Discussion:
What to do about Iraq now?
(too old to reply)
John
2005-10-08 09:40:55 UTC
Permalink
Ok so all you left wing bleeding hearts are saying that the Yanks and
British are torturing and shooting innocents etc.
I would be interested to know what your solution to this problem is. Just
leave and let them fight each other - a civil war? Ok they should never have
been there in the first place and we all know it was a lie but now they are
in place it is a hard call to decide the next step.
Bring in the UN, quickly. Get all US and UK troops out.

Invite *all* bodies to real talks with a view to finding a real
solution. Including the 'terrorist insurgents'. Especially them.

As the last decent PM of Israel said, there is no point in having peace
talks except with the people you are actually fighting against, however
much you hate them. That is just the point of having peace talks. It
worked in South Africa and it worked (not perfectly) in Northern Ireland.

Let me be the first to admit that it might not work though; I suspect we
and the Yanks have damaged the country too much now for anything but a
full-blown civil war to be inevitable. I wish that it was otherwise.

John
Thur
2005-10-08 10:58:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by John
Ok so all you left wing bleeding hearts are saying that the Yanks and
British are torturing and shooting innocents etc.
I would be interested to know what your solution to this problem is. Just
leave and let them fight each other - a civil war? Ok they should never have
been there in the first place and we all know it was a lie but now they are
in place it is a hard call to decide the next step.
Bring in the UN, quickly. Get all US and UK troops out.
Invite *all* bodies to real talks with a view to finding a real solution.
Including the 'terrorist insurgents'. Especially them.
As the last decent PM of Israel said, there is no point in having peace
talks except with the people you are actually fighting against, however
much you hate them. That is just the point of having peace talks. It
worked in South Africa and it worked (not perfectly) in Northern Ireland.
Let me be the first to admit that it might not work though; I suspect we
and the Yanks have damaged the country too much now for anything but a
full-blown civil war to be inevitable. I wish that it was otherwise.
John
the Yanks have damaged the country too much<
While I can't deny it, it would make more sense to me to
include the damage being done by the "insurgents".
Who these people are, and how many, and how much is
their support is important.
Let's not forget the enthusiasm of the millions who voted
for the first time. Are we to belive they have now joined
the insugents, or are they too terrified to express their
point of view, just like N.Ireland for a number of years?
What is a better judgement is to weigh up the possibility
of success in defeating urban guerillas, so well armed, and
so determined.
I see no moral argument for a people who so clearly are
trying to provoke a civil war by attacking peaceful Iraqis,
defined only by their different religious sects.
Is there a case for keeping troops there on a fairly permanent
basis just to keep the lid on say for the next 30 years or so while
the oil crisis is resolved?
Do we have a tiger by the tail? Would we (the developed world)
be in for worse if we pull out?
The UN does not have many successes where the combatants
have not been subdued first. How much better would they fare?
--
Thur
John
2005-10-08 11:39:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thur
Post by John
Ok so all you left wing bleeding hearts are saying that the Yanks and
British are torturing and shooting innocents etc.
I would be interested to know what your solution to this problem is. Just
leave and let them fight each other - a civil war? Ok they should never have
been there in the first place and we all know it was a lie but now they are
in place it is a hard call to decide the next step.
Bring in the UN, quickly. Get all US and UK troops out.
Invite *all* bodies to real talks with a view to finding a real solution.
Including the 'terrorist insurgents'. Especially them.
As the last decent PM of Israel said, there is no point in having peace
talks except with the people you are actually fighting against, however
much you hate them. That is just the point of having peace talks. It
worked in South Africa and it worked (not perfectly) in Northern Ireland.
Let me be the first to admit that it might not work though; I suspect we
and the Yanks have damaged the country too much now for anything but a
full-blown civil war to be inevitable. I wish that it was otherwise.
John
the Yanks have damaged the country too much<
While I can't deny it, it would make more sense to me to
include the damage being done by the "insurgents".
Who these people are, and how many, and how much is
their support is important.
Let's not forget the enthusiasm of the millions who voted
for the first time. Are we to belive they have now joined
the insugents, or are they too terrified to express their
point of view, just like N.Ireland for a number of years?
What is a better judgement is to weigh up the possibility
of success in defeating urban guerillas, so well armed, and
so determined.
I see no moral argument for a people who so clearly are
trying to provoke a civil war by attacking peaceful Iraqis,
defined only by their different religious sects.
Is there a case for keeping troops there on a fairly permanent
basis just to keep the lid on say for the next 30 years or so while
the oil crisis is resolved?
Do we have a tiger by the tail? Would we (the developed world)
be in for worse if we pull out?
The UN does not have many successes where the combatants
have not been subdued first. How much better would they fare?
I don't see any sign of the Iraqi resistance being subdued any time soon
though. It has been getting worse for a long time now. Even more
millions would vote if they had a free choice of who to vote for rather
than just the US-approved candidates on the menu right now.

I agree with you that real democracy is the only way forward now.
Unfortunately the occupation has been so badly handled that I see no
prospect of any US-led process gaining the credibility they need to make
this work.

In Vietnam terms, it is now about 1973. It is no longer a question of
winning or losing; 'we' have lost and it is merely a matter of time and
of getting out with as much speed and grace as we can manage and passing
on the problem we have created to others to solve.

Time to withdraw and lend our support to a UN force, perhaps with troops
from other Middle Eastern nations. However bad their record, they can do
no worse than the current unfolding disaster.

John
Falcon
2005-10-08 11:42:50 UTC
Permalink
"John" <***@nospam.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:%dO1f.8800$***@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
[...]
Post by John
Time to withdraw and lend our support to a UN force, perhaps with troops
from other Middle Eastern nations. However bad their record, they can do
no worse than the current unfolding disaster.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't heard any such suggestion coming from
any Arab or Muslim countries in the region, or from the insurgents
themselves. Is there any evidence that if the coalition withdrew, other
Middle Eastern nations would be willing to provide the thousands of troops
necessary, or that the insurgents would suddenly pack up and go home?
--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
John
2005-10-08 11:55:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Falcon
[...]
Post by John
Time to withdraw and lend our support to a UN force, perhaps with
troops from other Middle Eastern nations. However bad their record,
they can do no worse than the current unfolding disaster.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't heard any such suggestion coming
from any Arab or Muslim countries in the region, or from the insurgents
themselves. Is there any evidence that if the coalition withdrew, other
Middle Eastern nations would be willing to provide the thousands of
troops necessary, or that the insurgents would suddenly pack up and go
home?
Well indeed. Why should the resistance ('insurgents') talk peace when
they are doing so well just now?

I suspect that nations like Iran and Syria are enjoying US/UK
discomfiture too much to help us by getting involved *just now*. We may
have to withdraw first and let the request for help come from the Iraqis
themselves.

Sadly, there are and will be no winners in this. The best we can do is
learn from what happened I am afraid.

John
Eh?
2005-10-08 12:46:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by John
Well indeed. Why should the resistance ('insurgents') talk peace when
they are doing so well just now?

Well done Iraqis. If anyone invades Scotland I will be oot shooting
them and BeHeeding them.
Come to think on it they are slowing down on the BeHeedings.

Defend Scotland -BeHeed invaders.
***@ve
Peter Kirby
2005-10-08 14:38:32 UTC
Permalink
Dear Dave
Well, at least this swings the group back towards British history. Invaders
approaching Gretna would be wise to BeHeeding your warning.
Pete
Post by John
Post by John
Well indeed. Why should the resistance ('insurgents') talk peace when
they are doing so well just now?
Well done Iraqis. If anyone invades Scotland I will be oot shooting
them and BeHeeding them.
Come to think on it they are slowing down on the BeHeedings.
Defend Scotland -BeHeed invaders.
Jack Linthicum
2005-10-08 15:18:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Kirby
Dear Dave
Well, at least this swings the group back towards British history. Invaders
approaching Gretna would be wise to BeHeeding your warning.
Pete
Post by John
Post by John
Well indeed. Why should the resistance ('insurgents') talk peace when
they are doing so well just now?
Well done Iraqis. If anyone invades Scotland I will be oot shooting
them and BeHeeding them.
Come to think on it they are slowing down on the BeHeedings.
Defend Scotland -BeHeed invaders.
You will, I hope, notice that only one of those groups posted to is
about British history. Is it possible to limit such threads to
alt.history.british and remove those not alt.history.british when you
respond? Several of this and other newsgroups have acquired the
ego-centric habit of one D. Spencer Himes and his cross-posting of
every stray impulse that crosses his limited mind to groups that are so
oddly titled that it is difficult to determine their purpose.

alt.history.british, sci.military.naval, soc.culture.scottish,
soc.history.war.misc, soc.culture.irish
Peter Kirby
2005-10-08 21:45:29 UTC
Permalink
It's a real problem Jack. Thanks for pointing this out. Does anyone know how
to limit such cross-postings / replies? I don't want a reputation as a
'DSH'!
P
--
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by Peter Kirby
Dear Dave
Well, at least this swings the group back towards British history. Invaders
approaching Gretna would be wise to BeHeeding your warning.
Pete
Post by John
Post by John
Well indeed. Why should the resistance ('insurgents') talk peace when
they are doing so well just now?
Well done Iraqis. If anyone invades Scotland I will be oot shooting
them and BeHeeding them.
Come to think on it they are slowing down on the BeHeedings.
Defend Scotland -BeHeed invaders.
You will, I hope, notice that only one of those groups posted to is
about British history. Is it possible to limit such threads to
alt.history.british and remove those not alt.history.british when you
respond? Several of this and other newsgroups have acquired the
ego-centric habit of one D. Spencer Himes and his cross-posting of
every stray impulse that crosses his limited mind to groups that are so
oddly titled that it is difficult to determine their purpose.
alt.history.british, sci.military.naval, soc.culture.scottish,
soc.history.war.misc, soc.culture.irish
ray o'hara
2005-10-08 23:48:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Kirby
It's a real problem Jack. Thanks for pointing this out. Does anyone know how
to limit such cross-postings / replies? I don't want a reputation as a
'DSH'!
when you reply remove the groups you don't want to send to from the header.
don't top post either.
gonzo
2005-10-08 18:54:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by John
Post by Falcon
[...]
Post by John
Time to withdraw and lend our support to a UN force, perhaps with
troops from other Middle Eastern nations. However bad their record,
they can do no worse than the current unfolding disaster.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't heard any such suggestion coming
from any Arab or Muslim countries in the region, or from the insurgents
themselves. Is there any evidence that if the coalition withdrew, other
Middle Eastern nations would be willing to provide the thousands of
troops necessary, or that the insurgents would suddenly pack up and go
home?
Well indeed. Why should the resistance ('insurgents') talk peace when
they are doing so well just now?
I suspect that nations like Iran and Syria are enjoying US/UK
discomfiture too much to help us by getting involved *just now*. We may
have to withdraw first and let the request for help come from the Iraqis
themselves.
Sadly, there are and will be no winners in this. The best we can do is
learn from what happened I am afraid.
John
That's a laugh. Learn from what happened? Tell that
to arse-licker Blair, who is already repeating the same
kind of shit about Iran as we heard about Iraq. Anything
to please Dubya. He will fight to the last drop of blood.
Somebody else's blood, of course.........
Jackie Mulheron
2005-10-08 15:54:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Falcon
[...]
Post by John
Time to withdraw and lend our support to a UN force, perhaps with troops
from other Middle Eastern nations. However bad their record, they can do
no worse than the current unfolding disaster.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't heard any such suggestion coming
from any Arab or Muslim countries in the region, or from the insurgents
themselves. Is there any evidence that if the coalition withdrew, other
Middle Eastern nations would be willing to provide the thousands of troops
necessary, or that the insurgents would suddenly pack up and go home?
As God said to the Scottish sinners in hell who complained that they didn't
know their actions would take them to hell - "Ye ken noo".

http://japan.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-20040802-04.html
Howard C. Berkowitz
2005-10-16 00:08:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Falcon
[...]
Post by John
Time to withdraw and lend our support to a UN force, perhaps with troops
from other Middle Eastern nations. However bad their record, they can do
no worse than the current unfolding disaster.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't heard any such suggestion coming from
any Arab or Muslim countries in the region, or from the insurgents
themselves. Is there any evidence that if the coalition withdrew, other
Middle Eastern nations would be willing to provide the thousands of troops
necessary, or that the insurgents would suddenly pack up and go home?
IIRC, the Saudis proposed, to the Arab League, that troops from Arab
nations not sharing a border with Iraq be made available. That's the
last I heard of the idea.
Mark Test
2005-10-08 16:51:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by John
I don't see any sign of the Iraqi resistance being subdued any time soon
though. It has been getting worse for a long time now. Even more
millions would vote if they had a free choice of who to vote for rather
than just the US-approved candidates on the menu right now.
BS, the terrorists murder them, agree that does limit their freedom, and
choices.
Post by John
I agree with you that real democracy is the only way forward now.
Unfortunately the occupation has been so badly handled that I see no
prospect of any US-led process gaining the credibility they need to make
this work.
You'll be proven wrong.
Post by John
In Vietnam terms, it is now about 1973. It is no longer a question of
winning or losing; 'we' have lost and it is merely a matter of time and
of getting out with as much speed and grace as we can manage and passing
on the problem we have created to others to solve.
We have lost? You'll be proven wrong here to.
Post by John
Time to withdraw and lend our support to a UN force, perhaps with troops
from other Middle Eastern nations. However bad their record, they can do
no worse than the current unfolding disaster.
Dude, it won't happen, the UN will not touch Iraq, (only their money and
oil).
Mike Stone
2005-10-09 21:23:50 UTC
Permalink
John Oct 8, 12:39 pm
Post by John
In Vietnam terms, it is now about 1973. It is no longer a question of
winning or losing; 'we' have lost and it is merely a matter of time and
of getting out with as much speed and grace as we can manage and passing
on the problem we have created to others to solve.
Or to use another parallel, it's the Reconstruction south and the year
is around _1873_.

Rutherford B Hayes, where are you when we need you?

--


Mike Stone - Peterborough, England

European Ideal:
Italian cook, English policeman, German engineer, French lover
Everything organised by the Swiss.

European reality:
English cook, German policeman, French engineer, Swiss lover
Everything organised by the Italians.
Falcon
2005-10-08 11:38:51 UTC
Permalink
"Thur" <no-***@z.com> wrote in message news:wDN1f.51$***@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
[...]
Post by Thur
The UN does not have many successes where the combatants
have not been subdued first. How much better would they fare?
The UN suggestion is nice, but it's little more than a red herring. UN
peacekeepers can only be introduced with the approval of all sides in a
conflict - and there has to be a ceasefire in progress. The fact is that if
the insurgents called a ceasefire and UN did start peacekeeping operations,
it would probably only result in the coalition forces already there coming
under UN command, (which could still mean having a US General in charge) and
changing their own headgear for blue helmets.

It's easy to focus on the belief that Iraqi operations are undertaken by
troops from the US and UK, but many, many countries have troops there. For
example, the UK provides the leadership of the Multi-National Division
(South-East) which has UK, Italian, Norwegian, Romanian, Danish, Dutch,
Czech, Portuguese, and Lithuanian troops under its command. [Source: MOD
http://xrl.us/hw4w ]

www.globalsecurity.org reports that as of August this year, 27 countries are
participating in the coalition. See: http://xrl.us/hw4x
--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
John P. Mullen
2005-10-09 03:44:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Falcon
[...]
Post by Thur
The UN does not have many successes where the combatants
have not been subdued first. How much better would they fare?
The UN suggestion is nice, but it's little more than a red herring. UN
peacekeepers can only be introduced with the approval of all sides in a
conflict - and there has to be a ceasefire in progress. The fact is that
if the insurgents called a ceasefire and UN did start peacekeeping
operations, it would probably only result in the coalition forces
already there coming under UN command, (which could still mean having a
US General in charge) and changing their own headgear for blue helmets.
It's easy to focus on the belief that Iraqi operations are undertaken by
troops from the US and UK, but many, many countries have troops there.
For example, the UK provides the leadership of the Multi-National
Division (South-East) which has UK, Italian, Norwegian, Romanian,
Danish, Dutch, Czech, Portuguese, and Lithuanian troops under its
command. [Source: MOD http://xrl.us/hw4w ]
www.globalsecurity.org reports that as of August this year, 27 countries
are participating in the coalition. See: http://xrl.us/hw4x
Right. But, not in great numbers.

Da Shrub has opened the can of worms that his father warned not to open
and now we are all paying the price. There is no easy, honorable, way
out, so I suspect the US will simply do what it has done in the past:
set up a puppet government, claim victory, and get the heck out. Lots
of people will die, but that will eventually happen no matter how long
the US spends in Iraq. The US will never set up the kind of government
that has a chance against the insurgents. After all, the US Army can't
do it, so what force would be able to? The current administration, for
sure, would never tolerate such a force in other's hands. It would
probably make a whole lot of people nervous all over the world.

The best hope would be to negotiate some sort of truce, get all the
parties on the same page, and let them work something else. However, da
Shrub would never do such a thing, since it would involve 1) admitting a
mistake, 2) yielding power to non-Christians, and worst of all, 3)
yielding control of oil.

John Mullen
Mark Test
2005-10-08 16:45:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by John
Ok so all you left wing bleeding hearts are saying that the Yanks and
British are torturing and shooting innocents etc.
I would be interested to know what your solution to this problem is. Just
leave and let them fight each other - a civil war? Ok they should never have
been there in the first place and we all know it was a lie but now they are
in place it is a hard call to decide the next step.
Bring in the UN, quickly. Get all US and UK troops out.
UN has said no over and over.....
Post by John
Invite *all* bodies to real talks with a view to finding a real
solution. Including the 'terrorist insurgents'. Especially them.
Al-Qaeda has said no, over and over...
Post by John
As the last decent PM of Israel said, there is no point in having peace
talks except with the people you are actually fighting against, however
much you hate them. That is just the point of having peace talks. It
worked in South Africa and it worked (not perfectly) in Northern Ireland.
Al-Qaeda has said no.
Post by John
Let me be the first to admit that it might not work though; I suspect we
and the Yanks have damaged the country too much now for anything but a
full-blown civil war to be inevitable. I wish that it was otherwise.
Disagree.

At least you did offer some ideas, most do not. BTW negotiating
with facists is never a good idea.
--
"Democracy produces such un-Islamic behavior as freedom of religion,
rule of the people, freedom of expression, separation of religion and state,
forming political parties and majority rule. Freedom of speech is
particularly evil
because it allows even cursing God. This means that there is nothing sacred
in
democracy."
---
Abu Musab Zarqawi January 23, 2005
John P. Mullen
2005-10-09 03:51:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Test
Post by John
Ok so all you left wing bleeding hearts are saying that the Yanks and
British are torturing and shooting innocents etc.
I would be interested to know what your solution to this problem is.
Just
Post by John
leave and let them fight each other - a civil war? Ok they should never
have
Post by John
been there in the first place and we all know it was a lie but now they
are
Post by John
in place it is a hard call to decide the next step.
Bring in the UN, quickly. Get all US and UK troops out.
UN has said no over and over.....
Post by John
Invite *all* bodies to real talks with a view to finding a real
solution. Including the 'terrorist insurgents'. Especially them.
Al-Qaeda has said no, over and over...
Post by John
As the last decent PM of Israel said, there is no point in having peace
talks except with the people you are actually fighting against, however
much you hate them. That is just the point of having peace talks. It
worked in South Africa and it worked (not perfectly) in Northern Ireland.
Al-Qaeda has said no.
Al-Quaeda is not involved. Whether they go along or not is unimportant.

John Mullen
John Gilmer
2005-10-08 18:06:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by John
Bring in the UN, quickly. Get all US and UK troops out.
"Bring in the UN?"

Ha, ha. The UN has had a standing invition to "come in" from BEFORE the
war.
Post by John
Invite *all* bodies to real talks with a view to finding a real
solution. Including the 'terrorist insurgents'. Especially them.
Un huh.

Actually, short of just going home and declaring VICTORY, the US/UK is/are
heading in the right direction. They are wasting a lot of effort in all the
"democracy" nonsense but the "solution" will simply require that local
security be provided by the locals.

I read yesterday that there is "hit squads" which are attacking
non-combatants of the various factions. Well, sports, it's time for those
folks to get some (more) guns and stop this nonsense by themselves. There
are plenty of arms in the area. Local militia should be "registered",
fingerprinted, DNAed, and associated with particular weapons. Weapons
found in the wrong hands will spell trouble for the possessor and the
registered owner. Undeclared weapons, ammo and explosives should be
destroyed where found except for that taken to be handed out to friendly
forces.
Eh?
2005-10-08 18:32:40 UTC
Permalink
Forgien fighters = 150,000 usa cannon fodder
Beheed the lot.
Vince Brannigan
2005-10-08 19:10:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Gilmer
Post by John
Bring in the UN, quickly. Get all US and UK troops out.
"Bring in the UN?"
Ha, ha. The UN has had a standing invition to "come in" from BEFORE the
war.
Post by John
Invite *all* bodies to real talks with a view to finding a real
solution. Including the 'terrorist insurgents'. Especially them.
Un huh.
Actually, short of just going home and declaring VICTORY, the US/UK is/are
heading in the right direction. They are wasting a lot of effort in all the
"democracy" nonsense but the "solution" will simply require that local
security be provided by the locals.
I read yesterday that there is "hit squads" which are attacking
non-combatants of the various factions. Well, sports, it's time for those
folks to get some (more) guns and stop this nonsense by themselves. There
are plenty of arms in the area. Local militia should be "registered",
fingerprinted, DNAed, and associated with particular weapons. Weapons
found in the wrong hands will spell trouble for the possessor and the
registered owner. Undeclared weapons, ammo and explosives should be
destroyed where found except for that taken to be handed out to friendly
forces.
It's a chaotic violent civil war drawn up along ethnic grounds. Local
warlords will take over but forget any king of organized controls

Vince
John Gilmer
2005-10-09 00:14:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vince Brannigan
It's a chaotic violent civil war drawn up along ethnic grounds. Local
warlords will take over but forget any king of organized controls
Well, as long as folks who control the oil production and transportation can
keep things under control, the civil war gives all those "sincere" young
Islamic men something to do in there own part of the world.

Very slight OT: I've been reading the book, Perfect Soldiers, which is
about the 911 attackers. The longer those young men are in a REAL combat
zone the safer the rest of us are.
Vince Brannigan
2005-10-09 01:06:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Gilmer
Post by Vince Brannigan
It's a chaotic violent civil war drawn up along ethnic grounds. Local
warlords will take over but forget any king of organized controls
Well, as long as folks who control the oil production and transportation can
keep things under control, the civil war gives all those "sincere" young
Islamic men something to do in there own part of the world.
Very slight OT: I've been reading the book, Perfect Soldiers, which is
about the 911 attackers. The longer those young men are in a REAL combat
zone the safer the rest of us are.
Sure except that they are learning a whole lot about killing people.

Vince
D. Spencer Hines
2005-10-09 02:55:29 UTC
Permalink
| John Gilmer wrote:

| > Very slight OT: I've been reading the book, Perfect Soldiers, which
| > is about the 911 attackers. The longer those young men are in a
| > REAL combat zone the safer the rest of us are.

True and OUR young men and women, Brits and Americans, are learning how
to win the War On Terror by serving at the point of the sword in the
Central Front of the conflict -- and THAT is a Good Thing too.

DSH
robin hood
2005-10-09 02:46:16 UTC
Permalink
GOP: The American Treason Party.
Fred J. McCall
2005-10-09 09:20:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by robin hood
GOP: The American Treason Party.
Hotmail - American silly twatland.

<plonk>
--
This space for let.
robin hood
2005-10-09 18:28:17 UTC
Permalink
Mantra of the Insane Bush-Regime:
"WAR IS GOOD BUSINESS, WAR IS GOOD FOR BUSINESS, WAR STIMULATES THE
ECONOMY... OH YEAH LOTS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE DIE TOO... OH WELL WHAT CAN
YOU DO ABOUT 'COLLATERAL DAMAGE' WE MUST STIMULATE GROWTH OF MONEY...
Mantra of the Insane Bush-Regime:
"WAR IS GOOD BUSINESS, WAR IS GOOD FOR BUSINESS, WAR STIMULATES THE
ECONOMY... OH YEAH LOTS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE DIE TOO... OH WELL WHAT CAN
YOU DO ABOUT 'COLLATERAL DAMAGE' WE MUST STIMULATE GROWTH OF MONEY...
Mantra of the Insane Bush-Regime:
"WAR IS GOOD BUSINESS, WAR IS GOOD FOR BUSINESS, WAR STIMULATES THE
ECONOMY... OH YEAH LOTS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE DIE TOO... OH WELL WHAT CAN
YOU DO ABOUT 'COLLATERAL DAMAGE' WE MUST STIMULATE GROWTH OF MONEY...
Mantra of the Insane Bush-Regime:
"WAR IS GOOD BUSINESS, WAR IS GOOD FOR BUSINESS, WAR STIMULATES THE
ECONOMY... OH YEAH LOTS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE DIE TOO... OH WELL WHAT CAN
YOU DO ABOUT 'COLLATERAL DAMAGE' WE MUST STIMULATE GROWTH OF MONEY...
robin hood
2005-10-09 19:47:14 UTC
Permalink
Nixon is spinning in his grave wondering when Bush will be impeached.



==================================================

Karl Rove exposed, thus destroying, a legitimate undercover CIA
operation that was protecting the U.S. and the world from black market
nuclear weapons... WHY? because they had proven that Bush was lying
about WMD's in Iraq before the 2004 elections.
Karl Rove, one of the main people who tells Bush what to say(everyone
knows Bush is dumb as a rock) is guilty of TREASON.




==================================================


LOOK OUT MAGIC BULLETS -- The connection of the Bush family controlled
Oil-Oligarchy/Military-industrial-complex to the coup de etat of the
U.S. in the 60's assaintaions of John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King,
and Robert F. Kennedy. Fascism has only made advances by hiding inside
the CIA and NSA.
http://www.savethemales.ca/130202.html





==================================================
The Number One Issue For All Voters Is To Destroy the Crooked
Diebold(and other) Voting Machines... the time for bought and paid for
elections in the U.S.A. must end.


With the news this week of the Enron Accounting Company, Arther
Anderson, having its conviction overturned for intentionally shredding
Enron Accounting files in order to subvert prosecution of both
themselves and Enron.... THAT IS ARTHER ANDERSON WAS FOUND GUILTY UNTIL
THE SUPREME COURT OVERTURNED THE CONVICTION!!!

With that we now have evidence of how all crooks will get away with it
if they are strong Bush supporters.

It is loudly clear to all that Bush-Regime plan, when confronted with
their clear guilt, (as the Newsweek scandal proved last week, with
first Bush-Regime forcing Newsweek to retract, then the story being
proven true from many other sources, then BUSH INSISTING that ALL
those CONFRONTING him with the TRUTH are "ABSURD" ) ... thus it is now
clear that the Bush-Regime when confronted with their guilt will only
lie more loudly. --- a pattern that we on usenet newgroups see as
standard operating procedure for Bush-Lies supporters. ---

SO I AM MAKING THIS PLEA TO ALL VOTERS EVERYWHERE.
THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE BEFORE US TODAY IS TO RE-ESTABLISH LEGITMACY
TO THE VOTING MACHINES.
We have seen Diebold, the main company making the machines make
promises of delivering the elections to the Bush-Regime.

Democracy in the U.S. has almost (if not already) been destroyed by the
lies being repeated over and over like a machine gun from the highest
offices of government.
As the Newsweek scandal showed the Bush-Regime will even force high
visible media outlets to print lies that everyone knows are lies.

IN OTHER WORDS CAN ANYONE BELIEVE ANY OF THE POLLING COMPANIES???

THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE FOR ALL VOTERS SHOULD BE TO RE-ESTABLISH
LEGITMACY OF THE VOTING PROCESS!!!


==================================================



www.prisonexp.org <-- The Cancer Thriving On American Government
Corruption
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/iraqis_tortured/ <== Example of how
"professional" guards look when the standard Blue-Wall-Of-Silence is
not set up to hide them.... These guards came directly from their
stateside jobs at normal U.S. prisons.

http://www.journeyforjustice.org/ <- 2 Million Prisoners: March On DC
---> see ya next year!!!

==================================================
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/
http://www.tvnewslies.org

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3308.htm <-- Bush
Crime Family
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/they_knew_0802/

http://www.thelawparty.com/FranklinCoverup/franklin.htm

http://www.rotten.com/library/history/war/wmd/saddam/ <--
chronological history of the WMD Bush Lie

http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/mckinney_grills_rumsfeld.htm <--
Rumsfeld grilled on
Dyncorp Sex Rings, Missing Pentagon Trillions 9/11 Wargames

http://mindprod.com/iraq.html <-- photos of Bush War Crimes
http://www.troopsoutnow.org/
http://www.commondreams.org/

=================================================
WILL THE "ANTI-CHRIST" KNOW THAT ABOUT THEMSELVES
--- OF COURSE NOT!!!!

Why would anyone knowingly be the "anti-christ?"

This whole Prophesy aspect to Revelations seems to only be possible if
such a person would not understand their own guilt.

This would be an aspect of "Pushing the envelope..."

For instance invading another country, taking the world to war, because
you have deluded yourself into thinking that "Might makes Right" or
that those who do not profess your bizarre perversion of Jesus's
message are the problem... when in fact you are the problem. Or
because keeping the Corporate-Oil-Oligarchy in power seems
intrinsically right to you. IN OTHER WORDS YOU HAVE NO COMPREHENSION
OF JESUS'S MESSAGE ... BUT THINK YOU DO... ie you are an anti-christ.




=================================================

Texas is known for being the state with the dirtiest politicians in the
USA.



Question: What would JFK have done with Social Security?

THE ANSWER HAS TO DO WITH ANOTHER REASON THE FLEDGLING BUSH-REGIME'S
CIA ASSASSINATED JFK.
(that was over forty years ago the "fledgling Bush-Regime" is no longer
"fledgling")

We are now at a historic time in the history of the USA. The CIA had
the Truth sealed away for 75 years, from Public Eye concerning what
really happened to JFK, RFK, MLK. Claiming it was for "National
Security" reasons. By the time that time period has expired the
Fascist takeover of the US will be complete and it will not only not
matter that the truth is known... the CIA killed the great Human Rights
leaders at the behest of the a small group of
Texas-Oil-Oligarchy-Corporate-Leaders, primarily the Bush-Family who
are now establishing themselves as the entrenched THUG-RULERS of the
most powerful military/intelligence/espionage/political system in the
history of mankind.
ie the "Anti-Christ" head of the world.

The only way this can happen is if the people let it... if the american
people remain asleep and allow a LIAR to keep LYING because they are
too afraid to STAND AGAINST THE LIAR.

One reason Ted Kennedy did not die the martyr's death of his two
brothers is because he decided it was not his fight alone. He did not
see the american people outraged enough to STAND UP AGAINST THE
LIARS...
the average american is like Ted Kennedy... "let someone else fix the
problem..." that is entirely what the entrenched Bush Regime with the
CIA in its pocket is hoping americans and the rest of the world will
will say to themselves... for then the problem will not be fixed.

Mantra of the Insane Bush-Regime:
"WAR IS GOOD BUSINESS, WAR IS GOOD FOR BUSINESS, WAR STIMULATES THE
ECONOMY... OH YEAH LOTS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE DIE TOO... OH WELL WHAT CAN
YOU DO ABOUT 'COLLATERAL DAMAGE' WE MUST STIMULATE GROWTH OF MONEY...
Mantra of the Insane Bush-Regime:
"WAR IS GOOD BUSINESS, WAR IS GOOD FOR BUSINESS, WAR STIMULATES THE
ECONOMY... OH YEAH LOTS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE DIE TOO... OH WELL WHAT CAN
YOU DO ABOUT 'COLLATERAL DAMAGE' WE MUST STIMULATE GROWTH OF MONEY...
Mantra of the Insane Bush-Regime:
"WAR IS GOOD BUSINESS, WAR IS GOOD FOR BUSINESS, WAR STIMULATES THE
ECONOMY... OH YEAH LOTS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE DIE TOO... OH WELL WHAT CAN
YOU DO ABOUT 'COLLATERAL DAMAGE' WE MUST STIMULATE GROWTH OF MONEY...
Mantra of the Insane Bush-Regime:
"WAR IS GOOD BUSINESS, WAR IS GOOD FOR BUSINESS, WAR STIMULATES THE
ECONOMY... OH YEAH LOTS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE DIE TOO... OH WELL WHAT CAN
YOU DO ABOUT 'COLLATERAL DAMAGE' WE MUST STIMULATE GROWTH OF MONEY...


Are you going to continue to follow the new Hitler?
It used to be that true Christians went willingly to die martyr's
deaths.
This world is a spec in eternity. Why not do your best to make this
world beautiful in the spirit of man... by being a man who stands up
against the liars who only believe in materialism, money, greed, oil...
etc. You will be considered worthless by many... but you will be one
of those who has kept the true people alive in spirit.


Drive around McClean, VA(the home of CIA headquarters) and read the
road signs: "George Bush's CIA"
Nixon is spinning in his grave wondering what Bush has to do to be
impeached.

"Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is a merge of
State and Corporate power." ---Benito Mussolini, the father of modern
fascism.


"What does it matter to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless whether
the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or
the holy name of liberty or democracy?"
--- Mahatma Gandhi
r***@hotmail.com
2005-10-09 22:57:40 UTC
Permalink
Mantra of the Insane Bush-Regime:
"WAR IS GOOD BUSINESS, WAR IS GOOD FOR BUSINESS, WAR STIMULATES THE
ECONOMY... OH YEAH LOTS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE DIE TOO... OH WELL WHAT CAN
YOU DO ABOUT 'COLLATERAL DAMAGE' WE MUST STIMULATE GROWTH OF MONEY...
Mantra of the Insane Bush-Regime:
"WAR IS GOOD BUSINESS, WAR IS GOOD FOR BUSINESS, WAR STIMULATES THE
ECONOMY... OH YEAH LOTS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE DIE TOO... OH WELL WHAT CAN
YOU DO ABOUT 'COLLATERAL DAMAGE' WE MUST STIMULATE GROWTH OF MONEY...
Mantra of the Insane Bush-Regime:
"WAR IS GOOD BUSINESS, WAR IS GOOD FOR BUSINESS, WAR STIMULATES THE
ECONOMY... OH YEAH LOTS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE DIE TOO... OH WELL WHAT CAN
YOU DO ABOUT 'COLLATERAL DAMAGE' WE MUST STIMULATE GROWTH OF MONEY...
Mantra of the Insane Bush-Regime:
"WAR IS GOOD BUSINESS, WAR IS GOOD FOR BUSINESS, WAR STIMULATES THE
ECONOMY... OH YEAH LOTS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE DIE TOO... OH WELL WHAT CAN
YOU DO ABOUT 'COLLATERAL DAMAGE' WE MUST STIMULATE GROWTH OF MONEY...
robin hood zorrro
2005-10-10 08:00:30 UTC
Permalink
There are approximately two million links returned on the google of
"impeach bush"

DO YOUR DUTY, GO TO EVERY ONE AND VOTE TO IMPEACH BUSH... DO IT NOW


http://www.votetoimpeach.org/
Advocates impeachment of the President, solicits donations to finance
ads in
major newspapers, and features views of former US Attorney General
Ramsey Clark ...

http://www.impeachbush.tv/
Information, editorials and strategies for the impeachment of George W.
Bush.
Also includes general critiques of Bush policy.

http://zzpat.bravehost.com/
Exposing the lies and impeachable offenses of George W. Bush.

http://www.thefourreasons.org/
Impeach Bush. Impeach Bush, Cheney, Runsfeld et. al., Impeaching George
W.
Bush: A clearinghouse of resources for everything that's going on in
the US: US ...


http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle01172003.html
Impeaching George Walker Bush, President of the United States, ...
Wherefore George
Walker Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, ...

http://www.impeachbushbumperstickers.com/
Impeachbushbumperstickers.com IMPEACH BUSH NOW. Tell your
congressperson to
impeach bush! Impeachbushbumperstickers are available online for $1.50
each, ...


http://impeachbush.meetup.com/
Meet nearby Activists to Impeach Bush! Come to an Impeach Bush Meetup
to ...
We're part of United Impeach Bush Meetup Day on Mon Sep 26 19:00:00 EDT
2005! ...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts120.html
Impeach Bush Now. by Paul Craig Roberts by Paul Craig Roberts. The
raison d'être
of the Bush administration is war in the Middle East in order to
protect ...
r***@hotmail.com
2005-10-10 22:52:41 UTC
Permalink
A google on "Iraq Viet Nam" returns 75 MILLION LINKS!!!

here is the top one:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1305360,00.html

(No wonder Virginia is so confused.... 75 MILLION LINKS!!!)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=iraq+viet+nam
robin hood zorrro
2005-10-11 06:19:18 UTC
Permalink
If some city in the USA were nuked would you think it could have been
done by Bush in order to scare people into thinking he is their savior?

Recall that Bush, Rove, and Libby comitted TREASON -- If you dont know
about this do a google on Treason Gate -- in a way that caused the
U.S. to really be less safe from Nuclear Arms... Not the pretend ones
that they lied about claiming Saddam Hussein had them.
robin hood zoro
2005-10-11 23:38:01 UTC
Permalink
If some city in the USA were nuked would you think it could have been
done by Bush in order to scare people into thinking he is their savior?



Recall that Bush, Rove, and Libby comitted TREASON -- If you dont know
about this do a google on Treason Gate -- in a way that caused the
U.S. to really be less safe from Nuclear Arms... Not the pretend ones
that they lied about claiming Saddam Hussein had them.
robin hood zoro
2005-10-12 21:25:09 UTC
Permalink
If some city in the USA were nuked would you think it could have been
done by Bush in order to scare people into thinking he is their savior?



Recall that Bush, Rove, and Libby comitted TREASON -- If you dont know
about this do a google on Treason Gate -- in a way that caused the
U.S. to really be less safe from Nuclear Arms... Not the pretend ones
that they lied about claiming Saddam Hussein had them
Mark Test
2005-10-13 04:31:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by robin hood zorrro
If some city in the USA were nuked would you think it could have been
done by Bush in order to scare people into thinking he is their savior?
Recall that Bush, Rove, and Libby comitted TREASON -- If you dont know
about this do a google on Treason Gate -- in a way that caused the
U.S. to really be less safe from Nuclear Arms... Not the pretend ones
that they lied about claiming Saddam Hussein had them
Man, give me some of that sh*t you're smoking.....No one said Saddam
had nukes (Israel bombed Iraq's nuke reactor in the mid-80's).

So of course, he had none in '03.....concern was chem and bio weps being
given to terrorists.....

Mark
--
"It comes from an honest belief we have, which is... George Bush doesn't
know what's going on. Michael Moore does not know what's going on. And Alec
Baldwin definitely does not know what's going on. Basically, this shit is
gigantically complicated."
Trey Parker
Gods Creator
2005-10-13 06:18:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Test
Post by robin hood zorrro
If some city in the USA were nuked would you think it could have been
done by Bush in order to scare people into thinking he is their savior?
Recall that Bush, Rove, and Libby comitted TREASON -- If you dont know
about this do a google on Treason Gate -- in a way that caused the
U.S. to really be less safe from Nuclear Arms... Not the pretend ones
that they lied about claiming Saddam Hussein had them
Man, give me some of that sh*t you're smoking.....No one said Saddam
had nukes (Israel bombed Iraq's nuke reactor in the mid-80's).
So of course, he had none in '03.....concern was chem and bio weps being
given to terrorists.....
Mark
Thus Spake God's Creator; (I don't forgive shit!)

When anyone gambles in the *HIGH STAKES* game of POWER,
or even play the game of Chess, the only thing that matters
is *GOD SAVE the KING* !

http://www.bookrags.com/researchtopics/biological-and-chemical-weapons/16.html



GOD'S CREATOR
...That was my only sin... :(
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Wise men challenge the unknown seeking more wisdom, others
fall on their hands and knees, close their eyes... and mumble...

Todays U.S. Holy Wars News:
http://www.antiwar.com
http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/coffin_photos/dover/
z***@hotmail.com
2005-10-14 01:18:34 UTC
Permalink
.
William Black
2005-10-09 09:47:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
| > Very slight OT: I've been reading the book, Perfect Soldiers, which
| > is about the 911 attackers. The longer those young men are in a
| > REAL combat zone the safer the rest of us are.
True and OUR young men and women, Brits and Americans, are learning how
to win the War On Terror by serving at the point of the sword in the
Central Front of the conflict -- and THAT is a Good Thing too.
I want details of our victory conditions please.

I also want to know exactly what the British army has learned in Iraq...
--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Julian Richards
2005-10-09 10:03:11 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 10:47:14 +0100, "William Black"
Post by William Black
I also want to know exactly what the British army has learned in Iraq...
To take cover when the US air force is nearby.


--

Julian Richards
medieval "at" richardsuk.f9.co.uk

www.richardsuk.f9.co.uk
Website of "Robot Wars" middleweight "Broadsword IV"

THIS MESSAGE WAS POSTED FROM SOC.HISTORY.MEDIEVAL
John
2005-10-09 10:17:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julian Richards
On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 10:47:14 +0100, "William Black"
Post by William Black
I also want to know exactly what the British army has learned in Iraq...
To take cover when the US air force is nearby.
Oh I think they knew that since WW2!

John
William Black
2005-10-09 10:31:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julian Richards
On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 10:47:14 +0100, "William Black"
Post by William Black
I also want to know exactly what the British army has learned in Iraq...
To take cover when the US air force is nearby.
I think they worked that out after Monte Casino...
--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
2005-10-09 13:26:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julian Richards
On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 10:47:14 +0100, "William Black"
Post by William Black
I also want to know exactly what the British army has learned in Iraq...
To take cover when the US air force is nearby.
Bollocks.
They get that in basic training.
ray o'hara
2005-10-09 19:22:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
Post by Julian Richards
On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 10:47:14 +0100, "William Black"
Post by William Black
I also want to know exactly what the British army has learned in Iraq...
To take cover when the US air force is nearby.
Bollocks.
They get that in basic training.
yeah but our air force has a long way to ge before they get as proficient
at killing women and children as the RAF
Paul J. Adam
2005-10-09 20:15:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by ray o'hara
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
Bollocks.
They get that in basic training.
yeah but our air force has a long way to ge before they get as proficient
at killing women and children as the RAF
Really? Curtis LeMay took the ball from Butcher Harris and really ran
with it...
--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk
Adam Whyte-Settlar
2005-10-10 03:12:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
Post by Julian Richards
On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 10:47:14 +0100, "William Black"
Post by William Black
I also want to know exactly what the British army has learned in
Iraq...
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
Post by Julian Richards
To take cover when the US air force is nearby.
Bollocks.
They get that in basic training.
yeah but our air force has a long way to ge before they get as proficient
at killing women and children as the RAF
Over 100,000 at Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Jock
2005-10-10 07:15:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
Post by William Black
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
Post by Julian Richards
On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 10:47:14 +0100, "William Black"
Post by William Black
I also want to know exactly what the British army has learned in
Iraq...
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
Post by Julian Richards
To take cover when the US air force is nearby.
Bollocks.
They get that in basic training.
yeah but our air force has a long way to ge before they get as proficient
at killing women and children as the RAF
Over 100,000 at Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
killing well over 200,000 people

http://militaryhistory.about.com/cs/worldwar2/a/dresdenfirestor.htm

Yanks are useless.

"Wer das Weinen verlernt hatte, der lernte es wieder beim Untergang
Dresdens" (They who had lost the ability to weep, learned it again at the
destruction of Dresden) -- Gerhart Hauptmann
On the evening of February 13, 1945, one of the most controversial air-raids
of all time commenced over the skies of Dresden, Germany. Within two days,
over 1,300 allied bombers had completely destroyed the medieval city with a
massive firestorm, killing well over 200,000 people. However, a storm still
rages in academic circles as to the true results of the bombing and the
necessity of the attack.
James H. Hood
2005-10-10 08:16:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by ray o'hara
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
Post by William Black
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
Post by Julian Richards
On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 10:47:14 +0100, "William Black"
Post by William Black
I also want to know exactly what the British army has learned in
Iraq...
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
Post by Julian Richards
To take cover when the US air force is nearby.
Bollocks.
They get that in basic training.
yeah but our air force has a long way to ge before they get as
proficient
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
Post by William Black
at killing women and children as the RAF
Over 100,000 at Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
killing well over 200,000 people
http://militaryhistory.about.com/cs/worldwar2/a/dresdenfirestor.htm
Yanks are useless.
"Wer das Weinen verlernt hatte, der lernte es wieder beim Untergang
Dresdens" (They who had lost the ability to weep, learned it again at the
destruction of Dresden) -- Gerhart Hauptmann
On the evening of February 13, 1945, one of the most controversial air-raids
of all time commenced over the skies of Dresden, Germany. Within two days,
over 1,300 allied bombers had completely destroyed the medieval city with a
massive firestorm, killing well over 200,000 people. However, a storm still
rages in academic circles as to the true results of the bombing and the
necessity of the attack.
Shitferbrains, look who planned and ordered the raid.
Fred J. McCall
2005-10-10 13:59:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by James H. Hood
Post by ray o'hara
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
Post by William Black
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
Post by Julian Richards
On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 10:47:14 +0100, "William Black"
Post by William Black
I also want to know exactly what the British army has learned in
Iraq...
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
Post by Julian Richards
To take cover when the US air force is nearby.
Bollocks.
They get that in basic training.
yeah but our air force has a long way to ge before they get as
proficient
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
Post by William Black
at killing women and children as the RAF
Over 100,000 at Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
killing well over 200,000 people
http://militaryhistory.about.com/cs/worldwar2/a/dresdenfirestor.ht
m
Yanks are useless.
"Wer das Weinen verlernt hatte, der lernte es wieder beim
Untergang Dresdens" (They who had lost the ability to weep,
learned it again at the destruction of Dresden) -- Gerhart
Hauptmann On the evening of February 13, 1945, one of the most
controversial air-raids of all time commenced over the skies of
Dresden, Germany. Within two days, over 1,300 allied bombers had
completely destroyed the medieval city with a massive firestorm,
killing well over 200,000 people. However, a storm still rages in
academic circles as to the true results of the bombing and the
necessity of the attack.
Shitferbrains, look who planned and ordered the raid.
And once he figures that out, he should take a look at who was
dropping what on what. The incendiary bombing on the city center was
virtually all RAF.
--
This space for let.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
2005-10-10 10:24:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by ray o'hara
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
Post by William Black
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
Post by Julian Richards
On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 10:47:14 +0100, "William Black"
Post by William Black
I also want to know exactly what the British army has learned in
Iraq...
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
Post by Julian Richards
To take cover when the US air force is nearby.
Bollocks.
They get that in basic training.
yeah but our air force has a long way to ge before they get as
proficient
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
Post by William Black
at killing women and children as the RAF
Over 100,000 at Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
killing well over 200,000 people
http://militaryhistory.about.com/cs/worldwar2/a/dresdenfirestor.htm
Ah yeah - Dresden.
I didn't check the link but I've read books about it.
Didn't the Yanks help with that one anyway?

What about the Tokyo firestorm though - another 100,000 there.
That's 300,000 in 3 raids - not bad you know.

A W-S
William Black
2005-10-10 09:50:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by ray o'hara
yeah but our air force has a long way to ge before they get as proficient
at killing women and children as the RAF
I didn't know that the RAF carried out the Tokyo firebomb raids...
--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Adam Whyte-Settlar
2005-10-10 10:26:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by ray o'hara
yeah but our air force has a long way to ge before they get as proficient
at killing women and children as the RAF
I didn't know that the RAF carried out the Tokyo firebomb raids...
Oops - I've more or less just duplicated that.

Lets face it - we're both pretty good at it.
Julian Richards
2005-10-10 12:15:54 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 23:26:22 +1300, "Adam Whyte-Settlar"
Post by ray o'hara
Post by William Black
Post by ray o'hara
yeah but our air force has a long way to ge before they get as
proficient
Post by William Black
Post by ray o'hara
at killing women and children as the RAF
I didn't know that the RAF carried out the Tokyo firebomb raids...
Oops - I've more or less just duplicated that.
Lets face it - we're both pretty good at it.
For a later reference, the US dropped twice as much explosive on Laos
than it did on Nazi Germany.


--

Julian Richards
medieval "at" richardsuk.f9.co.uk

www.richardsuk.f9.co.uk
Website of "Robot Wars" middleweight "Broadsword IV"

THIS MESSAGE WAS POSTED FROM SOC.HISTORY.MEDIEVAL
Al Quaeda [Scotland]
2005-10-10 15:02:39 UTC
Permalink
Nuke the USA
--
***@ve Dundee
Adam Whyte-Settlar
2005-10-11 05:16:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julian Richards
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 23:26:22 +1300, "Adam Whyte-Settlar"
Post by ray o'hara
Post by William Black
Post by ray o'hara
yeah but our air force has a long way to ge before they get as
proficient
Post by William Black
Post by ray o'hara
at killing women and children as the RAF
I didn't know that the RAF carried out the Tokyo firebomb raids...
Oops - I've more or less just duplicated that.
Lets face it - we're both pretty good at it.
For a later reference, the US dropped twice as much explosive on Laos
than it did on Nazi Germany.
I thought it was more than that to be honest.
Julian Richards
2005-10-11 12:25:28 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 18:16:48 +1300, "Adam Whyte-Settlar"
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
Post by Julian Richards
For a later reference, the US dropped twice as much explosive on Laos
than it did on Nazi Germany.
I thought it was more than that to be honest.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-12-11-laos-bombs_x.htm

and Laos was nominally a neutral country.


--

Julian Richards
medieval "at" richardsuk.f9.co.uk

www.richardsuk.f9.co.uk
Website of "Robot Wars" middleweight "Broadsword IV"

THIS MESSAGE WAS POSTED FROM SOC.HISTORY.MEDIEVAL
Fred J. McCall
2005-10-11 13:37:57 UTC
Permalink
Julian Richards <***@sig.co.uk> wrote:

:On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 18:16:48 +1300, "Adam Whyte-Settlar"
:<***@hotmail.com> wrote:
:
:>
:>"Julian Richards" <***@sig.co.uk> wrote in message
:>news:***@4ax.com...
:
:>> For a later reference, the US dropped twice as much explosive on Laos
:>> than it did on Nazi Germany.
:>
:>I thought it was more than that to be honest.
:
:http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-12-11-laos-bombs_x.htm
:
:and Laos was nominally a neutral country.

I think 'nominally' needs to be replaced with 'ostensibly' above,
since Laos at no time behaved like a neutral country. If they hadn't
been allowing their territory to be used to funnel arms into South
Vietnam they wouldn't have gotten bombs dropped on those convoys.
--
"I thought dying for your country was the worst thing that could
happen to you. I think killing for your country can be a lot
worse. Because that's the memory that haunts."
-- Senator Bob Kerrey
William Black
2005-10-11 15:40:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
:and Laos was nominally a neutral country.
I think 'nominally' needs to be replaced with 'ostensibly' above,
since Laos at no time behaved like a neutral country. If they hadn't
been allowing their territory to be used to funnel arms into South
Vietnam they wouldn't have gotten bombs dropped on those convoys.
So that puts them into the same position as the late and unlamented Soviet
Union.

Why wasn't the USSR bombed?
--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
John
2005-10-11 15:48:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by Fred J. McCall
:and Laos was nominally a neutral country.
I think 'nominally' needs to be replaced with 'ostensibly' above,
since Laos at no time behaved like a neutral country. If they hadn't
been allowing their territory to be used to funnel arms into South
Vietnam they wouldn't have gotten bombs dropped on those convoys.
So that puts them into the same position as the late and unlamented Soviet
Union.
Why wasn't the USSR bombed?
Because they had nukes, of course.

The message is:

If you already have nukes, never get rid of them.

But if you don't already have nukes, you mustn't consider getting them.

Or, more succinctly, do as we say, not as we do.

The bombing of Laos and Cambodia was a war crime within a war crime. A
cowardly attack on those who could not hit back.

It is one of the charges I would love to live to see Kissinger in the
dock for.

John
Mike Stone
2005-10-11 20:19:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by John
Post by William Black
Post by Fred J. McCall
:and Laos was nominally a neutral country.
I think 'nominally' needs to be replaced with 'ostensibly' above,
since Laos at no time behaved like a neutral country. If they hadn't
been allowing their territory to be used to funnel arms into South
Vietnam they wouldn't have gotten bombs dropped on those convoys.
So that puts them into the same position as the late and unlamented Soviet
Union.
Why wasn't the USSR bombed?
Because they had nukes, of course.
If you already have nukes, never get rid of them.
Yep
Post by John
But if you don't already have nukes, you mustn't consider getting them.
Nope. If you don't have nukes, get them as quick as you can while that
idiot
in the White House is too preoccupied with Iraq to do anything about
it.

--


Mike Stone - Peterborough, England

European Ideal:
Italian cook, English policeman, German engineer, French lover
Everything organised by the Swiss.

European reality:
English cook, German policeman, French engineer, Swiss lover
Everything organised by the Italians.
Fred J. McCall
2005-10-12 02:57:36 UTC
Permalink
"William Black" <***@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

:
:"Fred J. McCall" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
:news:***@4ax.com...
:
:> :and Laos was nominally a neutral country.
:>
:> I think 'nominally' needs to be replaced with 'ostensibly' above,
:> since Laos at no time behaved like a neutral country. If they hadn't
:> been allowing their territory to be used to funnel arms into South
:> Vietnam they wouldn't have gotten bombs dropped on those convoys.
:
:So that puts them into the same position as the late and unlamented Soviet
:Union.
:
:Why wasn't the USSR bombed?

Because supply convoys and troop movements weren't being routed from
North Vietnam to South Vietnam via the USSR, you silly twat.
--
"I've put men in the ground in foreign soil so you can sleep
at night, but you wouldn't know anything about that, would
you, kid?"
-- Detective Mac Taylor, "CSI: NY"
William Black
2005-10-12 09:16:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
:Why wasn't the USSR bombed?
Because supply convoys and troop movements weren't being routed from
North Vietnam to South Vietnam via the USSR, you silly twat.
But the supply conveys started in the USSR.

Or do you think the North Vietnamese arms came from some other party?
--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Fred J. McCall
2005-10-12 13:40:53 UTC
Permalink
"William Black" <***@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

:
:"Fred J. McCall" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
:news:***@4ax.com...
:> "William Black" <***@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
:
:> :Why wasn't the USSR bombed?
:>
:> Because supply convoys and troop movements weren't being routed from
:> North Vietnam to South Vietnam via the USSR, you silly twat.
:
:But the supply conveys started in the USSR.

Yes, but they were not directly on their way into the combat zone at
that time.

:Or do you think the North Vietnamese arms came from some other party?

Well, ignoring for a moment the fact that quite some number of them
did, again they were not in direct transit to folks fighting in South
Vietnam at that point in time. By your thinking we could just as
easily have bombed London.

Fortunately, we don't operate by your sort of thinking. But then, few
in the sane world do....
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
John
2005-10-12 17:22:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
:> :Why wasn't the USSR bombed?
:>
:> Because supply convoys and troop movements weren't being routed from
:> North Vietnam to South Vietnam via the USSR, you silly twat.
:But the supply conveys started in the USSR.
Yes, but they were not directly on their way into the combat zone at
that time.
:Or do you think the North Vietnamese arms came from some other party?
Well, ignoring for a moment the fact that quite some number of them
did, again they were not in direct transit to folks fighting in South
Vietnam at that point in time. By your thinking we could just as
easily have bombed London.
Fortunately, we don't operate by your sort of thinking.
No Fred, you certainly don't.

John
Adam Whyte-Settlar
2005-10-12 07:28:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Julian Richards
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 18:16:48 +1300, "Adam Whyte-Settlar"
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
Post by Julian Richards
For a later reference, the US dropped twice as much explosive on Laos
than it did on Nazi Germany.
I thought it was more than that to be honest.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-12-11-laos-bombs_x.htm
and Laos was nominally a neutral country.
I know - I watched that war on TV at the time and have read books about it
for years.
Fascinating politics. Shame about the civilians.

That was the last time the US *ever* lied about a war eh?

A W-S
Mark Test
2005-10-13 04:48:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
Post by Julian Richards
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 18:16:48 +1300, "Adam Whyte-Settlar"
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
Post by Julian Richards
For a later reference, the US dropped twice as much explosive on Laos
than it did on Nazi Germany.
I thought it was more than that to be honest.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-12-11-laos-bombs_x.htm
and Laos was nominally a neutral country.
I know - I watched that war on TV at the time and have read books about it
for years.
Fascinating politics. Shame about the civilians.
That was the last time the US *ever* lied about a war eh?
And the NVA were never in "neutral" Laos......US Army loved to
attack neutrals back then......right?

Shame of Vietnam was the Democratic government cutting off
all military aid (ammo and guns) to the South when the North
violated the treaty, all US troops were back in the US by '73.

We beat the North with no US troops in country, yet lost the war,
amazing the power of the liberals! Shame on you all for ignoring the
facts about Vietnam.

"In December 1974, Congress completed passage of the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1974 that voted to cut off all military funding to the Saigon
government
and made unenforceable the peace terms negotiated by Nixon."



"By 1975, the South Vietnamese Army stood alone against the powerful North
Vietnamese. Despite Vietnamization and the 1972 victories against the PAVN
offensive, the ARVN was plagued with corruption, desertion, low wages, and
lack of supplies."



"On March 11, 1975 Bumnethout fell to the PAVN. The attack began in the
early morning hours. After a violent artillery barrage, 4,000- man garrison
defending the city retreated with their families. On March 15, President
Thieu ordered the Central Highlands and the northern provinces to be
abandoned, in what he declared to lighten the top and keep the bottom.
General Phu abandoned the cities of Pleiku and Kontum and retreated to the
coast in what became known as the column of tears."



"Due to already destroyed roads and bridges, the column slowed down as the
PAVN closed in. As the column staggered down mountains to the coast, PAVN
shelling attacked. By April 1, the column ceased to exist after 60,000 ARVN
troops were killed."



While John Kerry and Ted Kennedy celebrated.....



Mark
Gods Creator
2005-10-13 06:37:12 UTC
Permalink
.....
....
...
Post by Mark Test
"Due to already destroyed roads and bridges, the column slowed down as the
PAVN closed in. As the column staggered down mountains to the coast, PAVN
shelling attacked. By April 1, the column ceased to exist after 60,000 ARVN
troops were killed."
While John Kerry and Ted Kennedy celebrated.....
Mark
Thus Spake God's Creator; (I don't forgive shit!)

Do you *Great Hind Sight* ... Arm-Chair Generals have ANY
idea of what an "Iraqi" type invasion would have been
like for the U.S., against North Vietnam, and China?

How many U.S. soldiers would you be willing
to sacrifice for nothing! (Not counting yourself!) :)


GOD'S CREATOR
...That was my only sin... :(
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Wise men challenge the unknown seeking more wisdom, others
fall on their hands and knees, close their eyes... and mumble...

Todays U.S. Holy Wars News:
http://www.antiwar.com
http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/coffin_photos/dover/
Mark Test
2005-10-09 18:44:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vince Brannigan
Post by John Gilmer
Post by Vince Brannigan
It's a chaotic violent civil war drawn up along ethnic grounds. Local
warlords will take over but forget any king of organized controls
Well, as long as folks who control the oil production and transportation can
keep things under control, the civil war gives all those "sincere" young
Islamic men something to do in there own part of the world.
Very slight OT: I've been reading the book, Perfect Soldiers, which is
about the 911 attackers. The longer those young men are in a REAL combat
zone the safer the rest of us are.
Sure except that they are learning a whole lot about killing people.
Only one problem, they alredy knew how to kill folks, waaaaay before
the US arrival. Muhammad taught them well.
Vince Brannigan
2005-10-09 21:12:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thur
Post by Vince Brannigan
Post by John Gilmer
Post by Vince Brannigan
It's a chaotic violent civil war drawn up along ethnic grounds. Local
warlords will take over but forget any king of organized controls
Well, as long as folks who control the oil production and transportation
can
Post by Vince Brannigan
Post by John Gilmer
keep things under control, the civil war gives all those "sincere" young
Islamic men something to do in there own part of the world.
Very slight OT: I've been reading the book, Perfect Soldiers, which is
about the 911 attackers. The longer those young men are in a REAL
combat
Post by Vince Brannigan
Post by John Gilmer
zone the safer the rest of us are.
Sure except that they are learning a whole lot about killing people.
Only one problem, they alredy knew how to kill folks, waaaaay before
the US arrival. Muhammad taught them well.
Dont remember anything in the Koran about IEDs

Vb
Mark Test
2005-10-10 03:55:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vince Brannigan
Post by Thur
Post by Vince Brannigan
Post by John Gilmer
Post by Vince Brannigan
It's a chaotic violent civil war drawn up along ethnic grounds. Local
warlords will take over but forget any king of organized controls
Well, as long as folks who control the oil production and
transportation
Post by Vince Brannigan
Post by Thur
can
Post by Vince Brannigan
Post by John Gilmer
keep things under control, the civil war gives all those "sincere" young
Islamic men something to do in there own part of the world.
Very slight OT: I've been reading the book, Perfect Soldiers, which is
about the 911 attackers. The longer those young men are in a REAL
combat
Post by Vince Brannigan
Post by John Gilmer
zone the safer the rest of us are.
Sure except that they are learning a whole lot about killing people.
Only one problem, they alredy knew how to kill folks, waaaaay before
the US arrival. Muhammad taught them well.
Dont remember anything in the Koran about IEDs
They've just "upgraded" from Muhammad's preferred method of throat slitting.
BTW, the Q'uran only calls for the killing of infidels, apparently Allah
doesn't care
how.
Jack Love
2005-10-10 07:38:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Gilmer
Post by Vince Brannigan
Post by Thur
Post by Vince Brannigan
Post by John Gilmer
Post by Vince Brannigan
It's a chaotic violent civil war drawn up along ethnic grounds. Local
warlords will take over but forget any king of organized controls
Well, as long as folks who control the oil production and
transportation
Post by Vince Brannigan
Post by Thur
can
Post by Vince Brannigan
Post by John Gilmer
keep things under control, the civil war gives all those "sincere"
young
Post by Vince Brannigan
Post by Thur
Post by Vince Brannigan
Post by John Gilmer
Islamic men something to do in there own part of the world.
Very slight OT: I've been reading the book, Perfect Soldiers, which
is
Post by Vince Brannigan
Post by Thur
Post by Vince Brannigan
Post by John Gilmer
about the 911 attackers. The longer those young men are in a REAL
combat
Post by Vince Brannigan
Post by John Gilmer
zone the safer the rest of us are.
Sure except that they are learning a whole lot about killing people.
Only one problem, they alredy knew how to kill folks, waaaaay before
the US arrival. Muhammad taught them well.
Dont remember anything in the Koran about IEDs
They've just "upgraded" from Muhammad's preferred method of throat slitting.
BTW, the Q'uran only calls for the killing of infidels, apparently Allah
doesn't care
how.
But -tradition- does: Mohammed killed near 1000 Jews by cutting their
heads off...people who had surrendered themselves to his mercy.
John P. Mullen
2005-10-09 03:49:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Gilmer
Post by Vince Brannigan
It's a chaotic violent civil war drawn up along ethnic grounds. Local
warlords will take over but forget any king of organized controls
Well, as long as folks who control the oil production and transportation can
keep things under control, the civil war gives all those "sincere" young
Islamic men something to do in there own part of the world.
Very slight OT: I've been reading the book, Perfect Soldiers, which is
about the 911 attackers. The longer those young men are in a REAL combat
zone the safer the rest of us are.
The fellows who carried out the 911 attacks, including the backers and
masterminds, are almost all Saudis. Those fighting in Iraq are almost
all Iraqis. I don't think fighting Iraqis protects us against Saudis.

John Mullen
John Gilmer
2005-10-09 18:10:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by John P. Mullen
The fellows who carried out the 911 attacks, including the backers and
masterminds, are almost all Saudis. Those fighting in Iraq are almost
all Iraqis. I don't think fighting Iraqis protects us against Saudis.
The 911 guys mostly had "cycled through" Afghanistan at one time or another.

Frankly, it's now clear (from where I sit) who it is that the US/UK are
killing. The point of entry of the "foreign" fighers seems to be Syria and
Jordan. Unless "they" routinely fingerprint and take DNA samples, it would
be difficult to find their origin.
Post by John P. Mullen
John Mullen
Mr. David Dundee
2005-10-09 18:16:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Gilmer
Post by John P. Mullen
The fellows who carried out the 911 attacks, including the backers and
masterminds, are almost all Saudis. Those fighting in Iraq are almost
all Iraqis. I don't think fighting Iraqis protects us against Saudis.
The 911 guys mostly had "cycled through" Afghanistan at one time or another.
Frankly, it's now clear (from where I sit) who it is that the US/UK are
killing. The point of entry of the "foreign" fighers seems to be Syria and
Jordan. Unless "they" routinely fingerprint and take DNA samples, it would
be difficult to find their origin.
Post by John P. Mullen
John Mullen
911 was a MOSSAD job
SEE http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/9-11bushbooker.html
John P. Mullen
2005-10-15 14:35:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Gilmer
Post by John P. Mullen
The fellows who carried out the 911 attacks, including the backers and
masterminds, are almost all Saudis. Those fighting in Iraq are almost
all Iraqis. I don't think fighting Iraqis protects us against Saudis.
The 911 guys mostly had "cycled through" Afghanistan at one time or another.
Frankly, it's now clear (from where I sit) who it is that the US/UK are
killing. The point of entry of the "foreign" fighers seems to be Syria and
Jordan. Unless "they" routinely fingerprint and take DNA samples, it would
be difficult to find their origin.
Post by John P. Mullen
John Mullen
They have been able to verify the origin of most fighters and almost all
are Iraqis.

John Mullen
Mark Test
2005-10-15 15:48:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by John P. Mullen
Post by John Gilmer
Post by John P. Mullen
The fellows who carried out the 911 attacks, including the backers and
masterminds, are almost all Saudis. Those fighting in Iraq are almost
all Iraqis. I don't think fighting Iraqis protects us against Saudis.
The 911 guys mostly had "cycled through" Afghanistan at one time or another.
Frankly, it's now clear (from where I sit) who it is that the US/UK are
killing. The point of entry of the "foreign" fighers seems to be Syria and
Jordan. Unless "they" routinely fingerprint and take DNA samples, it would
be difficult to find their origin.
Post by John P. Mullen
John Mullen
They have been able to verify the origin of most fighters and almost all
are Iraqis.
Please define "most"and "they". Zarqawi (their fuhrer) is from Jordan, I
tend to believe
"most" of his followers are also from Jordan.
A***@aol.com
2005-10-16 10:31:41 UTC
Permalink
The point of entry of the "foreign" fighters seems to be Syria
The most effective way to deal with the problem of terrorists
infiltrating from Syria would be to drop fuel air bombs on terrorist
encampments across the Syrian border. The shock effect of the fuel air
bombs seems to be the only thing that gets the attention of people in
that region, they are so deeply delusional that words don't penetrate
their brains, so shock needs to be induced to wake them up from their
delusional state.

It would be a good idea to drop some fuel air bombs on terrorist
encampments inside Iraq as well, for similar reasons. Only shock will
wake them up from their delusional state.

The normal methods of combat don't break their morale or wake them from
their delusional states, as those tactics are already part of their
worldview. Something that can induce shock effect is needed.
William Black
2005-10-16 10:52:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by A***@aol.com
The point of entry of the "foreign" fighters seems to be Syria
The most effective way to deal with the problem of terrorists
infiltrating from Syria would be to drop fuel air bombs on terrorist
encampments across the Syrian border. The shock effect of the fuel air
bombs seems to be the only thing that gets the attention of people in
that region, they are so deeply delusional that words don't penetrate
their brains, so shock needs to be induced to wake them up from their
delusional state.
It would be a good idea to drop some fuel air bombs on terrorist
encampments inside Iraq as well, for similar reasons. Only shock will
wake them up from their delusional state.
The problem with that is the terrorists seem to like living in or very near
perfectly peaceful commuities who just want to be left alone to get on with
their lives.

The US Air Force turning up and shredding the local environment isn't going
to make any friends along that border, and right now what the US needs is
friends along that border.

US forces have just fought an offensive in an area inside Iraq that they
claim they control, they shouldn't need to do that at this stage. This
mess is a lot more to do with the appallingly bad management of the country
than the locals not wanting to help.

Nobody wants large numbers of armed men with no answerable commanders
hanging around the neighbourhood, whichever side they're on.
--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Jack Love
2005-10-16 17:37:36 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 11:52:06 +0100, "William Black"
Post by William Black
Post by A***@aol.com
The point of entry of the "foreign" fighters seems to be Syria
The most effective way to deal with the problem of terrorists
infiltrating from Syria would be to drop fuel air bombs on terrorist
encampments across the Syrian border. The shock effect of the fuel air
bombs seems to be the only thing that gets the attention of people in
that region, they are so deeply delusional that words don't penetrate
their brains, so shock needs to be induced to wake them up from their
delusional state.
It would be a good idea to drop some fuel air bombs on terrorist
encampments inside Iraq as well, for similar reasons. Only shock will
wake them up from their delusional state.
The problem with that is the terrorists seem to like living in or very near
perfectly peaceful commuities who just want to be left alone to get on with
their lives.
The US Air Force turning up and shredding the local environment isn't going
to make any friends along that border, and right now what the US needs is
friends along that border.
US forces have just fought an offensive in an area inside Iraq that they
claim they control, they shouldn't need to do that at this stage. This
mess is a lot more to do with the appallingly bad management of the country
than the locals not wanting to help.
You mean the area next to the Syrian border? Which is being
continuously infiltrated? Right BILL! Carry ON!
Post by William Black
Nobody wants large numbers of armed men with no answerable commanders
hanging around the neighbourhood, whichever side they're on.
William Black
2005-10-16 18:53:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Love
On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 11:52:06 +0100, "William Black"
Post by William Black
US forces have just fought an offensive in an area inside Iraq that they
claim they control, they shouldn't need to do that at this stage. This
mess is a lot more to do with the appallingly bad management of the country
than the locals not wanting to help.
You mean the area next to the Syrian border? Which is being
continuously infiltrated? Right BILL! Carry ON!
Well the important thing here is that US forces are carring on large scale
operations with heavy armour in a place they claim they alredy control.

We all know that the major US problem is lack of manpower.

But a lack of manpower that stops people infiltrating over the border in
numbers large enough to require tanks to sort them out verges on the
criminal.
--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Jack Love
2005-10-16 19:59:43 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 19:53:18 +0100, "William Black"
Post by John
Post by Jack Love
On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 11:52:06 +0100, "William Black"
Post by William Black
US forces have just fought an offensive in an area inside Iraq that they
claim they control, they shouldn't need to do that at this stage. This
mess is a lot more to do with the appallingly bad management of the
country
Post by Jack Love
Post by William Black
than the locals not wanting to help.
You mean the area next to the Syrian border? Which is being
continuously infiltrated? Right BILL! Carry ON!
Well the important thing here is that US forces are carring on large scale
operations with heavy armour in a place they claim they alredy control.
Ummm...no, they call the area contested as it's on the main
infiltration route. The real point is that the fighting is going on
near the border rather than deep inside the country. And as long
as we haven't occupied Syria it will continue...oh well, your military
knowledge appears, such as it is to have stopped about 1300. And
'large scale' is battalion strength...with a very high combat
effectiveness result.
Post by John
We all know that the major US problem is lack of manpower.
Wrong. You know Bill, if you could somehow find your way clear to
being mildly consistent: first it's too MANY troops in an area cause
problems, then it's too few troops in an area.
Post by John
But a lack of manpower that stops people infiltrating over the border in
numbers large enough to require tanks to sort them out verges on the
criminal.
Almost all of which is bullshit leftist propaganda which IS criminal.
Tanks are a very convenient tool for wiping out unarmored troops: do
you propose that we fight -fair- and go in with swords against their
RPGs?
William Black
2005-10-16 21:39:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Love
On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 19:53:18 +0100, "William Black"
Post by William Black
Well the important thing here is that US forces are carring on large scale
operations with heavy armour in a place they claim they alredy control.
Ummm...no, they call the area contested as it's on the main
infiltration route.
They can call it whatever they want.

It's in Iraq, it's not under control.

What you've made is a tascit admission that reas of Iraq are not under
control of anyone but whoever turned up there last with a gun.
Post by Jack Love
Post by William Black
But a lack of manpower that stops people infiltrating over the border in
numbers large enough to require tanks to sort them out verges on the
criminal.
Almost all of which is bullshit leftist propaganda which IS criminal.
Tanks are a very convenient tool for wiping out unarmored troops: do
you propose that we fight -fair- and go in with swords against their
RPGs?
Tanks aren't a convienient tool for anything but armoured assault.

They're expensive, complicated and do far too much damage when the local
innocents are around.
--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Jack Love
2005-10-17 01:55:31 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 22:39:53 +0100, "William Black"
Post by William Black
Post by Jack Love
On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 19:53:18 +0100, "William Black"
Post by William Black
Well the important thing here is that US forces are carring on large
scale
Post by Jack Love
Post by William Black
operations with heavy armour in a place they claim they alredy control.
Ummm...no, they call the area contested as it's on the main
infiltration route.
They can call it whatever they want.
It's in Iraq, it's not under control.
What you've made is a tascit admission that reas of Iraq are not under
control of anyone but whoever turned up there last with a gun.
Post by Jack Love
Post by William Black
But a lack of manpower that stops people infiltrating over the border in
numbers large enough to require tanks to sort them out verges on the
criminal.
Almost all of which is bullshit leftist propaganda which IS criminal.
Tanks are a very convenient tool for wiping out unarmored troops: do
you propose that we fight -fair- and go in with swords against their
RPGs?
Tanks aren't a convienient tool for anything but armoured assault.
They're expensive, complicated and do far too much damage when the local
innocents are around.
Well, Bill...a post of total crap. Not something new on your part but
more egregious than your average.
Jim Voege
2005-10-16 20:30:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by John
Post by Jack Love
On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 11:52:06 +0100, "William Black"
Post by William Black
US forces have just fought an offensive in an area inside Iraq that they
claim they control, they shouldn't need to do that at this stage. This
mess is a lot more to do with the appallingly bad management of the
country
Post by Jack Love
Post by William Black
than the locals not wanting to help.
You mean the area next to the Syrian border? Which is being
continuously infiltrated? Right BILL! Carry ON!
Well the important thing here is that US forces are carring on large scale
operations with heavy armour in a place they claim they alredy control.
We all know that the major US problem is lack of manpower.
But a lack of manpower that stops people infiltrating over the border in
numbers large enough to require tanks to sort them out verges on the
criminal.
This sounds like the same sort of nonsense that was spouted by the American
press about the Tet Offensive. You need to stop thinking in terms of
conventional warfare. In this thing nowhere is ever *controlled* in the
sense that the enemy has zero chance of launching an assault in it. That
can't be done. What can be done, and is being done, is to ensure that
whatever they do, their casualties are disproportionately large relative to
our casualties -- reflecting shifts in combat power. In doing this, we
don't count civilian casualties. That is their game. However, the fact is
that civilians contribute nothing to combat power and thus civilian
casualties don't affect the balance except in the minds of those who lose
sight of this basic principle -- if you don't diminish the ability of the
opposition to hurt you, you don't hurt him at all.

And for those who count only American and allied casualties, how about
putting enemy casualties alongside. For Pete's sake, irregular warfare is
necessarily a matter of attrition. Casualties are entirely relative
especially in this kind of a fight. To count the casualties of only one
side is senseless. They no more have endless resources of manpower than we
do.

911 was not merely a lot of destruction and the loss of a lot of lives. It
was fundamentally, by action rather than words, a declaration of war and a
declaration of an intent to carry that war to our homes. You need to come
to grips with that because it gives you only two choices. Fight them there.
Or fight them here. My vote goes for the former.

Jim Voege
Don Phillipson
2005-10-16 20:49:26 UTC
Permalink
9/11 was not merely a lot of destruction and the loss of a lot of lives.
It
was fundamentally, by action rather than words, a declaration of war and a
declaration of an intent to carry that war to our homes. You need to come
to grips with that because it gives you only two choices. Fight them there.
Or fight them here. My vote goes for the former.
We cannot agree that 9/11 was "by action rather than words, a declaration
of war" because it was not the first such outrage. (The same organization
used truck bombs to attack the same buildings nearly 10 years earlier,
not to mention the attacks on USN ships and USG offices in Africa and
the Middle East. The same organization had nominally declared war on
the US government during the Clinton administration. The Iranian Islamists
did something very similar when they overwhelmed the US embassy in
Teheran when Carter was president.)

JV may be right so far as he implies that the US government did
not reciprocally proclaim war (or crusade) until after 9/11. The trouble
is that the USG apparently took no notice for the previous 20 years,
i.e. did not respond when serious terrorists said seriously they were
declaring war against America. This is doubly ironic for Americans
because of the translation problem in 1945 when Japan acknowledged
the Potsdam Declaration. The novelty in 2003 was that Britain and some
other allies followed the Bush lead although their local knowledge (of
Iraq and Afghanistan) was superior, e.g. some of the British planners
at least spoke Arabic.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Jim Voege
2005-10-16 20:59:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Falcon
9/11 was not merely a lot of destruction and the loss of a lot of lives.
It
was fundamentally, by action rather than words, a declaration of war and a
declaration of an intent to carry that war to our homes. You need to come
to grips with that because it gives you only two choices. Fight them
there.
Or fight them here. My vote goes for the former.
We cannot agree that 9/11 was "by action rather than words, a declaration
of war" because it was not the first such outrage. (The same organization
used truck bombs to attack the same buildings nearly 10 years earlier,
not to mention the attacks on USN ships and USG offices in Africa and
the Middle East. The same organization had nominally declared war on
the US government during the Clinton administration. The Iranian Islamists
did something very similar when they overwhelmed the US embassy in
Teheran when Carter was president.)
Whatever. Perhaps we can agree that the bad guys, by action rather than
words, have initiated hostilities without concerning ourselves unduly about
the timing.

Jim Voege
Jim Voege
2005-10-16 21:08:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Voege
Post by Falcon
9/11 was not merely a lot of destruction and the loss of a lot of lives.
It
was fundamentally, by action rather than words, a declaration of war and a
declaration of an intent to carry that war to our homes. You need to come
to grips with that because it gives you only two choices. Fight them
there.
Or fight them here. My vote goes for the former.
We cannot agree that 9/11 was "by action rather than words, a declaration
of war" because it was not the first such outrage. (The same
organization
used truck bombs to attack the same buildings nearly 10 years earlier,
not to mention the attacks on USN ships and USG offices in Africa and
the Middle East. The same organization had nominally declared war on
the US government during the Clinton administration. The Iranian Islamists
did something very similar when they overwhelmed the US embassy in
Teheran when Carter was president.)
Whatever. Perhaps we can agree that the bad guys, by action rather than
words, have initiated hostilities without concerning ourselves unduly
about the timing.
Or as Gregory Peck said to David Niven in _The Guns of Navarone_: "You
think you've been getting away with it all this time, standing by. Well,
son... your bystanding days are *over*! You're in it now, up to your
*neck*!"

Jim Voege
Vince Brannigan
2005-10-16 23:02:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Voege
Post by Jim Voege
Post by Falcon
9/11 was not merely a lot of destruction and the loss of a lot of lives.
It
was fundamentally, by action rather than words, a declaration of war and a
declaration of an intent to carry that war to our homes. You need to come
to grips with that because it gives you only two choices. Fight them
there.
Or fight them here. My vote goes for the former.
We cannot agree that 9/11 was "by action rather than words, a declaration
of war" because it was not the first such outrage. (The same
organization
used truck bombs to attack the same buildings nearly 10 years earlier,
not to mention the attacks on USN ships and USG offices in Africa and
the Middle East. The same organization had nominally declared war on
the US government during the Clinton administration. The Iranian Islamists
did something very similar when they overwhelmed the US embassy in
Teheran when Carter was president.)
Whatever. Perhaps we can agree that the bad guys, by action rather than
words, have initiated hostilities without concerning ourselves unduly
about the timing.
Or as Gregory Peck said to David Niven in _The Guns of Navarone_: "You
think you've been getting away with it all this time, standing by. Well,
son... your bystanding days are *over*! You're in it now, up to your
*neck*!"
Jim Voege
But neither one has the cojones to shoot the girl. so the other woman
does it. Talk is cheap

Vince
Fred J. McCall
2005-10-16 23:22:32 UTC
Permalink
Vince Brannigan <***@firelaw.us> wrote:

:Jim Voege wrote:
:> "Jim Voege" <***@SPAMsympatico.ca> wrote in message
:> news:6bz4f.4875$***@news20.bellglobal.com...
:>
:> Or as Gregory Peck said to David Niven in _The Guns of Navarone_: "You
:> think you've been getting away with it all this time, standing by. Well,
:> son... your bystanding days are *over*! You're in it now, up to your
:> *neck*!"
:
:But neither one has the cojones to shoot the girl. so the other woman
:does it. Talk is cheap

Yes, it is. The right to talk, however, is not, and the expense is
not just the lives it costs.

There are days I wish there was a way to spread that cost around a bit
more, so that perhaps those who tend to abuse the right would value it
a bit more.
--
"I thought dying for your country was the worst thing that could
happen to you. I think killing for your country can be a lot
worse. Because that's the memory that haunts."
-- Senator Bob Kerrey
Vince Brannigan
2005-10-16 23:39:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
:>
:> Or as Gregory Peck said to David Niven in _The Guns of Navarone_: "You
:> think you've been getting away with it all this time, standing by. Well,
:> son... your bystanding days are *over*! You're in it now, up to your
:> *neck*!"
:But neither one has the cojones to shoot the girl. so the other woman
:does it. Talk is cheap
Yes, it is. The right to talk, however, is not, and the expense is
not just the lives it costs.
There are days I wish there was a way to spread that cost around a bit
more, so that perhaps those who tend to abuse the right would value it
a bit more.
Fair enough
It costs lives to protect the right

I work in the 'value of a life" problem on a daily basis. How much in
dollars would we value a US service members life?

there are a variety of approaches

http://www.webcom.com/~bi/pdfs/brannon-vsl.pdf
http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2001/el2001-36.html
http://www.nrdc.org/media/pressreleases/030401a.asp
http://www.rff.org/rff/News/Coverage/2002/December/The-Wrong-Price-on-a-Life-Lost.cfm

Totally apart from Iraq, what value should we use?

Vince
Jim Voege
2005-10-17 02:57:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Voege
Post by Jim Voege
Post by Falcon
9/11 was not merely a lot of destruction and the loss of a lot of lives.
It
was fundamentally, by action rather than words, a declaration of war and a
declaration of an intent to carry that war to our homes. You need to come
to grips with that because it gives you only two choices. Fight them
there.
Or fight them here. My vote goes for the former.
We cannot agree that 9/11 was "by action rather than words, a declaration
of war" because it was not the first such outrage. (The same organization
used truck bombs to attack the same buildings nearly 10 years earlier,
not to mention the attacks on USN ships and USG offices in Africa and
the Middle East. The same organization had nominally declared war on
the US government during the Clinton administration. The Iranian Islamists
did something very similar when they overwhelmed the US embassy in
Teheran when Carter was president.)
Whatever. Perhaps we can agree that the bad guys, by action rather than
words, have initiated hostilities without concerning ourselves unduly
about the timing.
Or as Gregory Peck said to David Niven in _The Guns of Navarone_: "You
think you've been getting away with it all this time, standing by. Well,
son... your bystanding days are *over*! You're in it now, up to your
*neck*!"
Jim Voege
But neither one has the cojones to shoot the girl. so the other woman does
it. Talk is cheap
They would have eventually shot her. It just would have taken them longer
than it did Irene Papas. ;-)

Jim

William Black
2005-10-16 21:42:36 UTC
Permalink
"Jim Voege" <***@SPAMsympatico.ca> wrote in message news:HLy4f.4859$***@news20.bellglobal.com...

. However, the fact is
Post by Jim Voege
that civilians contribute nothing to combat power and thus civilian
casualties don't affect the balance except in the minds of those who lose
sight of this basic principle
No.

If civilians get killed in any numbers it drives the survivors into the
hands of the enemy.

Killing aunt Yasmin won't help anyone and it may just drive her nephews to
take up arms against her killers.
--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Jack Love
2005-10-17 02:05:10 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 22:42:36 +0100, "William Black"
Post by Jim Voege
. However, the fact is
Post by Jim Voege
that civilians contribute nothing to combat power and thus civilian
casualties don't affect the balance except in the minds of those who lose
sight of this basic principle
No.
If civilians get killed in any numbers it drives the survivors into the
hands of the enemy.
Have you considered sending your sage advice to Zarqawi? Except for
your blinders you might consider him as most in need of the help.
Post by Jim Voege
Killing aunt Yasmin won't help anyone and it may just drive her nephews to
take up arms against her killers.
And the Sunnis could use that as well, eh?
John P. Mullen
2005-10-09 03:47:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Gilmer
Post by John
Bring in the UN, quickly. Get all US and UK troops out.
"Bring in the UN?"
Ha, ha. The UN has had a standing invition to "come in" from BEFORE the
war.
Post by John
Invite *all* bodies to real talks with a view to finding a real
solution. Including the 'terrorist insurgents'. Especially them.
Un huh.
Actually, short of just going home and declaring VICTORY, the US/UK is/are
heading in the right direction. They are wasting a lot of effort in all the
"democracy" nonsense but the "solution" will simply require that local
security be provided by the locals.
I read yesterday that there is "hit squads" which are attacking
non-combatants of the various factions. Well, sports, it's time for those
folks to get some (more) guns and stop this nonsense by themselves. There
are plenty of arms in the area. Local militia should be "registered",
fingerprinted, DNAed, and associated with particular weapons. Weapons
found in the wrong hands will spell trouble for the possessor and the
registered owner. Undeclared weapons, ammo and explosives should be
destroyed where found except for that taken to be handed out to friendly
forces.
I think they are trying to do that now. There is a whole lot of nasty,
unregistered, firepower loose in Iraq. In fact, that is probably the
main problem.

John Mullen
Adam Whyte-Settlar
2005-10-09 07:57:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by John
Ok so all you left wing bleeding hearts are saying that the Yanks and
British are torturing and shooting innocents etc.
I would be interested to know what your solution to this problem is. Just
leave and let them fight each other - a civil war? Ok they should never have
been there in the first place and we all know it was a lie but now they are
in place it is a hard call to decide the next step.
Bring in the UN, quickly. Get all US and UK troops out.
I don't think the UN *can* go in - it's an illegal occupation don't forget.

A W-S
Féachadóir
2005-10-09 20:29:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by John
Ok so all you left wing bleeding hearts are saying that the Yanks and
British are torturing and shooting innocents etc.
I would be interested to know what your solution to this problem is. Just
leave and let them fight each other - a civil war? Ok they should never have
been there in the first place and we all know it was a lie but now they are
in place it is a hard call to decide the next step.
Bring in the UN, quickly. Get all US and UK troops out.
Bugger that. What should our soldiers die to clean up your mistake?
Post by John
Invite *all* bodies to real talks with a view to finding a real
solution. Including the 'terrorist insurgents'. Especially them.
As the last decent PM of Israel said, there is no point in having peace
talks except with the people you are actually fighting against, however
much you hate them. That is just the point of having peace talks. It
worked in South Africa and it worked (not perfectly) in Northern Ireland.
Let me be the first to admit that it might not work though; I suspect we
and the Yanks have damaged the country too much now for anything but a
full-blown civil war to be inevitable. I wish that it was otherwise.
John
--
'Donegal: Up Here It's Different'
© Féachadóir
Michilín
2005-10-15 15:24:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Féachadóir
Post by John
Ok so all you left wing bleeding hearts are saying that the Yanks and
British are torturing and shooting innocents etc.
I would be interested to know what your solution to this problem is. Just
leave and let them fight each other - a civil war? Ok they should never have
been there in the first place and we all know it was a lie but now they are
in place it is a hard call to decide the next step.
Bring in the UN, quickly. Get all US and UK troops out.
Bugger that. What should our soldiers die to clean up your mistake?
Hear, hear!
Post by Féachadóir
Post by John
Invite *all* bodies to real talks with a view to finding a real
solution. Including the 'terrorist insurgents'. Especially them.
As the last decent PM of Israel said, there is no point in having peace
talks except with the people you are actually fighting against, however
much you hate them. That is just the point of having peace talks. It
worked in South Africa and it worked (not perfectly) in Northern Ireland.
Let me be the first to admit that it might not work though; I suspect we
and the Yanks have damaged the country too much now for anything but a
full-blown civil war to be inevitable. I wish that it was otherwise.
John
--
'Donegal: Up Here It's Different'
© Féachadóir
Murchadh
Mark Test
2005-10-15 15:49:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michilín
Post by Féachadóir
Post by John
Ok so all you left wing bleeding hearts are saying that the Yanks and
British are torturing and shooting innocents etc.
I would be interested to know what your solution to this problem is. Just
leave and let them fight each other - a civil war? Ok they should never have
been there in the first place and we all know it was a lie but now they are
in place it is a hard call to decide the next step.
Bring in the UN, quickly. Get all US and UK troops out.
Bugger that. What should our soldiers die to clean up your mistake?
Hear, hear!
Exactly, the UN do the RIGHT thing? Never!
John
2005-10-16 20:16:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michilín
Post by Féachadóir
Post by John
Ok so all you left wing bleeding hearts are saying that the Yanks and
British are torturing and shooting innocents etc.
I would be interested to know what your solution to this problem is.
Just
Post by Michilín
Post by Féachadóir
Post by John
leave and let them fight each other - a civil war? Ok they should
never have
Post by Michilín
Post by Féachadóir
Post by John
been there in the first place and we all know it was a lie but now
they are
Post by Michilín
Post by Féachadóir
Post by John
in place it is a hard call to decide the next step.
Bring in the UN, quickly. Get all US and UK troops out.
Bugger that. What should our soldiers die to clean up your mistake?
Hear, hear!
Exactly, the UN do the RIGHT thing? Never!
Well, as I see it, the alternative is to continue to have US and UK
forces being killed at, what is it now, 3 or 4 a day on average?

Paying for the stupidity, greed and lack of foresight of their political
leaders, more or less forever.

John
Jim Voege
2005-10-16 20:36:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michilín
Post by Féachadóir
Post by John
Ok so all you left wing bleeding hearts are saying that the Yanks and
British are torturing and shooting innocents etc.
I would be interested to know what your solution to this problem is.
Just
Post by Michilín
Post by Féachadóir
Post by John
leave and let them fight each other - a civil war? Ok they should
never have
Post by Michilín
Post by Féachadóir
Post by John
been there in the first place and we all know it was a lie but now
they are
Post by Michilín
Post by Féachadóir
Post by John
in place it is a hard call to decide the next step.
Bring in the UN, quickly. Get all US and UK troops out.
Bugger that. What should our soldiers die to clean up your mistake?
Hear, hear!
Exactly, the UN do the RIGHT thing? Never!
Well, as I see it, the alternative is to continue to have US and UK forces
being killed at, what is it now, 3 or 4 a day on average?
Is that high? Relative to what? Enemy casualties? Deaths from traffic
accidents? Deaths from cancer? Heart disease? Get and then provide some
perspective.
Paying for the stupidity, greed and lack of foresight of their political
leaders, more or less forever.
Ya right. Like 911 and all the rest of the terrorist attacks prior to
Afghanistan never happened. Take a look around. I bet all you can see is
sand ...

Jim Voege
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...