|
|
 | | From: | Harry Krause | | Subject: | Re: OT--Another wedding party blown up | | Date: | Sat, 22 Jan 2005 18:49:02 -0500 |
|
|
 | Bert Robbins wrote:
> "Jim Carter" wrote in message
> news:05edne7RLvPHJ2_cRVn-1Q@rogers.com...
>
>>"NOYB" wrote in message
>>news:dIOdnem8suSjKG_cRVn-sw@comcast.com...
>>
>>>>The difference being that the top-guy-not-named-Saddam will allow the
>>>>US
>>
>>to
>>
>>>station troops in bases around the country...but specifically on the
>>
>>borders
>>
>>>of Iran and Syria. The top-guy-not-named-Saddam will also sell oil to
>>
>>the
>>
>>>US so that you can use Yo-Ho on the weekends. Finally, the
>>>top-guy-not-named-Saddam will not being paying al Qaeda mercenaries to
>>>conduct terrorist acts against the US and Israel.
>>
>>check this out..... www.freep.com
>>This is the Detroit Free Press report from today.
>>
>>The US is losing the war in Iraq.
>
>
> Contrary to what a newspaper in the middle of the country is reporting the
> US is winning the war in Iraq. I have heard first hand reports that
> contradict all of these media outlets.
>
>
I've also seen first-hand reports that say we haven't a ghost of a
chance of pacifying Iraq. This is a good thing, because sooner or later
it will sink in, and we'll get the hell out of there. We are no good at
fighting urban, suburban and open country warfare where a determined
adversary fights back. Remember, we got our butts handed to us in Vietnam.
|
|
| | From: | NOYB | | Subject: | Re: OT--Another wedding party blown up | | Date: | Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:13:01 -0500 |
|
|
|
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
news:NsqdnQnTI7jte2_cRVn-3Q@comcast.com...
> Bert Robbins wrote:
>> "Jim Carter" wrote in message
>> news:05edne7RLvPHJ2_cRVn-1Q@rogers.com...
>>
>>>"NOYB" wrote in message
>>>news:dIOdnem8suSjKG_cRVn-sw@comcast.com...
>>>
>>>>>The difference being that the top-guy-not-named-Saddam will allow the
>>>>>US
>>>
>>>to
>>>
>>>>station troops in bases around the country...but specifically on the
>>>
>>>borders
>>>
>>>>of Iran and Syria. The top-guy-not-named-Saddam will also sell oil to
>>>
>>>the
>>>
>>>>US so that you can use Yo-Ho on the weekends. Finally, the
>>>>top-guy-not-named-Saddam will not being paying al Qaeda mercenaries to
>>>>conduct terrorist acts against the US and Israel.
>>>
>>>check this out..... www.freep.com
>>>This is the Detroit Free Press report from today.
>>>
>>>The US is losing the war in Iraq.
>>
>>
>> Contrary to what a newspaper in the middle of the country is reporting
>> the US is winning the war in Iraq. I have heard first hand reports that
>> contradict all of these media outlets.
>
> I've also seen first-hand reports that say we haven't a ghost of a chance
> of pacifying Iraq. This is a good thing, because sooner or later it will
> sink in, and we'll get the hell out of there. We are no good at fighting
> urban, suburban and open country warfare where a determined adversary
> fights back.
What's happening in Iraq isn't warfare. Sure, there are terrorist elements
placing IED's along roadsides, and running cars laden with explosives into
civilian targets. Occasionally, they get lucky, and the bomb kills some
GI's too. But they are gaining control of no land. They are gaining
control of no government buildings. And they control none of the
infrastructure. It's not a war. It's terrorist thugs planting roadside
bombs to indiscriminately kill whatever they can. That's not war.
Think about if someone wanted to kill people driving along the highway in
Maryland. It'd be easy to plant an IED and detonate it with a cell
phone...and the police would be helpless in stopping it. Heck, the police
could even be targets in such a scenario. Every time a police car passed
by...boom! Or perhaps 2 guys in a van could go on an indiscriminate killing
spree...using a high powered sniper rifle to indiscriminately kill random
folks. Are either of those situations "warfare"? Of course not.
We aren't at war in Iraq. We're trying to prevent a bunch of terrorists
from indiscriminately killing folks at random. When we capture or kill a
bunch of those terrorists, there are a bunch more flooding into the area
from neighboring countries. Shut down the supply routes, and you shut down
the problem. However, there's no way to control the borders. So we must
target the countries that we know are willfully supplying the terrorists.
Namely, Iran and Syria.
|
|
| | From: | thunder | | Subject: | Re: OT--Another wedding party blown up | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 01:39:52 -0500 |
|
|
| On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:13:01 -0500, NOYB wrote:
> What's happening in Iraq isn't warfare. Sure, there are terrorist
> elements placing IED's along roadsides, and running cars laden with
> explosives into civilian targets. Occasionally, they get lucky, and the
> bomb kills some GI's too. But they are gaining control of no land. They
> are gaining control of no government buildings. And they control none of
> the infrastructure. It's not a war. It's terrorist thugs planting
> roadside bombs to indiscriminately kill whatever they can. That's not
> war.
Well, John Wayne, perhaps it doesn't fit your definition of a war, but I
would guess at least 1,300 Americans would disagree. You may not care for
the Iraqi terrorist tactics, but history has shown them to be rather
successful. I'm sure the Soviets would have preferred the Afghanis to
come out and fight like men or the Nazis, would have preferred the
resistance to fight openly so that they could be crushed.
> Think about if someone wanted to kill people driving along the highway in
> Maryland. It'd be easy to plant an IED and detonate it with a cell
> phone...and the police would be helpless in stopping it. Heck, the police
> could even be targets in such a scenario. Every time a police car passed
> by...boom! Or perhaps 2 guys in a van could go on an indiscriminate
> killing spree...using a high powered sniper rifle to indiscriminately kill
> random folks. Are either of those situations "warfare"? Of course not.
>
> We aren't at war in Iraq. We're trying to prevent a bunch of terrorists
> from indiscriminately killing folks at random. When we capture or kill a
> bunch of those terrorists, there are a bunch more flooding into the area
> from neighboring countries. Shut down the supply routes, and you shut
> down the problem. However, there's no way to control the borders. So we
> must target the countries that we know are willfully supplying the
> terrorists. Namely, Iran and Syria.
LOL, I'm not quite sure if you are joking or just insane. Let me ask you
something. If, as you admit, we can not control Iraq's borders, just how
do you expect to control Iran's, Syria's *and* Iraq's borders?
|
|
| | From: | NOYB | | Subject: | Re: OT--Another wedding party blown up | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 09:26:45 -0500 |
|
|
|
"thunder" wrote in message
news:35gv4lF4ju2ilU1@individual.net...
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:13:01 -0500, NOYB wrote:
>
>
>> What's happening in Iraq isn't warfare. Sure, there are terrorist
>> elements placing IED's along roadsides, and running cars laden with
>> explosives into civilian targets. Occasionally, they get lucky, and the
>> bomb kills some GI's too. But they are gaining control of no land. They
>> are gaining control of no government buildings. And they control none of
>> the infrastructure. It's not a war. It's terrorist thugs planting
>> roadside bombs to indiscriminately kill whatever they can. That's not
>> war.
>
> Well, John Wayne, perhaps it doesn't fit your definition of a war, but I
> would guess at least 1,300 Americans would disagree.
Nearly 300 US law enforcement officers were killed in the line of duty
during the same time period. Was it "warfare" that killed them too?
> You may not care for
> the Iraqi terrorist tactics, but history has shown them to be rather
> successful. I'm sure the Soviets would have preferred the Afghanis to
> come out and fight like men or the Nazis, would have preferred the
> resistance to fight openly so that they could be crushed.
>
>> Think about if someone wanted to kill people driving along the highway in
>> Maryland. It'd be easy to plant an IED and detonate it with a cell
>> phone...and the police would be helpless in stopping it. Heck, the
>> police
>> could even be targets in such a scenario. Every time a police car passed
>> by...boom! Or perhaps 2 guys in a van could go on an indiscriminate
>> killing spree...using a high powered sniper rifle to indiscriminately
>> kill
>> random folks. Are either of those situations "warfare"? Of course not.
>>
>> We aren't at war in Iraq. We're trying to prevent a bunch of terrorists
>> from indiscriminately killing folks at random. When we capture or kill a
>> bunch of those terrorists, there are a bunch more flooding into the area
>> from neighboring countries. Shut down the supply routes, and you shut
>> down the problem. However, there's no way to control the borders. So we
>> must target the countries that we know are willfully supplying the
>> terrorists. Namely, Iran and Syria.
>
> LOL, I'm not quite sure if you are joking or just insane. Let me ask you
> something. If, as you admit, we can not control Iraq's borders, just how
> do you expect to control Iran's, Syria's *and* Iraq's borders?
You remove the government that is shipping the arms across the border...and
get the new government to police their own borders. How often do you hear
of arms coming across the Jordanian or Turkish borders into Iraq?
|
|
| | From: | thunder | | Subject: | Re: OT--Another wedding party blown up | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 17:03:22 -0500 |
|
|
| On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 09:26:45 -0500, NOYB wrote:
> Nearly 300 US law enforcement officers were killed in the line of duty
> during the same time period. Was it "warfare" that killed them too?
Some might argue they lost their lives in America's longest war, the "War
on Drugs." I can't say we are winning that one, either.
>> LOL, I'm not quite sure if you are joking or just insane. Let me ask
>> you something. If, as you admit, we can not control Iraq's borders,
>> just how do you expect to control Iran's, Syria's *and* Iraq's borders?
>
> You remove the government that is shipping the arms across the
> border...and get the new government to police their own borders.
That simple, eh? I believe this is where the whole thing started. The
simple-minded CIC decided all he had to do was wave his magic wand, and we
would have Iraqis dancing in the streets. Come on, NOYB, I may think your
politics are out there, but you clearly aren't stupid.
>How
> often do you hear of arms coming across the Jordanian or Turkish borders
> into Iraq?
I might point out that what we "hear" has been filtered through several
layers of bias. I would suspect that there are insurgents from both
Jordan and Turkey. I would also suspect their numbers are few, as are the
numbers of insurgents entering Iraq from Iran and Syria. Another question
for you, we can't seal our borders, note the 3 million or so illegals in
this country. Why do you hold two third world countries to a higher
standard?
|
|
| | From: | Harry Krause | | Subject: | Re: OT--Another wedding party blown up | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 09:30:37 -0500 |
|
|
| NOYB wrote:
> "thunder" wrote in message
> news:35gv4lF4ju2ilU1@individual.net...
>
>>On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:13:01 -0500, NOYB wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>What's happening in Iraq isn't warfare. Sure, there are terrorist
>>>elements placing IED's along roadsides, and running cars laden with
>>>explosives into civilian targets. Occasionally, they get lucky, and the
>>>bomb kills some GI's too. But they are gaining control of no land. They
>>>are gaining control of no government buildings. And they control none of
>>>the infrastructure. It's not a war. It's terrorist thugs planting
>>>roadside bombs to indiscriminately kill whatever they can. That's not
>>>war.
>>
>>Well, John Wayne, perhaps it doesn't fit your definition of a war, but I
>>would guess at least 1,300 Americans would disagree.
>
>
> Nearly 300 US law enforcement officers were killed in the line of duty
> during the same time period. Was it "warfare" that killed them too?
You should know better than to proffer such a lame comparison. Apples
and oranges.
>
> You remove the government that is shipping the arms across the border...and
> get the new government to police their own borders. How often do you hear
> of arms coming across the Jordanian or Turkish borders into Iraq?
We don't have the wherewithal to put down an insurgency in Iraq, and we
won't be removing any other governments in that part of the world. Bush
shot our wad.
|
|
| | From: | NOYB | | Subject: | Re: OT--Another wedding party blown up | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 09:53:04 -0500 |
|
|
|
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
news:9L-dnTxxMvaTKG7cRVn-jA@comcast.com...
> NOYB wrote:
>> "thunder" wrote in message
>> news:35gv4lF4ju2ilU1@individual.net...
>>
>>>On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:13:01 -0500, NOYB wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>What's happening in Iraq isn't warfare. Sure, there are terrorist
>>>>elements placing IED's along roadsides, and running cars laden with
>>>>explosives into civilian targets. Occasionally, they get lucky, and the
>>>>bomb kills some GI's too. But they are gaining control of no land.
>>>>They
>>>>are gaining control of no government buildings. And they control none
>>>>of
>>>>the infrastructure. It's not a war. It's terrorist thugs planting
>>>>roadside bombs to indiscriminately kill whatever they can. That's not
>>>>war.
>>>
>>>Well, John Wayne, perhaps it doesn't fit your definition of a war, but I
>>>would guess at least 1,300 Americans would disagree.
>>
>>
>> Nearly 300 US law enforcement officers were killed in the line of duty
>> during the same time period. Was it "warfare" that killed them too?
>
> You should know better than to proffer such a lame comparison. Apples and
> oranges.
>
True. The GI's are facing weapons and people flooding in from other
countries. The cops are facing domestic threats.
>
>
>>
>> You remove the government that is shipping the arms across the
>> border...and get the new government to police their own borders. How
>> often do you hear of arms coming across the Jordanian or Turkish borders
>> into Iraq?
>
>
> We don't have the wherewithal to put down an insurgency in Iraq, and we
> won't be removing any other governments in that part of the world. Bush
> shot our wad.
Historically, every successful insurgency was being fueled by an outside
influence. If we get the suppliers to stop supplying weapons and manpower,
the "insurgency" falls apart. There's a limited amount of munitions in
Iraq. The terrorists have no factories to manufacture bullets, rockets, and
high-tech explosives. They're being supplied by someone. We already know
who that "someone" is, and we now need to hold them to account.
|
|
| | From: | Harry Krause | | Subject: | Re: OT--Another wedding party blown up | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 10:20:12 -0500 |
|
|
| NOYB wrote:
> "Harry Krause" wrote in message
> news:9L-dnTxxMvaTKG7cRVn-jA@comcast.com...
>
>>NOYB wrote:
>>
>>>"thunder" wrote in message
>>>news:35gv4lF4ju2ilU1@individual.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:13:01 -0500, NOYB wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>What's happening in Iraq isn't warfare. Sure, there are terrorist
>>>>>elements placing IED's along roadsides, and running cars laden with
>>>>>explosives into civilian targets. Occasionally, they get lucky, and the
>>>>>bomb kills some GI's too. But they are gaining control of no land.
>>>>>They
>>>>>are gaining control of no government buildings. And they control none
>>>>>of
>>>>>the infrastructure. It's not a war. It's terrorist thugs planting
>>>>>roadside bombs to indiscriminately kill whatever they can. That's not
>>>>>war.
>>>>
>>>>Well, John Wayne, perhaps it doesn't fit your definition of a war, but I
>>>>would guess at least 1,300 Americans would disagree.
>>>
>>>
>>>Nearly 300 US law enforcement officers were killed in the line of duty
>>>during the same time period. Was it "warfare" that killed them too?
>>
>>You should know better than to proffer such a lame comparison. Apples and
>>oranges.
>>
>
>
> True. The GI's are facing weapons and people flooding in from other
> countries. The cops are facing domestic threats.
>
>
>
>>
>>>You remove the government that is shipping the arms across the
>>>border...and get the new government to police their own borders. How
>>>often do you hear of arms coming across the Jordanian or Turkish borders
>>>into Iraq?
>>
>>
>>We don't have the wherewithal to put down an insurgency in Iraq, and we
>>won't be removing any other governments in that part of the world. Bush
>>shot our wad.
>
>
> Historically, every successful insurgency was being fueled by an outside
> influence. If we get the suppliers to stop supplying weapons and manpower,
> the "insurgency" falls apart. There's a limited amount of munitions in
> Iraq. The terrorists have no factories to manufacture bullets, rockets, and
> high-tech explosives. They're being supplied by someone. We already know
> who that "someone" is, and we now need to hold them to account.
>
>
>
Halliburton.
|
|
| | From: | thunder | | Subject: | Re: OT--Another wedding party blown up | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 17:11:34 -0500 |
|
|
| On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 09:53:04 -0500, NOYB wrote:
> Historically, every successful insurgency was being fueled by an outside
> influence. If we get the suppliers to stop supplying weapons and
> manpower, the "insurgency" falls apart. There's a limited amount of
> munitions in Iraq. The terrorists have no factories to manufacture
> bullets, rockets, and high-tech explosives. They're being supplied by
> someone. We already know who that "someone" is, and we now need to hold
> them to account.
LOL, Iraq has been at war for much of the past 30 years. Remember the
Iran-Iraq War? Do you really believe there is a shortage of munitions?
Oh, and the source of many of those IEDs is our very own military. Many
of our duds have come back to bite us as *Improvised* Explosive Devices.
|
|
| | From: | Harry Krause | | Subject: | Re: OT--Another wedding party blown up | | Date: | Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:30:48 -0500 |
|
|
| NOYB wrote:
> "Harry Krause" wrote in message
> news:NsqdnQnTI7jte2_cRVn-3Q@comcast.com...
>
>>Bert Robbins wrote:
>>
>>>"Jim Carter" wrote in message
>>>news:05edne7RLvPHJ2_cRVn-1Q@rogers.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"NOYB" wrote in message
>>>>news:dIOdnem8suSjKG_cRVn-sw@comcast.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>The difference being that the top-guy-not-named-Saddam will allow the
>>>>>>US
>>>>
>>>>to
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>station troops in bases around the country...but specifically on the
>>>>
>>>>borders
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>of Iran and Syria. The top-guy-not-named-Saddam will also sell oil to
>>>>
>>>>the
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>US so that you can use Yo-Ho on the weekends. Finally, the
>>>>>top-guy-not-named-Saddam will not being paying al Qaeda mercenaries to
>>>>>conduct terrorist acts against the US and Israel.
>>>>
>>>>check this out..... www.freep.com
>>>>This is the Detroit Free Press report from today.
>>>>
>>>>The US is losing the war in Iraq.
>>>
>>>
>>>Contrary to what a newspaper in the middle of the country is reporting
>>>the US is winning the war in Iraq. I have heard first hand reports that
>>>contradict all of these media outlets.
>>
>>I've also seen first-hand reports that say we haven't a ghost of a chance
>>of pacifying Iraq. This is a good thing, because sooner or later it will
>>sink in, and we'll get the hell out of there. We are no good at fighting
>>urban, suburban and open country warfare where a determined adversary
>>fights back.
>
>
> What's happening in Iraq isn't warfare. Sure, there are terrorist elements
> placing IED's along roadsides, and running cars laden with explosives into
> civilian targets. Occasionally, they get lucky, and the bomb kills some
> GI's too. But they are gaining control of no land. They are gaining
> control of no government buildings. And they control none of the
> infrastructure. It's not a war. It's terrorist thugs planting roadside
> bombs to indiscriminately kill whatever they can. That's not war.
Yeah, it is. It is just a different kind of war. The insurgents are not
looking to control government buildings or infrastructure. We have close
to 150,000 troops there, and we're losing.
The only question is, how many more people will have to die there before
the idiot in the White House declares mission accomplished.
|
|
|
