OT: US BLEW IT IN IRAQ- Wall Street Journal Reporter Finds

[Rich Grise]

On Tuesday 12 October 2004 04:07 pm, Product developer did deign to grace us
with the following:

Rich Grise <null@example.net> wrote in message
news:<WLGad.3497$Rp4.2582@trnddc01>...
On Monday 11 October 2004 12:22 pm, Product developer did deign to grace
us with the following:

There is a reason why Nader can't get over 1% of the vote. He should
stick to consumer advocacy. Anyone with any common sense knows you
cant give your enemy a withdrawl date. The enemy pulls back leaving
only enough behind to be a nuisance and regroups and re-arms to come
back after the withdrawl.

Back to where? Their own homes? That's what's _supposed_ to happen,
idiot!

You are as clueless as Dred bloggs, the head dipshit in your clan. How
does one respond to this? You guys are a bunch of Effeminate liberals
whining about this and that without the common sense or life
experience to know how ignorant you are. You and dred and the few
other mental midgets in here collectively couldn't muster an IQ of a
residential neighborhood speed limit.

OK, I'm a clueless dumbass. Exactly how does this justify the murder of

innocent Iraqi civilians?

When you guys grow up in a few years or for some much longer, I hope
you take a moment to look back at your posts just to appreciate how
far you have come.

I hope a few years from now there'll be a world to grow up into.

Then again you might not have evolved at all by
then and well, that's your problem. It is startling that there can be
this many people in one NG with so little awareness. This has to be a
ruse or you guys are all the same dimwit with multiple personality
disorder.

Yeah, that's it. We're all one person, playing all these roles, just to
confuse you. We even argue with ourself sometimes.

My 11 year old playing Army with his friends
would know better!

And he's apparently smarter than you.

No, but if heredity is kind to him, he will definately be smarter than
you.

Heh. Maybe, but will he advocate invasion and murder like you?

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Fred Bloggs]

John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 01:10:23 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com
wrote:



Apparently reading comprehension is not one of your stronger abilities.


Yeah, my English SAT score was only 720. I always was better at math.

John

There you go- living proof that your SAT is uncorrelated with comprehension.

 

[Daniel Haude]

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 18:13:36 GMT,
normanstrong <normanstrong@comcast.net> wrote
in Msg. <k3Aad.159844$wV.78472@attbi_s54>

Are you suggesting that scientists who are willing to build bombs for
al-Qaida while in Iraq

I don't think that doing anything for Al Qaida would have been that great
an idea under Saddam.

--Daniel

--
"With me is nothing wrong! And with you?" (from r.a.m.p)

 

[Daniel Haude]

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 11:05:37 GMT,
Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote
in Msg. <416A68FE.8020601@nospam.com>

The Iraqis weren't the only ones handed a load
of bull by Bush and his warmongering neocons.

They also weren't the only ones who saw through
it right from the beginning.

--Daniel

--
"With me is nothing wrong! And with you?" (from r.a.m.p)

 

[Fred Bloggs]

John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 12:18:39 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com
wrote:



John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 11:05:37 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com
wrote:




We are NOT peacekeepers, we ARE occupiers, and the purpose of the
invasion WAS to secure the huge Iraqi oil reserves and to establish a
military base of operations in the Middle East.



This is interesting:

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=6390


John



Funny the way each and every one of those quotes has no context and no
citation. That so-called article looks a piece for the gullible who are
too stupid to feel insulted. But I guess you're used to being talked
down to by now.


What context could possibly alter the meaning of this?

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein
because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction
in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John
F. Kerry (D, MA), October 9, 2002

And, of course, he *did* vote that way.

I suspect that if W hadn't invaded Iraq, all the dems would now be
trashing him for *not* going in.

John

Hmmm- I just caught the tail end of Frontline last night and they showed
Kerry's speech to the Senate regarding the authorization. Kerry said it
first: 1) no apparent plan to win the peace after the invasion, 2)
possible quagmire and destabilization of the region, 3) a possible
increase in terrorist threat as a result, 4) need for strong global
coalition, 5) exhausting all practical alternatives especially with UN
inspections. There is no question now about Kerry not only being
consistent but also extraordinarily prescient. Every single one of his
concerns has been confirmed by the Duelfer report, everything that could
have gone wrong did go wrong, and the worst scenarios have become a
reality. This original stand is NOT inconsistent with voting for
"authorization" for the President to use military force, it was
understood that this authorization was to be used primarily to
strengthen America's diplomatic position so that an actual war would NOT
occur. It is now clear to most reasonable people that there is no
underestimating the irresponsibility and insanity of this Bush
character. It turns out that Bush was enthusiastically embraced by the
religious right on the belief that Bush is the manifestation of Divine
Providence on Earth- and that God is channeling his desires through
George W. Bush. This goes much further than just personal support- Bush
has been played up as the next best thing to the Second Coming. The
really dangerous part is that the brain damaged Bush believes this to be
true too. It is time to end this charade- there are people who have the
legal authority to relieve Bush of office and take him into custody on
very reasonable grounds of mental instability and insanity- and they
should do their duty. You think this unrealistic? You think it outside
the realm of possibility that this drug freak will wake up one morning
with the notion that God has told him to press the button?

 

[Rich Grise]

On Wednesday 13 October 2004 06:38 am, Fred Bloggs did deign to grace us
with the following:
.....

should do their duty. You think this unrealistic? You think it outside
the realm of possibility that this drug freak will wake up one morning
with the notion that God has told him to press the button?

Speaking of soothsaying, I have a premonition that if any nuke _is_
used, it will literally open the gates of Hell. It is Armageddon time,
after all.

Just watch.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 15:22:11 GMT, Rich Grise <null@example.net> wrote:

On Wednesday 13 October 2004 06:38 am, Fred Bloggs did deign to grace us
with the following:
....
should do their duty. You think this unrealistic? You think it outside
the realm of possibility that this drug freak will wake up one morning
with the notion that God has told him to press the button?

Speaking of soothsaying, I have a premonition that if any nuke _is_
used, it will literally open the gates of Hell. It is Armageddon time,
after all.

Just watch.

Literally? Hundreds of nukes have been fired so far, including some
pretty big ones, and little red bats and stuff are not obviously
flying up out of the Gates.

John

Cheers!

Cheers?

John

 

[Dirk Bruere at Neopax]

John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 15:22:11 GMT, Rich Grise <null@example.net> wrote:


On Wednesday 13 October 2004 06:38 am, Fred Bloggs did deign to grace us
with the following:
....

should do their duty. You think this unrealistic? You think it outside
the realm of possibility that this drug freak will wake up one morning
with the notion that God has told him to press the button?

Speaking of soothsaying, I have a premonition that if any nuke _is_
used, it will literally open the gates of Hell. It is Armageddon time,
after all.

Just watch.



Literally? Hundreds of nukes have been fired so far, including some
pretty big ones, and little red bats and stuff are not obviously
flying up out of the Gates.

We'll see when NY gets it again.

--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 18:10:13 +0100, Dirk Bruere at Neopax
<dirk@neopax.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 15:22:11 GMT, Rich Grise <null@example.net> wrote:


On Wednesday 13 October 2004 06:38 am, Fred Bloggs did deign to grace us
with the following:
....

should do their duty. You think this unrealistic? You think it outside
the realm of possibility that this drug freak will wake up one morning
with the notion that God has told him to press the button?

Speaking of soothsaying, I have a premonition that if any nuke _is_
used, it will literally open the gates of Hell. It is Armageddon time,
after all.

Just watch.



Literally? Hundreds of nukes have been fired so far, including some
pretty big ones, and little red bats and stuff are not obviously
flying up out of the Gates.

We'll see when NY gets it again.

Well, that might be the only way the Red Sox will ever win.

John

 

[Frank Bemelman]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> schreef in
bericht news:krpom0tmqnbmudkfogpargf05cnai40kuo@4ax.com...

[snip]

I suspect that if W hadn't invaded Iraq, all the dems would now be
trashing him for *not* going in.

I would have preferred that. Getting trashed doesn't kill innocent
people by the thousands.

--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove 'x' and 'invalid' when replying by email)

 

[Dirk Bruere at Neopax]

Frank Bemelman wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> schreef in
bericht news:krpom0tmqnbmudkfogpargf05cnai40kuo@4ax.com...

[snip]


I suspect that if W hadn't invaded Iraq, all the dems would now be
trashing him for *not* going in.


I would have preferred that. Getting trashed doesn't kill innocent
people by the thousands.

Question for the American people - Given $200billion to piss away would you
rather have:

(a) A protracted war in Iraq following a pointless invasion
(b) A moonbase

--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 19:27:30 +0200, "Frank Bemelman"
<f.bemelmanx@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> schreef in
bericht news:krpom0tmqnbmudkfogpargf05cnai40kuo@4ax.com...

[snip]

I suspect that if W hadn't invaded Iraq, all the dems would now be
trashing him for *not* going in.

I would have preferred that. Getting trashed doesn't kill innocent
people by the thousands.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20041013/ts_afp/iraq_041013144748


John

 

[Dirk Bruere at Neopax]

John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 19:27:30 +0200, "Frank Bemelman"
f.bemelmanx@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote:


"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> schreef in
bericht news:krpom0tmqnbmudkfogpargf05cnai40kuo@4ax.com...

[snip]


I suspect that if W hadn't invaded Iraq, all the dems would now be
trashing him for *not* going in.

I would have preferred that. Getting trashed doesn't kill innocent
people by the thousands.



http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20041013/ts_afp/iraq_041013144748

A bit late considering that this was before Saddam inexplicably 'turned evil'
around 1990. While he was dumping those bodies into mass graves he was our good pal.

--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org

 

[Rich Grise]

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 22:09:42 -0400, Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 02:46:24 +0100, the renowned Dirk Bruere at Neopax
John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 19:27:30 +0200, "Frank Bemelman"
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> schreef in
[snip]
I suspect that if W hadn't invaded Iraq, all the dems would now be
trashing him for *not* going in.
I would have preferred that. Getting trashed doesn't kill innocent
people by the thousands.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20041013/ts_afp/iraq_041013144748
A bit late considering that this was before Saddam inexplicably 'turned evil'
around 1990. While he was dumping those bodies into mass graves he was our good pal.
War is no fun:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3619661.stm

Shudder! Especially chilling at the end there:

"When the Americans arrived there were only about 50 guerrillas,"
another Falluja resident, Nada Rabee, told Reuters. "By the end
of the week there were a few thousand. They are just making the
situation worse."

A New York Times report corroborates these claims. The US newspaper
says that many people - perhaps tens of thousands - who did not
consider themselves full-time resistance fighters were now prepared
to join the insurgency.

Khalif Juma, a 26-year-old vegetable seller, told the newspaper he was
angry about the US treatment of radical Shia religious leader Moqtada
Sadr, for whom an arrest warrant has been issued.

"To be honest, we weren't like this before. But we're religious people,
and our leader has been threatened," he told the newspaper. "We would
be ashamed to stay in our houses with our wives at a time like this."

He and his cousins have bought a crate of Kalashnikov rifles, he said.

There it is, folks - the Marines turned 50 freedom fighters into thousands.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Frank Bemelman]

"Rich Grise" <rich@example.net> schreef in bericht
newsan.2004.10.14.02.44.39.153154@example.net...

[snip]

There it is, folks - the Marines turned 50 freedom fighters into
thousands.

The problem is not with the Marines. They are just puppets on strings
in this crazy war.

--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove 'x' and 'invalid' when replying by email)

 

[Clarence]

"Frank Bemelman" <f.bemelmanx@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote in message
news:416e3604$0$42417$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...

"xray" <notreally@hotmail.invalid> schreef in bericht
news:mk3sm05eb8vb1b9292u3o5e4qbenke0bnt@4ax.com...

[snip]

He is a scary SOB. I can't believe
this election is so close. I really can't understand what is running
through the minds of the other half of the American population.

Puzzles me too.

I'm hoping there is enough sanity left lurking in the flexible
boundaries of my fellow Americans to deliver us from another four years
of Bushosity.

Even if he looses the elections with 40-60, there is still a that
40% percent that is insane. What excuse is there to vote for a
proven war criminal.

--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove 'x' and 'invalid' when replying by email)

I agree.
There is THAT charge hanging over him.
He was never tried though.
So Kerry seams to be getting away with it.

Clarence

 

[Clarence]

"Robert Monsen" <rcsurname@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:L5Cbd.183054$wV.70161@attbi_s54...

<snipped nothing of value>

--
Regards,
Robert Monsen

 

[Dirk Bruere at Neopax]

Rich Grise wrote:

On Monday 11 October 2004 06:57 am, Tom Seim did deign to grace us with the
following:


rolavine@aol.com (Rolavine) wrote in message
news:<20041011002912.16600.00001724@mb-m16.aol.com>...

I heard Ralph Nader tonight on PBS. He said we should announce that we
are leaving in 6 months, and that we are not taking anything. We will
stick around and have elections, and try to get peacekeepers from the
middle east to ease the transition. We will open the contracts to
rebuilding hire local contractors and put Iraq to work. He thinks that
will deflate the insurgency because we would be announcing that we are
not occupiers, just peacekeepers and that we are not after anything.

I think I got the gist of it. I think it makes more sense than the plans
from the major parties. What do you think?

I think that appeals to people that fear the uncertainty of Iraq and
desire something, anything, with a sense of certainty. And a hard date
is a certainty.

Do I think it is a good idea? No. I don't think that all of the ground
work that must be done before we can leave can be completed in 6
months. Remember, Clinton promissed that we would be out of Kosovo
after 1 year. We are still there (not that I think we should be in
Iraq permanently, because I don't).


So, maybe they'll have to just boot us out, a la Vietnam.

Maybe just have an election in Iraq today! What do the Iraqi citizens
want? Aren't they the ones we're trying to force to accept our way of
life against their will, under the guise of "liberation?"

What they want is not going to be to Bush's liking.
That's modern globalism-democracy in action. You can vote for anything that your
masters approve of.

--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <H1Abd.30395$QJ3.23149@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
Clarence <no@No.com> wrote:
[...]

There is THAT charge hanging over him.
He was never tried though.
So Kerry seams to be getting away with it.

You mean Bush don't you?



--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Rich Grise]

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 01:13:57 +0000, Ken Smith wrote:

In article <H1Abd.30395$QJ3.23149@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
Clarence <no@No.com> wrote:
[...]
There is THAT charge hanging over him.
He was never tried though.
So Kerry seams to be getting away with it.

You mean Bush don't you?

You sound like you think it makes any difference.

Politics is pretty disappointing when the best thing you can say about
your guy is what a shit/crook/baby eater/cosmic menace the other guy
is.

Cheers!
Rich