afghanistan and the Straits of
Hormuz where so much of the world's oil is shipped thru. Why not plant a
strategic base there?


NOYB wrote:
Because we weren't in a position to invade Iran.

We weren't in a position to invade Iraq either. That's why it took a few
months of maneuvering, and buttering up other countries to allow us to
position troops & equipment on the border.

And guess what? We're *still* not in a position to invade Iran.


... We thought we had troops available in Turkey, but the *******s
squelched that plan at the last minute...which allowed a lot of weapons
and people to flow back and forth to and from Syria at the start of the
war.

You know, PO'ing the Turks is one of the stupidest things the Bush/Cheney
Administration has done. Turkey has a strong army, they're fierce
fighters, they have a lot of experience combatting terrorism, they have a
strongly secular government, and they have been strongly pro-West and
especially pro-US for decades. They could (and should IMHO) be among our
staunchest allies in the Middle East.


Turkey was agraid that allowing US troops to pass from Turkish soil into
Iraq would cause a terrorist backlash within their own borders. It was
fear, not failed diplomacy, that caused the Turks to withdraw their support.

Instead, we anger them to curry favor with the Kurds, who hate us and are
going to remain more friendly towards Al-Queda no matter what we do.

Better do some more research there, because you've just made a profoundly
dumb and inaccurate statement. *Most* Kurds are Shafiite Sunnis, and were
battling al Zarqawi's fundamentalist Ansar al-Islam group right before, and
early on in the March 2003 US invasion.



Smart move, huh? If Bush was playing chess, he might as well have thrown
away his rooks at the start.



... We can hit terror cells in any country in the region as long as we
have troops in Iraq.

So, why haven't we? If there are "terrorist" and/or insurgents coming
into Iraq, then they must exist in these other countries. Why have we not
cut them off at the source??


We've squeezed Syria pretty hard...even so far as getting into border
squirmishes with Saddam-sympathizing Syrian troops.


Really? Is that a fact? When?

Yes. The first one was in June of '03, when we hit a convoy on the
Syria-Iraq border and engaged in a firefight with Syrian border guards. We
ended up detaining 5 of them.

Just a few days ago, US troops fired on Syrian troops again:


Syrian troops 'fired on by US forces'
From correspondents in Damascus, Syria
July 22, 2005
SYRIA said today its border troops had been fired on by US and Iraqi forces
and accused Washington, London and Baghdad of lack of cooperation in
preventing insurgents infiltrating into Iraq.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...E31477,00.html

------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't you wonder why *your* news sources don't report on these things?
Don't worry though. I'll be happy to pass along the truth from my sources
so that you can keep up to speed on things.




The only thing we've done to Syria is get them angry enough to stop
cooperating on counter-terrorist investigations. Another smart strategic
move... like throwing away a knight or two.

I guess next time Bin Laden and/or his friends call 'check' you'll be
cheering about how we're winning. Better start talking about the economy
again!

DSK

"Don White" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
snip...

Syria is surrounded on two sides.

snip

Let me think about this for a minute...must be more George W 'funny talk'.

Technically it's three sides since Iraq lies along Syria's eastern and
southern borders.

NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...


NOYB wrote:
"Don White" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
snip...

And there is no "insurgency" in Iraq.

Get your facts straight.


That hot Florida sun must be beating down on your head. Tell that to
the
1800 war dead slipped back into the US under cover.

It's pretty amazing that 2 1/2 years in a hostile country with porous
borders surrounded by enemy countries has produced fewer casualties than
1
fateful day in September '01. It wasn't insurgents who killed those
3,000
Americans on 9/11...and it's not insurgents who killed 1800 US troops and
countless Iraqi civilians since March 2003.

Well, NOYB, will you show me in the speech that I posted from Oct.
2002, where in there Bush mentioned Iran,

Bush mentioned Iraq, Iran, and N. Korea in the "Axis of Evil" speech. He
didn't declare war on all three at the same time. The speech that you
posted was the speech he gave to begin the war against the first country in
the Axis of Evil.

I suspect that they'll be an Iran speech in due time.

So he lied in his Oct. 2002 speech, then, correct?


OR that he was going to post
troops in Iraq permanently, as you have stated?

Show me in one of FDR's speeches prior to WWII where he said that he was
going to permanently post troops in Germany and Japan.

What to HELL does FDR have to do with this thread?????

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
Don White wrote:
NOYB wrote:
snip...

Syria is surrounded on two sides.

snip

Let me think about this for a minute...must be more George W 'funny
talk'.


Well, you do know that all of Gaul is divided into three parts.

If Mr. Caesar were alive today, he'd say the same about the U.S....but
there'd only be two parts instead of three. That is, until we annex Canada.

NOYB wrote:
Turkey was agraid that allowing US troops to pass from Turkish soil into
Iraq would cause a terrorist backlash within their own borders. It was
fear, not failed diplomacy, that caused the Turks to withdraw their support.


Malarkey. Can you point to one single source which claims this, even a
right-wing bull**** blog?

The Turks wanted assurances that we would not set up an independent Kurd
state, because of the large nationalist Kurd population within Turkey.
This would also be in US interest because a Kurdish state would almost
certainly become a Muslim fundie terrorist sponsor.

There were a few other minor problems, but that was their main gripe. So
why didn't the Bush/Cheney Administration act intelligently?



Instead, we anger them to curry favor with the Kurds, who hate us and are
going to remain more friendly towards Al-Queda no matter what we do.


Better do some more research there, because you've just made a profoundly
dumb and inaccurate statement.

I guess you're the expert on dumb & inaccurate statements.

... *Most* Kurds are Shafiite Sunnis, and were
battling al Zarqawi's fundamentalist Ansar al-Islam group right before, and
early on in the March 2003 US invasion.

Baloney. If Al-Zarqawi was anywhere in Iraq before the invasion, he was
in Kurdistan helping them battle Saddam... partly because we'd failed to
help them before, which is why they hate us. They were also accepting
arms & training from Hamas.

But hey, let's ignore the facts. You've been doing it for a long time
now, no reason to change.


Syrian troops 'fired on by US forces'
From correspondents in Damascus, Syria
July 22, 2005
SYRIA said today its border troops had been fired on by US and Iraqi forces
and accused Washington, London and Baghdad of lack of cooperation in
preventing insurgents infiltrating into Iraq.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...E31477,00.html

------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't you wonder why *your* news sources don't report on these things?

They probably do, and I don't watch closely enough. Unlike you, I have a
life. But you've claimed we can & might invade Syria... the Syrians
don't believe it, nor does the U.S. Army, nor do I... and shooting at a
couple of border patrols don't back up your claim.

I wonder why *your* news sources fail to back up your claims that the
majority of the insurgency in Iraq is foreign? I wonder why your news
sources fail to mention the ongoing Halliburton half-billion $$ rip-off?
I wonder why your news sources fail to mention the lack of a connection
between Saddam & Sept 11th, even though President Bush has said himself
there is none? Ditto the pulling of troops away from the hunt for Bin
Laden, which Bush also admitted in his own words. I wonder why your news
sources twist economic figures and hide the Bush/Cheney Administration's
lies on that front? Don't your news sources report international
terrorism, and the FACT that the Bush/Cheney Administration squelched
reports on how it's growing (ie they're failing). Etc etc etc.

One wonders just how wrong you can be. So far, you keep right on
digging. This is why I believe that you're actually a radical leftist,
probably Trotskyite, intent on discrediting the American "conservative"
movement.

DSK

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 11:23:46 -0400, HarryKrause wrote:

Don White wrote:
NOYB wrote:
snip

(Even when I play by the liberal's own rules, I win. It's almost
getting boring arguing with them. I need a better challenge. Perhaps
I'll start playing Devil's Advocate on the conservative newsgroups,
and start promoting the liberal agenda. I may not win, but at least
I'll have more intelligent adversaries to argue against.)


Don't forget to threaten to 'nuke 'em all'...even Texas.


I see NOYB's tripping over his ego again. Frankly, I don't engage him
much on his political tirades because I find his positions so boringly
predictable. And, of course, he's wrong on everything. But, hey, he's a
dentist.

And it's hard for you to engage someone with some credibility, huh Harry?

--
John H.
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 11:23:46 -0400, HarryKrause
wrote:

Don White wrote:
NOYB wrote:
snip

(Even when I play by the liberal's own rules, I win. It's almost
getting boring arguing with them. I need a better challenge. Perhaps
I'll start playing Devil's Advocate on the conservative newsgroups,
and start promoting the liberal agenda. I may not win, but at least
I'll have more intelligent adversaries to argue against.)


Don't forget to threaten to 'nuke 'em all'...even Texas.


I see NOYB's tripping over his ego again. Frankly, I don't engage him
much on his political tirades because I find his positions so boringly
predictable. And, of course, he's wrong on everything. But, hey, he's a
dentist.

And it's hard for you to engage someone with some credibility, huh Harry?

Predictable........pretty funny coming from someone who musters is entire
intellect to come up with the response "bite me asshole" time and
again...........

Kevin better watch out, harry seems to be making a grab for his title of
"King"



--
John H.
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 11:23:46 -0400, HarryKrause
wrote:

Don White wrote:
NOYB wrote:
snip

(Even when I play by the liberal's own rules, I win. It's almost
getting boring arguing with them. I need a better challenge. Perhaps
I'll start playing Devil's Advocate on the conservative newsgroups,
and start promoting the liberal agenda. I may not win, but at least
I'll have more intelligent adversaries to argue against.)


Don't forget to threaten to 'nuke 'em all'...even Texas.


I see NOYB's tripping over his ego again. Frankly, I don't engage him
much on his political tirades because I find his positions so boringly
predictable. And, of course, he's wrong on everything. But, hey, he's a
dentist.

And it's hard for you to engage someone with some credibility, huh Harry?

Especially after his news service terminates his account for abuse. lmao!

"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 11:23:46 -0400, HarryKrause
wrote:

Don White wrote:
NOYB wrote:
snip

(Even when I play by the liberal's own rules, I win. It's almost
getting boring arguing with them. I need a better challenge.
Perhaps
I'll start playing Devil's Advocate on the conservative newsgroups,
and start promoting the liberal agenda. I may not win, but at least
I'll have more intelligent adversaries to argue against.)


Don't forget to threaten to 'nuke 'em all'...even Texas.


I see NOYB's tripping over his ego again. Frankly, I don't engage him
much on his political tirades because I find his positions so boringly
predictable. And, of course, he's wrong on everything. But, hey, he's a
dentist.

And it's hard for you to engage someone with some credibility, huh Harry?

Predictable........pretty funny coming from someone who musters is entire
intellect to come up with the response "bite me asshole" time and
again...........

I tried to warn him to stop doing that, before I had his account terminated.

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
NOYB wrote:
Turkey was agraid that allowing US troops to pass from Turkish soil into
Iraq would cause a terrorist backlash within their own borders. It was
fear, not failed diplomacy, that caused the Turks to withdraw their
support.


Malarkey. Can you point to one single source which claims this, even a
right-wing bull**** blog?



Terrorism Spreads To Turkey
by Mahir Ali
November 24, 2003



THERE are, naturally enough, efforts afoot to nail down a cause for the
suicide bombings that have lately claimed at least 50 lives in Istanbul.
Turkey, after all, did not join the "coalition of the willing". Although
influential members of its ruling elite were keen to chip in, the option was
rejected by parliament - and, to its credit, the nation's powerful armed
forces chose not to the overrule the democratic verdict.



Hmmmm. This author is scratching his head as to why Istanbul was the target
of terrorists. "Turkey, after all, did not join the coalition of the
willing".



I'd say this pretty strongly suggests that there was a fear in Turkey's
Parliament that logistical support of the US invasion of Iraq would bring
about retaliatory terrorist strikes in Turkey.




The Turks wanted assurances that we would not set up an independent Kurd
state, because of the large nationalist Kurd population within Turkey.
This would also be in US interest because a Kurdish state would almost
certainly become a Muslim fundie terrorist sponsor.



The Turks were also afraid of civil unrest in their Southeast provinces that
would lead to a movement by the Turkish Kurds to align forces with the Iraqi
Kurds and form a Kurdish state. But this had little do with US plans for a
Kurdish state (of which we unfortunately had none).



There were a few other minor problems, but that was their main gripe. So
why didn't the Bush/Cheney Administration act intelligently?



Instead, we anger them to curry favor with the Kurds, who hate us and are
going to remain more friendly towards Al-Queda no matter what we do.



The majority of the Kurds are Shafite Sunnis and hate al-Qaeda. Get your
facts straight.






Better do some more research there, because you've just made a profoundly
dumb and inaccurate statement.

I guess you're the expert on dumb & inaccurate statements.

... *Most* Kurds are Shafiite Sunnis, and were battling al Zarqawi's
fundamentalist Ansar al-Islam group right before, and early on in the
March 2003 US invasion.

Baloney. If Al-Zarqawi was anywhere in Iraq before the invasion, he was in
Kurdistan helping them battle Saddam...

He was in northeast Iraq aligned with the fundamentalist Kurdish group Ansar
al-Islam and battling the Iraqi Kurdish PUK. He wasn't helping the PUK. As
I said...get your facts straight.



The fundamentalist Kurds (Ansar al-Islam) that you're talking about, (the
one's who Zarqawi was aligned with), were working *with* Saddam...not
against him:


http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...le.asp?ID=5571





partly because we'd failed to
help them before, which is why they hate us. They were also accepting arms
& training from Hamas.

Once again, you're talking about Ansar al-Islam...not the great majority of
Kurds (the PUK) who have been battling Ansar al-Islam for years.



Syrian troops 'fired on by US forces'
From correspondents in Damascus, Syria
July 22, 2005
SYRIA said today its border troops had been fired on by US and Iraqi
forces and accused Washington, London and Baghdad of lack of cooperation
in preventing insurgents infiltrating into Iraq.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...E31477,00.html

------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't you wonder why *your* news sources don't report on these things?

They probably do, and I don't watch closely enough. Unlike you, I have a
life.

LOL. It takes me 2 minutes to find these articles, read them, and pass them
along to you. And you're dumb enough to sit there debating me, having
admitted that you hadn't heard this news. So *who* doesn't have a life?



But you've claimed we can & might invade Syria... the Syrians
don't believe it, nor does the U.S. Army, nor do I... and shooting at a
couple of border patrols don't back up your claim.

I wonder why *your* news sources fail to back up your claims that the
majority of the insurgency in Iraq is foreign?

My news source was an MSNBC interview by David Gregory with PM
al-Jafaari...and it most certainly backed my claim.



I wonder why your news
sources fail to mention the ongoing Halliburton half-billion $$ rip-off?

Red herring to divert the topic at hand. You guys are good at that.


I wonder why your news sources fail to mention the lack of a connection
between Saddam & Sept 11th, even though President Bush has said himself
there is none?

He never said there wasn't one. Please post a quote from the President that
said such a thing.





Ditto the pulling of troops away from the hunt for Bin
Laden, which Bush also admitted in his own words.

Goss pretty much told us why we can't pursue bin Laden. He's being
protected by another country's claim to territorial sovereignty.

wrote in message
ups.com...


NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...


NOYB wrote:
"Don White" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
snip...

And there is no "insurgency" in Iraq.

Get your facts straight.


That hot Florida sun must be beating down on your head. Tell that to
the
1800 war dead slipped back into the US under cover.

It's pretty amazing that 2 1/2 years in a hostile country with porous
borders surrounded by enemy countries has produced fewer casualties
than
1
fateful day in September '01. It wasn't insurgents who killed those
3,000
Americans on 9/11...and it's not insurgents who killed 1800 US troops
and
countless Iraqi civilians since March 2003.

Well, NOYB, will you show me in the speech that I posted from Oct.
2002, where in there Bush mentioned Iran,

Bush mentioned Iraq, Iran, and N. Korea in the "Axis of Evil" speech. He
didn't declare war on all three at the same time. The speech that you
posted was the speech he gave to begin the war against the first country
in
the Axis of Evil.

I suspect that they'll be an Iran speech in due time.

So he lied in his Oct. 2002 speech, then, correct?

No. His 2002 speech dealt with Iraq, specifically. His "axis of evil"
speech addressed Iran.



OR that he was going to post
troops in Iraq permanently, as you have stated?

Show me in one of FDR's speeches prior to WWII where he said that he was
going to permanently post troops in Germany and Japan.

What to HELL does FDR have to do with this thread?????

Are you a nincompoop? Or just slow? Prior to a war, a President doesn't
announce that we intend to permanently station troops in the other country.
I used FDR as an example.

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 13:47:44 +0000, NOYB wrote:


There is no domestic insurgency. They are almost all foreign fighters.
You ask how many? Who knows. There is no way to count the number of
terrorists that flood across the porous borders from Saudi Arabia, Syria,
Iran, and Jordan.

Do you just make this up as you go along? Every estimate I have read, has
the "foreign fighters" as less than 10% of the insurgency. As recently
as several months ago (2/4/5), Gen. Myers, the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, put the number of "foreign fighters" at 1,000. My guess,
is his estimate is quite a bit more accurate than yours. Oh, and you had
better tell him there is no "insurgency", as that is the term he used.

http://www2.chinadaily.com.cn/englis...ent_415170.htm

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 14:38:19 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Those are bull**** numbers. Nobody (including Thunder) has posted a
reliable source for those numbers...yet you continue to cite them as
gospel.


Well, one reliable source is Gen. Myers, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff. He has the "foreign fighter" elements at 1,000 (2/4/05). While
the "true" government figures as to the size of the insurgency may be
classified, no where have I read it being under 10,000. Most estimates
have it at 20,000 and up.

http://www2.chinadaily.com.cn/englis...ent_415170.htm

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 10:02:40 -0400, P. Fritz wrote:


Well google returned 78,500 hits for "Hillary Clinton" and Liar....... as
well as 718,000 for "John Kerry" and "stupid"

LOL, switch George Bush for Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, and see what
you get.

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 14:31:54 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Especially if it is launched from North Korea. But I was actually
referring to a "suitcase nuke" smuggled in to the states.

Uh, there are only two countries capable of making a "suitcase nuke". N.
Korea and Iran are not among them. A "dirty bomb" would be a more likely
scenario, and again, the sources for these weapons would not likely be N.
Korea or Iran. But, hey, accuracy was never a forte of Bush's neocons.
What WMD?

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 13:17:04 -0400, HarryKrause wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 11:23:46 -0400, HarryKrause wrote:

Don White wrote:
NOYB wrote:
snip
(Even when I play by the liberal's own rules, I win. It's almost
getting boring arguing with them. I need a better challenge. Perhaps
I'll start playing Devil's Advocate on the conservative newsgroups,
and start promoting the liberal agenda. I may not win, but at least
I'll have more intelligent adversaries to argue against.)


Don't forget to threaten to 'nuke 'em all'...even Texas.

I see NOYB's tripping over his ego again. Frankly, I don't engage him
much on his political tirades because I find his positions so boringly
predictable. And, of course, he's wrong on everything. But, hey, he's a
dentist.

And it's hard for you to engage someone with some credibility, huh Harry?


Who would that be, Herring? Certainly not you...or NOYB, not on
political matters.

Pick anyone not in your mirror, Harry.

--
John H.
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

Malarkey. Can you point to one single source which claims this, even a
right-wing bull**** blog?


NOYB wrote:
Terrorism Spreads To Turkey
by Mahir Ali

Taking a page from your playbook, who is this guy? Why should anybody
believe him?


I'd say this pretty strongly suggests that there was a fear in Turkey's
Parliament that logistical support of the US invasion of Iraq would bring
about retaliatory terrorist strikes in Turkey.


And to top it off, he only says "it suggests".

There's a really strong reference to back up your claims, "it suggests."
Good one, NOBBY, anybody'd *have* to believe iron-clad references like that.


The Turks wanted assurances that we would not set up an independent Kurd
state, because of the large nationalist Kurd population within Turkey.
This would also be in US interest because a Kurdish state would almost
certainly become a Muslim fundie terrorist sponsor.




The Turks were also afraid of civil unrest in their Southeast provinces that
would lead to a movement by the Turkish Kurds to align forces with the Iraqi
Kurds and form a Kurdish state.

Duh. What do you think I just said?


Instead, we anger them to curry favor with the Kurds, who hate us and are
going to remain more friendly towards Al-Queda no matter what we do.



The majority of the Kurds are Shafite Sunnis and hate al-Qaeda. Get your
facts straight.

I've gotten my facts straight. The best you seem to come up with is "it
suggests."



My news source was an MSNBC interview by David Gregory with PM
al-Jafaari...and it most certainly backed my claim.

Except that al-Jafaari is a politician, handing out spin. A politician
with strong ties to toeing the Bush/Cheney line. And of course, outside
of rank propaganda, you come up with zingers like "it suggests."



... I wonder why your news
sources fail to mention the ongoing Halliburton half-billion $$ rip-off?


Red herring to divert the topic at hand.

Not reallly. The topic at hand is the lack of facts you're able to to
muster.


I wonder why your news sources fail to mention the lack of a connection
between Saddam & Sept 11th, even though President Bush has said himself
there is none?


He never said there wasn't one.

Bull****, he said so twice in the debates.

... Please post a quote from the President that
said such a thing.

Ten seconds with Google

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation...ushiraq18.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jun17.html

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security.../0918proof.htm

http://www.factcheck.org/article203.html

I'm sure you'll like this one
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in646142.shtml

Maybe this one will get your attention... bunch of libby-rull traitors!
http://www.gop.com/news/read.aspx?ID=4299

Notice that when making fist-shaking speeches to the faithful (ie the
stupid) President Bush feels totally free to connect Sept 11th to Iraq
over & over. But when grown-ups are in the room, and the administration
has to be held responsible for his statements, they start backpedalling
and saying things like "we never stated there was proof."

So who do you believe, President Bush & his staff, or President Bush &
his staff? ;)



... Ditto the pulling of troops away from the hunt for Bin
Laden, which Bush also admitted in his own words.


Goss pretty much told us why we can't pursue bin Laden. He's being
protected by another country's claim to territorial sovereignty.


Funny thing, that didn't stop Bush/Cheney from invading two other
countries. I guess it's a convenient excuse, that plus "he's not
important." No, he's only responsible for most deadly terrorist attack
in all history, along with other mass murders, and a man who has
personally declared war on the U.S. Now, if he had oil, or tried to
assassinate President Bush's daddy, that'd be another story wouldn't it?

DSK

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 13:17:04 -0400, HarryKrause
wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 11:23:46 -0400, HarryKrause
wrote:

Don White wrote:
NOYB wrote:
snip
(Even when I play by the liberal's own rules, I win. It's almost
getting boring arguing with them. I need a better challenge.
Perhaps
I'll start playing Devil's Advocate on the conservative newsgroups,
and start promoting the liberal agenda. I may not win, but at least
I'll have more intelligent adversaries to argue against.)


Don't forget to threaten to 'nuke 'em all'...even Texas.

I see NOYB's tripping over his ego again. Frankly, I don't engage him
much on his political tirades because I find his positions so boringly
predictable. And, of course, he's wrong on everything. But, hey, he's
a
dentist.

And it's hard for you to engage someone with some credibility, huh
Harry?


Who would that be, Herring? Certainly not you...or NOYB, not on
political matters.

Pick anyone not in your mirror, Harry.

Harry is following the Howard Dean approach, ignore reality, lie about
everything, and hope somebody believes you.

"He(Dean) also said the president was partly responsible for a recent
Supreme Court decision involving eminent domain.


"The president and his right-wing Supreme Court think it is 'okay' to have
the government take your house if they feel like putting a hotel where your
house is," Dean said, not mentioning that until he nominated John Roberts to
the Supreme Court this week, Bush had not appointed anyone to the high
court.


Dean's reference to the "right-wing" court was also erroneous. The four
justices who dissented in the Kelo vs. New London case included the three
most conservative members of the court - Chief Justice William Rehnquist and
Associate Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Justice Sandra Day
O'Connor was the fourth dissenter.


The court's liberal coalition of Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter,
Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer combined with Justice Anthony Kennedy
to form the majority opinion, allowing the city of New London, Conn., to use
eminent domain to seize private properties for commercial development."

http://www.townhall.com/news/politic...0050725a.shtml



--
John H.
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

"HarryKrause" wrote in message I see NOYB's
tripping over his ego again.

That is way too funny.

NOYB,
It isn't as much fun when Kevin can't follow a thread. Kevin never did
catch on when I was jerking him around about my Dr. Dr. degree.


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

wrote in message
ups.com...


NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...


NOYB wrote:
"Don White" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
snip...

And there is no "insurgency" in Iraq.

Get your facts straight.


That hot Florida sun must be beating down on your head. Tell that
to
the
1800 war dead slipped back into the US under cover.

It's pretty amazing that 2 1/2 years in a hostile country with porous
borders surrounded by enemy countries has produced fewer casualties
than
1
fateful day in September '01. It wasn't insurgents who killed those
3,000
Americans on 9/11...and it's not insurgents who killed 1800 US troops
and
countless Iraqi civilians since March 2003.

Well, NOYB, will you show me in the speech that I posted from Oct.
2002, where in there Bush mentioned Iran,

Bush mentioned Iraq, Iran, and N. Korea in the "Axis of Evil" speech.
He
didn't declare war on all three at the same time. The speech that you
posted was the speech he gave to begin the war against the first country
in
the Axis of Evil.

I suspect that they'll be an Iran speech in due time.

So he lied in his Oct. 2002 speech, then, correct?

No. His 2002 speech dealt with Iraq, specifically. His "axis of evil"
speech addressed Iran.



OR that he was going to post
troops in Iraq permanently, as you have stated?

Show me in one of FDR's speeches prior to WWII where he said that he was
going to permanently post troops in Germany and Japan.

What to HELL does FDR have to do with this thread?????

Are you a nincompoop? Or just slow? Prior to a war, a President doesn't
announce that we intend to permanently station troops in the other
country. I used FDR as an example.

NOYB wrote:

If Mr. Caesar were alive today, he'd say the same about the U.S....but
there'd only be two parts instead of three. That is, until we annex Canada.



Be careful what you wish for. You're having trouble handling what you've
bitten off already. Why quadruple your problems?