"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

"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.

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

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 14:10:47 -0400, DSK wrote:


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


A small thing...

Saying there has been no evidence found to support something, and saying that
something didn't occur are two different things.

Your sources don't negate NOYB's claim that, "He never said there wasn't one."

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