Re: Paradox II

SaPeIsMa wrote:
"Bama Brian" <bamaNOTbrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:Yy7Sh.870$3P3.868@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
SaPeIsMa wrote:
"Bama Brian" <bamaNOTbrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:WGtRh.18866$PL.3136@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
SaPeIsMa wrote:
"Bama Brian" <bamaNOTbrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:Sp8Rh.18595$PL.4049@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Gray Ghost wrote:
"Matt" <matttelles@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:1175654085.192770.44990@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
On Apr 3, 11:56 am, "Cole Firearms Inc."
<colefirearm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Gray Ghost wrote:
Since the lefties all feel we should give in to the terrorists
because they can't be beat... Just how many of them do we have to kill before they go away?
Do you mean how many "lefties" or terrorists?

To me, they are both the same, so I'm ok with killing all of them.
Naturally. And when the "lefties" are gone, you will turn on those in
the
middle. And when the middle is gone, you will turn on yourselves.
Those
that don't understand that violence solves nothing always lose.
Always.

Matt


So then we can expect the killers in Iraq to lose, correct? Then why do you want us to quit and lose?
Just what, exactly, is it that the US is trying to "win" or "lose" in Iraq?

Are we protecting the US from those WMD's that were never found?

1) WMD were KNOWN to exist
Even Clinton and his gang said so
2) It was about disarming Saddam from the WMDs that he had used previously, and that he gave us EVERY reason to believe he had
3) It was NEVER about "protecting us from Iraqi WMDs"
To claim so is disingenuous to plain dishonest
This WMD issue has been beaten to death. No existence of WMD's has ever been found. Cite the news article where the administration revealed the existence of WMD's.

I notice yournice weasel:
"Cite the news article where the >>administration<<
revealed the existence of WMD's."
sad that your are reduced to such a weasel position

Google is your friend
Look for "WMD found Iraq"
Here's a news report
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
From your first news report:

"Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."

The official said the findings did raise questions about the years of weapons inspections that had not resulted in locating the fairly sizeable stash of chemical weapons. And he noted that it may say something about Hussein's intent and desire. The report does suggest that some of the weapons were likely put on the black market and may have been used outside Iraq."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html
One IED shell with Sarin components proves nothing. Could have come from a number of other countries. Where is the ordinance stockpile. Why did Hans Blick find nothing?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213
Did you even read this last article?

Also as someone else pointed out, WMDs are NOT only the actual weapons, but include the tools to make and deliver them
So I'm making illegal weapons in my garage, based on this last? Can't have an industrial society without some sort of industrial maintenance and manufacturing support.

Have we brought a Republican form of government to Iraq?

Maybe NOT YET
But they are working on a government in which the people have more say, if they manage to survive the Iranian and other sponsored terrorists
How many Americans do you expect to die in Iraq while we're waiting on such a government? More to the point: Exactly what right has the US got to invade a sovereign nation and impose a government on it? Shall we invade Saudi next? Iran? maybe we'll go for North Korea next?

How many Americans died in WW1, WWII, Korea ?
What right did the US have to invade Europe, Japan, the Phillipines, and Korea, Granada and so on ?
Since the basic premise you start with is a flawed one, the conclusions you implicit are also flawed
Good Grief! The Nazis were sinking American shipping in the Atlantic, and the Japanese deliberately attacked Pearl Harbor.

Now exactly what did Iraq do to the US? 9/11? Sorry, that wasn't Saddam's fault.

Have we taught the Iraqis about religious freedom so that the streets of Baghdad are now safe for both Sunni and Shia?

Are you stupid enough to expect such a change to occur overnight
PARICULARLY in the light of a small group of fantatics working very hard to convince "cut and run monkeys" to cut and run ?
Your knee-jerk is noted. Until the local tribal chiefs are given control back of their country, this sectarian violence will continue - with the US Army standing in the middle of it and being a big, big target.


What "knee-jerk"
Apparently when you can't respond honsestly, you attack the messenger
YOUR knee-jerk is noted


Have we brought sexual tolerance to the Iraqis so that Iraqi women enjoy the same freedoms as do Iraqi men?

Again, are you expecting such change to occur by miraculous osmosis overnight ?
Or is it a process that could require at least ONE GENERATION to change ?
Are you willing to commit generations of Americans to this ideal? How will you know when we have achieved it?

How many generations have been sitting in Europe and Japan ?
Has it been achieved in Europe, Japan and Korea ?
How do you know it has been achieved ?

The answers are in front of you
OPEN YOUR EYES....
So it's the job of the US to be world police, no matter what other countries may think?

Going to be interesting to see how the US polices both North Korea and China.

BTW, who is going to pay the bills for the US to be world dictator?



Has the US captured Osama bin Laden?

Nope
And ?
DId you have a point ?
Without bin Laden, what point is there to the entire war?

Are you stupid enough to claim that BIn Laden was the PRIMARY objective ?
I guess you are
What was the primary objective? Nobody seems to be able to pin this down. We started out with WMD's - but none were found (and that's also what your own cites say)

Then it became some philosophical claptrap about bringing democracy to the Iraqis. Yet they don't seem to want that.

So now what is the the objective? Something to do with "staying the course", whatever that is.

Isn't the entire exercise about the "War On Terrr", with the US committing an army to destroy bin Laden and Al Qaeda?

Are you stupid enough to claim that by "getting" Bin Laden the war on terror is over ?
I guess you are...
Where's bin Laden? Wasn't it he who touched off this mess by attacking the WTC? Funny how the administration wants to forget about him and focus on something else.



Or is it some other war, such as making Iraq into a democracy?
Your problem is that you're so busy with penny-ante arguments that you have NOT EVEN TRIED to look at the situation in a strategic sense
Do enlighten me. In Vietnam, it was the Domino Theory; that if Vietnam fell to the commies, other countries in Asia would soon fall as well. Yet when the US finally pulled out of Vietnam and the North took the South, no such thing happened. It should also be noted that Vietnam today is rapidly industrializing and is now one of the US' trading partners.

Or is it a more likely assumption that this "War On Terrr" has all been done to prove that GW is a better man than his father, who did not "win" Gulf War One?

That may be the nonsense that YOU WANT to believe, to justify your cut and run position
But that has nothing to do with reality
Reality says bluntly that there were no WMD's. That Iraq was never a threat to the US; that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the destruction of the WTC. If you have any evidence to the contrary, bring it out and let's look at it.

BZZZZZT
WRONG

Saddam DID have WMDs
He used them in the Kurds and the Sunni
Saddam TRIED to convince everyone he STILL HAD WMDS, and succeeded
WMDs HAVE BEEN FOUND in IRAQ, and your WILLFULL IGNORANCE won't change that
Saddam had mustard gas, left over from the Iran/Iraq war. It is known that he used this on the Kurds. But he had no WMD's such as were trumpeted by Bush. No nukes. No biologicals. No missiles capable of reaching Israel.

We had no business whatsoever going into Iraq, and there has been no purpose served by our being there.

I disagree on both counts
Opinion noted.



You know what it's called when a man continues to do the same thing over and over again, and it still doesn't work? It's called insanity.

In your case it's called WILLFULL IGNORANCE bordering on STUPIDITY
Is this more of your evidence that WMD's were found?
I'm not even going to waste my time on your penny-ante approach to a bigger problem
You need to re-focus on the big picture instead of focusing on the MINOR cuts


Or is it just as likely an assumption that God talked to GW and told him to start the War of Armageddon, as was foretold in the Bible?

More stupid nonsense from the cut and run monkeys
Go here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml

None of it has made sense. Iraq was NEVER a threat to the US.

But the terrorists it supported HAVE BEEN responsible for American deaths
Which deaths were those? No connection has ever been made between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 disaster.

By sitting ourselves smack-dab in the middle of that basin that has been producing those terrorists, we have effectively taken control of the middle of the chess-board and smacked those terrorists and terrorist supporters upside the head with the proverbial 2x4
They have been so busy wasting their energies over there, that they have NOT been spending much time and energy coming over here to do their thing
Sooner or later, another mullah with a dream of freedom will touch off another 9/11 catastrophe on American soil. The "War On Terrr" won't stop it. Bush won't stop it. The next prez, whoever they are, won't stop it.

And that army camped in the desert sands won't stop it.

You need to expand your horizong and start looking at a STRATEGIC instead of a TACTICAL perspective on the war on terror.
So putting an American army into Iraq and watching it bleed to death from the death of a thousand cuts is some sort of strategy? This may make sense to you - but not to me. It certainly does not make sense to General Petraeus either.

Go see:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/08/iraq.petraeus/index.html

You're so focused on a "bush", that you are NOT SEEING the TREES...
I have no hero worship of Bush. But so far all you've done is to insult me. Do you have a point? Or will your next insult include scatology along with your "surrender monkey" insults?

Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian


If the shoe fits
Live with it
In your case it's called WILLFULL IGNORANCE bordering on STUPIDITY
You sure got a mouth on you. But you've got no facts coming from it. Indeed, you don't even bother to read your own cites.
You're the equivalent of a person being mugged and who is at risk of being killed in the process who's whining because you stubbed your toe and broke a nail
And you just won't stop with the insults.


Moving the goalposts again ?
Having WMDs is like being pregnant
You are or you are not pregant
No such thing as a little bit pregnant
Similarly you have or have not WMDs
Doesn't matter what shape they are in when found

Yet your first citation said it pretty clearly:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

"Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior
Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the
official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this
country went to war."

The official said the findings did raise questions about the years of
weapons inspections that had not resulted in locating the fairly sizeable stash of chemical weapons. And he noted that it may say something about Hussein's intent and desire. The report does suggest that some of the weapons were likely put on the black market and may have been used outside Iraq."

Read it again, SaPelsMa: "...the munitions "are not the WMD's this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMD's for which this country went to war.""

So where are those WMD's, SaPelsMa? Where's the Iraqi nuke program that GW Bush assured us that Saddam had, so that GW could launch his "War On Terrr"?

Where's the democracy that's been given to the Iraqis? The one that all the NeoCons believed the Iraqis wanted, deep in their hearts?

Where's bin Laden? Where's the Al Qaeda? Why do we still have to have an army in Afghanistan?

Why are the Iraqi people now protesting the presence of the US army?

Why does General Petraeus believe that the army will not be effective?

Why can you not put together a real argument that justifies why the US invaded Iraq?


And willfoull ignorance bordering on stupidity is NOT an insult when it's a STATEMENT OF FACT
If you the fits live with it

Why are you incoherent?



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Navy
    ... reasons. ... An illegal and rather stupidly thought out war in Iraq. ... Or some secret CIA insttallation in some "friendly" country? ...
    (rec.aviation.military)
  • Re: OT - Recent War Ads tie Iraq to 9/11
    ... Ergo, if I can find one democrat that did not support a dem POTUS war, then you would be wrong. ... Since you bring up Iraq, what percentage of the population are Shia? ... Well, the Iranians are kind of devoted to their religion, but there are many secular aspects to their country and their people are secular in many ways, although that has been declining in recent years. ... They resist centralized rule and instead, prefer to have local control over small, or in some cases large, areas of land. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • The Stateless Wonder
    ... Israel warned Iran that Israel might use the nuclear weapons on Iraq. ... man named Patron Bush yelled: The world enemy shall learn the will ... a country that is better than what I see over there. ... against the Iraq war. ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: 1:240 (approx) scale figures, accessories, etc?
    ... Why would any nation lift a finger to stop them? ... Saudi Arabia perhaps, but you attacked Iraq, which obviously had no ... of wanting a unified country without foreign intervention. ... to begin it's war against the US without a declaration of war - stop ...
    (rec.models.railroad)
  • Re: Bush knows a victory when he sees one
    ... Unconditional surrender of the enemy (as in war 2) ... Check out the history of any country that's befallen such a fate... ... Iraq troups able to hold their own against the internal opposition ... In case you clueless democraps missed it, ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)