"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
news
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
news
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
news
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.