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

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'....

DSK

"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'....

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

"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.

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
.. .
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

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

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'.

"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.