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

GW Chimpzilla's Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia wrote:
> 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.
>
>


Every two weeks we need to explain to these dummies
that Saddam had caved.

That Saddam had allowed unfettered inspection of
any site in Iraq, including his personal palaces and
such inspections were beig carried out when bush,jr
told the inspectors to get out of Iraq for their own
safety.

bush,jr had won the war without firing a single shot.

Then he created a FUBAR of a magnitude never
before seen in American history.
 
Jerry Okamura wrote:

>
> "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?
>>
Find it yourself or keep wanking.

>>
>>>
>>> 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.
 
Jerry Okamura wrote:
> "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?


" Plausible Deniability "


A war built on lies.
An unnecessary war
A war and occupation mismanaged
A war run either incompetent generals or a lying president

Franks
Bremer
Garner
Casey
Abazaid

bush,jr said the the generals said addtional troops weren't needed.
Are the generals incompetent or is bush,jr lying?
OR worst of all both incompetent and lies
 
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 09:20:42 -0700, "Jerry Okamura"
<okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> 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, 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"?

That statement ranks at the top of the ignorant posts you've made in
this thread. Cutting off oil and steel? Common sense. Saying Roosevelt
provoked Japan and its quest for empire is akin to saying that the
Jews provoked Hitler - or do you believe that one too? Can you say
Rape of Nanking. Can you say terror bombing of Shanghai? I suppose
that China provoked those? Oh, I'm sorry. According to many Japanese
history books used in school until very recently, neither event
occurred.

WB Yeats
 
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 09:23:22 -0700, "Jerry Okamura"
<okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:

>
><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.

The Senate under Bush is the one being discussed. Under Clinton Saddam
may very well have possessed WMD's. I don't know and neither do you.
The point is he didn't when US (mis)intel said he did. The UN didn't
find any. The UN Security Council was told in a published report that
their inspectors did not find evidence or physical proof of WMD's. The
UN did not sanction the US attack on Iraq. The resolution was a UN
resolution - not US. Get a hold on reality.

WB Yeats
 
"Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:4knyi.21222$aa7.13169@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>> "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> news:jvmyi.21191$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?
>
>
> " Plausible Deniability "
>
>
> A war built on lies.
> An unnecessary war
> A war and occupation mismanaged
> A war run either incompetent generals or a lying president
>
> Franks
> Bremer
> Garner
> Casey
> Abazaid
>
> bush,jr said the the generals said addtional troops weren't needed.
> Are the generals incompetent or is bush,jr lying?
> OR worst of all both incompetent and lies
>

Evasion.....
 
<wbyeats@ireland.com> wrote in message
news:4i1kc3131qh124morekuvn8ved1c0p8tc4@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 09:20:42 -0700, "Jerry Okamura"
> <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> 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, 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"?
>
> That statement ranks at the top of the ignorant posts you've made in
> this thread. Cutting off oil and steel? Common sense. Saying Roosevelt
> provoked Japan and its quest for empire is akin to saying that the
> Jews provoked Hitler - or do you believe that one too? Can you say
> Rape of Nanking. Can you say terror bombing of Shanghai? I suppose
> that China provoked those? Oh, I'm sorry. According to many Japanese
> history books used in school until very recently, neither event
> occurred.
>
We told the world we were neutral. A neutral nation does not help one side
in the conflict....a neutral nation does not take ANY side...... A neutral
nation does not help the Chinese fight the Japanese. We did that when we
sent our men, material to fight along side the Chinese against the Japanese.
A neutral nation does not allow their citizens to go to England and fly
missions against the Germans.
 
<wbyeats@ireland.com> wrote in message
news:tt1kc3t741sclcinue79gmokkhnuuqm942@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 09:23:22 -0700, "Jerry Okamura"
> <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><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.
>
> The Senate under Bush is the one being discussed. Under Clinton Saddam
> may very well have possessed WMD's. I don't know and neither do you.

I do not really much care. It was not the reason I supported the war. One
reason I supported the war, was because if you do not trust a country with
WMD's, then you should not trust a country even if they do not have any
WMD's at the time. I supported the war, because Saddam, when he had WMD"S,
used them. Not only against the Iranians, but also against his own people.
A person like that cannot be trusted with such a capability.

> The point is he didn't when US (mis)intel said he did. The UN didn't
> find any. The UN Security Council was told in a published report that
> their inspectors did not find evidence or physical proof of WMD's. The
> UN did not sanction the US attack on Iraq. The resolution was a UN
> resolution - not US. Get a hold on reality.

The UN Security Council gave its member states the authority to go to war,
when they passed the Resolution. They DID NOT say that the only way a
member country could go to war, was to obtain the approval of the UN. The
could have easily done that by simply changing one paragraph of that
resolution.
 
Jerry Okamura wrote:
> "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:4knyi.21222$aa7.13169@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>>> "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>> news:jvmyi.21191$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?
>>
>>
>> " Plausible Deniability "
>>
>>
>> A war built on lies.
>> An unnecessary war
>> A war and occupation mismanaged
>> A war run either incompetent generals or a lying president
>>
>> Franks
>> Bremer
>> Garner
>> Casey
>> Abazaid
>>
>> bush,jr said the the generals said addtional troops weren't needed.
>> Are the generals incompetent or is bush,jr lying?
>> OR worst of all both incompetent and lies
>>
>
> Evasion.....

Too tough for a response?

I'll make it easy

(a) Are the generals incompetent ?
(b) Or is bush,jr a liar?

Pick one. (a) or (b)

I'm being nice...I don't send you to do research.
I give you simple choices.

The mission has not been accomplished.
There is no chance that it will be accomplished by September.
Al-Maliki holds hands with Ahmadinejad which portends even a more
disasterous outcome.
Now Al-Mailiki schemes with Syria.

Pick one, it's easy (a) or (b)

Why have bush,jr and the Republicans failed America?

Ans: Incompetence, ignorance, arrogance.
 
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, 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"?

It was unprovoked.

Show otherwise.

RT
 
Jerry Okamura wrote:
> <wbyeats@ireland.com> wrote in message
> > On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 09:20:42 -0700, "Jerry Okamura"
> > <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> >><wbyeats@ireland.com> wrote in message
> >>> 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"?
> >
> > That statement ranks at the top of the ignorant posts you've made in
> > this thread. Cutting off oil and steel? Common sense. Saying Roosevelt
> > provoked Japan and its quest for empire is akin to saying that the
> > Jews provoked Hitler - or do you believe that one too? Can you say
> > Rape of Nanking. Can you say terror bombing of Shanghai? I suppose
> > that China provoked those? Oh, I'm sorry. According to many Japanese
> > history books used in school until very recently, neither event
> > occurred.
> >
> We told the world we were neutral. A neutral nation does not help one side
> in the conflict....a neutral nation does not take ANY side...... A neutral
> nation does not help the Chinese fight the Japanese. We did that when we
> sent our men, material to fight along side the Chinese against the Japanese.
> A neutral nation does not allow their citizens to go to England and fly
> missions against the Germans.

The US government did not help the Chinese. Show otherwise.

The US government permitted trade with both belligerents.

RT
 
"Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:G_ryi.19554$Lu.6073@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>> "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> news:4knyi.21222$aa7.13169@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>>> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>>>> "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?
>>>
>>>
>>> " Plausible Deniability "
>>>
>>>
>>> A war built on lies.
>>> An unnecessary war
>>> A war and occupation mismanaged
>>> A war run either incompetent generals or a lying president
>>>
>>> Franks
>>> Bremer
>>> Garner
>>> Casey
>>> Abazaid
>>>
>>> bush,jr said the the generals said addtional troops weren't needed.
>>> Are the generals incompetent or is bush,jr lying?
>>> OR worst of all both incompetent and lies
>>>
>>
>> Evasion.....
>
> Too tough for a response?
>
> I'll make it easy
>
> (a) Are the generals incompetent ?
> (b) Or is bush,jr a liar?
>
> Pick one. (a) or (b)

The Genrals are not incompetent, and Bush is no more a liar than any
politican....
>
> I'm being nice...I don't send you to do research.
> I give you simple choices.
>
> The mission has not been accomplished.
> There is no chance that it will be accomplished by September.
> Al-Maliki holds hands with Ahmadinejad which portends even a more
> disasterous outcome.
> Now Al-Mailiki schemes with Syria.
>
> Pick one, it's easy (a) or (b)

The mission has not been accomplished, but it cannot be accomplished if we
do not try to accomplish the mission. There is not chance that the mission
will be accomplished by September, but that does not mean the mission is a
failure. I do not know whether Al-Mailiki holding hands with Ahmandinejad
means anything at all. We talked to the Sovet leaders when they were
supposedly our arch enemies.
>
> Why have bush,jr and the Republicans failed America?
>
> Ans: Incompetence, ignorance, arrogance.

The people who have failed America are the democrats, not the republicans.
 
Jerry Okamura wrote:
> "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:G_ryi.19554$Lu.6073@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>>> "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>> news:4knyi.21222$aa7.13169@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>>>> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>>>>> "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?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> " Plausible Deniability "
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A war built on lies.
>>>> An unnecessary war
>>>> A war and occupation mismanaged
>>>> A war run either incompetent generals or a lying president
>>>>
>>>> Franks
>>>> Bremer
>>>> Garner
>>>> Casey
>>>> Abazaid
>>>>
>>>> bush,jr said the the generals said addtional troops weren't needed.
>>>> Are the generals incompetent or is bush,jr lying?
>>>> OR worst of all both incompetent and lies
>>>>
>>>
>>> Evasion.....
>>
>> Too tough for a response?
>>
>> I'll make it easy
>>
>> (a) Are the generals incompetent ?
>> (b) Or is bush,jr a liar?
>>
>> Pick one. (a) or (b)
>
> The Genrals are not incompetent, and Bush is no more a liar than any
> politican....


What explains their failure?
What explains their failure to ask bush,jr for more troops?
What explains their failed strategy?

>>
>> I'm being nice...I don't send you to do research.
>> I give you simple choices.
>>
>> The mission has not been accomplished.
>> There is no chance that it will be accomplished by September.
>> Al-Maliki holds hands with Ahmadinejad which portends even a more
>> disasterous outcome.
>> Now Al-Mailiki schemes with Syria.
>>
>> Pick one, it's easy (a) or (b)
>
> The mission has not been accomplished, but it cannot be accomplished
> if we do not try to accomplish the mission. There is not chance that
> the mission will be accomplished by September, but that does not mean
> the mission is a failure. I do not know whether Al-Mailiki holding
> hands with Ahmandinejad means anything at all. We talked to the
> Sovet leaders when they were supposedly our arch enemies.

We've tried to "accomplish the
mission" with five different
generals and have failed.

You admit that we have
failed with the sixth general

What do you think it will take
to succeed since this war
has lasted longer than
America's involvment in WWII?




>>
>> Why have bush,jr and the Republicans failed America?
>>
>> Ans: Incompetence, ignorance, arrogance.
>
> The people who have failed America are the democrats, not the
> republicans.

Again the Republican tactic
of trying to shift responsibility
away from loser, liar, and all
around incompetent bush,jr.

bush,jr is the "Commander guy",
the "Uniter-Decider"
by his own definition.

This fish stinks from the head.
 
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:46:15 -0700, "Jerry Okamura"
<okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:

>
><wbyeats@ireland.com> wrote in message
>news:4i1kc3131qh124morekuvn8ved1c0p8tc4@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 09:20:42 -0700, "Jerry Okamura"
>> <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> 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, 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"?
>>
>> That statement ranks at the top of the ignorant posts you've made in
>> this thread. Cutting off oil and steel? Common sense. Saying Roosevelt
>> provoked Japan and its quest for empire is akin to saying that the
>> Jews provoked Hitler - or do you believe that one too? Can you say
>> Rape of Nanking. Can you say terror bombing of Shanghai? I suppose
>> that China provoked those? Oh, I'm sorry. According to many Japanese
>> history books used in school until very recently, neither event
>> occurred.
>>
>We told the world we were neutral. A neutral nation does not help one side
>in the conflict....a neutral nation does not take ANY side...... A neutral
>nation does not help the Chinese fight the Japanese. We did that when we
>sent our men, material to fight along side the Chinese against the Japanese.
>A neutral nation does not allow their citizens to go to England and fly
>missions against the Germans.

How is it in Bizarro World today. Up is down? Right is left? Ignorance
is knowledge? The US sent no men to fight in China prior to the
declaration. The US sent no men to fight in Europe prior to the
declaration. The US did send materiel to both. If a US citizen decided
to join the RAF or the RCAF it was a personal decision - not national.
Oh - BTW - neutrality was FDR's political position. Anyone with half a
brain knew the US would be fighting Germany and Japan eventually. Now
tell us how the poor Japanese and Germans were provoked into the war
they had already started. And tell us how the Holocaust (it did
happen) was brought upon the Jews and others by themselves. Did you
get all this crap from those accurate Japanese history of WWII books?

WB Yeats
 
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:52:05 -0700, "Jerry Okamura"
<okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:


>>>> 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.
>>
>> The Senate under Bush is the one being discussed. Under Clinton Saddam
>> may very well have possessed WMD's. I don't know and neither do you.
>
>I do not really much care. It was not the reason I supported the war. One
>reason I supported the war, was because if you do not trust a country with
>WMD's, then you should not trust a country even if they do not have any
>WMD's at the time. I supported the war, because Saddam, when he had WMD"S,
>used them. Not only against the Iranians, but also against his own people.
>A person like that cannot be trusted with such a capability.

Next stop Iran, N. Korea, Cuba, Venezuela? You've never seen war just
like most of the neocon jerks. If you'd seen it, you would not wish to
become involved without a great deal of thought and soul searching.
The current administration didn't think, understand, execute, or plan
anything correctly.

>> The point is he didn't when US (mis)intel said he did. The UN didn't
>> find any. The UN Security Council was told in a published report that
>> their inspectors did not find evidence or physical proof of WMD's. The
>> UN did not sanction the US attack on Iraq. The resolution was a UN
>> resolution - not US. Get a hold on reality.
>
>The UN Security Council gave its member states the authority to go to war,
>when they passed the Resolution. They DID NOT say that the only way a
>member country could go to war, was to obtain the approval of the UN. The
>could have easily done that by simply changing one paragraph of that
>resolution.

Bullshit - the resolution was a UN resolution - not carte blanche for
the US to attack a sovereign country.

WB Yeats
 
Jerry Okamura wrote:
>
> "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.

Hogwash. We would have bought from Saddam just as before. Saddam and the
republicons were friends.

http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/images1/rumsfeld_&_hussein1.jpg


> >> >>>>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.

WHAT? Up for grabs? HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAH Maybe we shouldn't have invaded
then!

> > 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

Duh, to keep them honest. And it worked.

> "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

They had none.

> two resolutions on Iraq, one during the Clinton Administration and of course
> the one they passed during the Bush Adminstration?

They bought CHimpoleon's lies.

RT
 
Jerry Okamura wrote:
> "Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> > 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"
> >> >>> "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

SO WHAT???? Well, DUH, what if another threat arises???? DUH? Can't believe you're
this dumb.

> 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.

We were buying from Saddam, no problem. Why invade?

> >> 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

It makes a lot of difference. Humanitarian aid is NOT the same as cooking
up lies to invade.

> 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 wrote:
> "Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> > 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...?

Psst. Look up a few lines. "Iraq" - the subject... DUH

RT
 
Jerry Okamura 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?

WMDs. Remember? HELLO?


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/04/20030410-6.html
...
"But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that
they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about
and it is about."
...

Remember the launch in 45 minutes crap? The mushroom cloud nonsense???

RT
 
Jerry Okamura wrote:
> <wbyeats@ireland.com> wrote in message
> > 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?

Powell and Rice. Want to see the quotes?

> 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

Except he didn't and we knew that in 2001. Powell and Rice.

> 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

Yes, and? The pack of lies used to sell the war.

> 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....
 

Similar threads

WorldNews
Iraqi forces dig in as Mosul battle rages
Replies
0
Views
22
WorldNews
WorldNews
WorldNews
Iraqi forces press gains against Islamic State in eastern Mosul
Replies
0
Views
26
WorldNews
WorldNews
WorldNews
Millions throng Iraq shrine despite fears of IS attack
Replies
0
Views
23
WorldNews
WorldNews
WorldNews
Canada parliament votes to take in Yazidi refugees
Replies
0
Views
26
WorldNews
WorldNews
WorldNews
U.S. forces embedding more to help Iraqis retake Mosul: commander
Replies
0
Views
26
WorldNews
WorldNews
Back
Top