| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
"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. |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
"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? |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
"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? |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
"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? |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
"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. |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
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] |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
"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? |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
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 "It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!" [A Self-obsessed Hypocrite] |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
"John H." wrote in message ... On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:19:52 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "NOYB" wrote in message thlink.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? Some of the nice things our soldiers have done over there? They're not silent about these things. I've been hearing about them from various mainstream sources, such as NPR and the NY Times, as well as our local Gannett paper. |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... You mean, of course, most Republican politicians. I've been on visits to inner-city project housing with Democratic politicians. Handing out cigarettes to bribe derelicts to vote, eh? |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
"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. |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
"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. |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
"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. |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 12:31:53 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:
NOYB wrote: "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. Another example of your inability to think. Narcissists are generally contemptuous of others. -- John H "It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!" [A Self-obsessed Hypocrite] |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:37:18 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... You mean, of course, most Republican politicians. I've been on visits to inner-city project housing with Democratic politicians. Handing out cigarettes to bribe derelicts to vote, eh? LOL!! -- John H "It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!" [A Self-obsessed Hypocrite] |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
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 rthlink.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 H "It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!" [A Self-obsessed Hypocrite] |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
"NOYB" wrote in message k.net... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... You mean, of course, most Republican politicians. I've been on visits to inner-city project housing with Democratic politicians. Handing out cigarettes to bribe derelicts to vote, eh? "Narcissists are totally and inflexibly authoritarian. In other words, they are suck-ups. They want to be authority figures and, short of that, they want to be associated with authority figures. In their hearts, they know they can't think well, have no judgment about what matters, are not connected with the world they inhabit, so they cling fanatically to the opinions of people they regard as authority figures |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... You mean, of course, most Republican politicians. I've been on visits to inner-city project housing with Democratic politicians. Handing out cigarettes to bribe derelicts to vote, eh? Just because people have little money doesn't mean they are as ignorant as your typical Republican voter. As a matter of fact, the last time time I was in "the projects" was a couple months ago, accompanying some local pols and a mortgage lender who has a special program to help the working poor qualify for home ownership. I was there to interview some of those who were signing up for a free "homebuying" course, so I could call them from time to time to see how they were progressing. The last time I was on foot in "the projects" was 6 1/2 years ago when I went knocking on the door of my perio patient who didn't show up for her appointment at the dental school. She had advanced periodontal disease, and no money. I convinced my instructor to get the school to treat the case pro bono. After 4 appointments of *free* scaling and root planing and perio surgery, all she had to do was come back in for a final post-operative evaluation to see how her gingiva had responded to treatment. Without her showing up for the reevaluation, I didn't get "credit" for the case...and it was threatening to hold me up from graduating. A white guy driving a white, four-door sedan into the projects and knocking on someone's door sure drew a lot of funny looks...but she wouldn't answer her phone. She begrudgingly accompanied me to the school and I graduated 4 days later. |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
"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 arthlink.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? |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
"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). |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
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] |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
"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? |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
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] |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
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] |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
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] |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
"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. |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
"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? |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
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] |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
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] |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
"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. |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
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? PS. I'm going to see my dentist. I hope you learned a little about the training of military units. I got to the 196th Light Infantry Brigade in Dec, 1965. The soldiers in the brigade had just finished their basic training and were starting their advanced individual training. The unit completed it's training and was sent to Vietnam about 18 months later, when it completed it's advanced *unit* training. I can think of no unit which could have trained and been combat deployable in less time. -- John H "It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!" [A Self-obsessed Hypocrite] |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
"John H." wrote in message ... 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 m... On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:36:26 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:b0duo1ti0qojrsd5c6155p8vnbdtok0lu0@4ax. com... On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:19:52 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "NOYB" wrote in message tl.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 Do you consider WSJ to fall under the heading of "mainstream press"? |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
John H. wrote:
Narcissists are generally contemptuous of others. Let's see...you accuse Harry of personal attacks, yet you turn around and post above. Doesn't this seem inconsistent to you? |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
"Don White" wrote in message ... John H. wrote: Narcissists are generally contemptuous of others. Let's see...you accuse Harry of personal attacks, yet you turn around and post above. Doesn't this seem inconsistent to you? Preaching again Pastor Don? |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
*JimH* wrote:
Preaching again Pastor Don? I heard they were giving out diplomas in Cracker Jack boxes...somewhere slightly west of Cleveland OH. |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 18:32:10 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "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. You lost me with the 'YOU trust' stuff. You are the one who referred to a general's comment about one battalion being self sufficient. . The question is, "ready for what?" Being ready to conduct sustained combat operations with *no* external support is one state of readiness. I know of none of our battalions, except perhaps some Marine units, who could do so. Being ready to conduct combat operations with combat support and combat service support is another thing entirely. It is what most of our Army battalions do. Being able only to hold an area that has been secured by another unit is the minimal state of readiness. -- John H "It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!" [A Self-obsessed Hypocrite] |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 18:32:48 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . 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 om... On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:36:26 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:b0duo1ti0qojrsd5c6155p8vnbdtok0lu0@4ax .com... On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:19:52 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "NOYB" wrote in message . atl.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 Do you consider WSJ to fall under the heading of "mainstream press"? Mainstream, perhaps. Major media, no. -- John H "It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!" [A Self-obsessed Hypocrite] |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 19:38:34 GMT, Don White wrote:
John H. wrote: Narcissists are generally contemptuous of others. Let's see...you accuse Harry of personal attacks, yet you turn around and post above. Doesn't this seem inconsistent to you? No. You snipped the portion of the post that made the comment relevant. Why would you do that? -- John H "It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!" [A Self-obsessed Hypocrite] |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
"John H." wrote in message ... On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 18:32:10 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H." wrote in message . .. On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 18:06:47 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H." wrote in message m... 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. You lost me with the 'YOU trust' stuff. You are the one who referred to a general's comment about one battalion being self sufficient. . The "you trust" stuff was used as a safety measure, to crush a type of response I see here often, occasionally from you, but almost always from NOYB. It involves questioning the opinion of a source, even if that source is the only person on earth who could possibly have 100% accurate information. The question is, "ready for what?" Being ready to conduct sustained combat operations with *no* external support is one state of readiness. I know of none of our battalions, except perhaps some Marine units, who could do so. Being ready to conduct combat operations with combat support and combat service support is another thing entirely. It is what most of our Army battalions do. Being able only to hold an area that has been secured by another unit is the minimal state of readiness. Are you seriously not understanding this? I'm telling you that Iraqi battalions cannot function without A FOREIGN ARMY (ours) covering their behinds. Obviously, our own battalions function with support, but they tend to be from our own country. |
Bush's ability to fool people diminishes
"John H." wrote in message ... On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 18:32:48 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H." wrote in message . .. On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 18:07:32 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H." wrote in message m... On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:52:32 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:jqduo1142ogneshhoq0aie6199lana70bt@4ax. com... On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:36:26 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:b0duo1ti0qojrsd5c6155p8vnbdtok0lu0@4a x.com... On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:19:52 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "NOYB" wrote in message .atl.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 Do you consider WSJ to fall under the heading of "mainstream press"? Mainstream, perhaps. Major media, no. Oh. OK. I see. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:24 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com