On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 15:53:45 -0400, Peter A >
wrote:


>Oh fer crissake go to the morgue and get a used brain, it's got to be
>better than what you have now. I should have remembered what a dope you
>are from past exchanges, totally uninterested in facts and unable to use
>logic, just a goose-stepping bush apologist. I won't forget again.

Peter I am not the one who has no facts. You have never given a cite
for what you say, or for what you base you statements on.
And you logic leaves a little to be desired.
You say that you can do what Bush has not, but will not do it.
And again, if anyone disagrees with you, they are stupid, or being a
dope.
A personal attack is not an argument, nor logical.

On 14 Mar 2007 13:49:56 -0700, wrote:

>
>>
>> So you are presupposing that the administration has let him go?
>> Do you have any proof?
>> And did you find the Unibomber?
>> Perhaps you can go to a remote area the size of California and find
>> him. Even with thousands of people hiding him.
>
>It is a cheap rhetorical ploy to counter a question with another more
>suitable to your own stance. Although in this instance the deflection
>does not help your position. I personally didn't locate Ted Kaczynki,
>although if he identified himself as the unibomber, released several
>videos saying so, if I had access to the US armed forces and was
>allowed to spend 2 billion dollars a week for 5 years pursuing him,
>Yeah, I suspect I could have tracked him down.
>
<snort>
>I have no conspiracy theory about the administration allowing Bin
>Laden to escape, although I can see the argument that it has helped
>their cause. My point is only that Bush promised the American people
>that he would bring him to justice and he has failed, and he failed
>because he turned his attention to other issues. I really don't
>understand why there is not more outrage about this.
>

that's funny, i heard bush tracked osama down and ripped him limb from
bloody limb with his bare hands. it was all over fox news.

your pal,
rupert

>
> A cheap rectorial ploy? Applying a similar reference, to illuminate
> the subject.

Yes, poor rhetoric, they are not similar at all, as I pointed out.

>
> How many troops are in Afghanistan? The entire U.S. Army?
> All they are doing is look for OBL?
> 300 billion just looking for OBL?
> Quite a bit over the top, don't you think?
> Why don't' you join the military in Afghanistan and show them right
> where OBL is.
>
I don't really know what you are trying to get at, your points are a
bit jumbled. Afghanistan and and the capture of Bin Laden should have
been the focus of the administration. Opening a second front in Iraq
was a mistake clearly. Afghanistan appears to be slipping away as
well. It has been a fiasco.

>
> Where is your outrage over Clinton not taking custody of OBL when he
> had a chance.
>

Again with rhetorical ploys, I'm not talking about Clinton, I don't
know where that came from. When you find yourself in a corner, you
change the subject. I'm talking about the poorly executed foreign
policy of the Bush administration.

> There is more then a little hypocrisy in your statement.
How so?

On 16 Mar 2007 16:03:48 -0700, wrote:

>>
>> A cheap rectorial ploy? Applying a similar reference, to illuminate
>> the subject.
>
>Yes, poor rhetoric, they are not similar at all, as I pointed out.
Yes they are quite similar, You don't wish to deal with it.
>

>> Why don't' you join the military in Afghanistan and show them right
>> where OBL is.
>>
>I don't really know what you are trying to get at, your points are a
>bit jumbled.
My point is that it is not that easy to find some one who is actively
trying to avoid detection.
> Afghanistan and and the capture of Bin Laden should have
>been the focus of the administration. Opening a second front in Iraq
>was a mistake clearly.

In your opinion, now if you have some military expertise, you will
have to explain that to me.
> Afghanistan appears to be slipping away as
>well. It has been a fiasco.
Again your opinion.

>> Where is your outrage over Clinton not taking custody of OBL when he
>> had a chance.
>
>Again with rhetorical ploys, I'm not talking about Clinton, I don't
>know where that came from. When you find yourself in a corner, you
>change the subject. I'm talking about the poorly executed foreign
>policy of the Bush administration.
You were speaking about Bush not finding OBL, If Clinton had taken him
(OBL), there would possibly have not been 9/11.
>
>> There is more then a little hypocrisy in your statement.
>How so?
The above
>
>

>
> My point is that it is not that easy to find some one who is actively
> trying to avoid detection.

Is it your stance that Bin Laden is too difficult to find, that we are
incapable of doing so? I would argue that attentions (and resources)
have been redirected to deal with the deteriorating situation in Iraq,
for example the disbanding of the CIA unit in charge of hunting Bin
Laden.

> >been the focus of the administration. Opening a second front in Iraq
> >was a mistake clearly.
> In your opinion, now if you have some military expertise, you will
> have to explain that to me.
> Again your opinion.
>

Not just mine, I think you will find many people who agree that it was
a mistake to remove remove Sadam Hussein from power and sending the
country spiraling into a civil war. Worse yet, it could expand into
regional Shia/Sunnis conflict destabilizing the entire middle east.
It's not simply opinion, it is a stance arrived at by many people who
have looked at the situation.

>
> You were speaking about Bush not finding OBL, If Clinton had taken him
> (OBL), there would possibly have not been 9/11.
>

Another attempted defection...I am talking about the current
administration and how they have failed to do what they promised us
they would do, namely bring Bin Laden to justice.


> >> There is more then a little hypocrisy in your statement.
> >How so?
> The above

I'm not sure you understand what a hypocrisy is, how have I been
hypocritical?

On 16 Mar 2007 20:21:22 -0700, wrote:


>
>Is it your stance that Bin Laden is too difficult to find, that we are
>incapable of doing so?
No it is my opinion that it will take a while, but in the end he will
be found.

> I would argue that attentions (and resources)
>have been redirected to deal with the situation in Iraq,
>for example the disbanding of the CIA unit in charge of hunting Bin
>Laden.
Yes attentions are need else where right now, but eventually OBL will
be found.
>
>> >been the focus of the administration. Opening a second front in Iraq
>> >was a mistake clearly.
>> In your opinion, now if you have some military expertise, you will
>> have to explain that to me.
>> Again your opinion.
>>
>
>Not just mine, I think you will find many people who agree that it was
>a mistake to remove remove Sadam Hussein from power and sending the
>country spiraling into a civil war. Worse yet, it could expand into
>regional Shia/Sunnis conflict destabilizing the entire middle east.
>It's not simply opinion, it is a stance arrived at by many people who
>have looked at the situation.
This stance is an opinion. And removing Sadam was not a mistake.
>
>>
>> You were speaking about Bush not finding OBL, If Clinton had taken him
>> (OBL), there would possibly have not been 9/11.
>>
>
>Another attempted defection...I am talking about the current
>administration and how they have failed to do what they promised us
>they would do, namely bring Bin Laden to justice.
So we are limiting the discussion to what you want?
All administrations deal with what the previous administration did.

>I'm not sure you understand what a hypocrisy is, how have I been
>hypocritical?

Oh I understand, you just don't want to admit your hypocrisy.
>
>

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>>
>> My point is that it is not that easy to find some one who is actively
>> trying to avoid detection.
>
> Is it your stance that Bin Laden is too difficult to find, that we are
> incapable of doing so?


The statement above made me laugh out loud.

Saying the CIA etc. have not found someone because he is hiding
is like saying the Army hasn't subdued an enemy force because,
"It's not that easy to conquer people who are shooting back."

hahahaha!

Asshole Bush supporters grasping at straws.

You jackasses got your way--and we see the results of 8 years
of this miserably dimwitted, warmongering SOB in the White House.

Now enjoy at least eight years of a Democrat in the White House,
because that's what happened.

And yes, I know that my Beloved Bill Clinton's inability to keep
Little Billy in his pants is largely what got us eight years of Bush.
That and a bit of creative election administration.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 14:25:51 -0500, "cybercat" >
wrote:

>
> wrote in message
roups.com...
>>
>>>
>>> My point is that it is not that easy to find some one who is actively
>>> trying to avoid detection.
>>
>> Is it your stance that Bin Laden is too difficult to find, that we are
>> incapable of doing so?
>
>
>The statement above made me laugh out loud.
>
>Saying the CIA etc. have not found someone because he is hiding
>is like saying the Army hasn't subdued an enemy force because,
>"It's not that easy to conquer people who are shooting back."

O.K. Cybercat how would YOU go about finding him.
Your are on the ground in Afghanistan, how do you go about finding
him.

wrote:
>
>
> > My point is that it is not that easy to find some one who is actively
> > trying to avoid detection.
>
> Is it your stance that Bin Laden is too difficult to find, that we are
> incapable of doing so? I would argue that attentions (and resources)
> have been redirected to deal with the deteriorating situation in Iraq,
> for example the disbanding of the CIA unit in charge of hunting Bin
> Laden.

And i would argue that having been looking for him since the fall of 2001,
and not being able to find him in the intervening 5 1/2 years...... yes, he
is too difficult for the US forces to find.

What deteriorating situation in Iraq are you referring to? It never was
good. The administration is just a little slow at understanding what their
friends and allies were telling them when they lied about the WMDs to give
themselves an excuse to invade. They should have finished the job in
Afghanistan before starting a bigger conflict in Iraq.



> > In your opinion, now if you have some military expertise, you will
> > have to explain that to me.
> > Again your opinion.
> >
>
> Not just mine, I think you will find many people who agree that it was
> a mistake to remove remove Sadam Hussein from power and sending the
> country spiraling into a civil war. Worse yet, it could expand into
> regional Shia/Sunnis conflict destabilizing the entire middle east.
> It's not simply opinion, it is a stance arrived at by many people who
> have looked at the situation.

LOL You have to wonder what sort of an idiot Pan is to suggest that you
have to have military expertise to know that it was a major blunder to
invade Iraq before finishing up in Afghanistan. As mentioned above, the
friends and allies of the US were opposed to the invasion because they did
not believe the story about WMds and because they believed that, as bad as
Saddam was, he was keeping a lid of other problems and that removing him
would open up a can of works At the time we said that we were reserving the
right to say we told you so. The US was not highly regarded in the Middle
East to begin with, personal freedoms are an affront to the Moslems,
support for Israel is a major thorn in their side, but now they have the
added morale of holding the moral high ground. Lying about the WMDs,
referring to documents they knew were forged, blaming Germany and France
for supplying material and technology for WMDs when most of it came from
the US, abducting people and sending them to limbo land like Gitmo,
outsourcing torture, using banned weapons in civilian areas, lying about it
and an attempt on the life of the journalist who exposed it have all
served only to diminish the moral stature of the US.



> Another attempted defection...I am talking about the current
> administration and how they have failed to do what they promised us
> they would do, namely bring Bin Laden to justice.

Bin Laden was Number One most wanted when he was initially blamed for the
9/11 attacks. This week they were proudly showing off the confession of
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who confessed to having masterminded, organized and
supervised the operation,

On Feb 25, 12:11 pm, Andy <q> wrote:
> Meet The Press press members killed Hillary Clinton's presidential hopes!!!
>
> A great day!!!
>
> Thanks, Tim and press members!!!
>
> Andy
>
> --
> "Et tu, Crème Brûlée?"
> --Orange Julius Caesar Salad Dressing

Unless you are super-rich or some ruling class corporate scion-- and
you hate Hillary Clinton-- consider yourself OWNED by The Right and
its mainstream "news" media.

It's like The Manchurian Candidate, listening to you dupes:

"Tell me, why do you hate Hillary so much?"

"Oh, I don't know-- I just hate her."

Idiots.

Dave Smith > scripsit in
:

> What deteriorating situation in Iraq are you referring to? It
> never was good. The administration is just a little slow at
> understanding what their friends and allies were telling them when
> they lied about the WMDs to give themselves an excuse to invade.
> They should have finished the job in Afghanistan before starting a
> bigger conflict in Iraq.

Except that no one will ever "finish the job" in Afghanistan. History
is generally a harsh mistress but in this case it should have been
given a large club to castigate the buffoons who think they can control
Afghanistan.

--

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's
oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the
search for a superior moral justification for
selfishness." -- John Kenneth Galbraith

Spoken like a true looser lib.............


On 3/18/07 3:23 PM, in article
, "Michel Boucher"
> wrote:

> Dave Smith > scripsit in
> :
>
>> What deteriorating situation in Iraq are you referring to? It
>> never was good. The administration is just a little slow at
>> understanding what their friends and allies were telling them when
>> they lied about the WMDs to give themselves an excuse to invade.
>> They should have finished the job in Afghanistan before starting a
>> bigger conflict in Iraq.
>
> Except that no one will ever "finish the job" in Afghanistan. History
> is generally a harsh mistress but in this case it should have been
> given a large club to castigate the buffoons who think they can control
> Afghanistan.

> What deteriorating situation in Iraq are you referring to? It never was
> good. The administration is just a little slow at understanding what their
> friends and allies were telling them when they lied about the WMDs to give
> themselves an excuse to invade. They should have finished the job in
> Afghanistan before starting a bigger conflict in Iraq.

There were obviously some underlying ethnic tensions in Iraq that were
kept in check by Sadam's dictatorship. Removing that power structure
and not being able to stabilize the country (in any sustainable sense)
allowed the tensions to erupt. There was an initial period of
stability in Iraq post invasion, but it has steadily deteriorated
since. It increasingly appears that the main concern for US interests
in the region East is Iran, and we have destroyed their mortal enemy.
The Shite majority in Iraq appear increasingly influenced by the Shite
Iran, and we may be headed for a much broader regional conflict. Of
course, finishing the job in Afghanistan and installing some puppet
government would have made more sense.


As mentioned above, the
> friends and allies of the US were opposed to the invasion because they did
> not believe the story about WMds and because they believed that, as bad as
> Saddam was, he was keeping a lid of other problems and that removing him
> would open up a can of works

I agree completely.

At the time we said that we were reserving the
> right to say we told you so. The US was not highly regarded in the Middle
> East to begin with, personal freedoms are an affront to the Moslems,
> support for Israel is a major thorn in their side, but now they have the
> added morale of holding the moral high ground. Lying about the WMDs,
> referring to documents they knew were forged, blaming Germany and France
> for supplying material and technology for WMDs when most of it came from
> the US, abducting people and sending them to limbo land like Gitmo,
> outsourcing torture, using banned weapons in civilian areas, lying about it
> and an attempt on the life of the journalist who exposed it have all
> served only to diminish the moral stature of the US.

I am more concerned about the assault on person freedoms in this
country than anything else that is going on. I am happy to see
Gonzales finally taken to task.

>
> Bin Laden was Number One most wanted when he was initially blamed for the
> 9/11 attacks. This week they were proudly showing off the confession of
> Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who confessed to having masterminded, organized and
> supervised the operation,

I have that most wanted flyer on the wall of my office, I promised I'd
take it down once they caught him. It has gotten rather worn and
tattered in the past five years.

Michel Boucher wrote:
>
>
> > What deteriorating situation in Iraq are you referring to? It
> > never was good. The administration is just a little slow at
> > understanding what their friends and allies were telling them when
> > they lied about the WMDs to give themselves an excuse to invade.
> > They should have finished the job in Afghanistan before starting a
> > bigger conflict in Iraq.
>
> Except that no one will ever "finish the job" in Afghanistan. History
> is generally a harsh mistress but in this case it should have been
> given a large club to castigate the buffoons who think they can control
> Afghanistan.
>

Meanwhile, we fight to bring them a democracy that they do not appreciate
and an infrastructure they try to destroy faster than we can build it for
them. AFAIAK they aren't worth the effort. What we should be doing is
setting up a barrier to quarantine them and let them fester in their own
filth.

"The Wolf" > wrote in message
...
> Spoken like a true looser lib.............
>
>

Now that was an intelligent comment. Well thought-out, articulate, concise.
Well done!

wrote:
>
> > What deteriorating situation in Iraq are you referring to? It never was
> > good. The administration is just a little slow at understanding what their
> > friends and allies were telling them when they lied about the WMDs to give
> > themselves an excuse to invade. They should have finished the job in
> > Afghanistan before starting a bigger conflict in Iraq.
>
> There were obviously some underlying ethnic tensions in Iraq that were
> kept in check by Sadam's dictatorship. Removing that power structure
> and not being able to stabilize the country (in any sustainable sense)
> allowed the tensions to erupt.

Which was exactly what most the friends and allies of the US suggested.


>There was an initial period of
> stability in Iraq post invasion, but it has steadily deteriorated
> since.


There was never a period of stability. It was always bad and it continues
to be bad. Look at the fatalities listed per month since the invasion 4
years ago. There are a few peak months, but the overall trend is not for a
major increase:

http://icasualties.org/oif/US_chart.aspx

Mar-03 65
Apr-03 74
May-03 37
Jun-03 30
Jul-03 48
Aug-03 35
Sep-03 31
Oct-03 44
Nov-03 82
Dec-03 40
Jan-04 47
Feb-04 20
Mar-04 52
Apr-04 135
May-04 80
Jun-04 42
Jul-04 54
Aug-04 66
Sep-04 80
Oct-04 63
Nov-04 137
Dec-04 72
Jan-05 107
Feb-05 58
Mar-05 35
Apr-05 52
May-05 80
Jun-05 78
Jul-05 54
Aug-05 85
Sep-05 49
Oct-05 96
Nov-05 84
Dec-05 68
Jan-06 62
Feb-06 55
Mar-06 31
Apr-06 76
May-06 69
Jun-06 61
Jul-06 43
Aug-06 65
Sep-06 72
Oct-06 106
Nov-06 69
Dec-06 112
Jan-07 83
Feb-07 80
Mar-07 54
Total 3218




> It increasingly appears that the main concern for US interests
> in the region East is Iran, and we have destroyed their mortal enemy.
> The Shite majority in Iraq appear increasingly influenced by the Shite
> Iran, and we may be headed for a much broader regional conflict. Of
> course, finishing the job in Afghanistan and installing some puppet
> government would have made more sense.

Bush the Smarter and his administration had the good sense to realize that
it was in their best interests to leave Saddam in place in order to cancel
out the Iranian threat.




> > At the time we said that we were reserving the
> > right to say we told you so. The US was not highly regarded in the Middle
> > East to begin with, personal freedoms are an affront to the Moslems,
> > support for Israel is a major thorn in their side, but now they have the
> > added morale of holding the moral high ground. Lying about the WMDs,
> > referring to documents they knew were forged, blaming Germany and France
> > for supplying material and technology for WMDs when most of it came from
> > the US, abducting people and sending them to limbo land like Gitmo,
> > outsourcing torture, using banned weapons in civilian areas, lying about it
> > and an attempt on the life of the journalist who exposed it have all
> > served only to diminish the moral stature of the US.
>
> I am more concerned about the assault on person freedoms in this
> country than anything else that is going on. I am happy to see
> Gonzales finally taken to task.

As a non American I really don't care about the rights of Americans. I am
more concerned about the US invadeion of other countries, feeling free to
identify and attack enemy forces and then taking captives and labelling
them as "illegal combatants" and sending them to places like Gitmo where
they thing they can deny them the rights afforded by American law, or
deporting citizens of foreign countries to third countries to which they
have outsourced torture.


> >
> > Bin Laden was Number One most wanted when he was initially blamed for the
> > 9/11 attacks. This week they were proudly showing off the confession of
> > Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who confessed to having masterminded, organized and
> > supervised the operation,
>
> I have that most wanted flyer on the wall of my office, I promised I'd
> take it down once they caught him. It has gotten rather worn and
> tattered in the past five years.


Curiously, the rest of his family have a good working relationship with the
US administration.

> wrote :

>Unless you are super-rich or some ruling class corporate >scion-- and
>you hate Hillary Clinton-- consider yourself OWNED by >The Right and
>its mainstream "news" media.

>It's like The Manchurian Candidate, listening to you >dupes:

>"Tell me, why do you hate Hillary so much?"

>"Oh, I don't know-- I just hate her."

>Idiots.

I'm with you.

"cybercat" > scripsit in
:

> "The Wolf" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Spoken like a true looser lib.............
>
> Now that was an intelligent comment. Well thought-out, articulate,
> concise. Well done!

But it's true. If I were a lib (which I am not) then I would be a
looser lib, not one of your tighter libs you meet here and there :-)

--

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's
oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the
search for a superior moral justification for
selfishness." -- John Kenneth Galbraith

On 18 mar, 20:14, Dave Smith > wrote:
>
> > Except that no one will ever "finish the job" in Afghanistan. History
> > is generally a harsh mistress but in this case it should have been
> > given a large club to castigate the buffoons who think they can control
> > Afghanistan.
>
> Meanwhile, we fight to bring them a democracy that they do not appreciate
> and an infrastructure they try to destroy faster than we can build it for
> them.

White man's burden and all that? How your shoulders must be bowed by
the
weight of that responsibility. Oh wait...

> AFAIAK they aren't worth the effort. What we should be doing is
> setting up a barrier to quarantine them and let them fester in their own
> filth.

Why of course, the "cast not pearls before swine" gambit. I guess
that lets
you off the responsibility hook.

I personally favour letting people in dire circumstances make their
own decisions.
As much as I may personally disagree with their choice, I believe that
they will
only ever be satisfied when we learn to respect the choice they made.
After all,
how can you convince them of your good will if you have a visible
undercurrent of
resentment?

In article >,
The Wolf > wrote:

> On 3/18/07 3:23 PM, in article
> , "Michel Boucher"
> > wrote:
>
> > Dave Smith > scripsit in
> > :
> >
> >> What deteriorating situation in Iraq are you referring to? It
> >> never was good. The administration is just a little slow at
> >> understanding what their friends and allies were telling them when
> >> they lied about the WMDs to give themselves an excuse to invade.
> >> They should have finished the job in Afghanistan before starting a
> >> bigger conflict in Iraq.
> >
> > Except that no one will ever "finish the job" in Afghanistan. History
> > is generally a harsh mistress but in this case it should have been
> > given a large club to castigate the buffoons who think they can control
> > Afghanistan.

> Spoken like a true looser lib.............


These kinds of puerile remarks merely betray the inability for cogent
response to the question at hand--- you know, the "My Pet Goat"
mentality.

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 13:33:35 -0500, Pan Ohco > wrote:

>On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 14:25:51 -0500, "cybercat" >
>wrote:
>
>>
> wrote in message
groups.com...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> My point is that it is not that easy to find some one who is actively
>>>> trying to avoid detection.
>>>
>>> Is it your stance that Bin Laden is too difficult to find, that we are
>>> incapable of doing so?
>>
>>
>>The statement above made me laugh out loud.
>>
>>Saying the CIA etc. have not found someone because he is hiding
>>is like saying the Army hasn't subdued an enemy force because,
>>"It's not that easy to conquer people who are shooting back."
>
>O.K. Cybercat how would YOU go about finding him.
>Your are on the ground in Afghanistan, how do you go about finding
>him.

let's see. a six-foot four-inch arab dragging around a dialysis
machine. yeah, that would be tough.

your pal,
blake

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 15:51:30 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

wrote:
>>
>>
>> > My point is that it is not that easy to find some one who is actively
>> > trying to avoid detection.
>>
>> Is it your stance that Bin Laden is too difficult to find, that we are
>> incapable of doing so? I would argue that attentions (and resources)
>> have been redirected to deal with the deteriorating situation in Iraq,
>> for example the disbanding of the CIA unit in charge of hunting Bin
>> Laden.
>
>And i would argue that having been looking for him since the fall of 2001,
>and not being able to find him in the intervening 5 1/2 years...... yes, he
>is too difficult for the US forces to find.
>
>What deteriorating situation in Iraq are you referring to? It never was
>good. The administration is just a little slow at understanding what their
>friends and allies were telling them when they lied about the WMDs to give
>themselves an excuse to invade. They should have finished the job in
>Afghanistan before starting a bigger conflict in Iraq.
>
>
>
>> > In your opinion, now if you have some military expertise, you will
>> > have to explain that to me.
>> > Again your opinion.
>> >
>>
>> Not just mine, I think you will find many people who agree that it was
>> a mistake to remove remove Sadam Hussein from power and sending the
>> country spiraling into a civil war. Worse yet, it could expand into
>> regional Shia/Sunnis conflict destabilizing the entire middle east.
>> It's not simply opinion, it is a stance arrived at by many people who
>> have looked at the situation.
>
>LOL You have to wonder what sort of an idiot Pan is to suggest that you
>have to have military expertise to know that it was a major blunder to
>invade Iraq before finishing up in Afghanistan. As mentioned above, the
>friends and allies of the US were opposed to the invasion because they did
>not believe the story about WMds and because they believed that, as bad as
>Saddam was, he was keeping a lid of other problems and that removing him
>would open up a can of works At the time we said that we were reserving the
>right to say we told you so. The US was not highly regarded in the Middle
>East to begin with, personal freedoms are an affront to the Moslems,
>support for Israel is a major thorn in their side, but now they have the
>added morale of holding the moral high ground. Lying about the WMDs,
>referring to documents they knew were forged, blaming Germany and France
>for supplying material and technology for WMDs when most of it came from
>the US, abducting people and sending them to limbo land like Gitmo,
>outsourcing torture, using banned weapons in civilian areas, lying about it
>and an attempt on the life of the journalist who exposed it have all
>served only to diminish the moral stature of the US.
>
>
>
>> Another attempted defection...I am talking about the current
>> administration and how they have failed to do what they promised us
>> they would do, namely bring Bin Laden to justice.
>
>Bin Laden was Number One most wanted when he was initially blamed for the
>9/11 attacks. This week they were proudly showing off the confession of
>Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who confessed to having masterminded, organized and
>supervised the operation,

....as well as being one of the hobos on the grassy knoll and
kidnapping the lindbergh baby. busy fella.

your pal,
blake

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 19:29:23 -0500, "cybercat" >
wrote:

>
>"The Wolf" > wrote in message
...
>> Spoken like a true looser lib.............
>>
>>
>
>Now that was an intelligent comment. Well thought-out, articulate, concise.
>Well done!
>
and correctly spelled!

your pal,
blake

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 07:10:34 -0500, Michel Boucher
> wrote:

>"cybercat" > scripsit in
:
>
>> "The Wolf" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Spoken like a true looser lib.............
>>
>> Now that was an intelligent comment. Well thought-out, articulate,
>> concise. Well done!
>
>But it's true. If I were a lib (which I am not) then I would be a
>looser lib, not one of your tighter libs you meet here and there :-)

if i'm going to be tight, i'd rather go ahead and get frankly drunk.

your pal,
blake

On 18 Mar 2007 16:32:52 -0700, wrote:

>
>At the time we said that we were reserving the
>> right to say we told you so. The US was not highly regarded in the Middle
>> East to begin with, personal freedoms are an affront to the Moslems,
>> support for Israel is a major thorn in their side, but now they have the
>> added morale of holding the moral high ground. Lying about the WMDs,
>> referring to documents they knew were forged, blaming Germany and France
>> for supplying material and technology for WMDs when most of it came from
>> the US, abducting people and sending them to limbo land like Gitmo,
>> outsourcing torture, using banned weapons in civilian areas, lying about it
>> and an attempt on the life of the journalist who exposed it have all
>> served only to diminish the moral stature of the US.
>
>I am more concerned about the assault on person freedoms in this
>country than anything else that is going on. I am happy to see
>Gonzales finally taken to task.
>

i'd rather gonzales was taken out back and shot. after applying this
administrations due process principles, of course.

your pal,
blake

On 18 Mar 2007 15:19:50 -0700, wrote:

>On Feb 25, 12:11 pm, Andy <q> wrote:
>> Meet The Press press members killed Hillary Clinton's presidential hopes!!!
>>
>> A great day!!!
>>
>> Thanks, Tim and press members!!!
>>
>> Andy
>>
>> --
>> "Et tu, Crème Brûlée?"
>> --Orange Julius Caesar Salad Dressing
>
>Unless you are super-rich or some ruling class corporate scion-- and
>you hate Hillary Clinton-- consider yourself OWNED by The Right and
>its mainstream "news" media.
>
>It's like The Manchurian Candidate, listening to you dupes:
>
>"Tell me, why do you hate Hillary so much?"
>
>"Oh, I don't know-- I just hate her."
>
>Idiots.
>

but...but...she's a dyke! as opposed to condi, the lipstick *******.

your pal,
lynne

" wrote:
>

> > AFAIAK they aren't worth the effort. What we should be doing is
> > setting up a barrier to quarantine them and let them fester in their own
> > filth.
>
> Why of course, the "cast not pearls before swine" gambit. I guess
> that lets
> you off the responsibility hook.
>
> I personally favour letting people in dire circumstances make their
> own decisions.
> As much as I may personally disagree with their choice, I believe that
> they will
> only ever be satisfied when we learn to respect the choice they made.
> After all,
> how can you convince them of your good will if you have a visible
> undercurrent of
> resentment?

Tell that to the troops who are being shot at as they try to rebuild roads
and bridges.

On 19 mar, 14:59, Dave Smith > wrote:

> Tell that to the troops who are being shot at as they try to rebuild roads
> and bridges.

You mean the troops who have no business being there in the first
place?

I have never given any support to this ill-advised adventure nor do I
feel
that Afghanistan constitutes any threat to Canada or any other
nation,
unlike the threat caused by spiralling US military spending.

So, I ask again, how can *you* convince them of *your* good will if
*you* have a visible undercurrent of resentment? I wasn't asking a
rhethorical question.

>
> >There was an initial period of
> > stability in Iraq post invasion, but it has steadily deteriorated
> > since.
>
> There was never a period of stability. It was always bad and it continues
> to be bad. Look at the fatalities listed per month since the invasion 4
> years ago. There are a few peak months, but the overall trend is not for a
> major increase:
>

Strictly speaking, it you plot that data out and apply regression
analysis, there is an significant upward trend. And on top of that,
its a plot of US troop casualities which isn't an accurate measure of
stability. There are two different phases of the war, there was
initial invasion, and the current civil war. US Troops are not the
primary target of this civil war, the ethnic militias are fighting
each other and killing civilians. These numbers don't in anyway
reflect the intensity of the conflict currently going on.


> Bush the Smarter and his administration had the good sense to realize that
> it was in their best interests to leave Saddam in place in order to cancel
> out the Iranian threat.
>

Perhaps radical to say over here, but I've been confused as to why we
chose Sadam to take-out in the first place. He was a brutal dictator
to be sure, but that hasn't stopped us before. He was secular and his
motives easy to discern. He looks pretty good to me when compared
with the religious zealot running Iran, the kind of man you can deal
with.

> As a non American I really don't care about the rights of Americans. I am
> more concerned about the US invadeion of other countries, feeling free to
> identify and attack enemy forces and then taking captives and labelling
> them as "illegal combatants" and sending them to places like Gitmo where
> they thing they can deny them the rights afforded by American law, or
> deporting citizens of foreign countries to third countries to which they
> have outsourced torture.
>
>

Apologies, I mistakenly assumed......
As an American I am very concerned.

I think a large factor in our inability to actual capture Bin Laden,
is our concern for the stability of Pakistan and Musharaff's
precarious hold on the country. US forces storming in Pakistan and
roughing people up would not go over well and would risk destabilizing
yet another country in the region. That was the argument I was
waiting for that Rush-Limbaugh-fan to make, but of course, he doesn't
really have any understanding of the situation, he is simply armed
with little bits of propaganda.

wrote:
>
> > There was never a period of stability. It was always bad and it continues
> > to be bad. Look at the fatalities listed per month since the invasion 4
> > years ago. There are a few peak months, but the overall trend is not for a
> > major increase:
> >
>
> Strictly speaking, it you plot that data out and apply regression
> analysis, there is an significant upward trend.


Work that one out and get back to me. This is a war and people are getting
killed. All you need is a simple graph, like X Y line chart or bar graph.
Here is a link to a line chart that graphs US fatalities in Iraq from the
invasion to the present. While it jumps up and down, the highest peaks were
back in the spring and fall of 2004. There is no significant upward trend
that would indicate any more of a crisis now than there was in other
periods over the last 4 years.

http://icasualties.org/oif_a/CasualtyTrends.htm

> And on top of that,
> its a plot of US troop casualities which isn't an accurate measure of
> stability. There are two different phases of the war, there was
> initial invasion, and the current civil war. US Troops are not the
> primary target of this civil war, the ethnic militias are fighting
> each other and killing civilians. These numbers don't in anyway
> reflect the intensity of the conflict currently going on.

In that case, here is a link to a site that charts Iraqi civilian and
police casualties. Police deaths are showing a downward trend. Civilian
deaths are increasing, and that may be due to the insurgents getting better
at killing more people with more effective locations and times of
explosions.

http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx
>
> > Bush the Smarter and his administration had the good sense to realize that
> > it was in their best interests to leave Saddam in place in order to cancel
> > out the Iranian threat.
> >
>
> Perhaps radical to say over here, but I've been confused as to why we
> chose Sadam to take-out in the first place. He was a brutal dictator
> to be sure, but that hasn't stopped us before. He was secular and his
> motives easy to discern. He looks pretty good to me when compared
> with the religious zealot running Iran, the kind of man you can deal
> with.

The inconsistency of American foreign policy is a world of wonder. They
maintain an embargo on Cuba but flock to China. While they slag France and
Germany for allegedly supplying Saddam with supplies and technology for his
WMD programs (because France and Germany would not get onside for the
invasion) they overlook their past support of Saddam, which included
providing satellite intelligence on Iranian troop locations to "calibrate"
chemical attacks.


> I think a large factor in our inability to actual capture Bin Laden,
> is our concern for the stability of Pakistan and Musharaff's
> precarious hold on the country.


And we care about that why???? Pakistan was on the list of terrorist
supporting states. The only reason they aren't officially an enemy in
this conflict is because there was a deal to remove them from the list in
exchange for the Pakistan government taking an official stand, though their
actions speak differently.

> US forces storming in Pakistan and
> roughing people up would not go over well and would risk destabilizing
> yet another country in the region. That was the argument I was
> waiting for that Rush-Limbaugh-fan to make, but of course, he doesn't
> really have any understanding of the situation, he is simply armed
> with little bits of propaganda.

It was already unstable. There was some diplomatic footwork going on there
to present a semblance of stability. India and Pakistan were on the verge
of war, possibly a nuclear conflict.

On 19 mar, 17:20, Dave Smith > wrote:

> The inconsistency of American foreign policy is a world of wonder. They
> maintain an embargo on Cuba but flock to China. While they slag France and
> Germany for allegedly supplying Saddam with supplies and technology for his
> WMD programs (because France and Germany would not get onside for the
> invasion) they overlook their past support of Saddam, which included
> providing satellite intelligence on Iranian troop locations to "calibrate"
> chemical attacks.

This is nothing new. During the Nuremberg trial, one of the
accusations against Germany was they used four-engine bombers, held as
proof that the Luftwaffe was an offensive air force and which
supported the claim they had actively planned for war. However,
Germany never had four-engine bombers (Göring and Kesselring
testimonies), but the Allies had used them consistently to bomb
Germany from 1943 on. So, given the basic logic of the argument, it
could only be assumed that the Allies had planned for war against
Germany, but of course that argument could not be made by the defense
according to the rules of the tribunal.

Who ever thought that one would fly, so to speak, should have been
severely chastized.

> killed. All you need is a simple graph, like X Y line chart or bar graph.
> Here is a link to a line chart that graphs US fatalities in Iraq from the
> invasion to the present. While it jumps up and down, the highest peaks were
> back in the spring and fall of 2004. There is no significant upward trend
> that would indicate any more of a crisis now than there was in other
> periods over the last 4 years.

Well plot the data in Excel and apply a trend-line. There is a trend
and it is going up...but it's beside the point. It is a very different
situation now than it was when we invaded, a civil war is breaking
(has broken) out and the bulk of the casualties are civillians at this
point.

> In that case, here is a link to a site that charts Iraqi civilian and
> police casualties. Police deaths are showing a downward trend. Civilian
> deaths are increasing, and that may be due to the insurgents getting better
> at killing more people with more effective locations and times of
> explosions.

Or an expanding civil war...

> The inconsistency of American foreign policy is a world of wonder. They
> maintain an embargo on Cuba but flock to China. While they slag France and
> Germany for allegedly supplying Saddam with supplies and technology for his
> WMD programs (because France and Germany would not get onside for the
> invasion) they overlook their past support of Saddam, which included
> providing satellite intelligence on Iranian troop locations to "calibrate"
> chemical attacks.

Yep.... Whenever I hear the phrase 'spread democracy', I replace it
with 'insure access to foreign markets' and it brings things into
perspective. I don't know much about Geopolitics, but I have to think
one ultimately pays the price for continually (and often, covertly)
meddling in the internal affairs of sovereign nations.

>
> And we care about that why???? Pakistan was on the list of terrorist
> supporting states. The only reason they aren't officially an enemy in
> this conflict is because there was a deal to remove them from the list in
> exchange for the Pakistan government taking an official stand, though their
> actions speak differently.

Well, Pakistan is certainly strategically located, we used their air-
bases to launch our invasion of Afghanistan and Musharraf is an ally
of the US. Pakistan has nuclear weapons and their conflict with India
has been an ongoing source geopolitical instability. There is a
substantial fundamentalist Islamic contingent hostile toward Musharraf
and his overthrow would create another Islamic Theocracy in the middle
east, this one with nuclear weapons (which is what we trying to
prevent with Iran as we speak). I'd guess as a part of the deal we
struck with Musharraf for use of his air bases, we agreed not to chase
the Taliban into Pakistan, knowing it would jeopardize his hold on the
country. This is why, in my opinion, we have not caught Bin Laden.
Musharraf has some tough days ahead...elections pending and he just
removed the head of the supreme court for some reason, which has not
gone over well.

wrote:
>
> > killed. All you need is a simple graph, like X Y line chart or bar graph.
> > Here is a link to a line chart that graphs US fatalities in Iraq from the
> > invasion to the present. While it jumps up and down, the highest peaks were
> > back in the spring and fall of 2004. There is no significant upward trend
> > that would indicate any more of a crisis now than there was in other
> > periods over the last 4 years.
>
> Well plot the data in Excel and apply a trend-line. There is a trend
> and it is going up...but it's beside the point. It is a very different
> situation now than it was when we invaded, a civil war is breaking
> (has broken) out and the bulk of the casualties are civillians at this
> point.


Did you not use the link to see the graph? The line chart shows the trend
very well, though in this case the trend is for it to remain more or less
the same, a series of weekly and monthly variations, up one week, down the
next, but trend other than a slight increase. Certainly not a crisis.



> > In that case, here is a link to a site that charts Iraqi civilian and
> > police casualties. Police deaths are showing a downward trend. Civilian
> > deaths are increasing, and that may be due to the insurgents getting better
> > at killing more people with more effective locations and times of
> > explosions.
>
> Or an expanding civil war...

You could suggest that if it were in fact a civil war, fighting in the
streets, gun battles erupting between rival faction's and such. But it
isn't. It is groups of insurgents using bombs, usually at crowded
locations. I provided a like that graphed the trend and list all the
incident. If you had bothered to check the site you would see that if
lists the incidents. It has a lot of incidents of mortar bomb attacks, car
bomb attacks, a lot of murders. What is conspicuously absent is incidents
of armed clashes between rival groups.



> Yep.... Whenever I hear the phrase 'spread democracy', I replace it
> with 'insure access to foreign markets' and it brings things into
> perspective. I don't know much about Geopolitics, but I have to think
> one ultimately pays the price for continually (and often, covertly)
> meddling in the internal affairs of sovereign nations.

There has been a lot of that meddling, the oppressive rule of the Shah of
Iran, the murderous regime of Salvadore Allende, the corrupt Batista
regime. The US is still whining about Castro nationalizing "American
property" in Cuba. Castro nationalized American assets in retaliation for
US subversion after the revolution.


> Well, Pakistan is certainly strategically located, we used their air-
> bases to launch our invasion of Afghanistan and Musharraf is an ally
> of the US. Pakistan has nuclear weapons and their conflict with India
> has been an ongoing source geopolitical instability. There is a
> substantial fundamentalist Islamic contingent hostile toward Musharraf
> and his overthrow would create another Islamic Theocracy in the middle
> east, this one with nuclear weapons (which is what we trying to
> prevent with Iran as we speak). I'd guess as a part of the deal we
> struck with Musharraf for use of his air bases, we agreed not to chase
> the Taliban into Pakistan, knowing it would jeopardize his hold on the
> country. This is why, in my opinion, we have not caught Bin Laden.
> Musharraf has some tough days ahead...elections pending and he just
> removed the head of the supreme court for some reason, which has not
> gone over well.

It's sort of like selling your soul to the devil. Sure, there was token
anti US rhetoric when US bombs killed a bunch of civilians, but no serious
objection, but OTOH, there has been little action to seal the borders
through which Islamists are smuggling men and equipment.

> Did you not use the link to see the graph?

I saw the table, I graphed it myself.

> > > police casualties. Police deaths are showing a downward trend. Civilian
> > > deaths are increasing, and that may be due to the insurgents getting better
> > > at killing more people with more effective locations and times of
> > > explosions.
>
> > Or an expanding civil war...
>
> You could suggest that if it were in fact a civil war, fighting in the
> streets, gun battles erupting between rival faction's and such. But it
> isn't. It is groups of insurgents using bombs, usually at crowded
> locations. I provided a like that graphed the trend and list all the
> incident. If you had bothered to check the site you would see that if
> lists the incidents. It has a lot of incidents of mortar bomb attacks, car
> bomb attacks, a lot of murders. What is conspicuously absent is incidents
> of armed clashes between rival groups.

If you want to call it an insurgency, that's fine. The increase in
civilian deaths is marked and suggests to me, as I've been saying all
along, that the situation is deteriorating. The violence is sectarian
in nature and the government, as it stands, seems unable or unwilling
to stop it.

The last word is yours, if you'd like it.

On 22 Mar 2007 12:31:14 -0700, wrote:


>> You could suggest that if it were in fact a civil war, fighting in the
>> streets, gun battles erupting between rival faction's and such. But it
>> isn't. It is groups of insurgents using bombs, usually at crowded
>> locations. I provided a like that graphed the trend and list all the
>> incident. If you had bothered to check the site you would see that if
>> lists the incidents. It has a lot of incidents of mortar bomb attacks, car
>> bomb attacks, a lot of murders. What is conspicuously absent is incidents
>> of armed clashes between rival groups.
>
>If you want to call it an insurgency, that's fine. The increase in
>civilian deaths is marked and suggests to me, as I've been saying all
>along, that the situation is deteriorating. The violence is sectarian
>in nature and the government, as it stands, seems unable or unwilling
>to stop it.

Could give me a cite as to the civiliizn deaths are increasing?