Snapshots of Afghanistan - August 2009

wrote in message ...
Bill Graham wrote:

wrote in message
...
Bill Graham wrote:

"Chris H" wrote in message
...
In message , Bill
Graham
writes

To me, It's much simpler than that. I have no idea why some
terrorists
plowed a couple of airliners into those two buildings on 9/11, and I
don't really care why they did it.

Then you can never hope to beat them.
It also shows you are an idiot. In asynchronous warfare, especially
where the enemy is an ideal not a country or geographical location, in
order to beat an enemy you have to understand their motives and aims.

They were killing civilians, and not perpherillery, but on purpose.
So,
the lines were drawn in the sand.

I agree... the lines were drawn by the US.... The 9/11 was a
RETALIATION
not a first strike. Also it was the 3rd (or 4th) in a series.

Now, I am perfectly happy to spend the rest of my life seeking them
out
and killing them. - How much simpler can it get than this?

That is the problem... simple solution for simple minds.... Your
solution is WRONG and means you can NEVER win this fight.

Fox tells me that they did it because they believe Allah wants them
to
kill people, and they will get 72 virgins in their heaven for doing
it.
Well, maybe that's true, and maybe it isn't. but, as I say, I don't
really care.

That is EXACTLY the problem.
You don't care about the truth and the reasons.

As I have said several times, a friend of min involved in intelligence
work always said the difference between the Soviet population and the
US population was the Soviet civilians knew when they were being fed
propaganda. Bill has just demonstrated the proof of that statement.

No. The bottom line is a bunch of nuts murdered 3000 innocent
non-combatants. Why do you insist that it be more complicated than
that? When have me or mine ever intentionally killed innocent women and
children? Like Lei Nut, you can talk my ear off, and do all the hand
waving you want, but that's the bottom line. The people they killed had
nothing to do with their beef with us. If someone harms me, I take the
trouble to find out who it is, and retaliate in kind. I don't just go
out and kill anyone who happens to be around. This is basic,
rudimentary common sense. OBL could have directed his airliners into an
Army base, or other military target. but he directed them into a bunch
of innocent civilians. You liberals may forget that, but I am not going
to forget it, or let your stupid yowelings detract me from it.


Yet you support invading Iraq, which had NOTHING to do with 9/11. Please
explain how that is NOT "I don't just go out and kill anyone who happens
to be around"

Stephanie

I supported invading Iraq because I bought the administrations contention
that Saddam Hussein had WMD's and constituted a threat to us and others
in the free world. I had little choice but to believe that. and most of
the people, (including your brother) believed it also.


Actually, he didn't believe it but was ordered to go anyway, so he did.

Now, all the Monday morning quarterbacks are backing out, and using the
invasion to support their political platform and aspirations.....Where
were they shortly after the 9/11 attack?


I was trying to tell GWB to wait for the UN to finish their search of the
country. Instead he told the world "Get the F out of our way, we're going
in anyway!"

They expect George Bush to be some kind of a miracle worker who has the
ability to see things that others could not see.....

Huh? GWB was claiming he DID see things no one else was seeing and you
believed him!

There is plenty of evidence he was TOLD there were NO WMD but he said
their was as an excuse to attack. Him and Cheney MULTIPLE times said "We
can't forget 9/11" trying to wind the public up behind his war. Now of
course people forget or want to say "oh yeah, well of course it had
nothing to do with 9/11" but that wasn't the sales pitch GWB used on the
American people.

Stephanie

Bush and Cheney, and the rest of the cabinet, and the state department, and
the pentagon, and most of congress, and me and most of the American
people.....I'm amazed that you had the perspicacity to see through the awful
lie and know the truth. You and Barak Obama, and Rosy O'Donnell. The rest of
us poor ignorant souls were duped by all those awful people.

wrote in message ...
Bill Graham wrote:

wrote in message
...
Bill Graham wrote:

"mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH wrote in message
...
wrote:

Yes, but one persons "misperceptions" are another absolute
truths......

Not when they have been PROVEN to be lies. Just like all the BS FOX
news has been spreading about the health care issue, saying illegal
aliens will be covered, the gov will decide when people should die
etc. None of that is an "absolute truth". It's called propaganda and
you people are buying it hook line and sinker.


Almost all of the "lies" the left-wing bozos attribute to Fox News
are themselves outright lies.

Fox really DID tell the truth, as it was thought at the time.

Fox has NOT been spreading lies about the House's health care
bills. It has never said that they would actually be socialized
medicine,
or would actually have health care rationing in them,
DIRECTLY. What their commentators point out,
TRUTHFULLY, is that the bills contain fiscal and
logistical impossibilities that will inevitably lead to,
so long as the left wingers are in power, those things. The
laws of economics simply work like that.

When the goveenment is the sole provider of medical care ...
which, of course, it would not be IN THESE BILLS, they DO
ration health care. Obama has said "look at my advisors to
see what I will do" ... and one of his advisors has
ALREADY advocated health care rationing that literally
kills older folks and not middle aged one. In fact, he
is on a panel that has ALREADY DONE THAT! Yes, indeed,
a panel that rations organ transplants.

But just because these bills are not sole payer does
not mean that is not what Obama and the far left WANT ...
they have explicitly said that indeed that (sole payer)
is EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANT, and that these bills are
just "a foot in the door".

That's what Fox does .... expose the lies posed as distortions
that the left always uses.

Whenever one has the left wing involved, one MUST
always look for the hidden agenda. Fox does, the
left wing lap dog networks like NPR or NBC do not.

Doug McDonald

And no matter who administrates what health care program, it will
always have to be rationed to some level. There always comes a point
where the expense is too great and the benefit too small. There is a
cost-benefit curve for everything, and health care is no exception.


So you trust a for profit insurance company more than the united states
government to make this choice in YOUR best interest? And I'm sure in
the same breath you will call yourself a "true american".

Stephanie

No. What I want to trust is the competitive process.....The free
enterprise system, if you will. If this system isn't working, then I
believe it is because the government has made laws that prevent it from
working.

Actually what has happened is they have allowed the insurance companies to
do "price fixing" which is normally illegal to do. Insurance is the ONLY
industry that this is legal.


Probably they haven't prevented the insurance companies from price
fixing. It is the government's responsibility to enforce laws against
price fixing.....

Insurance company lobbies paid enough money to gov officials so they are
allowed to do this price fixing.


Trust busting, like Teddy Roosevelt did against the Standard Oil
Protectorate back in the early 20th century.....The health insurance
companies have bought them off. There are two ways to fix this situation,
and I believe Obama is using the wrong way, but that's because I'm a
conservative.....

The only way to stop lobbyists control is to end them being allowed to
give "campain contributions", which those guys would never vote to stop.

EVERYONE in government is to blame, dem or repub for this being like it
is. Given the huge power and money the insurance companies have to buy
votes for them to operate the way they do, the ONLY way to stop this now,
it to just take it away from them.

Stephanie

No, there is another way. Eliminate voting, and choose our reps by lottery.
Like 200 fresh ones every year taken out of a hat filled with every eligible
voter in the whole country. So we would be replacing all those crooked
lawyers with farmers, fry cooks, real estate agents, nurses, accountants,
bicycle repair guys, fishermen, everybody......

wrote in message ...
Bill Graham wrote:

wrote in message
...
"mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH wrote:
wrote:

Yes, but one persons "misperceptions" are another absolute
truths......

Not when they have been PROVEN to be lies. Just like all the BS FOX
news has been spreading about the health care issue, saying illegal
aliens will be covered, the gov will decide when people should die
etc. None of that is an "absolute truth". It's called propaganda and
you people are buying it hook line and sinker.



Almost all of the "lies" the left-wing bozos attribute to Fox News
are themselves outright lies.

Fox really DID tell the truth, as it was thought at the time.

Fox has NOT been spreading lies about the House's health care
bills. It has never said that they would actually be socialized
medicine,
or would actually have health care rationing in them,
DIRECTLY. What their commentators point out,
TRUTHFULLY, is that the bills contain fiscal and
logistical impossibilities that will inevitably lead to,
so long as the left wingers are in power, those things. The
laws of economics simply work like that.

When the goveenment is the sole provider of medical care ...
which, of course, it would not be IN THESE BILLS, they DO
ration health care. Obama has said "look at my advisors to
see what I will do" ... and one of his advisors has
ALREADY advocated health care rationing that literally
kills older folks and not middle aged one. In fact, he
is on a panel that has ALREADY DONE THAT! Yes, indeed,
a panel that rations organ transplants.

But just because these bills are not sole payer does
not mean that is not what Obama and the far left WANT ...
they have explicitly said that indeed that (sole payer)
is EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANT, and that these bills are
just "a foot in the door".

That's what Fox does .... expose the lies posed as distortions
that the left always uses.

Whenever one has the left wing involved, one MUST
always look for the hidden agenda. Fox does, the
left wing lap dog networks like NPR or NBC do not.

Doug McDonald


So did FOX news explain that the insurance companies right now ration
health care and deny claims and coverage that end up in a LOT of people
in pain or dying? Or did they leave that part out?

My last surgery was for a torn ACL in my knee, the insurance company
said this was "elective surgery" because they said "You can still walk
on it and it's only to relieve some normal pain associated with this
sort of injury". So even though I had health insurance at the time, I
paid $8500 out of pocket to have this fixed so I could continue to work.

Maybe I'm misguided, but I trust my government more than a FOR PROFIT
insurance company to have my best interests at heart. But maybe it's
being a "true american" to not trust the government today?

As far as rationing organs, unfortunately, that is needed. They have a
limited supply and they have to be given to the person who is most
likely to get some benefit from it. Unless you have "organ donor" on
your DL, I don't wanna hear you bitching about that one. And yes it is
sad that if a 75 year old man and a 35 year old man both need the same
heart, the 35 year old man is most likely going to get it. If that is
your idea of a "death panel", you might note that either choice one or
the other ends up dead.

As far as who is more likely to limit care based on cost, I'd put MUCH
more faith in the Gov who, no matter who is in power, doesn't seem to
have problems with over spending vs a FOR PROFIT insurance company who
is more concerned about how many millions the CEO can take home this
year.

if you don't think health coverage is being rationed today, you're
wearing some REALLY good blinders.

Stephanie

As long as I have been alive there have been those who bribed my
congressmen to do special favors for them. The main difference (I have
found) between myself and the liberals, is the liberals blame the bribers
for this, and I blame the congressmen. Of course, both are responsible,
but I think I am right when I say the congressmen are more responsible
than the bribers. They hold the public trust. They are like the "bad cop"
who is even worse than your average criminal, because he has been charged
with preventing crime, and then violated the public trust.


Well I consider myself learning towards liberal but I blame the
congressmen for taking the money too. I sure don't blame the bribers, they
are just doing their job, which I would also do if I was in their
position. It is TOTALLY the people who take these bribes fault as the
bribers wouldn't exist if they didn't take the money.

That said, you didn't answer any of the points in my post about insurance
companies -RIGHT NOW- are the "death panel" people blame Obama wants to
create and IMHO would be much more likely to cancel your policy or limit
what services someone can receive based on their interest in profits, than
the gov would be. The gov is used to spending in the red with no thought
to making a profit.

Stephanie

Yes. The system should be changed, but I believe in doing it bit at a time,
and not with one huge 100 page monstrosity of a bill, as they are trying to
do now. The insurance companies have been buying off our congressmen for a
long time now, and we need laws to stop that, and force them to compete
fairly with one another. As I said earlier, I pay over $750 a month to mine,
and I can't even get them to send me a policy, so I have no idea whether I
am covered for any given disease I might get at all.....

"Chris H" wrote in message
...
In message , Bill Graham
writes

"Chris H" wrote in message news:2mVrP0Ar60qKFA2G@p
haedsys.demon.co.uk...
Lost as in did not get any of the objectives (bar 1)
Lost as in Al-Qeada gained most of their objectives.

1st objective for the US *AND* Al-Qeada was to get rid of Saddam.
After than no US objectives have been met but most of the Al-Qeada ones
have.


Al Qaeda objectives are to kill me
Not at all. (Which is a pity) where did you get such a stupid idea.

and all other Americans.
Also false.

I am still alive.
If you say so.

Iraqi's too, should live longer, now that Saddam is gone.

No. Their life expectancy is much lower and living conditions are much
worse sin the US occupied the country,.

We are both happy....
The Iraqi's are not happhy

The ones that the fox news guys talk to are happy....Strange that the ones
you talk to are not. We need to get Geraldo and you in the same room at the
same time.....

Bill Graham wrote:

"Chris H" wrote in message
...
In message , Bill Graham
writes

"Chris H" wrote in message news:2mVrP0Ar60qKFA2G@p
haedsys.demon.co.uk...
Lost as in did not get any of the objectives (bar 1)
Lost as in Al-Qeada gained most of their objectives.

1st objective for the US *AND* Al-Qeada was to get rid of Saddam.
After than no US objectives have been met but most of the Al-Qeada ones
have.


Al Qaeda objectives are to kill me
Not at all. (Which is a pity) where did you get such a stupid idea.

and all other Americans.
Also false.

I am still alive.
If you say so.

Iraqi's too, should live longer, now that Saddam is gone.

No. Their life expectancy is much lower and living conditions are much
worse sin the US occupied the country,.

We are both happy....
The Iraqi's are not happhy

The ones that the fox news guys talk to are happy....Strange that the
ones you talk to are not.

And the audience chosen by Goebbels for his 1943 "total war" speech were
happy & enthusiastic as well...

Are you really as ignorant as your posts indicate?

Bill Graham wrote:


Bush and Cheney, and the rest of the cabinet, and the state department,
and the pentagon, and most of congress, and me and most of the American
people.....I'm amazed that you had the perspicacity to see through the
awful lie and know the truth. You and Barak Obama, and Rosy O'Donnell.
The rest of us poor ignorant souls were duped by all those awful people.

Repeating (again!!!) what has been said over & over:
Millions around the World saw through those lies and took part in vast,
record-breaking marches against the war (I was one such march in Paris
at the time).

Just because *you* and your ilk are easily duped (as you make clearer
with each post) doesn't mean that it takes a genius not to be...

In message , Bill Graham
writes

"Chris H" wrote in message news:LsCE9dCxterKFA59@p
haedsys.demon.co.uk...
In message , Bill Graham
writes

"Chris H" wrote in message news:2mVrP0Ar60qKFA2G@p
haedsys.demon.co.uk...
Lost as in did not get any of the objectives (bar 1)
Lost as in Al-Qeada gained most of their objectives.

1st objective for the US *AND* Al-Qeada was to get rid of Saddam.
After than no US objectives have been met but most of the Al-Qeada ones
have.


Al Qaeda objectives are to kill me
Not at all. (Which is a pity) where did you get such a stupid idea.

and all other Americans.
Also false.

I am still alive.
If you say so.

Iraqi's too, should live longer, now that Saddam is gone.

No. Their life expectancy is much lower and living conditions are much
worse sin the US occupied the country,.

We are both happy....
The Iraqi's are not happhy

The ones that the fox news guys talk to are happy....
That is strange

Strange that the ones you talk to are not.

No... Apparently apart from Fox all the reports say the same...

So either Fox is the only one telling the truth and ALL the worlds press
are in a conspiracy.... (strange how often that claim is made) or Fox is
pushing propaganda as has been apparent so often before.




--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

In message , Bill Graham
writes

wrote in message ...
Bill Graham wrote:

wrote in message
ni.net...
Bill Graham wrote:

"Chris H" wrote in message news:uDb9mLAQthqK
...
In message , Bill
Graham
writes

To me, It's much simpler than that. I have no idea why some
terrorists
plowed a couple of airliners into those two buildings on 9/11, and I
don't really care why they did it.

Then you can never hope to beat them.
It also shows you are an idiot. In asynchronous warfare, especially
where the enemy is an ideal not a country or geographical location, in
order to beat an enemy you have to understand their motives and aims.

They were killing civilians, and not perpherillery, but on
purpose. So,
the lines were drawn in the sand.

I agree... the lines were drawn by the US.... The 9/11 was a
RETALIATION
not a first strike. Also it was the 3rd (or 4th) in a series.

Now, I am perfectly happy to spend the rest of my life seeking
them out
and killing them. - How much simpler can it get than this?

That is the problem... simple solution for simple minds.... Your
solution is WRONG and means you can NEVER win this fight.

Fox tells me that they did it because they believe Allah wants
them to
kill people, and they will get 72 virgins in their heaven for
doing it.
Well, maybe that's true, and maybe it isn't. but, as I say, I don't
really care.

That is EXACTLY the problem.
You don't care about the truth and the reasons.

As I have said several times, a friend of min involved in intelligence
work always said the difference between the Soviet population and the
US population was the Soviet civilians knew when they were being fed
propaganda. Bill has just demonstrated the proof of that statement.

No. The bottom line is a bunch of nuts murdered 3000 innocent
non-combatants. Why do you insist that it be more complicated than
that? When have me or mine ever intentionally killed innocent women
and children? Like Lei Nut, you can talk my ear off, and do all
the hand waving you want, but that's the bottom line. The people
they killed had nothing to do with their beef with us. If someone
harms me, I take the trouble to find out who it is, and retaliate
in kind. I don't just go out and kill anyone who happens to be
around. This is basic, rudimentary common sense. OBL could have
directed his airliners into an Army base, or other military
target. but he directed them into a bunch of innocent civilians.
You liberals may forget that, but I am not going to forget it, or
let your stupid yowelings detract me from it.


Yet you support invading Iraq, which had NOTHING to do with 9/11.
Please explain how that is NOT "I don't just go out and kill anyone
who happens to be around"

Stephanie

I supported invading Iraq because I bought the administrations
contention that Saddam Hussein had WMD's and constituted a threat to
us and others in the free world. I had little choice but to believe
that. and most of the people, (including your brother) believed it
also.


Actually, he didn't believe it but was ordered to go anyway, so he did.

Now, all the Monday morning quarterbacks are backing out, and using
the invasion to support their political platform and
aspirations.....Where were they shortly after the 9/11 attack?


I was trying to tell GWB to wait for the UN to finish their search of
the country. Instead he told the world "Get the F out of our way,
we're going in anyway!"

They expect George Bush to be some kind of a miracle worker who has
the ability to see things that others could not see.....

Huh? GWB was claiming he DID see things no one else was seeing and
you believed him!

There is plenty of evidence he was TOLD there were NO WMD but he
said their was as an excuse to attack. Him and Cheney MULTIPLE times
said "We can't forget 9/11" trying to wind the public up behind his
war. Now of course people forget or want to say "oh yeah, well of
course it had nothing to do with 9/11" but that wasn't the sales
pitch GWB used on the American people.

Stephanie

Bush and Cheney, and the rest of the cabinet,

Yes

and the state department,

Yes

and the pentagon,
NOT and certainly not the intelligence services.

and most of congress,

Probably

and me and most of the American people.....

As I have said many times unlike the Soviet population the average
American has no idea when he is being fed propaganda. Your proposition
seems to be directly supporting this. Thanks

I'm amazed that you had the perspicacity to see through the awful lie
and know the truth

It was discussed very widely OUT SIDE THE US. Most of the world saw
through it . There were (very large) mass demonstrations in virtually
very capital city in the free world.

In Most European countries the vast majority saw through it as
propaganda.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

On 2009-09-13 23:42:22 -0700, "Bill Graham" said:


"Bob Larter" wrote in message
...
Bill Graham wrote:

"Chris H" wrote in message
...
In message , Bill Graham
writes

To me, It's much simpler than that. I have no idea why some terrorists
plowed a couple of airliners into those two buildings on 9/11, and I
don't really care why they did it.

Then you can never hope to beat them.
It also shows you are an idiot. In asynchronous warfare, especially
where the enemy is an ideal not a country or geographical location, in
order to beat an enemy you have to understand their motives and aims.

They were killing civilians, and not perpherillery, but on purpose. So,
the lines were drawn in the sand.

I agree... the lines were drawn by the US.... The 9/11 was a RETALIATION
not a first strike. Also it was the 3rd (or 4th) in a series.

Now, I am perfectly happy to spend the rest of my life seeking them out
and killing them. - How much simpler can it get than this?

That is the problem... simple solution for simple minds.... Your
solution is WRONG and means you can NEVER win this fight.

Fox tells me that they did it because they believe Allah wants them to
kill people, and they will get 72 virgins in their heaven for doing it.
Well, maybe that's true, and maybe it isn't. but, as I say, I don't
really care.

That is EXACTLY the problem.
You don't care about the truth and the reasons.

As I have said several times, a friend of min involved in intelligence
work always said the difference between the Soviet population and the
US population was the Soviet civilians knew when they were being fed
propaganda. Bill has just demonstrated the proof of that statement.

No. The bottom line is a bunch of nuts murdered 3000 innocent
non-combatants. Why do you insist that it be more complicated than
that? When have me or mine ever intentionally killed innocent women and
children? Like Lei Nut, you can talk my ear off, and do all the hand
waving you want, but that's the bottom line. The people they killed had
nothing to do with their beef with us. If someone harms me, I take the
trouble to find out who it is, and retaliate in kind. I don't just go
out and kill anyone who happens to be around.

But you did. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. If you'd attacked the
country that provided the terrorists & the finances for the attack, I'd
agree that retaliation would be (at least somewhat) justified.

No, you wouldn't have agreed to anything of the sort. I know you for
what you are. And so does most everyone else who has read these
discussions.....

Bill,
You are not easily fooled.
You saw right through him and knew all along, he is Australian, and you
know what the Coriolis Effect and Fosters does to Antipodial thinking!

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 11:13:15 +0100, Chris H
wrote:

No... Apparently apart from Fox all the reports say the same...

So either Fox is the only one telling the truth and ALL the worlds press
are in a conspiracy.... (strange how often that claim is made) or Fox is
pushing propaganda as has been apparent so often before.

I'm a bit confused by all these reports about "Fox" being biased.

I have cable-provided television. There are two Fox channels that
carry news: a local affiliate that carries regular entertainment
programming and news, and a channel called "Fox News" that carries
mostly commentators (Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, etc.) and news
segments.

I have to admit that I don't watch the news segments on either channel
very often, and I *never* watch the commentators like O'Reilly and
Hannity. The local affiliate's news segment is partially local news
and partially national/international news. The Fox News channel's
news segment is all national/international news.

The very few times I've watched the national/international news on
either of these channels, I haven't noticed any particular bias. My
exposure has been very limited, though.

Now the commentators are a different story. O'Reilly, Hannity, et al,
are screaming right-wing, conservative Republican blowhards. When I
say "I never watch them", I mean I never watch their entire show.
I've seen enough snippets of their bull****, though, to know what they
are all about.

So what's this all about with the "Fox bias"? The Fox News channel
shows bias by airing only the O'Reilly/Hannity crap, but these are
commentators. Anyone with any sense knows that commentators are
presenting opinions, not news. It's the difference between the
editorial columns and the news stories in the newspaper.

Who is being charged with bias at Fox? The news readers on the
regular news or the commentators?

Is Fox News and the commentators like O'Reilly and Hannity carried by
some channel in the UK? Is Chris basing his comments on programming
that he has actually watched, or is this another one of those things
where Chris is accepting what he wants to believe?


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida