On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:34:49 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

It's not a matter of agreeing with him. The question is: do you believe
he is telling the truth?

He stated certain *facts* about Iraq, that are in direct contrast to
what the news media would have us believe. Is he lying or is the news
media lying?

Two separate questions for you. Sit down.

1) Is it possible that a new school could be successfully completed,
opened and populated in one part of Iraq, while in another location,
things are a total ****ing mess and have only gotten worse?

Yes. The first school is in the Shiite regions. The second is in the
Sunni regions. It's no different than red counties vs. blue counties
right in here in the good ol' U.S of A. The blue counties are analogous
to the Sunni regions.

Good! So, we've agreed that there are places which are not so happy and
shiny and peaceful.



2) Is it possible that a senator might not be willing or able to tour the
second location, where even our own servicemen enter at extreme risk to
themselves, in armored vehicles which are not immune to roadside bombs?

Just like most politicians avoid visiting inner-city project housing for
fear of their own safety.

Good! That means Lieberman didn't see everything, or speak to people who had
stories which contradict the rosy picture. For instance, people whose male
family members had been taken away and killed in the middle of the night, by
the Iraqi police.

On NBC news last night, a general (in a uniform, in front of a microphone,
in Iraq) commented that out of 8 or 10 divisions of Iraqi soldiers, only 1
(as in ONE) division was ready to be self-sufficient.

He was referring to a *battalion*, not a division. Even the American Army has
few, if any battalions which are self-sufficient. Maybe their is an SOF
battalion sized unit which is self sufficient, but the *vast* majority of our
battalions are not self-sufficient. The media has picked up on this as though
it's proof of the ineffectiveness of training, and most folk, such as yourself,
have no idea what 'self-sufficient' means.



The rest were useful
only as backup for our own troops. One of your president's measures of
success (per his own blather last spring) was how well the Iraqi army was
doing in its training.

Perhaps someone else here can answer this question: Here in America, if you
enter Army boot camp on January 1, what is the shortest period of time that
must pass before the Army would consider you ready to be sent into battle?

Good question. A soldier generally gets about 9 weeks of basic training. He then
goes for 8-26 (depending on his specialty - it could be more) weeks of advanced
individual training.

He then becomes part of a unit. The unit, once filled with it's authorized
personnel, then conducts team/section training so the individuals learn how to
work together. Once the team/section is proficient (another couple months), then
the teams/sections can work together as part of a platoon. Once the platoons are
proficient, they work together as part of a company. Once all the companies are
proficient, they work together as a battalion. This notion (espoused by fools)
that a battalion should be ready to go in three months is pure horse****.


--
John H

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

"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

It's not a matter of agreeing with him. The question is: do you
believe he is telling the truth?

He stated certain *facts* about Iraq, that are in direct contrast to
what the news media would have us believe. Is he lying or is the
news media lying?

Two separate questions for you. Sit down.

1) Is it possible that a new school could be successfully completed,
opened and populated in one part of Iraq, while in another location,
things are a total ****ing mess and have only gotten worse?

Yes. The first school is in the Shiite regions. The second is in the
Sunni regions. It's no different than red counties vs. blue counties
right in here in the good ol' U.S of A. The blue counties are
analogous to the Sunni regions.

Good! So, we've agreed that there are places which are not so happy and
shiny and peaceful.

Then ask yourself this:
Why does the media ignore the places that Lieberman talked about, and
only report about the "other" places?


You've been making that same claim for over a year now. Before we can
continue discussing it, I need more information. Give me two or three
examples of the types of positive things you believe are not getting
enough coverage. No links. Your own words.

Like you, I haven't been there. So all we have to go on is the words of
others. I choose to believe our elected representatives who recently
returned from Iraq (some of them after their 3rd or 4th visit).

What things did he mention that impressed you the most?

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:39:01 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:21:02 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"Dan J.S." wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
startribune.com
Editorial: Bush creates illusion of progress in Iraq

December 1, 2005


What about your boy Lieberman and his latest editorial? Seems to support
Bush.


For how long will Lieberman's article be your bible? Is there an
expiration
date, or does the article trump any subsequent information, regardless of
the source?


Why does the major media have so much 'respect' for Murtha's words, but so
little for Lieberman's?
--
John H

Where do you get the idea that I have no respect for Lieberman's words? I'm
sure that he actually saw the things he wrote about. But, as NOYB and I
established a few minutes ago, he did not see everything.

If he *did* see everything and withheld that information, then I would have
a reason to mistrust him. I might even want his personal investment
portfolio audited, preferably with a gun to his head, on national
television. Any time a politician supports a lousy idea, there are two
possible reasons, one or both of which are present 100% of the time: Money,
or religion.


I said nothing about you. Go back to 'go'.
--
John H

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

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:52:32 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:36:26 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:19:52 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message
. earthlink.net...

It's not a matter of agreeing with him. The question is: do you
believe
he
is telling the truth?

He stated certain *facts* about Iraq, that are in direct contrast to
what
the news media would have us believe. Is he lying or is the news
media
lying?

Two separate questions for you. Sit down.

1) Is it possible that a new school could be successfully completed,
opened
and populated in one part of Iraq, while in another location, things are
a
total ****ing mess and have only gotten worse?

2) Is it possible that a senator might not be willing or able to tour
the
second location, where even our own servicemen enter at extreme risk to
themselves, in armored vehicles which are not immune to roadside bombs?


Regardless, Doug. Why is the major media keeping silent about it?

Silent about what?

Lieberman's views, especially given the hype Murtha's gotten (and
getting).

John, I think you need more variety in your news sources. Lieberman's thing
wasn't buried. Is something wrong with your local newspaper, or broadcast
networks?


HO, HO, HO!
--
John H

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

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 12:58:59 -0500, John H. wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:34:49 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

It's not a matter of agreeing with him. The question is: do you believe
he is telling the truth?

He stated certain *facts* about Iraq, that are in direct contrast to
what the news media would have us believe. Is he lying or is the news
media lying?

Two separate questions for you. Sit down.

1) Is it possible that a new school could be successfully completed,
opened and populated in one part of Iraq, while in another location,
things are a total ****ing mess and have only gotten worse?

Yes. The first school is in the Shiite regions. The second is in the
Sunni regions. It's no different than red counties vs. blue counties
right in here in the good ol' U.S of A. The blue counties are analogous
to the Sunni regions.

Good! So, we've agreed that there are places which are not so happy and
shiny and peaceful.



2) Is it possible that a senator might not be willing or able to tour the
second location, where even our own servicemen enter at extreme risk to
themselves, in armored vehicles which are not immune to roadside bombs?

Just like most politicians avoid visiting inner-city project housing for
fear of their own safety.

Good! That means Lieberman didn't see everything, or speak to people who had
stories which contradict the rosy picture. For instance, people whose male
family members had been taken away and killed in the middle of the night, by
the Iraqi police.

On NBC news last night, a general (in a uniform, in front of a microphone,
in Iraq) commented that out of 8 or 10 divisions of Iraqi soldiers, only 1
(as in ONE) division was ready to be self-sufficient.

He was referring to a *battalion*, not a division. Even the American Army has
few, if any battalions which are self-sufficient. Maybe their is an SOF
battalion sized unit which is self sufficient, but the *vast* majority of our
battalions are not self-sufficient. The media has picked up on this as though
it's proof of the ineffectiveness of training, and most folk, such as yourself,
have no idea what 'self-sufficient' means.



The rest were useful
only as backup for our own troops. One of your president's measures of
success (per his own blather last spring) was how well the Iraqi army was
doing in its training.

Perhaps someone else here can answer this question: Here in America, if you
enter Army boot camp on January 1, what is the shortest period of time that
must pass before the Army would consider you ready to be sent into battle?

Good question. A soldier generally gets about 9 weeks of basic training. He then
goes for 8-26 (depending on his specialty - it could be more) weeks of advanced
individual training.

He then becomes part of a unit. The unit, once filled with it's authorized
personnel, then conducts team/section training so the individuals learn how to
work together. Once the team/section is proficient (another couple months), then
the teams/sections can work together as part of a platoon. Once the platoons are
proficient, they work together as part of a company. Once all the companies are
proficient, they work together as a battalion. This notion (espoused by fools)
that a battalion should be ready to go in three months is pure horse****.


edit the boo-boos.
--
John H

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

"John H." wrote in message
...


On NBC news last night, a general (in a uniform, in front of a microphone,
in Iraq) commented that out of 8 or 10 divisions of Iraqi soldiers, only 1
(as in ONE) division was ready to be self-sufficient.

He was referring to a *battalion*, not a division. Even the American Army
has
few, if any battalions which are self-sufficient. Maybe their is an SOF
battalion sized unit which is self sufficient, but the *vast* majority of
our
battalions are not self-sufficient. The media has picked up on this as
though
it's proof of the ineffectiveness of training, and most folk, such as
yourself,
have no idea what 'self-sufficient' means.

Don't be ridiculous. You know exactly what I meant by self-sufficient. I
didn't mean they grow their own food and dig a well every time they needed
water. I meant that they didn't need another army (ours) tagging along with
them to help them do their jobs.

Considering the patience I have for you, I should've been a special ed
teacher.



The rest were useful
only as backup for our own troops. One of your president's measures of
success (per his own blather last spring) was how well the Iraqi army was
doing in its training.

Perhaps someone else here can answer this question: Here in America, if
you
enter Army boot camp on January 1, what is the shortest period of time
that
must pass before the Army would consider you ready to be sent into battle?

Good question. A soldier generally gets about 9 weeks of basic training.
He then
goes for 8-26 (depending on his specialty - it could be more) weeks of
advanced
individual training.

He then becomes part of a unit. The unit, once filled with it's authorized
personnel, then conducts team/section training so the individuals learn
how to
work together. Once the team/section is proficient (another couple
months), then
the teams/sections can work together as part of a platoon. Once the
platoons are
proficient, they work together as part of a company. Once all the
companies are
proficient, they work together as a battalion. This notion (espoused by
fools)
that a battalion should be ready to go in three months is pure horse****.

Where did 3 months come from? Your president has been raving forever about
how much progress the Iraqi army is making.

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:52:32 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:36:26 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
m...
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:19:52 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message
.earthlink.net...

It's not a matter of agreeing with him. The question is: do you
believe
he
is telling the truth?

He stated certain *facts* about Iraq, that are in direct contrast to
what
the news media would have us believe. Is he lying or is the news
media
lying?

Two separate questions for you. Sit down.

1) Is it possible that a new school could be successfully completed,
opened
and populated in one part of Iraq, while in another location, things
are
a
total ****ing mess and have only gotten worse?

2) Is it possible that a senator might not be willing or able to tour
the
second location, where even our own servicemen enter at extreme risk
to
themselves, in armored vehicles which are not immune to roadside
bombs?


Regardless, Doug. Why is the major media keeping silent about it?

Silent about what?

Lieberman's views, especially given the hype Murtha's gotten (and
getting).

John, I think you need more variety in your news sources. Lieberman's
thing
wasn't buried. Is something wrong with your local newspaper, or broadcast
networks?


HO, HO, HO!
--
John H

Where did you first see Lieberman's article?

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 18:06:47 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
.. .


On NBC news last night, a general (in a uniform, in front of a microphone,
in Iraq) commented that out of 8 or 10 divisions of Iraqi soldiers, only 1
(as in ONE) division was ready to be self-sufficient.

He was referring to a *battalion*, not a division. Even the American Army
has
few, if any battalions which are self-sufficient. Maybe their is an SOF
battalion sized unit which is self sufficient, but the *vast* majority of
our
battalions are not self-sufficient. The media has picked up on this as
though
it's proof of the ineffectiveness of training, and most folk, such as
yourself,
have no idea what 'self-sufficient' means.

Don't be ridiculous. You know exactly what I meant by self-sufficient. I
didn't mean they grow their own food and dig a well every time they needed
water. I meant that they didn't need another army (ours) tagging along with
them to help them do their jobs.

Considering the patience I have for you, I should've been a special ed
teacher.



The rest were useful
only as backup for our own troops. One of your president's measures of
success (per his own blather last spring) was how well the Iraqi army was
doing in its training.

Perhaps someone else here can answer this question: Here in America, if
you
enter Army boot camp on January 1, what is the shortest period of time
that
must pass before the Army would consider you ready to be sent into battle?

Good question. A soldier generally gets about 9 weeks of basic training.
He then
goes for 8-26 (depending on his specialty - it could be more) weeks of
advanced
individual training.

He then becomes part of a unit. The unit, once filled with it's authorized
personnel, then conducts team/section training so the individuals learn
how to
work together. Once the team/section is proficient (another couple
months), then
the teams/sections can work together as part of a platoon. Once the
platoons are
proficient, they work together as part of a company. Once all the
companies are
proficient, they work together as a battalion. This notion (espoused by
fools)
that a battalion should be ready to go in three months is pure horse****.

Where did 3 months come from? Your president has been raving forever about
how much progress the Iraqi army is making.


What *you* mean by 'self-sufficient' and what the US generals mean are two
different things.

The 'three months' came from Chris Mathews and some Democrat idiot he had on his
show, who seemed to think battalions should be ready to go three months after
they're thought of.

You are leaving out a great number of battalions, purposely I assume, that can
conduct combat operations with minimal support. That's the group that falls
between the self-sufficient and the 'follow-up' to American forces.
--
John H

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

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 18:07:32 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:52:32 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:36:26 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
om...
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:19:52 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message
l.earthlink.net...

It's not a matter of agreeing with him. The question is: do you
believe
he
is telling the truth?

He stated certain *facts* about Iraq, that are in direct contrast to
what
the news media would have us believe. Is he lying or is the news
media
lying?

Two separate questions for you. Sit down.

1) Is it possible that a new school could be successfully completed,
opened
and populated in one part of Iraq, while in another location, things
are
a
total ****ing mess and have only gotten worse?

2) Is it possible that a senator might not be willing or able to tour
the
second location, where even our own servicemen enter at extreme risk
to
themselves, in armored vehicles which are not immune to roadside
bombs?


Regardless, Doug. Why is the major media keeping silent about it?

Silent about what?

Lieberman's views, especially given the hype Murtha's gotten (and
getting).

John, I think you need more variety in your news sources. Lieberman's
thing
wasn't buried. Is something wrong with your local newspaper, or broadcast
networks?


HO, HO, HO!
--
John H

Where did you first see Lieberman's article?


Wall Street Journal, courtesy of NOYB who posted it here. This was after Hannity
made mention of the fact that *none* of the major media gave it any play.
--
John H

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

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 18:06:47 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
. ..


On NBC news last night, a general (in a uniform, in front of a
microphone,
in Iraq) commented that out of 8 or 10 divisions of Iraqi soldiers, only
1
(as in ONE) division was ready to be self-sufficient.

He was referring to a *battalion*, not a division. Even the American
Army
has
few, if any battalions which are self-sufficient. Maybe their is an SOF
battalion sized unit which is self sufficient, but the *vast* majority
of
our
battalions are not self-sufficient. The media has picked up on this as
though
it's proof of the ineffectiveness of training, and most folk, such as
yourself,
have no idea what 'self-sufficient' means.

Don't be ridiculous. You know exactly what I meant by self-sufficient. I
didn't mean they grow their own food and dig a well every time they needed
water. I meant that they didn't need another army (ours) tagging along
with
them to help them do their jobs.

Considering the patience I have for you, I should've been a special ed
teacher.



The rest were useful
only as backup for our own troops. One of your president's measures of
success (per his own blather last spring) was how well the Iraqi army
was
doing in its training.

Perhaps someone else here can answer this question: Here in America, if
you
enter Army boot camp on January 1, what is the shortest period of time
that
must pass before the Army would consider you ready to be sent into
battle?

Good question. A soldier generally gets about 9 weeks of basic training.
He then
goes for 8-26 (depending on his specialty - it could be more) weeks of
advanced
individual training.

He then becomes part of a unit. The unit, once filled with it's
authorized
personnel, then conducts team/section training so the individuals learn
how to
work together. Once the team/section is proficient (another couple
months), then
the teams/sections can work together as part of a platoon. Once the
platoons are
proficient, they work together as part of a company. Once all the
companies are
proficient, they work together as a battalion. This notion (espoused by
fools)
that a battalion should be ready to go in three months is pure
horse****.

Where did 3 months come from? Your president has been raving forever about
how much progress the Iraqi army is making.


What *you* mean by 'self-sufficient' and what the US generals mean are two
different things.

The 'three months' came from Chris Mathews and some Democrat idiot he had
on his
show, who seemed to think battalions should be ready to go three months
after
they're thought of.

You are leaving out a great number of battalions, purposely I assume, that
can
conduct combat operations with minimal support. That's the group that
falls
between the self-sufficient and the 'follow-up' to American forces.
--
John H

OK - I used the wrong terminology, but it really doesn't matter, does it?
Call them "pieces". If there are 8 possible pieces, and only one is ready
(according to someone YOU trust), that means 87.5% of the pieces are not
ready, however the person YOU trust defines the term "ready". The person YOU
trust is currently a big shot in Iraq, not retired, not a news consultant,
not a news anchor. That eliminates the "Oh yeah? Who said that?" nonsense.