THE 20D: SO LAME, IT MOCKS WOMEN WHO SPEAK THEIR MIND!

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 18:05:36 -0800, Paul Allen
wrote:

On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 16:15:36 -0500
smb wrote:


Nobody ever said Saddam had anything to do with 9-11. That was never
a reason given for going there.

Oh, please! Bush and Cheney and the rest of their cronies used that
claim before they invaded and have continued to do so right up to the
present. They proudly post all of their speeches right out in the
open on www.whitehouse.gov. Check it out.

There was a perceived threat from
Iraq given Saddam's track record of *actually using* WMDs,
intelligence reports that said he had or was developing more, and the
fact of him playing cat and mouse with U.N. inspectors.

Horse ****. We had inspectors in Iraq before the war, and they told
Bush Saddam had nothing.

Then why the continued UN resolutions, and why did Iraq continue to
thumb its nose at the world? It would have been a simple matter to
completely open the country up for inspection so Saddam could have the
last laugh. Instead, he acted guilty and the intelligence reports
that were available reinforced that.



It turns out
that the intelligence about the state of his WMD program was not
completely accurate, but the idea that Bush made up that information
just for an excuse to attack is poppycock.

Nonsense. He knew the intelligence was cooked, and he lied to us about
it.

Nonsense. How do you even presume to know what he did or didn't know?
Are you part of his inner circle of advisors? That's just your
fantasy to justfiy all that hatred.



The war would have been
avoided entirely had Iraq openly cooperated with the *multiple* U.N.
resolutions.

Foolishness. Saddam's bluster didn't cause the war. Bush's desperate
desire to get Saddam regardless of the cost is what caused the war.

Again, foolishness on your part. You are taking anti-Bush propaganda
and presenting it as fact. What makes you think Bush had a desperate
desire to get Saddam regardless of the cost? You're reading too many
left wing blogs and actually taking them seriously.


You and Rita are so quick to say we have failed in Iraq. Not true. We
got rid of a regime that was openly hostile and agressive to its
neighbors, routinely murdered its own people, and indeed was a threat
to U.S. interests; and with FAR fewer casualties than expected. Even
the casualties that have happened since then, while undeniably tragic,
have been far fewer than similar wars over the same period of time.

Spin it! We've created a much more dangerous situation in the Middle
East than existed in 2003, and are well on the way to bankrupting
ourselves in the process. That's not success!

That's not spin, that is fact. There is no longer an Iraq under a
Saddam. He is no longer killing his own people. He is no longer a
threat to his neighbors. He is no longer in a position to develop
WMD's of any kind. Things are ugly right now, yes, but that's true in
the middle of ANY war. Just pick one.

Are you really so naive as to believe that if we had just let Saddam
go his merry way that he would not be cranking out WMD's as soon as
the heat was off? REALLY ??? Look at his track record, man. He
actually USED them on his enemies, including his own people.


The downside is that the insurgency has made winning the peace to be
more difficult than what was anticipated. Show me any war that has
unfolded as originally planned and I'll listen to you about failure.
If we pull out now, we will be guaranteed to fail, and then you and
the Ritas and Bretts of the world will have even more to blame Bush
for. That's what you want, isn't it?

Winning the peace? What peace? Talking about success or failure of
the original so-called mission is moot when Iraq is currently in civil
war. Staying the course on a mission that cannot possibly succeed is
stupid.

Winning the peace is an expression. Saying Iraq is in civil war is
not accurate. It makes for good press, though. And we are not
staying the course. Weren't you paying attention to the new strategy?
You know, the troop surge that even the democrats wanted before
election season began?



One of the rarely publicized positive outcomes of the Iraq war is that
it caused Libya to voluntarily give up its previously secret nuclear
weapons program. At the end of the day, that by itself could be
justification for the war.

At what cost, man? At what cost? Was it worth all the young American
lives, or the many tens of thousands of Iraqi lives lost?

Absolutely yes, with no reservations whatsoever, if this prevented a
Khadaffi from getting nukes. Let's be realistic, had that happened,
how long do you think it would be before some jihadis started
vaporizing American and European cities? Don't put your head in the
sand.


As to Afghanistan, perhaps you don't realize that we are fighting an
enemy that would rather die than be defeated, and they are committed
to killing us. Since you are a military expert, just how would you
fight that war differently, and what is your definition of success?
Maybe we should just kill them all? That's their goal for us, either
kill us or make us subject to their form of radical Islam. Then Rita
will have to change her name from Berkwitz to BURKAwitz. ;-)

Don't be a fool. Obviously, we should have focused on the task in
Afghanistan and finished it. Instead, we diverted most of our attention
to George Bush's personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein. We let
bin Laden get away and the Taliban are now resurgent. Incompetents!

Again, you're venting opinion and confusing it with fact.

Exactly what should we have done differently in Afghanistan? Tell me,
since you are a military expert. I suppose you also think we should
have ignored Hitler and only gone after Japan, since they were the
only ones who actually attacked our soil.





If you say diplomacy, don't be so naive. You cannot negotiate with
people whose core belief is that you don't have a right to be alive.

Well, you certainly can't if you categorically refuse to. Talk about
naive...

The world has proven over and over again that you simply cannot
negotiate with terrorists. You are an absolute and complete fool if
you think otherwise.

That's why there will never be peace in the Middle East as long as
Israel tries to negotiate with people who believe they have no right
to exist in the first place.

You have to understand that the rest of the world is not America.
There are cultures who view diplomacy as a sign of weakness, to be
expoited while you continue to work to destroy your enemy. Diplomacy
worked real well with Hitler, didn't it? Read what Bin Laden has to
say about why he wants us dead, then go try to negotiate some kind of
compromise with those people. Go on, you're a diplomatic expert.


As to Iran, yes their leadership is being emboldened. What do you
think will happen if we pull out of Iraq? Remember, Iraq is their
historical enemy, other than Israel. Iraq will become a suburb of
greater Persia... they have a lot of payback built up from the days
that Saddam attacked them. If they are foolish enough to mount a
major attack on our troops, don't forget we have the capability to
turn their country into a parking lot. Don't think we won't if the
stakes get high enough.

Good. Turning their country into a parking lot will *really* win
their hearts and minds. If that happens, I suppose you think that's
one of the things history will remember as one of the key successes
of the Bush Presidency? Dream on.


You didn't read what I said. I said we could do that if they are
foolish enough to mount a major attack on our troops. At that point,
all bets are off regarding winning their hearts and minds.

Or I suppose you think that good old Democrats Roosevelt and Truman
should have tried to win the hearts and minds of the Japanese after
Pearl Harbor? Nope, it took making a couple of parking lots to get
them to take notice, but only after the loss of hundreds of thousands
of American lives. They are one of our strongest allies now, and
they just happen to make some good cameras. :-)



Steve





Paul Allen

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
smb wrote:

Horse ****. We had inspectors in Iraq before the war, and they told
Bush Saddam had nothing.

Then why the continued UN resolutions, and why did Iraq continue to
thumb its nose at the world? It would have been a simple matter to
completely open the country up for inspection so Saddam could have the
last laugh. Instead, he acted guilty and the intelligence reports
that were available reinforced that.

Kinda the same way people in this country feel and do when it comes to
having one's rights and home invaded by some of our jack-booted thugs, I
mean LEOs. I give Saddam credit for trying to protect his sovereignty.


There's a lot of people in the U.S. that just can't imagine themselves
in a similar situation. Resistant leadership? IEDs? Bodies discovered
in the shrubbery? People in the U.S. would do the same thing, or worse,
if that shoe was on the other foot.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

smb wrote:
Horse ****. We had inspectors in Iraq before the war, and they told
Bush Saddam had nothing.

Then why the continued UN resolutions, and why did Iraq continue to
thumb its nose at the world? It would have been a simple matter to
completely open the country up for inspection so Saddam could have the
last laugh. Instead, he acted guilty and the intelligence reports
that were available reinforced that.

Well, here's another question. If someone has nothing to hide, they
should be perfectly willing to open up for inspections, even go to court
to prove their innocence, right? So why are we one of the only countries
on earth to refuse to sign on to the International Criminal Court?

And by the way, it's not our job or our right to decide to unilaterally
enforce a UN resolution. Under the UN charter, which we signed and has
the force of treaty, our invasion of Iraq was illegal.

Jer wrote:
Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
smb wrote:

Horse ****. We had inspectors in Iraq before the war, and they told
Bush Saddam had nothing.

Then why the continued UN resolutions, and why did Iraq continue to
thumb its nose at the world? It would have been a simple matter to
completely open the country up for inspection so Saddam could have the
last laugh. Instead, he acted guilty and the intelligence reports
that were available reinforced that.

Kinda the same way people in this country feel and do when it comes to
having one's rights and home invaded by some of our jack-booted thugs,
I mean LEOs. I give Saddam credit for trying to protect his sovereignty.

There's a lot of people in the U.S. that just can't imagine themselves
in a similar situation. Resistant leadership? IEDs? Bodies discovered
in the shrubbery? People in the U.S. would do the same thing, or worse,
if that shoe was on the other foot.

The irony is that a similar situation is what many people claim as a
basis for owning weapons - the possibility that the people would have to
overthrow a tyrannical government. Yet if you ask them to describe a
plausible situation where they would take up arms against the
government, they're back to "24" plots. Then you get situations like the
WTO protests in Seattle a few years back, where they were randomly tear
gassing people, shutting down neighborhoods, and basically declaring
martial law because of a couple of troublemakers - and the "taking up
arms" folks were all backing the police over the peaceful citizens.

On Mar 5, 6:55 am, Rita Ä Berkowitz ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote:
Kinda the same way people in this country feel and do when it comes to
having one's rights and home invaded by some of our jack-booted thugs, I
mean LEOs. I give Saddam credit for trying to protect his sovereignty.

RichA

Slips.

Annika1980 wrote:
On Mar 5, 6:55 am, Rita Ä Berkowitz ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote:
Kinda the same way people in this country feel and do when it comes to
having one's rights and home invaded by some of our jack-booted thugs, I
mean LEOs. I give Saddam credit for trying to protect his sovereignty.

RichA

Slips.

OH MY.

On Mar 5, 3:07 pm, Rita Ä Berkowitz ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote:

RichA

Slips.

LOL!

RichA


"I liked you better when you were a chick."

(As if I haven't heard that one 1000 times before!)

Annika1980 wrote:
On Mar 5, 3:07 pm, Rita Ä Berkowitz ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote:
RichA
Slips.
LOL!

RichA


"I liked you better when you were a chick."

(As if I haven't heard that one 1000 times before!)

You think that's bad? I'm really George Preddy!

On Mar 4, 5:37 am, smb wrote:
Snort all you want, but history shows he was much more than an actor
in a suit.

Huh? Which history exactly? Is it the history of supporting brutal
dictators in South America? Or the history of selling weapons to Iran?
Or maybe the history of being buddies with Saddam Hussein while he was
gassing the Kurds? Or the history of racking up the largest budget
deficit ever?

Reagan's only achievement - and an accidental one at that - is
contributing to the end of the cold war. Reagan just happened to be in
the right place at the right time.

The trouble with approval ratings is that the public is extremely
fickle. Even at their lowest, W's approval ratings are better than
what Harry Truman's had sunk to, and good old Harry is regarded as one
of the great ones. Bush acts on his principles rather than on poll
numbers. Chimps are good a being mimics, Bush is his own man.

Brilliant. By this logic, there could never be a bad president. Acting
on principles isn't a good thing if your principles are freaking
retarded.

-Gniewko

wrote:
On Mar 4, 5:37 am, smb wrote:
Snort all you want, but history shows he was much more than an actor
in a suit.

Huh? Which history exactly? Is it the history of supporting brutal
dictators in South America? Or the history of selling weapons to Iran?
Or maybe the history of being buddies with Saddam Hussein while he was
gassing the Kurds? Or the history of racking up the largest budget
deficit ever?

Reagan's only achievement - and an accidental one at that - is
contributing to the end of the cold war. Reagan just happened to be in
the right place at the right time.

It's like Giuliani taking all the credit for lowering crime in NYC, when
the trend started before he became mayor and continued after he left.


The trouble with approval ratings is that the public is extremely
fickle. Even at their lowest, W's approval ratings are better than
what Harry Truman's had sunk to, and good old Harry is regarded as one
of the great ones. Bush acts on his principles rather than on poll
numbers. Chimps are good a being mimics, Bush is his own man.

Brilliant. By this logic, there could never be a bad president. Acting
on principles isn't a good thing if your principles are freaking
retarded.

And the response will be that 42 out of 43 presidents did, but Clinton
didn't.