Surge? Who's surge? 250 dead possibly 500 as Iraqi religious murders continue

[Rich Travsky]

wbyeats@ireland.com wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 10:12:10 -0700, "Jerry Okamura"
> <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> ><wbyeats@ireland.com> wrote in message
> >> On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 04:13:36 -0700, "Jerry Okamura"
> >> <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> You need me to explain why? Beccause if success is not
> >>>>>>>>>>> possible, then we
> >>>>>>>>>>> are putting our military men and women in harms way, some of
> >>>>>>>>>>> them dying
> >>>>>>>>>>> everyday, trying to achieve something, that cannot be achieved.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I guess we need to make it simple. Success is not possible. The
> >>>>>>>>>> invasion of Iraq was stupid, unnecessary, ill-planned, and poorly
> >>>>>>>>>> executed. The US destabilized a country and had little if any
> >>>>>>>>>> plans for the consequences of what anyone with half a brain and
> >>>>>>>>>> a knowledge of the region knew would occur - sectarian strife.
> >>>>>>>>>> So the US has succeeded in starting an internal war and putting
> >>>>>>>>>> the US military right smack-dab in the middle. The stabilization
> >>>>>>>>>> of Iraq is a political battle - not military. If the soldiers
> >>>>>>>>>> leave then all hell breaks loose. If the soldiers stay, they
> >>>>>>>>>> continue to die for political (not military) reasons. Success is
> >>>>>>>>>> next to impossible so the soldiers should come home. That leaves
> >>>>>>>>>> the US in the untenable position of taking down a regime (no
> >>>>>>>>>> matter how evil and corrupt) and leaving nothing in return. It's
> >>>>>>>>>> our fault that Iraq is in the position we see today.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> So, you agree that we should pull out of Iraq IMMEDIATELY? Is
> >>>>>>>>> that what the
> >>>>>>>>> democrats are forcing the President to do?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Tomorrow - no. By the end of the year - yup. And let Bush live
> >>>>>>>> with it for the rest of his life. Not only letting American
> >>>>>>>> soldiers die for his greater glory but upsetting the precarious
> >>>>>>>> balance in the area. Seems Cheney was right about a decade ago -
> >>>>>>>> can you say quagmire?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So, because you want Bush to live with it a little longer, you are
> >>>>>>> willing to have more of our men and women die, just to make a
> >>>>>>> point? Pretty sick mind you have....
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You really that ignorant or do you work at it? The end of the year
> >>>>>> would be the quickest that US forces could leave with a minute chance
> >>>>>> of a stable Iraq. Bush's paying with his conscience is another point.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> But you just finished saying that success is not possible. Now yo ar
> >>>>> saying that there is a "minute" chance for a stale Iraq.... Can you
> >>>>> please expain the obvious inconsistency in your statement.
> >>>>
> >>>> There can be no "success" in as flawed a mission as bush,jr's Iraqi
> >>>> adventure
> >>>
> >>>Glad you made the clarification. So, we are back to the original
> >>>question.
> >>>If success is not possible, the we should leave IMMEDIATELY right? And
> >>>"if"
> >>>the democrats in Congress agrees with our assessment, then the should also
> >>>be "forcing" the President to withdraw IMMEDIATELY also, shouldn't they?
> >>>Are they doing that...NO. So, then, the Democrats in Congress do not
> >>>agree
> >>>with your assessment do they?
> >>
> >> It's all political now, comprende? Secondly, the Dems do not have a
> >> large enough majority to force withdrawl. Lastly many Dems are leery
> >> of immediate withdrawl because of the blood bath that will surely
> >> follow. Thank you Mr. Prez for putt5ing Americans in harm's way for
> >> your greater glory. The entire situation is like a Greek play with the
> >> Congress being the chorus, and Mr. Bush as the protagonist who fails
> >> due to hubris. Dubya Rex?
> >>
> >
> >They "may not" have a large enough majority, but if they believed in what
> >they say they believe in, then they should do what they think is the right
> >course of action, even if they cannot succeed. How can there be a blood
> >bath? Is the insurgency strong enough to cause a bloodbath, not very
> >likely....
>
> The US departs and Iraq becomes sectarian central with the Shia,
> Sunni, Kurd, etc: going at it. Don't forget there's no central
> government. Then add in one part Iran, one part Saudi Arabia, and one
> part Turkey and the entire region's in flames. Musharraf then falls in
> Pakistan (a probability in the very near future) and you get the
> perfect storm. That doesn't even take Afghanistan into account. Look
> what Wee Georgie has wrought. And who do you think the geopolitical
> winner is? Take a guess.

Actually, the projections are that Iraq would split into three countries.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/16/AR2007071601680.html
Tuesday, July 17, 2007

If U.S. combat forces withdraw from Iraq in the near future, three
developments would be likely to unfold. Majority Shiites would drive
Sunnis out of ethnically mixed areas west to Anbar province. Southern
Iraq would erupt in civil war between Shiite groups. And the Kurdish
north would solidify its borders and invite a U.S. troop presence there.
In short, Iraq would effectively become three separate nations.

That was the conclusion reached in recent "war games" exercises conducted
for the U.S. military by retired Marine Col. Gary Anderson. "I honestly
don't think it will be apocalyptic," said Anderson, who has served in Iraq
and now works for a major defense contractor. But "it will be ugly."
...

 

[wbyeats@ireland.com]

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 23:18:16 -0600, Rich Travsky
<traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:

>wbyeats@ireland.com wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 10:12:10 -0700, "Jerry Okamura"
>> <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>> ><wbyeats@ireland.com> wrote in message
>> >> On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 04:13:36 -0700, "Jerry Okamura"
>> >> <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>> You need me to explain why? Beccause if success is not
>> >>>>>>>>>>> possible, then we
>> >>>>>>>>>>> are putting our military men and women in harms way, some of
>> >>>>>>>>>>> them dying
>> >>>>>>>>>>> everyday, trying to achieve something, that cannot be achieved.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> I guess we need to make it simple. Success is not possible. The
>> >>>>>>>>>> invasion of Iraq was stupid, unnecessary, ill-planned, and poorly
>> >>>>>>>>>> executed. The US destabilized a country and had little if any
>> >>>>>>>>>> plans for the consequences of what anyone with half a brain and
>> >>>>>>>>>> a knowledge of the region knew would occur - sectarian strife.
>> >>>>>>>>>> So the US has succeeded in starting an internal war and putting
>> >>>>>>>>>> the US military right smack-dab in the middle. The stabilization
>> >>>>>>>>>> of Iraq is a political battle - not military. If the soldiers
>> >>>>>>>>>> leave then all hell breaks loose. If the soldiers stay, they
>> >>>>>>>>>> continue to die for political (not military) reasons. Success is
>> >>>>>>>>>> next to impossible so the soldiers should come home. That leaves
>> >>>>>>>>>> the US in the untenable position of taking down a regime (no
>> >>>>>>>>>> matter how evil and corrupt) and leaving nothing in return. It's
>> >>>>>>>>>> our fault that Iraq is in the position we see today.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> So, you agree that we should pull out of Iraq IMMEDIATELY? Is
>> >>>>>>>>> that what the
>> >>>>>>>>> democrats are forcing the President to do?
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Tomorrow - no. By the end of the year - yup. And let Bush live
>> >>>>>>>> with it for the rest of his life. Not only letting American
>> >>>>>>>> soldiers die for his greater glory but upsetting the precarious
>> >>>>>>>> balance in the area. Seems Cheney was right about a decade ago -
>> >>>>>>>> can you say quagmire?
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> So, because you want Bush to live with it a little longer, you are
>> >>>>>>> willing to have more of our men and women die, just to make a
>> >>>>>>> point? Pretty sick mind you have....
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> You really that ignorant or do you work at it? The end of the year
>> >>>>>> would be the quickest that US forces could leave with a minute chance
>> >>>>>> of a stable Iraq. Bush's paying with his conscience is another point.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>> But you just finished saying that success is not possible. Now yo ar
>> >>>>> saying that there is a "minute" chance for a stale Iraq.... Can you
>> >>>>> please expain the obvious inconsistency in your statement.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> There can be no "success" in as flawed a mission as bush,jr's Iraqi
>> >>>> adventure
>> >>>
>> >>>Glad you made the clarification. So, we are back to the original
>> >>>question.
>> >>>If success is not possible, the we should leave IMMEDIATELY right? And
>> >>>"if"
>> >>>the democrats in Congress agrees with our assessment, then the should also
>> >>>be "forcing" the President to withdraw IMMEDIATELY also, shouldn't they?
>> >>>Are they doing that...NO. So, then, the Democrats in Congress do not
>> >>>agree
>> >>>with your assessment do they?
>> >>
>> >> It's all political now, comprende? Secondly, the Dems do not have a
>> >> large enough majority to force withdrawl. Lastly many Dems are leery
>> >> of immediate withdrawl because of the blood bath that will surely
>> >> follow. Thank you Mr. Prez for putt5ing Americans in harm's way for
>> >> your greater glory. The entire situation is like a Greek play with the
>> >> Congress being the chorus, and Mr. Bush as the protagonist who fails
>> >> due to hubris. Dubya Rex?
>> >>
>> >
>> >They "may not" have a large enough majority, but if they believed in what
>> >they say they believe in, then they should do what they think is the right
>> >course of action, even if they cannot succeed. How can there be a blood
>> >bath? Is the insurgency strong enough to cause a bloodbath, not very
>> >likely....
>>
>> The US departs and Iraq becomes sectarian central with the Shia,
>> Sunni, Kurd, etc: going at it. Don't forget there's no central
>> government. Then add in one part Iran, one part Saudi Arabia, and one
>> part Turkey and the entire region's in flames. Musharraf then falls in
>> Pakistan (a probability in the very near future) and you get the
>> perfect storm. That doesn't even take Afghanistan into account. Look
>> what Wee Georgie has wrought. And who do you think the geopolitical
>> winner is? Take a guess.
>
>Actually, the projections are that Iraq would split into three countries.
>
>
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/16/AR2007071601680.html
> Tuesday, July 17, 2007
>
> If U.S. combat forces withdraw from Iraq in the near future, three
> developments would be likely to unfold. Majority Shiites would drive
> Sunnis out of ethnically mixed areas west to Anbar province. Southern
> Iraq would erupt in civil war between Shiite groups. And the Kurdish
> north would solidify its borders and invite a U.S. troop presence there.
> In short, Iraq would effectively become three separate nations.
>
> That was the conclusion reached in recent "war games" exercises conducted
> for the U.S. military by retired Marine Col. Gary Anderson. "I honestly
> don't think it will be apocalyptic," said Anderson, who has served in Iraq
> and now works for a major defense contractor. But "it will be ugly."

A very likely occurrence except that Turkey will not accept an
independent or autonomous Kurd(istan) country. Kurd 'terrorists' have
already planned and executed actions against Turkey. Each of the
ethnic/religious sectors in Iraq are de facto clients of other Mideast
countries.

WB Yeats

 

[Jerry Okamura]

"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:46C8EEE7.2E05286B@hotmMOVEail.com...
> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>> <wbyeats@ireland.com> wrote in message
>> news:eiu9c3hjd8r0cf1v7leo07f9h3ik5cfm5b@4ax.com...
>> > On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 14:46:26 -0700, "Jerry Okamura"
>> > <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>> You need me to explain why? Beccause if success is not possible,
>> >>>>>>> then we are putting our military men and women in harms way, some
>> >>>>>>> of
>> >>>>>>> them dying everyday, trying to achieve something, that cannot be
>> >>>>>>> achieved.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> I guess we need to make it simple. Success is not possible. The
>> >>>>>> invasion of Iraq was stupid, unnecessary, ill-planned, and poorly
>> >>>>>> executed. The US destabilized a country and had little if any
>> >>>>>> plans
>> >>>>>> for the consequences of what anyone with half a brain and a
>> >>>>>> knowledge
>> >>>>>> of the region knew would occur - sectarian strife. So the US has
>> >>>>>> succeeded in starting an internal war and putting the US military
>> >>>>>> right smack-dab in the middle. The stabilization of Iraq is a
>> >>>>>> political battle - not military. If the soldiers leave then all
>> >>>>>> hell
>> >>>>>> breaks loose. If the soldiers stay, they continue to die for
>> >>>>>> political
>> >>>>>> (not military) reasons. Success is next to impossible so the
>> >>>>>> soldiers
>> >>>>>> should come home. That leaves the US in the untenable position of
>> >>>>>> taking down a regime (no matter how evil and corrupt) and leaving
>> >>>>>> nothing in return. It's our fault that Iraq is in the position we
>> >>>>>> see
>> >>>>>> today.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> WB Yeats
>> >>>>> Well said.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Looking out for American interests, we need to get out now.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> bush,jr wrecked America's reputation
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Out now, we can start to rebuild
>> >>>>> our military and, with a new
>> >>>>> administration, rebuild our place in the world.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Why do we "have to rebuild" our military? What is the purpose of
>> >>>>having
>> >>>>a
>> >>>>military? The purpose of having a military is (1) to defend our
>> >>>>country
>> >>>>it
>> >>>>attacked, (2) to protect our access to vital resources, and (3) to
>> >>>>use
>> >>>>the
>> >>>>military for humanitarian reasons. We do not have to have such a
>> >>>>large
>> >>>>military to defend this country. We do need a large military to
>> >>>>protect
>> >>>>our
>> >>>>access to vital resouces. We "could" use our super power status to
>> >>>>do
>> >>>>some
>> >>>>good.
>> >>>
>> >>> We have to rebuild our military for all the reasons you list above
>> >>
>> >>One, you do not need to be a super power to defend this country from
>> >>attack.
>> >>Second, you agreed that we needed to protect our access to vital
>> >>resources,
>> >>but you are not willing to protect our access to the oil in Iraq
>> >>(please
>> >>try
>> >>to be consistent). You think we should use our military for
>> >>humanitarian
>> >>reasons, yet when we do that, you do not want us to insure that the
>> >>goal
>> >>is
>> >>achieved (again a matter of consistency). So, which is it?
>> >
>> > Enjoying your mental masturbation, are you? We had access to Iraq's
>> > oil thru the markets. The US destroyed the country and made it
>> > impossible to presently pump this oil. And now you feel we should
>> > protect the access which we destroyed. Johnathan Swift would be proud
>> > as would George Orwell. I am consistent. You're seeking to take a
>> > particular and draw a universal from it. Shame, shame. That's
>> > fallacious logic.
>>
>> When we went to war, it is true we upset the apple cart. But we did go
>> to
>
> Lies tend to do that.

How? Can you expand on that thought. Can you site other examples
please....
>
>> war, and the cat is out of the bag, the horse are out of the barn....
>> Now,
>> we have a situation where who ends up in control of that country is up
>> for
>> grabs. And so, the oil that country has will end up being controlled by
>> SOMEONE. And that SOMEONE may not be someone who we want in control of
>> all
>> that oil. And should that happen, then we have not secured access to
>> such a
>> vital resource. Which I will once again point out, is one of the
>> purposes
>> of going to war. And you did dispute the other points I made, does that
>> mean you agree with that part of my position?
>
> No, we do not go invading countries to protect resources. But thanks for
> admitting
> it was about oil.

You should study your history. The First Gulf War was a war to protect our
resources. Besides it is a foolish statement. If we never go to war
protecting our resources that means that countries like say China or Russia
(or any other country) can start gobbling up nations rich in the resources
we need and we will do nothing about it. Sooner or later, we end up with a
situation where we don't have access to those resources, and we whither and
die as a nation.
>
>> >>>>But, Iraq does have a vital resource called oil....and we do not seem
>> >>>>wiling to protect our access to that vital resource, then the logical
>> >>>>question is, what vital resource are we willing to protect? And if
>> >>>>we
>> >>>>are
>> >>>>not willing to use our super power status, while we are in the
>> >>>>catbirds
>> >>>>seat
>> >>>>to try to make the people of the world live a better life, what does
>> >>>>that
>> >>>>say about our moral values? Besides, we don't seem to have the
>> >>>>stomach
>> >>>>for
>> >>>>a fight, so what good is having a military when you do not have the
>> >>>>stomach
>> >>>>for the fight, that will happen when you use our military?
>> >>>
>> >>> Your argument just fell apart. We had access to Iraqi oil prior to
>> >>> Bush's folly. Most of that access is now gone. We are not giving the
>> >>> people of the world a better life - we gave Iraq instability and
>> >>> thousands dead. We gave them rubble in place of water and
>> >>> electricity.
>> >>> We gave them promises of democracy which doesn't work without
>> >>> security
>> >>> and full bellies. That says a lot about some folks' moral values - or
>> >>> lack thereof. We have the stomach for a fight - just not a false one
>> >>> for the greater glory of Wee Georgie.
>> >>
>> NO!!!!
>
> YES!!!!

We HAD access to the oil in Iraq. That oil is now up for grabs. If for
instance Iran controls the country of Iraq, they now can use the oil from
Iran and Iraq as a bargaining chip...now they only have the oil in their
country.
>
> Iraq was not a threat to the world much less the US.

If, Iraq was no threat to the world, why did the UN Security Council "force"
a soveriegn country to accept inspectors. Why did the UN Security Coucil
"force" a soveriegn country to dismantle their suspected stockpiles of
WMD's? If, Iraq was not a threat to the US, why did the US Senate pass the
two resolutions on Iraq, one during the Clinton Administration and of course
the one they passed during the Bush Adminstration?

 

[Jerry Okamura]

"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:46C8EDC3.53B3CAF7@hotmMOVEail.com...
> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>> "Sid9" <sid9@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> > wbyeats@ireland.com wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 02:13:47 -0700, "Jerry Okamura"
>> >> <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>> >>> "Bokonon" <seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >>>> "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
>> >>>>> Then if success is not possible, then we should withdraw from Iraq
>> >>>>> IMMEDIATELY.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Why?
>> >>>>
>> >>> You need me to explain why? Beccause if success is not possible,
>> >>> then we are putting our military men and women in harms way, some of
>> >>> them dying everyday, trying to achieve something, that cannot be
>> >>> achieved.
>> >>
>> >> I guess we need to make it simple. Success is not possible. The
>> >> invasion of Iraq was stupid, unnecessary, ill-planned, and poorly
>> >> executed. The US destabilized a country and had little if any plans
>> >> for the consequences of what anyone with half a brain and a knowledge
>> >> of the region knew would occur - sectarian strife. So the US has
>> >> succeeded in starting an internal war and putting the US military
>> >> right smack-dab in the middle. The stabilization of Iraq is a
>> >> political battle - not military. If the soldiers leave then all hell
>> >> breaks loose. If the soldiers stay, they continue to die for political
>> >> (not military) reasons. Success is next to impossible so the soldiers
>> >> should come home. That leaves the US in the untenable position of
>> >> taking down a regime (no matter how evil and corrupt) and leaving
>> >> nothing in return. It's our fault that Iraq is in the position we see
>> >> today.
>> >
>> > Well said.
>> >
>> > Looking out for American interests, we need to get out now.
>> >
>> > bush,jr wrecked America's reputation
>> >
>> > Out now, we can start to rebuild
>> > our military and, with a new
>> > administration, rebuild our place in the world.
>>
>> Why do we "have to rebuild" our military? What is the purpose of having
>> a
>
> http://www.thedailystar.net/2006/10/07/d610071317117.htm
> After five years of war, US military shows fatigue
> Reuters, Washington
>
> Five years of warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan have left signs of wear and
> tear
> on the US military, raising questions about its ability to sustain its
> current
> level of operations and confront potential new crises.
>
> The US-led invasion of Afghanistan, ordered following the September 11
> attacks,
> began on October 7, 2001, thrusting the all-volunteer US military into
> combat
> that has continued unabated there and, since March 2003, in Iraq.
>
> Senior military officers, including Army Chief of Staff Gen Peter
> Schoomaker,
> have warned of falling combat readiness of some units and mounting
> equipment
> shortfalls, with Abrams tanks, Bradley Fighting Vehicles and other
> equipment
> battered from extended use on the battlefield.

So, it is being stretch to the limit? So what? We don't seem to want to
involve our military in any foreign wars, and we don't have the backbone to
finish what we started, so I ask again, why do we need to have such a
formidable military machine? Why do we need to rebuild the military when we
don't have the stomach to use the military for what we have the military
for?
> ...
>
>> military? The purpose of having a military is (1) to defend our country
>> it
>> attacked, (2) to protect our access to vital resources, and (3) to use
>> the
>
> (1) We were not attacked by Iraq. (2) Protecting vital resources does not
> involve cooking up lies to invade other countries. But thanks for
> admitting
> it was about oil...

This country would collapse without a reliable source of oil, as well as a
reliable source of any critical raw material. So, yes it is important. The
First Gulf War was waged for the same reason.
>
>> military for humanitarian reasons. We do not have to have such a large
>
> (3) "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation
> building."
> George Bush, Oct 11, 2000

It does not make any difference. We do use our military for humanitarian
reasons. The use of our military in Yugoslavia was for humanitarian
reasons. When we sent our military into harms way into Somalis and Lebanon
it was for humanitarian reasons. We HAVE used our military for humanitarian
reasons. But, the quesitons I am asking, is why even do that, if we do not
have the stomach for the fight? Why go into a country, for humanitarian
reasons, when as soon as some die, we leave?

 

[Jerry Okamura]

"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:46C8EDFF.6936BBC@hotmMOVEail.com...
> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>>
>> "Bokonon" <seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:13c7pnhnp2imkd9@corp.supernews.com...
>> >
>> > "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
>> > news:46c3aa88$0$18976$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> >
>> >> Then if success is not possible, then we should withdraw from Iraq
>> >> IMMEDIATELY.
>> >
>> > Why?
>> >
>> You need me to explain why? Beccause if success is not possible, then we
>> are putting our military men and women in harms way, some of them dying
>> everyday, trying to achieve something, that cannot be achieved.
>
> Invading Iraq was completely unwarranted and unjustified.
>
Perhaps this is asking to much of you, but can you stick to the subject at
hand...?

 

[Jerry Okamura]

"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:46C8EDFF.6936BBC@hotmMOVEail.com...
> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>>
>> "Bokonon" <seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:13c7pnhnp2imkd9@corp.supernews.com...
>> >
>> > "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
>> > news:46c3aa88$0$18976$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> >
>> >> Then if success is not possible, then we should withdraw from Iraq
>> >> IMMEDIATELY.
>> >
>> > Why?
>> >
>> You need me to explain why? Beccause if success is not possible, then we
>> are putting our military men and women in harms way, some of them dying
>> everyday, trying to achieve something, that cannot be achieved.
>
> Invading Iraq was completely unwarranted and unjustified.
>
Can you read? What has the reason we went to war, go to do with the current
decision that needs to be made?

 

[Rich Travsky]

Jerry Okamura wrote:
> "Sid9" <sid9@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > wbyeats@ireland.com wrote:
> >> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 02:13:47 -0700, "Jerry Okamura"
> >> <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> >>> "Bokonon" <seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>> "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
> >>>>> Then if success is not possible, then we should withdraw from Iraq
> >>>>> IMMEDIATELY.
> >>>>
> >>>> Why?
> >>>>
> >>> You need me to explain why? Beccause if success is not possible,
> >>> then we are putting our military men and women in harms way, some of
> >>> them dying everyday, trying to achieve something, that cannot be
> >>> achieved.
> >>
> >> I guess we need to make it simple. Success is not possible. The
> >> invasion of Iraq was stupid, unnecessary, ill-planned, and poorly
> >> executed. The US destabilized a country and had little if any plans
> >> for the consequences of what anyone with half a brain and a knowledge
> >> of the region knew would occur - sectarian strife. So the US has
> >> succeeded in starting an internal war and putting the US military
> >> right smack-dab in the middle. The stabilization of Iraq is a
> >> political battle - not military. If the soldiers leave then all hell
> >> breaks loose. If the soldiers stay, they continue to die for political
> >> (not military) reasons. Success is next to impossible so the soldiers
> >> should come home. That leaves the US in the untenable position of
> >> taking down a regime (no matter how evil and corrupt) and leaving
> >> nothing in return. It's our fault that Iraq is in the position we see
> >> today.
> >
> > Well said.
> >
> > Looking out for American interests, we need to get out now.
> >
> > bush,jr wrecked America's reputation
> >
> > Out now, we can start to rebuild
> > our military and, with a new
> > administration, rebuild our place in the world.
>
> Why do we "have to rebuild" our military? What is the purpose of having a

http://www.thedailystar.net/2006/10/07/d610071317117.htm
After five years of war, US military shows fatigue
Reuters, Washington

Five years of warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan have left signs of wear and tear
on the US military, raising questions about its ability to sustain its current
level of operations and confront potential new crises.

The US-led invasion of Afghanistan, ordered following the September 11 attacks,
began on October 7, 2001, thrusting the all-volunteer US military into combat
that has continued unabated there and, since March 2003, in Iraq.

Senior military officers, including Army Chief of Staff Gen Peter Schoomaker,
have warned of falling combat readiness of some units and mounting equipment
shortfalls, with Abrams tanks, Bradley Fighting Vehicles and other equipment
battered from extended use on the battlefield.
...

> military? The purpose of having a military is (1) to defend our country it
> attacked, (2) to protect our access to vital resources, and (3) to use the

(1) We were not attacked by Iraq. (2) Protecting vital resources does not
involve cooking up lies to invade other countries. But thanks for admitting
it was about oil...

> military for humanitarian reasons. We do not have to have such a large

(3) "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation building."
George Bush, Oct 11, 2000

 

[Rich Travsky]

Jerry Okamura wrote:
>
> "Bokonon" <seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:13c7pnhnp2imkd9@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:46c3aa88$0$18976$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> >
> >> Then if success is not possible, then we should withdraw from Iraq
> >> IMMEDIATELY.
> >
> > Why?
> >
> You need me to explain why? Beccause if success is not possible, then we
> are putting our military men and women in harms way, some of them dying
> everyday, trying to achieve something, that cannot be achieved.

Invading Iraq was completely unwarranted and unjustified.

RT

 

[Rich Travsky]

Jerry Okamura wrote:
> <wbyeats@ireland.com> wrote in message
> news:eiu9c3hjd8r0cf1v7leo07f9h3ik5cfm5b@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 14:46:26 -0700, "Jerry Okamura"
> > <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> You need me to explain why? Beccause if success is not possible,
> >>>>>>> then we are putting our military men and women in harms way, some of
> >>>>>>> them dying everyday, trying to achieve something, that cannot be
> >>>>>>> achieved.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I guess we need to make it simple. Success is not possible. The
> >>>>>> invasion of Iraq was stupid, unnecessary, ill-planned, and poorly
> >>>>>> executed. The US destabilized a country and had little if any plans
> >>>>>> for the consequences of what anyone with half a brain and a knowledge
> >>>>>> of the region knew would occur - sectarian strife. So the US has
> >>>>>> succeeded in starting an internal war and putting the US military
> >>>>>> right smack-dab in the middle. The stabilization of Iraq is a
> >>>>>> political battle - not military. If the soldiers leave then all hell
> >>>>>> breaks loose. If the soldiers stay, they continue to die for
> >>>>>> political
> >>>>>> (not military) reasons. Success is next to impossible so the soldiers
> >>>>>> should come home. That leaves the US in the untenable position of
> >>>>>> taking down a regime (no matter how evil and corrupt) and leaving
> >>>>>> nothing in return. It's our fault that Iraq is in the position we see
> >>>>>> today.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> WB Yeats
> >>>>> Well said.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Looking out for American interests, we need to get out now.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> bush,jr wrecked America's reputation
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Out now, we can start to rebuild
> >>>>> our military and, with a new
> >>>>> administration, rebuild our place in the world.
> >>>>
> >>>>Why do we "have to rebuild" our military? What is the purpose of having
> >>>>a
> >>>>military? The purpose of having a military is (1) to defend our country
> >>>>it
> >>>>attacked, (2) to protect our access to vital resources, and (3) to use
> >>>>the
> >>>>military for humanitarian reasons. We do not have to have such a large
> >>>>military to defend this country. We do need a large military to protect
> >>>>our
> >>>>access to vital resouces. We "could" use our super power status to do
> >>>>some
> >>>>good.
> >>>
> >>> We have to rebuild our military for all the reasons you list above
> >>
> >>One, you do not need to be a super power to defend this country from
> >>attack.
> >>Second, you agreed that we needed to protect our access to vital
> >>resources,
> >>but you are not willing to protect our access to the oil in Iraq (please
> >>try
> >>to be consistent). You think we should use our military for humanitarian
> >>reasons, yet when we do that, you do not want us to insure that the goal
> >>is
> >>achieved (again a matter of consistency). So, which is it?
> >
> > Enjoying your mental masturbation, are you? We had access to Iraq's
> > oil thru the markets. The US destroyed the country and made it
> > impossible to presently pump this oil. And now you feel we should
> > protect the access which we destroyed. Johnathan Swift would be proud
> > as would George Orwell. I am consistent. You're seeking to take a
> > particular and draw a universal from it. Shame, shame. That's
> > fallacious logic.
>
> When we went to war, it is true we upset the apple cart. But we did go to

Lies tend to do that.

> war, and the cat is out of the bag, the horse are out of the barn.... Now,
> we have a situation where who ends up in control of that country is up for
> grabs. And so, the oil that country has will end up being controlled by
> SOMEONE. And that SOMEONE may not be someone who we want in control of all
> that oil. And should that happen, then we have not secured access to such a
> vital resource. Which I will once again point out, is one of the purposes
> of going to war. And you did dispute the other points I made, does that
> mean you agree with that part of my position?

No, we do not go invading countries to protect resources. But thanks for admitting
it was about oil.

> >>>>But, Iraq does have a vital resource called oil....and we do not seem
> >>>>wiling to protect our access to that vital resource, then the logical
> >>>>question is, what vital resource are we willing to protect? And if we
> >>>>are
> >>>>not willing to use our super power status, while we are in the catbirds
> >>>>seat
> >>>>to try to make the people of the world live a better life, what does
> >>>>that
> >>>>say about our moral values? Besides, we don't seem to have the stomach
> >>>>for
> >>>>a fight, so what good is having a military when you do not have the
> >>>>stomach
> >>>>for the fight, that will happen when you use our military?
> >>>
> >>> Your argument just fell apart. We had access to Iraqi oil prior to
> >>> Bush's folly. Most of that access is now gone. We are not giving the
> >>> people of the world a better life - we gave Iraq instability and
> >>> thousands dead. We gave them rubble in place of water and electricity.
> >>> We gave them promises of democracy which doesn't work without security
> >>> and full bellies. That says a lot about some folks' moral values - or
> >>> lack thereof. We have the stomach for a fight - just not a false one
> >>> for the greater glory of Wee Georgie.
> >>
> NO!!!!

YES!!!!

Iraq was not a threat to the world much less the US.

 

[wbyeats@ireland.com]

On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 16:49:41 -0700, "Jerry Okamura"
<okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:


>>> When we went to war, it is true we upset the apple cart. But we did go
>>> to
>>
>> Lies tend to do that.
>
>How? Can you expand on that thought. Can you site other examples
>please....

You wish current examples - Saddam's WMD's, Saddam's 'nuke' purchase
in Niger, Saddam's culpability in 9/11.
Or prior examples - Remember the Maine, The Gulf of Tonkin, American
advisors in Nicaragua, Iraqi soldiers mutilation of Kuwaitis in Gulf
I.

WB Yeats

 

[wbyeats@ireland.com]

On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 17:16:27 -0700, "Jerry Okamura"
<okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:

>
>"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
>news:46C8EDFF.6936BBC@hotmMOVEail.com...
>> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>>>
>>> "Bokonon" <seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:13c7pnhnp2imkd9@corp.supernews.com...
>>> >
>>> > "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
>>> > news:46c3aa88$0$18976$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>> >
>>> >> Then if success is not possible, then we should withdraw from Iraq
>>> >> IMMEDIATELY.
>>> >
>>> > Why?
>>> >
>>> You need me to explain why? Beccause if success is not possible, then we
>>> are putting our military men and women in harms way, some of them dying
>>> everyday, trying to achieve something, that cannot be achieved.
>>
>> Invading Iraq was completely unwarranted and unjustified.
>>
>Can you read? What has the reason we went to war, go to do with the current
>decision that needs to be made?

Everything - or should we continue to give the government carte
blanche to lie, cheat, and bully their way to any adventurist war?
Iraq did not threaten our security or, for that matter, the
availability of oil. In your mind it seems the ends always justify the
means. The US is supposed to be the good guys - not in Iraq.

WB Yeats

 

[Jerry Okamura]

<wbyeats@ireland.com> wrote in message
news:e9ejc3dhqirjnfhe08g56ubchv5607bub9@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 16:49:41 -0700, "Jerry Okamura"
> <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>> When we went to war, it is true we upset the apple cart. But we did go
>>>> to
>>>
>>> Lies tend to do that.
>>
>>How? Can you expand on that thought. Can you site other examples
>>please....
>
> You wish current examples - Saddam's WMD's,

Okay, let us once again pick up on this first statement. Who believed that
Saddam did not have any WMD"S?

Saddam's 'nuke' purchase
> in Niger,

From what I have read, we still do not know what Saddam was up to concerning
nuclear weapons... So, if he wanted nuclear weapons than it would not be
beyond anyones imagination that he did not seek to purchase the componenets
of building a nulcear weapons for Niger, or anywhere else for that matter.
But to cut to the chase, this is what the President said about the issue of
nuclear bombs

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

Saddam's culpability in 9/11.
> Or prior examples - Remember the Maine, The Gulf of Tonkin, American
> advisors in Nicaragua, Iraqi soldiers mutilation of Kuwaitis in Gulf
> I.

Find a quote from the President where he said that Saddam was culpable. Or
stop posting what can only be described as a "lie", unless you can prove the
assertion....

 

[Jerry Okamura]

<wbyeats@ireland.com> wrote in message
news:e9ejc3dhqirjnfhe08g56ubchv5607bub9@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 16:49:41 -0700, "Jerry Okamura"
> <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>> When we went to war, it is true we upset the apple cart. But we did go
>>>> to
>>>
>>> Lies tend to do that.
>>
>>How? Can you expand on that thought. Can you site other examples
>>please....
>
> You wish current examples - Saddam's WMD's, Saddam's 'nuke' purchase
> in Niger, Saddam's culpability in 9/11.
> Or prior examples - Remember the Maine, The Gulf of Tonkin, American
> advisors in Nicaragua, Iraqi soldiers mutilation of Kuwaitis in Gulf
> I.
>
Or when Roosevelt said that the attack by Japan of December 7th, was
"unprovolked"?

 

[Jerry Okamura]

<wbyeats@ireland.com> wrote in message
news:3jejc3ttrga36soc9261b8gchp6vgl40am@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 17:16:27 -0700, "Jerry Okamura"
> <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
>>news:46C8EDFF.6936BBC@hotmMOVEail.com...
>>> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Bokonon" <seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:13c7pnhnp2imkd9@corp.supernews.com...
>>>> >
>>>> > "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>> > news:46c3aa88$0$18976$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>>> >
>>>> >> Then if success is not possible, then we should withdraw from Iraq
>>>> >> IMMEDIATELY.
>>>> >
>>>> > Why?
>>>> >
>>>> You need me to explain why? Beccause if success is not possible, then
>>>> we
>>>> are putting our military men and women in harms way, some of them dying
>>>> everyday, trying to achieve something, that cannot be achieved.
>>>
>>> Invading Iraq was completely unwarranted and unjustified.
>>>
>>Can you read? What has the reason we went to war, go to do with the
>>current
>>decision that needs to be made?
>
> Everything - or should we continue to give the government carte
> blanche to lie, cheat, and bully their way to any adventurist war?
> Iraq did not threaten our security or, for that matter, the
> availability of oil. In your mind it seems the ends always justify the
> means. The US is supposed to be the good guys - not in Iraq.
>
The US Senate under both the Clinton and Bush Administration did not agree
with your assessment. The UN Security Council did not agree with your
assessment.

 

[Jerry Okamura]

"Desmond and Molly Jones" <dmj@spamspamspamspam.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.21339a5bb419c8ee989f1e@netnews.mchsi.com...
> In article <46c9e933$0$31851$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Jerry Okamura
> at okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com says...
>>
>> <wbyeats@ireland.com> wrote in message
>> news:e9ejc3dhqirjnfhe08g56ubchv5607bub9@4ax.com...
>> > On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 16:49:41 -0700, "Jerry Okamura"
>> > <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>>> When we went to war, it is true we upset the apple cart. But we did
>> >>>> go
>> >>>> to
>> >>>
>> >>> Lies tend to do that.
>> >>
>> >>How? Can you expand on that thought. Can you site other examples
>> >>please....
>> >
>> > You wish current examples - Saddam's WMD's,
>>
>> Okay, let us once again pick up on this first statement. Who believed
>> that
>> Saddam did not have any WMD"S?
>>
>
> Saddam himself

Okay, let us assume that Saddam knew his country did not have WMDs, a
statement by the way that is in dispute. If he knew they did not have any
WMDs, then he did he not "help" the inspectors to verify that fact, aka
South Africa. Did he do that? No, he did not.

and his government,

As I understand the situation and as it has been reported, those in Saddam's
inner circle would not have told Saddam there were no WMDs, because (1) he
"thought" they had WMDs and as a result anyone who said that they did not
have WMDs, would have been executed.

the Iraqi people,

The Irawi people did not know, and would not have known.

the U.N.
> Inspectors?

The UN Inspectors NEVER said that they knew that Saddam did not have WMDs.
>
> Since there was no actual evidence, I did not believe Iraq had WMD's.

I have no trouble with that statement.
>
> Just because warmongering "leaders" "believed" and it was reported all
> over the newspapers, that doesn't mean thinking people believed it,
> even back then.
>
I think we are starting to go around in circles once again. But I will end
with this thought. "Thinking people" includes everyone on every side of
this issue. But "if" people did not believe that he did have WMD's, then
their actions would not lead anyone to that conclusion....if you want me to
amlify on that point, I will be more than happy to do just that.....

 

[Jerry Okamura]

"GW Chimpzilla's Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia" <gw@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Hemyi.68648$Fc.48852@attbi_s21...
> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>
>>
>> <wbyeats@ireland.com> wrote in message
>> news:e9ejc3dhqirjnfhe08g56ubchv5607bub9@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 16:49:41 -0700, "Jerry Okamura"
>>> <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> When we went to war, it is true we upset the apple cart. But we did
>>>>>> go
>>>>>> to
>>>>>
>>>>> Lies tend to do that.
>>>>
>>>>How? Can you expand on that thought. Can you site other examples
>>>>please....
>>>
>>> You wish current examples - Saddam's WMD's,
>>
>> Okay, let us once again pick up on this first statement. Who believed
>> that
>> Saddam did not have any WMD"S?
>
> Me, and the UN Inspectors under Hans Blix.

Find a specific statement that Hans Blix said that he knew that Saddam did
not have any WMD's?

Also noticed you ignored responding to the last part of my reply, is that
because you are now willing to recant your position?
>
>
>>
>> Saddam's 'nuke' purchase
>>> in Niger,
>>
>> From what I have read, we still do not know what Saddam was up to
>> concerning
>> nuclear weapons... So, if he wanted nuclear weapons than it would not be
>> beyond anyones imagination that he did not seek to purchase the
>> componenets
>> of building a nulcear weapons for Niger, or anywhere else for that
>> matter.
>> But to cut to the chase, this is what the President said about the issue
>> of
>> nuclear bombs
>>
>> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
>>
>> Saddam's culpability in 9/11.
>>> Or prior examples - Remember the Maine, The Gulf of Tonkin, American
>>> advisors in Nicaragua, Iraqi soldiers mutilation of Kuwaitis in Gulf
>>> I.
>>
>> Find a quote from the President where he said that Saddam was culpable.
>> Or
>> stop posting what can only be described as a "lie", unless you can prove
>> the
>> assertion....
>

 

[Jerry Okamura]

"Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:jvmyi.21191$aa7.1203@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>> <wbyeats@ireland.com> wrote in message
>> news:e9ejc3dhqirjnfhe08g56ubchv5607bub9@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 16:49:41 -0700, "Jerry Okamura"
>>> <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> When we went to war, it is true we upset the apple cart. But we
>>>>>> did go to
>>>>>
>>>>> Lies tend to do that.
>>>>
>>>> How? Can you expand on that thought. Can you site other examples
>>>> please....
>>>
>>> You wish current examples - Saddam's WMD's,
>>
>> Okay, let us once again pick up on this first statement. Who
>> believed that Saddam did not have any WMD"S?
>>
>> Saddam's 'nuke' purchase
>>> in Niger,
>>
>> From what I have read, we still do not know what Saddam was up to
>> concerning nuclear weapons... So, if he wanted nuclear weapons than
>> it would not be beyond anyones imagination that he did not seek to
>> purchase the componenets of building a nulcear weapons for Niger, or
>> anywhere else for that matter. But to cut to the chase, this is what
>> the President said about the issue of nuclear bombs
>>
>> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
>>
>> Saddam's culpability in 9/11.
>>> Or prior examples - Remember the Maine, The Gulf of Tonkin, American
>>> advisors in Nicaragua, Iraqi soldiers mutilation of Kuwaitis in Gulf
>>> I.
>>
>> Find a quote from the President where he said that Saddam was
>> culpable. Or stop posting what can only be described as a "lie",
>> unless you can prove the assertion....
>
> You are most naive!
>
> "Plausible Deniability"
> is a Bush family slogan.
>
>
>

I asked for proof, and what do I get in response?

 

[Desmond and Molly Jones]

In article <46c9e933$0$31851$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Jerry Okamura
at okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com says...
>
> <wbyeats@ireland.com> wrote in message
> news:e9ejc3dhqirjnfhe08g56ubchv5607bub9@4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 16:49:41 -0700, "Jerry Okamura"
> > <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>> When we went to war, it is true we upset the apple cart. But we did go
> >>>> to
> >>>
> >>> Lies tend to do that.
> >>
> >>How? Can you expand on that thought. Can you site other examples
> >>please....
> >
> > You wish current examples - Saddam's WMD's,
>
> Okay, let us once again pick up on this first statement. Who believed that
> Saddam did not have any WMD"S?
>

Saddam himself and his government, the Iraqi people, the U.N.
Inspectors?

Since there was no actual evidence, I did not believe Iraq had WMD's.

Just because warmongering "leaders" "believed" and it was reported all
over the newspapers, that doesn't mean thinking people believed it,
even back then.

---

"There is at least one generation of Americans growing up that not only
does not have much respect for diversity of opinion but doesn't know
what it is...Once every man reads the same things as his neighbor, and
thinks the same thought, the common man is here with a vengeance: that
is to say, the mass bigot." - Alistair Cooke

 

[GW Chimpzilla's Eye-Rack Neocon Ut]

Jerry Okamura wrote:

>
> <wbyeats@ireland.com> wrote in message
> news:e9ejc3dhqirjnfhe08g56ubchv5607bub9@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 16:49:41 -0700, "Jerry Okamura"
>> <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>> When we went to war, it is true we upset the apple cart. But we did go
>>>>> to
>>>>
>>>> Lies tend to do that.
>>>
>>>How? Can you expand on that thought. Can you site other examples
>>>please....
>>
>> You wish current examples - Saddam's WMD's,
>
> Okay, let us once again pick up on this first statement. Who believed that
> Saddam did not have any WMD"S?

Me, and the UN Inspectors under Hans Blix.


>
> Saddam's 'nuke' purchase
>> in Niger,
>
> From what I have read, we still do not know what Saddam was up to concerning
> nuclear weapons... So, if he wanted nuclear weapons than it would not be
> beyond anyones imagination that he did not seek to purchase the componenets
> of building a nulcear weapons for Niger, or anywhere else for that matter.
> But to cut to the chase, this is what the President said about the issue of
> nuclear bombs
>
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
>
> Saddam's culpability in 9/11.
>> Or prior examples - Remember the Maine, The Gulf of Tonkin, American
>> advisors in Nicaragua, Iraqi soldiers mutilation of Kuwaitis in Gulf
>> I.
>
> Find a quote from the President where he said that Saddam was culpable. Or
> stop posting what can only be described as a "lie", unless you can prove the
> assertion....

--
There are only two kinds of Republicans: Millionaires and fools.

 

[Sid9]

Jerry Okamura wrote:
> <wbyeats@ireland.com> wrote in message
> news:e9ejc3dhqirjnfhe08g56ubchv5607bub9@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 16:49:41 -0700, "Jerry Okamura"
>> <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>> When we went to war, it is true we upset the apple cart. But we
>>>>> did go to
>>>>
>>>> Lies tend to do that.
>>>
>>> How? Can you expand on that thought. Can you site other examples
>>> please....
>>
>> You wish current examples - Saddam's WMD's,
>
> Okay, let us once again pick up on this first statement. Who
> believed that Saddam did not have any WMD"S?
>
> Saddam's 'nuke' purchase
>> in Niger,
>
> From what I have read, we still do not know what Saddam was up to
> concerning nuclear weapons... So, if he wanted nuclear weapons than
> it would not be beyond anyones imagination that he did not seek to
> purchase the componenets of building a nulcear weapons for Niger, or
> anywhere else for that matter. But to cut to the chase, this is what
> the President said about the issue of nuclear bombs
>
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
>
> Saddam's culpability in 9/11.
>> Or prior examples - Remember the Maine, The Gulf of Tonkin, American
>> advisors in Nicaragua, Iraqi soldiers mutilation of Kuwaitis in Gulf
>> I.
>
> Find a quote from the President where he said that Saddam was
> culpable. Or stop posting what can only be described as a "lie",
> unless you can prove the assertion....

You are most naive!

"Plausible Deniability"
is a Bush family slogan.