"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Dan J.S. wrote:
"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.

Joe Lieberman isn't "my" boy or anyone else's. He's a solid U.S. Senator
and someone I respect.

That does not mean I have to agree with him,

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?

"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?

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?

"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.


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.

"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.



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. 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?

"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?





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. 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?

You can train riflemen to be ready to fight in well under 6 months. But how
long does it take for commanders to work their way up the ranks in the US
military? The Iraqis don't have experienced leadership, which is why their
divisions are not self-sufficient.

"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.

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]

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.

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:19:52 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.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?
--
John H

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