Sen. Kennedy vows to not allow one more soldier to go to Iraq.

[JPinMaryland]

What if someone gets sick?

[Ponyplayr]

What if someone gets sick?
Amazing how Kennedy wants to save American soldiers lives yet has no problem Killing American Women!

[Suff]

What if someone gets sick?


He's to late anyway. Bush went Longshank. 82nd Airborne Deployed out of Fort Bragg yesterday. 5000 landed in Kuwait this morning. They advanced a team into Bagdhad yesterday

[kenwoodallpromos]

He thinks Congress is allowed to budget the militsry piecemeal he's nuts.]
The Demos are all show. Bush is clueless and deaf.
Trouble is, I see no one out there I would trust to know what to do about about a bunch of scumbag radicals.
Right now I just want to know why we do not keep the weapons and explosives out of Bahgdad city limits. Why can't we do roadchecks into it on major routes and close down minor ones?

[JustRalph]

He's to late anyway. Bush went Longshank. 82nd Airborne Deployed out of Fort Bragg yesterday. 5000 landed in Kuwait this morning. They advanced a team into Bagdhad yesterday

i wondered if anybody noticed that. I also wondered if anybody noticed the carrier group being moved "to get closer to somalia" yeah right

[delayjf]

Here's the plan - whatever Bush is for, we're against. Bush should have issued an immediate order to withdraw - he'd have enough money and troops to invade Iran. :bang:

[46zilzal]

Charlie Rose had a panel and one of the contributors in regards to the rutabaga's speech and echoed what many are thinking: "this logic is delusional."

THE RUTABAGA says he is open to other ideas "as long as fits his ideas." He's has proven over and over that he does what he thinks and tells ALL the experts to go blow.

[JPinMaryland]

Right now I just want to know why we do not keep the weapons and explosives out of Bahgdad city limits. Why can't we do roadchecks into it on major routes and close down minor ones?

They had Edwin Luttwak on the radio a few days ago and it came up in conversation that when these vehicles drive into Bagdad it is legal for them to have like Katuysha rockets in the back seat. Apparently, they need them to protect the neighborhoods or something. Maybe I heard it wrong, that is what I understood.

[skate]

What if someone gets sick?

heard TK the other nite.
i doubt he will make it thru this year, i give him bout six months.
now how the dems gonna replace that dude, what a pity, but good for a laugh.

is Romney stil in Mass.?

[Suff]

heard TK the other nite.
i doubt he will make it thru this year, i give him bout six months.
now how the dems gonna replace that dude, what a pity, but good for a laugh.

is Romney stil in Mass.?

Nope. On the Campaign Trail.


Not likely, but possible your 2008 Presidential Ballot will look like this:

For President

Check one

(R) Romney- Massachusetts

(D) Kerry- Massachusetts

[skate]

gees, i cant stand another Lurch Deal, i swear, had enough of him.


i thought Hillarys and maybe even Samma Mamma Bamma (i don't think he likes Hussein).

rep. got some interesting people, in my mind. Romney?, he'll have to beat out a ton, McCain (too old)
Condi should be on the ticket
Gulianni?, too many bags, but i like the guy.

i think, after we win the Iraq deal, we'll have our Hero.

hey maybe you are correct

[betchatoo]

gees, i cant stand another Lurch Deal, i swear, had enough of him.


i thought Hillarys and maybe even Samma Mamma Bamma (i don't think he likes Hussein).

rep. got some interesting people, in my mind. Romney?, he'll have to beat out a ton, McCain (too old)
Condi should be on the ticket
Gulianni?, too many bags, but i like the guy.

i think, after we win the Iraq deal, we'll have our Hero.

hey maybe you are correct

AFTER WE WIN IRAQ? I'll have what he's drinking!!! :D

[Tom]

Smoke'em if ya got'em.

If we finally decide to fight a WAR, I see no other outcome.

[PaceAdvantage]

AFTER WE WIN IRAQ? I'll have what he's drinking!!! :D

What's the definition of "win?"

[44PACE]

Dems, you now have control so show me that you will end the war. You have the power to control the spending. If we still are in Iraq 2 years from now, you have lost your credibility.



Rep vrs Dem, I really could care less for either one right now. This war was a mistake from the beginning, we picked the wrong country. Iran and RUSSIA are the problems these 2 countries are and always have been enemies of a free democratic society.

Russia is the one giving nuke info to Iran, it is their weapons we fought against in Afgan and Iraq.

People that believe Russia is our friends need to remove their heads from the toilet bowel becouse their brains are soaked.

[betchatoo]

What's the definition of "win?"

According to our President's latest definition it is leaving Iraq as a peaceful country with a stable government in place that takes care of all sectors.

[Lefty]

Here's the plan - whatever Bush is for, we're against. Bush should have issued an immediate order to withdraw - he'd have enough money and troops to invade Iran. :bang:
Right, Delay. A year ago Pelosi and Reid and others were urging more troops to be sent. Now, it's a bad idea. Bush can't win, but that's what i like about him. He's going to do what he thinks is right.

[Lefty]

Charlie Rose had a panel and one of the contributors in regards to the rutabaga's speech and echoed what many are thinking: "this logic is delusional."

THE RUTABAGA says he is open to other ideas "as long as fits his ideas." He's has proven over and over that he does what he thinks and tells ALL the experts to go blow.
I wouldn't expect anything less of these dumbass liberals.

[46zilzal]

I wouldn't expect anything less of these dumbass liberals.
those interviewed represented a wide array of people, just like the 70% who oppose what this dumb ass clown in trying to do.

[Show Me the Wire]

Pelosi lied

Reid lied.

sums up Pelosi and her cantalopes

[Secretariat]

...Bush can't win, but that's what i like about him. He's going to do what he thinks is right.

I would imagine any President tries to do what he thinks is right, the issue is Lefty, his attempts to be right have turned out wrong. At what point are you going to get off the Titanic and cut the cord from this guy?

[46zilzal]

I would imagine any President tries to do what he thinks is right, the issue is Lefty, his attempts to be right have turned out wrong. At what point are you going to get off the Titanic and cut the cord from this guy?
in a word NEVER.. he will go down with the ship

wonder when his being completely wrong will finally get intolerable to the congress?

[Lefty]

I would imagine any President tries to do what he thinks is right, the issue is Lefty, his attempts to be right have turned out wrong. At what point are you going to get off the Titanic and cut the cord from this guy?
You guys think we can do this in just 3-4 yrs? Democracy in the Middle East is a new idea, and the Islam Fanatics have said they will kill us all if we don't convert to Islam. You think all that can be wrapped up in a tidy bow in a few yrs. You are the dreamer. Our way ofd life is at stake and you libs don't sem to have a clue. We better muster the resolve as a country we had in the forties or the country is lost and it will be you libs' fault.

[46zilzal]

delusional as this letter to the editor agrees.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/11/AR2007011101708.html

Yup lefty give them a little longer to ram an idea down their throats

[Lefty]

46, there is no alternative to getting the Iraqui govt on its feet and able to protect itself. To leave without that happening is what's delusional You libs' have a long trk record of being wriong and so you are again. Thank God the country is not in your hands. GW now and if the job isn't finished: Mcain in 08. Not my choice but my pick.

[Tom]

It is essential that we win in Iraq to make this country safe for all the illegal aliens who will outnumber us in a few years.

[Secretariat]

You guys think we can do this in just 3-4 yrs? Democracy in the Middle East is a new idea, and the Islam Fanatics have said they will kill us all if we don't convert to Islam. You think all that can be wrapped up in a tidy bow in a few yrs. You are the dreamer. Our way ofd life is at stake and you libs don't sem to have a clue. We better muster the resolve as a country we had in the forties or the country is lost and it will be you libs' fault.

I thought it was a "slam dunk", and "we'd be greeted as liberators", and the "mission was accomplished". With that rhetoric no one expected it to be more than 3-4 years.


As to converting to Islam I'll fight to preserve my rights not to convert to anything including neoconservatism. I do agree our old way of life is at stake, but not from a group of guys with box cutters, but from fear.

Lefty, read below how we've messed up a democracy and set up a monarch. It ain't about democracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadegh

"Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh (Mossadeq) (19 May 1882 - 5 March 1967) was the democratically elected prime minister of Iran from 1951 to 1953. He was twice appointed to office by Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran, and approved by the vote of parliament . Mossadegh was a nationalist and passionately opposed foreign intervention in Iran. He was also the architect of the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry which was dominated and exploited by the British through the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (today known as British Petroleum (BP))."

If you know Iranian history you know why things played out the way they did and why there is such distrust of America.

They've seen their democracy lost to the Shah via the CIA, and they learn it in school every day.
He was later removed from power by Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, in a CIA orchestrated coup[3], supported and funded by the British and the U.S. governments. The coup was led by CIA agent Kermit Roosevelt, Jr.[4][5], the grandson of U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt, and came to be known as Operation Ajax[4], by its secret CIA cryptonym and the "28 Mordad 1332" coup, by its date on the Iranian calendar

[JustRalph]

There goes Ted Kennedy thinking he is president again........

[JPinMaryland]

I kinda like Nancy Pelosi's canteloups. :)

[Lefty]

sec, The Pres never said it was a slamdunk. At the outset he said the war on terror would take yrs. Those guys with boxcutters killed 3000 of us; imagine if they got a nuke.

[Tom]

There goes Ted Kennedy thinking he is president again........

He can't fight terrorism or protect our borders, he is too busy fighting to keep windmills out of his backyard. "Global warming is a serious tinkg, but man. this is MY backyard!"

[PaceAdvantage]

At the outset he said the war on terror would take yrs.

I remember this as well....no faulty or selective memory here....

[betchatoo]

I remember this as well....no faulty or selective memory here....
What has the war on terror got to do with the war in Iraq?

[Lefty]

What has the war on terror got to do with the war in Iraq?
It has been outlined many times. Just how many times do you have to be told? Let me count the times...

[46zilzal]

What has the war on terror got to do with the war in Iraq?
NOTHING excpet providing a psycological motivation for MORE nuts to join the fray. Akin to throwing gas on a fire.

technique is as old as the hills:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051128/scheer1116

[PaceAdvantage]

What has the war on terror got to do with the war in Iraq?

How's this for starters?

Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq) - Iraq was removed from the list (US list of state sponsors of international terrorism) in 1982 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982) to make it eligible for U.S. military technology while it was fighting Iran in the Iran-Iraq War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War); it was put back on in 1990 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990) following its invasion of Kuwait (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwait). It has since been removed following the 2003 invasion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq). The State Department's reason for including Iraq was that it provided bases to the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahedin-e-Khalq) (MEK), the Kurdistan Workers Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdistan_Workers_Party) (PKK), the Palestine Liberation Front (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Liberation_Front) (PLF), and the Abu Nidal organization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Nidal_organization) (ANO).

Above taken from this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._list_of_state_sponsors_of_international_terro rism

[PaceAdvantage]

NOTHING excpet providing a psycological motivation for MORE nuts to join the fray. Akin to throwing gas on a fire.

Are you trying to revise the history of Iraq's well documented state sponsorship of international terrorism?

[PlanB]

Pelosi lied

Reid lied.

sums up Pelosi and her cantalopes

So Soon? How watchful you are? What happens if you go grocery shopping? In that 30 minutes Pelosi & Reid might take over Switzerland?

[Show Me the Wire]

So Soon? How watchful you are? What happens if you go grocery shopping? In that 30 minutes Pelosi & Reid might take over Switzerland?

I guess you did not believe, when I posted I couldn't what to demonstrate my patriotism by criticizing the party and its members in control. I've read so many posts on this forumn about how real Americans should criticize the party that is in control, when they lie to the public. So I have decided to be more patriotic.

[PlanB]

SMTW ........I just don't see it. I am no fan of lying, although working on wall st I see too much of that, but I slickly try to avoid such, mostly at my obligatory monday morning meetings, but okay, what IF they lied, were their intentions in the decent & good area? to me, I just cannot accept how backward 43 has placed this country. Oh man, I think I could have lead this country better.

[banacek]

Oh man, I think I could have lead this country better.

And a great campaign slogan. "2008- It's time for PlanB"

[PaceAdvantage]

I just cannot accept how backward 43 has placed this country.

Why is it I have such a hard time accepting statements such as these? Is it because I see almost everyone driving around in semi-new SUVs getting 20mpg, then complaining about how high gas prices are....

Seriously, how is this country so backward? Is it the low unemployment figures? Is it the recent budget SURPLUS? Is it the low rate of inflation? The rising stock markets?

[Show Me the Wire]

SMTW ........I just don't see it. I am no fan of lying, although working on wall st I see too much of that, but I slickly try to avoid such, mostly at my obligatory monday morning meetings, but okay, what IF they lied, were their intentions in the decent & good area? to me, I just cannot accept how backward 43 has placed this country. Oh man, I think I could have lead this country better.

Oh my, my, my, it is acceptable to lie if your intentions are good. Yup, sums it up. Suff advised me about the propriety of lying, and a good discussion about acceptable lying in the "pays to be superstious" thread.

It seems apparent to me a large segment of people leaning towards a certain political philosophy believe lying is acceptable and possibly the moral thing to do in certain situations.

The whole concept embracing lying is very telling.

[PlanB]

hehe, yeah, you are my campaign guy. Sometimes when I'm reading about the goings on I think, why such a fuss? Lighten Up. Everyone's just trying to live decently, but invading a country is so significant. Pause. Think. Feel what the invadees feel, even slightly. Could you endure the pain?

[Show Me the Wire]

Why is it I have such a hard time accepting statements such as these? Is it because I see almost everyone driving around in semi-new SUVs getting 20mpg, then complaining about how high gas prices are....

Seriously, how is this country so backward? Is it the low unemployment figures? Is it the recent budget SURPLUS? Is it the low rate of inflation? The rising stock markets?

Me too, but now I understand it is well intentioned lying.

[PlanB]

Oh my, my, my, it is acceptable to lie if your intentions are good. Yup, sums it up. Suff advised me about the propriety of lying, and a good discussion about acceptable lying in the "pays to be superstious" thread.

It seems apparent to me a large segment of people leaning towards a certain political philosophy believe lying is acceptable and possibly the moral thing to do in certain situations.

The whole concept embracing lying is very telling.

Of course, you are ultimately right. I just try to ignore largely, sometimes I succeed in a small way. I've discussed this with my pals at length & they mostly don't see any conflict. I DO. You are morally right.

[Show Me the Wire]

hehe, yeah, you are my campaign guy. Sometimes when I'm reading about the goings on I think, why such a fuss? Lighten Up. Everyone's just trying to live decently, but invading a country is so significant. Pause. Think. Feel what the invadees feel, even slightly. Could you endure the pain?

Is sponsoring global terrorism significant? Mybe two significants make one insignificant?

[Suff]

How's this for starters?



Above taken from this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._list_of_state_sponsors_of_international_terro rism

Just so you know......The weapons he gave to them, he got from us. Now, since he's gone, defense contractors get to go direct.

This is FRIDAY... Not 20 years ago, or 30 years......This past Friday.






Washington providing USD 86.4 million to bolster Abbas' security forces

Aaron Klein, WND
Published: 01.09.07, 16:02

A portion of USD 86.4 million in aid the United States pledged last week to bolster security forces affiliated with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party will fall into the hands of the Hamas terror group, Hamas officials told WND.


Also, a leader of the Popular Resistance Committees, a terror group allied with Hamas, told WND his organization is planning attacks against Israel using weapons recently transferred to Fatah by the US and Egypt.


The Popular Resistance Committees leader said attacks using the foreign weapons are meant "to prove the Zionist-American conspiracy to bolster forces against us won't work."

"We will obtain the US weapons," the Committees leader said


http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3350298,00.html

This is the spread of Democracy in the Middle East? Hamas is the democraticaly elected Government. Fatah is the opposition party.

When these weapons get fired into Israel, .....Don't call me, ok.

[PlanB]

Thanks Suff for the Arabic version. I bet you made PA jealous.

[PlanB]

I look at the world & I know its turning, but my flute gently weeps. Were you diverted? I wasn't. I'm sitting here doing nothing but drinking my martini, but it weeps, gently. ps, I read the news about a lucky man, but love is all you need.

[Tom]

And a great campaign slogan. "2008- It's time for PlanB"

:lol::lol::lol:

[PlanB]

hehe, Tom, et al, see you all later. have a fun night, the Nights Are Colder Now, maybe I should close the door, but my memories are warm & clear.

[PaceAdvantage]

Just so you know......The weapons he gave to them, he got from us. Now, since he's gone, defense contractors get to go direct.

What has this got to do with the question "What has the war on terror got to do with the war in Iraq?"

I simply pointed out that Iraq has been on the state sponsored terrorism list throughout MULTIPLE administrations, not just the present one under GWB.

That alone answers the question "What has the war on terror got to do with the war in Iraq?"

[Suff]

That alone answers the question "What has the war on terror got to do with the war in Iraq?"

No it does not.

[skate]

I guess you did not believe, when I posted I couldn't what to demonstrate my patriotism by criticizing the party and its members in control. I've read so many posts on this forumn about how real Americans should criticize the party that is in control, when they lie to the public. So I have decided to be more patriotic.

well, ok, i agree, but you've got lots and lots of work ahead, oh my, you're gonna have a real busy '07.

but, good luck.

[betchatoo]

What has this got to do with the question "What has the war on terror got to do with the war in Iraq?"

I simply pointed out that Iraq has been on the state sponsored terrorism list throughout MULTIPLE administrations, not just the present one under GWB.

That alone answers the question "What has the war on terror got to do with the war in Iraq?"

Our 911 attack was funded mainly in Saudi Arabia, the terrorists were Saudi and it was planned by a guy in Afghanistan. Although many have tried no one has shown any significant link between Iraq and any terrorist acts carried out against the U.S. in many years. Seems to me if I was running a war on terror, I'd go where the terrorists are.

[Show Me the Wire]

Our 911 attack was funded mainly in Saudi Arabia, the terrorists were Saudi and it was planned by a guy in Afghanistan. Although many have tried no one has shown any significant link between Iraq and any terrorist acts carried out against the U.S. in many years. Seems to me if I was running a war on terror, I'd go where the terrorists are.


They (majority) left Afghanistan after the Taliban fell and moved to the next safe-haven. Care to guess which terroism sponsor state that may have been?

Really, do you not comprehend Iraq sponsored and funded terrorists through its government and that terrorism was its foreign policy?

A big difference between Saudi funding and Iraq funding . The Saudi funding comes from individuals, not the government. The Saudi funding is comprable to the American Irish funding the Irish Republic Army.

The U.S. government did not purposely establish a safe-haven for IRA members nor fund them. However, the IRA did recieve funds from the U.S. via U.S. citizens.

If you don't get the nexus after all the prior posts it is because you choose not to , because of denial.

As suff would say, minga.

[Tom]

Our 911 attack was funded mainly in Saudi Arabia, the terrorists were Saudi and it was planned by a guy in Afghanistan. Although many have tried no one has shown any significant link between Iraq and any terrorist acts carried out against the U.S. in many years. Seems to me if I was running a war on terror, I'd go where the terrorists are.

:bang::bang::bang:

[Secretariat]

SMTW,

The adminstration began using the term war on terror after 911, and affiliated it with those who attacked "our shores." Go back and read the speeches.

The primary argument given to go into Iraq was that Saddam and his WMD program was a "grave threat" to our national security.

Congress voted on the Iraq War Resolution to give the decision over to the President on how to enforce Saddam. (btw...this is the issue Byrd says may have violated the Constitution becasue it transferred a Legislative function over to the President)....but the issue is this:

America was preoccupied with what happened on 911 and wanted the perpetrators brought to justice. Namely Bin Laden and those involved in the 911 attack. Americans were also frightened that it could happen again.

Cheney then tried to announce a false link to one of the hijackers and Iraq. It's been proven he repeated this over and over again despite knowing there was NO verifiable evidence of this link. Bush attempted to pass false information on Niger and uranium tubes to Iraq which has been proven a forgery. In other words Bush and Cheney were determined to attack Iraq without ANY proven connection to the 911 hijackers which is what the White House associated with the "war on terror."

To now say becasue Iraq was on the terrorism watch list in 2002 was NEVER given as the reason to invade Iraq. It couldn't be because so was Syria. Instead the rhetoric "Axis of Evil" was coined to frighten people more.

This disingenious attempt of the right now to say because some terrorist attacks that were sponsored by Iraq (btw... NEVER directly against the US), is reason to associate 911 and Saddam and the "war on terror" is the biggest stetch I've seen from the right, and it is not what the people beleived after 911. They thought we were going after those who were DIRECTLY involved in those attacks. That is why the polls are so strongly anti-Bush now. People feel they've been deceived and manipulated, and truth is...they have been.

[Show Me the Wire]

SMTW,

The adminstration began using the term war on terror after 911, and affiliated it with those who attacked "our shores." Go back and read the speeches.

The primary argument given to go into Iraq was that Saddam and his WMD program was a "grave threat" to our national security.

Congress voted on the Iraq War Resolution to give the decision over to the President on how to enforce Saddam. (btw...this is the issue Byrd says may have violated the Constitution becasue it transferred a Legislative function over to the President)....but the issue is this:

America was preoccupied with what happened on 911 and wanted the perpetrators brought to justice. Namely Bin Laden and those involved in the 911 attack. Americans were also frightened that it could happen again.

Cheney then tried to announce a false link to one of the hijackers and Iraq. It's been proven he repeated this over and over again despite knowing there was NO verifiable evidence of this link. Bush attempted to pass false information on Niger and uranium tubes to Iraq which has been proven a forgery. In other words Bush and Cheney were determined to attack Iraq without ANY proven connection to the 911 hijackers which is what the White House associated with the "war on terror."

To now say becasue Iraq was on the terrorism watch list in 2002 was NEVER given as the reason to invade Iraq. It couldn't be because so was Syria. Instead the rhetoric "Axis of Evil" was coined to frighten people more.

This disingenious attempt of the right now to say because some terrorist attacks that were sponsored by Iraq (btw... NEVER directly against the US), is reason to associate 911 and Saddam and the "war on terror" is the biggest stetch I've seen from the right, and it is not what the people beleived after 911. They thought we were going after those who were DIRECTLY involved in those attacks. That is why the polls are so strongly anti-Bush now. People feel they've been deceived and manipulated, and truth is...they have been

So you believe life is static?

[JustRalph]

Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
September 20, 2001

~snippet~
Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.
~snippet~

~snippet~
Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place
~snippet~

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html

I like a guy who does what he says. I don't agree with the way they have conducted this war, but they damn sure told us they were going to do it. And it was voted on. It is what it is................

[JustRalph]

Don't forget, Saddam was paying for these bombs too........these were not soldiers, these were regular people who had good lives.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/8/1/142624.shtml


Americans Killed in Israel Mourned
NewsMax.com Wires
Friday, Aug. 2, 2002
WASHINGTON – Family, friends and co-workers Thursday mourned the five American victims of a bomb that ripped through a crowded cafeteria at Hebrew University in Jerusalem.
Janis Ruth Coulter, 36, of New York City; Benjamin Blutstein, 25, of Lancaster, Pa.; Marla Bennett, 24, of San Diego; David Gritz, 24, who holds dual American-French citizenship; and a fifth person with Israeli and American citizenship who has not been identified were all killed in the bomb blast that killed seven people and injured more than 80 others.

[betchatoo]

:bang::bang::bang:
Tom:
Beating our head against the wall is all we've done in going into Iraq. The people who have plagued us over the last several years weren't there.

And Show me the wire, is Iraq now a haven for terrorists? Could be. There is mass violence and confusion there now, which gives terrorists a perfect cover. Problem is, the violence and confusion is a direct result of our invasion.

[Lefty]

Thanks, JR for looking that up. Too many Americans, these days, expect instant gratification, even in war. WE better not lose our resolve, and all get on the same page, for the terrorists surely won't lose theirs.

[boxcar]

Thanks, JR for looking that up. Too many Americans, these days, expect instant gratification, even in war. WE better not lose our resolve, and all get on the same page, for the terrorists surely won't lose theirs.

Most especially when they have neo-pat allies of Kennedy's ilk.

Boxcar

[Secretariat]

So you believe life is static?

Go back and read my post. I beleive when going to war, you tell people the truth, rather than manipulate it.

JR,

Yes, in that same speech he refers to 911 and those who invaded our shore. Not to wipe out any terrorism against any other nation in the planet. I dont' think that's what people beleived, otherwise Cheney wouldn't have pushed the Iraq-Mohammed Attah lie so much. The administration deceptive tactic was to fool the American people by talking about 911 and the sacrifice of all those firemen and people and mention Bin laden, and then immediately transfer talk onto WMD's and fear that it mgiht happen here, and then mention that Saddam Hussein posed a grave threat to our national security. It was manipulative, deceptive, and attempted to create a link to 911 that was never there. As Richard Clarke who was there said, they pulled me aside after 911 and said how can we link Saddam to this?

Wake up. You've been duped by the rhetoric. 70% of the people get it now. I can understand begin manipulated and fooled and no one likes to admit it. But to persist in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is just stubborness clinging to neoconservative dogma.

I have the greatest respect for fiscal conservatives and libertarians like Ron Paul from Texas and Chuck Hagle and Charles Grassley. I have no absolutely respect for neo-conservatives who want to spend all our taxpayer money on unnecessary foregin civil wars.

[JustRalph]

Wake up. You've been duped by the rhetoric. 70% of the people get it now.

I have the greatest respect for fiscal conservatives and libertarians like Ron Paul from Texas and Chuck Hagle and Charles Grassley. I have no absolutely respect for neo-conservatives who want to spend all our taxpayer money on unnecessary foregin civil wars.

Yeah, right. I have been duped. I don't think this bunch knows how to run a war. But I didn't read a damn thing into it when he said what he said. Unfortunately you must have.

I have much respect for people who read or hear something and understand what they are hearing, and voting for!

When a person says he is going after terrorists no matter what country they reside........and ask you to vote to let him do it. You might think that he means " he is going after terrorists no matter where they reside"

Apparently I understand this concept much better than those you respect, such as Grassly, Hagle and Paul?

[skate]

those interviewed represented a wide array of people, just like the 70% who oppose what this dumb ass clown in trying to do.


well, me being a retarderist, i find degradation while trying to point out 'faslehoods' to those gifted with wisdom and insight.

now, this is not a sarcastic comment, but rather an attempt to ask, "does anyone believe that 70% oppose what Uncle George is trying to do".



so then , i m thinking, what is it that people think he is trying to do?

establish a better living for others. takes more than a little time, as he's said.

are you really saying " 70% oppose his method"?. but that would be uncharacteristic of any such person with insight and wisdom.
because, very few people 'in the know' (6 generals out of 5000) actually disagree with his attempt to free people and give them a chance.

now, how he goes about the problem is quite another consideration. just ask Uncle Abe, who had to relieve most of his officers, at one time or another.


hey, maybe you still think UncleGeorge is after 'the oil'? or is he providing a safty net for the oil?

[46zilzal]

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm


fairly consistent rejections

[skate]

fair enough.

from what you gave me, the polls show the people disagree with "THE WAY" GW is handling the War.

Not in opposition to the war, but " the way"...

which is what i was saying,
thank you

[hcap]

da skaterNot in opposition to the war, but " the way"...

which is what i was saying,
thank youya ya lookey at da second question. your uncageorge ain't doin' too good :sleeping:

Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?"
....Aprove....Disapprove.....Unsure
........29.........69.................. 2

Do you favor or oppose the U.S. war in Iraq?
............Favor......Oppose.....Unsure
...............31 .........67......... 2

[PlanB]

Most especially when they have neo-pat allies of Kennedy's ilk.

Boxcar

BoxCar how great to see you type again. But I was sure, that a man of your resolve, would have stayed away from here, having exited with such drama. umm, are you still planning to help Hillary win in 2008?

[hcap]

One more item from
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

"Did you happen to watch or listen to any of Bush's speech on Iraq last night, or not?"

..........Yes%.........No%
...........43............57

So skate, didya watch your uncageorge?
If so, didya fall asleep?
If so, yore still dreamin

[skate]

da skaterya ya lookey at da second question. your uncageorge ain't doin' too good :sleeping:

Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?"
....Aprove....Disapprove.....Unsure
........29.........69.................. 2

Do you favor or oppose the U.S. war in Iraq?
............Favor......Oppose.....Unsure
...............31 .........67......... 2

okokoko ok doky;

look, you have "IT" right there in your poll. it says " do you disapprove of the WAY GE. is handling the war".

you can certainly see that if they disagree with the WAY... that does not say they disagree with the war.

nobody wants to say "lets go to WAR", but since the ISlamist "said, we are gonna kill 'hicup', then Uncle George said "oh no you don't". because they are killing , we can either run, hide, or fight.

now what does YOUR POLL say about that.?
wadda you THINKING, these guys are just gonna wave and say Shalome


no, im not gonna keep reading what the hell your polls say, after i read your question #1, when you ask about the WAY... your islamist questions, will hide any questions that may contain any details, choices or consequence of Not going to war.
gees, you've got a list a mile long, for one simple question and that simple question must contain, what if 's, geeess!

IM GOING TO BED

[skate]

One more item from
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

"Did you happen to watch or listen to any of Bush's speech on Iraq last night, or not?"

..........Yes%.........No%
...........43............57

So skate, didya watch your uncageorge?
If so, didya fall asleep?
If so, yore still dreamin


"what do you think is the most likely outcome" of the war, your poll shows 77% think we will not lose. 5 question down

and , a no, just like your polls (waste) i didnt listen to uncle George, that was for others

[Suff]

"what do you think is the most likely outcome" of the war, your poll shows 77% think we will not lose. 5 question down

and , a no, just like your polls (waste) i didnt listen to uncle George, that was for others

Forget that nonsense and pay attention to what I tell you.

They just hung Saddam Hussiens brother this morning in Iraq. Barzan Ibrahim al-Tikriti's head came off. When the rope snap'd, it decapitated him.

Video of this is running around Iraq right now. So instead of X number of insurgents trying to kill our boys, we have X plus a head. What's that you figure? 5000? 2500? 10,000? 15,000 more of the enemy? What enemy? Not an enemy of ours. An enemy of Maqtr Al Sadr's death squads and revenge killers.

I don't want to fight this war no more.

[Tom]

I hate to tell youbut WE did not hang anyone.
The legitimate, ELCECTED governement of Iraq did.
And this POS who put live people into chippers - I'm glad his friggin head came off - I hope the POS suffered
immensley. I hope they show the video all over the world, with a laugh track on it. And a sound track of Bush saying "Bring it on."
This was a GOOD thing.

[Suff]

I hate to tell youbut WE did not hang anyone.
The legitimate, ELCECTED governement of Iraq did.
And this POS who put live people into chippers - I'm glad his friggin head came off - I hope the POS suffered
immensley. I hope they show the video all over the world, with a laugh track on it. And a sound track of Bush saying "Bring it on."
This was a GOOD thing.


yes, I know. We did not hang anyone. Yet we'll be responsible for the consequences of this, as well as any further actions we have no control over.

And the morality of the hanging had nothing to do with anything I wrote.

I posted that the US Soldiers and thier success's with winning the hearts and minds will be directly affected by events that they have no control over.

President Bush on 60 minutes last night. I wish they'd handle these hangings differently. They are hindering our efforts.

But thats niether here nor there. You just type away regardless of whats said or intended. I was just patient enough tonight to explain the post to you.

[Tom]

See, I'm not Bush.
I Like the way they hang them over there. We should try it over here.
I don't want their hearts and minds, I want their asses.

I could understand so many people being indignat about the hangings IF they had been eqaully indignant about the acts of those hung. But too manywere silent.

But thanks for 'splaining it to me. We just don't agree, but that's cool.;)

[skate]

yes, I know. We did not hang anyone. Yet we'll be responsible for the consequences of this, as well as any further actions we have no control over.

And the morality of the hanging had nothing to do with anything I wrote.

I posted that the US Soldiers and thier success's with winning the hearts and minds will be directly affected by events that they have no control over.

President Bush on 60 minutes last night. I wish they'd handle these hangings differently. They are hindering our efforts.

But thats niether here nor there. You just type away regardless of whats said or intended. I was just patient enough tonight to explain the post to you.

thanks for being so patient, ...

hey, we have One brutal society there in Iraq.
and sorry, but they understand one thing, that which was taught by saddamy.
so here we are trying to turn "the thinking around" and its gonna work.

worst point we could make to them "turn and run".
and that is what the POLL should be about, the "what ifs".
not questions like "would you prefer a cherry on top or bottom".

Now, ok, i'll forget about it.

[skate]

One more item from
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

"Did you happen to watch or listen to any of Bush's speech on Iraq last night, or not?"

..........Yes%.........No%
...........43............57

So skate, didya watch your uncageorge?
If so, didya fall asleep?
If so, yore still dreamin

your poll is too long, b ut zillys poll had, 5th questioon down. 20% said they think we would lose. end of story

[Suff]

thanks for being so patient, ...

hey, we have One brutal society there in Iraq.
and sorry, but they understand one thing, that which was taught by saddamy.
so here we are trying to turn "the thinking around" and its gonna work.

worst point we could make to them "turn and run".
and that is what the POLL should be about, the "what ifs".
not questions like "would you prefer a cherry on top or bottom".

Now, ok, i'll forget about it.

I'm having trouble getting my point across. I used the hanging example and people get hung up on the merits of the Hanging. Why is that? What are people seeing that I'm not?

Lets replace Hangings with ICE ok? This week Ice was outlawed in certain Iraq provinces. The reason given was that The Prophet Mohammed did not have ice in his time.

With limited electricty ICE just does'nt cool you down in the desert heat, It preserves your food. That's the Vital Function of ICE in this environment. I mean WAR, not heat.

These dictates come from Al Sadr. Al Sadr provides Malaki's support in the parliement.

So people have rotten food, and can't cool down.

Can you see how that scenario is not ideal to restoring order?

Can you see how the USA has no control over these factors?

Did you hear Bush say in his speech that one of the difficulties is

"To many restrictions put on the Americans by the Iraq Government"

That's my point. US Forces cannot control thier risk factors.


All this reminds me of the conservative uproar over the US Supreme Court quoting foriegn law when they outlawed the Death Penalty for Juveniles

Where is the outrage that our Military is effectively under Foriegn Control?

Hang that.

[Tom]

Let me explain it this time:

The Iraqi's convicted him for crimes against THEM.
Thier legally elected governement found him guilty and executed him according to THEIR laws.
The US military is not part of it.
There is no outrage because this is what we gave them - the right to govern themselves. Our militarty has no business controlling this stuff. We are not under thier control.

This is one of the bright spots.

You're welcome.

[Suff]

Let me explain it this time:

The Iraqi's convicted him for crimes against THEM.
Thier legally elected governement found him guilty and executed him according to THEIR laws.
The US military is not part of it.
There is no outrage because this is what we gave them - the right to govern themselves. Our militarty has no business controlling this stuff. We are not under thier control.

This is one of the bright spots.

You're welcome.

Are you Drunk? I hope so. What other explanation could exist for your inability to see that my post has nothing to do with the merits of the hanging?

:lol:

Most certainly nothing in tonights post even remotely corresponds to anything you just said.

Mind Boggling.

[46zilzal]

34,452 Iraq civilians said killed in '06

By Steven R. Hurst / Associated Press

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Twin car bombs tore through a leading Baghdad university as students left classes Tuesday in the deadliest attack in Iraq in nearly two months, and the United Nations reported 34,452 civilians were slain last year, nearly three times more than the government reported.

A total of 142 Iraqis were killed or found dead Tuesday, in what appeared to be a renewed campaign of Sunni insurgent violence against Shiite targets. The sharp uptick in deadly attacks coincided with the release of U.N. figures that showed an average of 94 civilians died each day in sectarian bloodshed in 2006.

[Tom]

Oh, ok, Your posts, then have nothing to do with what we were talking about. I got it!

[Suff]

Let me explain it this time:

Our militarty has no business controlling this stuff. We are not under thier control. .


"Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents, and there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have,"

George Bush
January 2007


re·stric·tion (rĭ-strĭk'shən)
n.


The act of restricting.
The state of being restricted.

Something that restricts; a regulation or limitation.

[Suff]

34,452 Iraq civilians said killed in '06

By Steven R. Hurst / Associated Press

with the release of U.N. figures that showed an average of 94 civilians died each day in sectarian bloodshed in 2006.

You to? wtf does that have to do with this subject. First of all, its in another thread. 2nd of all.....forget it.....its hopeless.

But just for the hell of it.... Your a Doctor or something? How is dropping that two paragraphs in this thread contribute to the disussion? Are you drunk?

has the whole world gone insane?.......What kinda guy smart enough to complete medical school does the stupid shit you do.

I have an excuse...I'm dumb and stupid. Whats yours? Jiminey why are'nt I the President with the world full of this?:D

[46zilzal]

......What kinda guy smart enough to complete medical school does the stupid shit you do.


has to do with all the ridiculous killing there of which the army is part and parcel. It is germane to remind people all the time. Blantant stupidity demonstrated on a daily basis.
Don't like it? Neither do I.

Bush's plan to add troops fueling Iraq insurgency, Sunni scholar says
By Borzou Daragahi, Times Staff Writer
January 15, 2007

AMMAN, JORDAN — President Bush's plan to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq has inflamed passions among the restive Sunni Arab minority, bringing new recruits to insurgent cells and outpourings of popular anger toward the U.S., the spokesman for the country's most hard-line Sunni clerical group declared Sunday.

"Iraq is like a fire," said Mohammed Bashar Faidi, spokesman for the Muslim Scholars Assn. "Instead of putting water on the fire, Bush is pouring gasoline."

[46zilzal]

"With President Bush seeking to escalate the war, additional spending that must be approved by Congress will be necessary. As soon as next month, Congress will consider a supplemental bill for as much as $100 billion, covering more than $2 billion in weekly spending on the war.
Will that set up a face-off that changes the course of the Iraq war as Edwards, Kennedy and their Democratic allies hope?"

My colleague at the American Enterprise Institute, John Fortier, a political scientist with expertise in constitutional law thinks that such a course is unlikely.

``Even if Congress cut off funding for the war,that might not resolve the issue,'' he told me last week. ``President Bush might well argue that Congress had already authorized the war and that cutting off funds would undercut his constitutional commander-in-chief power. The Supreme Court would be reluctant to step in and resolve this constitutional clash.''

Constitution Showdown

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=a.2mbpsNo5jI&refer=home

[Bala]

Where is the outrage that our Military is effectively under Foriegn Control? Thought provoking quote.

Additionally, I almost fainted during hurricane Katrina when fully armed Mexican army crossed US borders to deliver fresh water. This in light of the known fact Mexico's regular army provide support for drug traffickers. {narco-terrorists}

Who is our commander and chief?





________________________________________________
“There are times when a battle decides everything, and there are times when the most insignificant thing can decide the outcome of a battle” ~ Napoleon Bonaparte

“Soldiers generally win battles; generals get credit for them” ~ Napoleon

“Four hostile newspapers are more to be feared than a thousand bayonets.” ~ Napoleon

[JustRalph]

Can you see how the USA has no control over these factors?


I would have to say that in so many words, Bush has let Sadr know that him playing king of Iraq is about over. I say if he decides he doesn't want to play nice, he gets a bullet or a missile, up close.

2nd Carrier will be in the Gulf in 26 days............ it is starting to heat up

[PaceAdvantage]

34,452 Iraq civilians said killed in '06

That's it? 600,000 (supposedly) from 2002-2005 and only 34,452 in 2006?

Something ain't right....you guys ought to stop spouting these wack stats, especially in threads where they DON'T BELONG!

Hell, if anything, 34,452 sounds like an accomplishment to me, down from the average of 200,000 per year between 2002-2005....right 46? Right Sec? Right Hcap? Right Light?

Suff's right....it's hopeless....

Late, almost every time 46 posts, he steps in shit. :lol:

[Secretariat]

Hell, if anything, 34,452 sounds like an accomplishment to me....

You have a sick sense of accomplishment. That's more than half the number of all US servicemen killed in Vietnam over a decade.

[PaceAdvantage]

You have a sick sense of accomplishment. That's more than half the number of all US servicemen killed in Vietnam over a decade.

In case you've lost your sense of sarcasm, I was trying to put forth my notion that your 600,000 claim of innocents killed (you know, the one touted on this board as gospel for quite some time) since the war began is a falsehood.

But if it WERE true, then yes, it is a step in the right direction. From 200,000 per year down to 34,452 in 2006 is quite a reduction.

And if it's NOT true (which I contend) then this 34,452 number is more in line with reality. Not that 34,452 deaths is anything to celebrate. If you think I'm celebrating, then your sense of perception as well as your sense of sarcasm are both completely broken.

You still believe that Iraq averaged over 200,000 innocents killed a year from the start of the war until 2005, yet in 2006 only 34,452 "innocents" died?

Another conundrum I can't wait to see you figure out....

[Tom]

600,000 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
35,000 xxxxxxxxxxxx


Sec, you have to admit this is great reduction in a year.
Why, a point or two in a poll and you do cartwheels. How can you deny this is a MAJOR change in events. We must really getting Iraq under tight control to reduce the number of deaths so drastically.

Bush tried, hundred of thousands didn't die.

[46zilzal]

more joining against expansion of the war.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/18/iraq.congress/index.html

[Lefty]

Doesn't mean spit, 46. It's the PRESIDENT'S CALL!