On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 11:39:17 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
thunder wrote:
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 10:04:12 -0500, John H. wrote:


VICTORY IN IRAQ DEFINED
Redefined is more like it. What ever happened to democracy breaking
out
all over the middle east? Quite similar to the WMD mutating to the
WMD
programs, don't you think? So John, when is this administration
going to
stop the BS, and try a little honesty?
It's not defined at all. It's nothing but paragraphs that can be
interpreted any way the misAdministration pleases.
"Longer term, Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well
integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the
global war on terrorism."
Wiggle words, especially the way the Bush misAdministration lies.

What does the Administration mean, precisely, by:

peaceful

Does that mean no insurgent attacks? Only 10 a day? What?

united

Now that's an interesting word, since many believe Iraq is going to
divide into two or three nation-states.

stable

Not in anyone's lifetime

secure

What does that mean?

well-integrated

Another wiggle word.

Sorry. Too much room in these phrases for Presidummy Bush to lie as
usual about Iraq.



The key phrase is "full partner in the global war on terrorism". In
other words, Iraq allows us to establish permanent bases in Iraq from
which we can launch attacks against terrorist factions in the region.
The Iraqis want us out of their country.
You asked them?


They've been asked, more than once. Get your nose out of Faux and NewsMax.

"Since 1998, Al Qaida has repeatedly cited Vietnam, Beirut, and Somalia, as
examples to encourage more attacks against America and our interests
overseas."



Bush didn't just make this up. From bin Laden's 1996 Declaration of War on
the United States:

"But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous
propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of
the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force,
including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However,
when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American
Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying
disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared
in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these
threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by
Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became
very clear. It was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a remedy
to the "chests" of believing nations to see you defeated in the three
Islamic cities of Beirut , Aden and Mogadishu."




Your second bite of the apple has nothing to do with the fact that
Iraqis have told us they want us out of their country.

Show us where over 80% of the Iraqis have said they want us out *now*. Of course
they want us out. The question is 'when'?
--
John H

"It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!"
[A Self-obsessed Hypocrite]

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 11:56:08 -0500, John H. wrote:


Show us where over 80% of the Iraqis have said they want us out *now*. Of
course they want us out. The question is 'when'?

Perhaps next year. Interesting to note, the Iraqi leadership doesn't
consider killing American soldiers terrorism, but a "legitimate right" of
resistance.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlates...431131,00.html

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 11:56:08 -0500, John H. wrote:


Show us where over 80% of the Iraqis have said they want us out *now*. Of
course they want us out. The question is 'when'?

Perhaps next year. Interesting to note, the Iraqi leadership doesn't
consider killing American soldiers terrorism, but a "legitimate right" of
resistance.

Legitimate right.....you mean, sort of what WE would do here in this country
if we were invaded by some yahoo with an erection problem, and we had the
weaponry to have some fun with his soldiers?

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 21:06:25 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:


Legitimate right.....you mean, sort of what WE would do here in this
country if we were invaded by some yahoo with an erection problem, and we
had the weaponry to have some fun with his soldiers?

It was a "forced" statement in trying to work out their differences, but
it still seems to contradict this administration's "rosy scenario". The
Iraqis seem to be an incredibly resilient people, but whew, there is so
much to overcome.

I'm also curious what happens to the neo-cons dream of a base in Iraq,
when, the Iraqis tell us to get out.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 11:56:08 -0500, John H. wrote:


Show us where over 80% of the Iraqis have said they want us out *now*. Of
course they want us out. The question is 'when'?

Perhaps next year. Interesting to note, the Iraqi leadership doesn't
consider killing American soldiers terrorism, but a "legitimate right" of
resistance.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlates...431131,00.html



"The final communique, hammered out at the end of three days of
negotiations at a preparatory reconciliation conference under the auspices
of the Arab League, condemned terrorism, but was a clear acknowledgment of
the Sunni position that insurgents should not be labeled as terrorists if
their operations do not target innocent civilians or institutions designed
to provide for the welfare of Iraqi citizens. "


I agree. But the ones using car bombs to indiscriminately kill and
terrorize the civilian population, or destroy institutions designed to
provide for the welfare of those citizens, are absolutely "terrorists".

In other words, almost all of the IED attacks are being done by terrorists.