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

"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").

"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?

"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

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
NOYB wrote:
And there is no "insurgency" in Iraq.


And the Easter Bunny lays colored eggs.

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.

??

You equate mass murder with military casualties?

Another question: if Iraq is "hostile" then how can anyboidy say we won
the war?

Parts of L.A., Detroit, Atlanta, NY, and Chicago are "hostile"...and nobody
is keeping a score card for those cities and saying we're losing the war
there.


And if the surrounding countries are 'enemy' then why did we
invade Iraq and not them?


Because the surrounding countries were not as geographically strategically
important. Look at a map and you'll understand. Iran is surrounded on
three side now by US troops. Syria is surrounded on two sides. Saudi
Arabia is surrounded on three sides. We can hit terror cells in any country
in the region as long as we have troops in Iraq.

If you keep doing stupid things, you always get bad results.

... 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.


So, if you want to eliminate the terrorist problem, you redefine the word
'terrorist.' I remember a while back there was a raging debate over the
meaning of the word 'is'....

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

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.


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.

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"?

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?


... 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??

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.


... 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??

So many little inconsistencies & illogical points... NOBBY you really
know how to pick 'em.

DSK

"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.

"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.)