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
news
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?