Guest governorswill@comcast.net Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 05:45:39 GMT, Myal <Dumaree@hotmail.com> wrote: >I guess its just wait and see , what do the heads behind the prez think >is the best political move for him to make , Mars? Swill -- "Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me." George Bush - 1/10/2007 Quote
Guest Patriot Games Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 "_invertebrate_" <_invertebrate_@wormhole.va> wrote in message news:xabyh.10739$fT1.664@trndny02... > "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@Yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:tK2yh.18393$VY5.2514@trnddc08... >> "Pro-Cho" <georgek@aol.com> wrote in message >> news:georgek-6EACBA.12081305022007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net... >>> CAIRO, Egypt - Syrian President Bashar Assad said in an interview aired >>> Monday that the Bush administration does not have the vision to bring >>> peace in Iraq and that his country could help calm the crisis if >>> approached. >> They need to be asked? > Do you suggest that they ought to do it without being asked? What's so hard about getting on the telephone with the PM, or Sadr, or whothefuckever and say, "Hey there! I'm the lop-eared Syrian ruler-guy, why don't you folks start acting right?" Why do they have to be asked to do that? What the fuck would be accomplished by doing that? Quote
Guest Patriot Games Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 "Gunner" <gunner@lightspeed.net> wrote in message news:kmkhs2tu4sfkoh60bgm07q55o5qrbhpr2e@4ax.com... > On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 17:20:49 GMT, "Patriot Games" > <Crazy_Bastard@Yahoo.com> wrote: >>> I'm not your niGGer Patti. You chase google. >>We already covered this. I know you're not my ******. My ******s are >>better educated than you, more polite, and usually do what needs to be >>done >>without having to be asked. > However..it does appear that Defenawhatever is someones bitch. You sensed that too? Hahahahhahaha!!! Quote
Guest Patriot Games Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 "Defendario" <Defendario@netscape.com> wrote in message news:52sc17F1q0pkmU2@mid.individual.net... > Patriot Games wrote: >> "Defendario" <Defendario@netscape.com> wrote in message >> news:52q5guF1on7s5U5@mid.individual.net... >>> Patriot Games wrote: >>>> "Defendario" <Defendario@netscape.com> wrote in message >>>> news:52nl7rF1pc3r4U2@mid.individual.net... >>>>> Patriot Games wrote: >>>>>> "Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_tools@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:1170546372.792471.147650@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... >>>>>>> Hmmm...seems that all disasters are not created equal.... >>>>>>> Why doesn't George wait for over a week like he did with Katrina >>>>>>> before moving on this disaster? >>>>>> Florida responded same day with requests to Federal officials. LA >>>>>> and NO officials did not. >>>>> Lying sos. The gov of LA requested emergency assistance before the >>>>> storm hit. >>>> Cite? >>> I'm not your niGGer Patti. You chase google. >> We already covered this. I know you're not my ******. My ******s are >> better educated than you, more polite, and usually do what needs to be >> done without having to be asked. > On Sunday, September 4th 2005, the Washington Post quoted a "senior > Bush official" who said that "as of Saturday Louisiana Governor Blanco > still had not declared a state of emergency". The goal was to make the > governor look like a fool. Why the newspaper quoted an UNNAMED source > would be interesting in its own right, but you can be sure that the > Post's article will be quoted widely by the neocons who won't bother > to mention that the Post printed a correction on Monday, 5 September > 2005. > Now read the correction: > "A September. 4th article on the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina > incorrectly said that Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco (D) had > not declared a state of emergency. She declared an emergency on Aug. > 26.". > George W. Bush... liar-in-chief and a disgrace to America. > :-) Doesn't mean SHIT. FEMA had plenty of stuff nearby. That isn't the issue. It was the Nigger Mayor's job, nobody else's, to evacuate his people. He had a thousand busses parked that he could have used. He didn't. He told them to walk their ass to the Dome and abandoned them! That had NOTHING to do with Bush. Quote
Guest Tough Tonto Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 >>>> CAIRO, Egypt - Syrian President Bashar Assad said in an interview aired >>>> Monday that the Bush administration does not have the vision to bring >>>> peace in Iraq and that his country could help calm the crisis if >>>> approached. >>> They need to be asked? >> Do you suggest that they ought to do it without being asked? > > What's so hard about getting on the telephone with the PM, or Sadr, or > whothefuckever and say, "Hey there! I'm the lop-eared Syrian ruler-guy, > why don't you folks start acting right?" > Why do they have to be asked to do that? > What the fuck would be accomplished by doing that? They believe that some belligerent loudmouth like you would answer the phone. Quote
Guest _invertebrate_ Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@Yahoo.com> wrote in message news:gvryh.37328$5U4.20229@trnddc07... > "_invertebrate_" <_invertebrate_@wormhole.va> wrote in message > news:xabyh.10739$fT1.664@trndny02... >> "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@Yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:tK2yh.18393$VY5.2514@trnddc08... >>> "Pro-Cho" <georgek@aol.com> wrote in message >>> news:georgek-6EACBA.12081305022007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net... >>>> CAIRO, Egypt - Syrian President Bashar Assad said in an interview aired >>>> Monday that the Bush administration does not have the vision to bring >>>> peace in Iraq and that his country could help calm the crisis if >>>> approached. >>> They need to be asked? >> Do you suggest that they ought to do it without being asked? > > What's so hard about getting on the telephone with the PM, or Sadr, or > whothefuckever and say, "Hey there! I'm the lop-eared Syrian ruler-guy, > why don't you folks start acting right?" > > Why do they have to be asked to do that? > > What the fuck would be accomplished by doing that? I don't think you are accurately describing their offer. From the AP article that was cited: "`We're not the only player, we're not the single player. But we are the main player in this issue,' he said. `Our role is going to be through supporting the dialogue between the different parties inside Iraq with support from the other parties, like the Americans and any other country in the world. So that's how we can stop the violence.'" He's suggesting something more intensive than a single phone call. The Iraq Study Group has suggested that Syria could help. "The U.S. bipartisan Iraq Study Group recommended in December that the Bush administration make diplomatic overtures to Syria and Iran to use their influence with Sunni and Shiite extremist groups to curb the violence and prevent the conflict from spilling over into the rest of the Middle East." Possibly Syria's self-interest and ours will coincide. "He insisted that Syria, Iran and other regional powers have a stake in bringing peace to Iraq. "`So if we have this chaos in Iraq, it will spill over to Syria and to other countries. So saying this, like saying that the Syrian government is working against the Syrian interest, this is impossible,' he said." It is absolutely not guranteed to work. But this troop surge probably won't work either. It is beyond me why our leaders can be seen as virtuous for being willing to sacrifice American lives, and not seen as foolish and cowardly for refusing to sit down and have a fucking conversation. Syria may try to work against our interests, so we should bear that in mind while we sit down and talk. _invertebrate_ Quote
Guest Patriot Games Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 "Tough Tonto" <Chemo@subby.com> wrote in message news:tDtyh.2192$Yl3.2169@trndny09... >>>>> CAIRO, Egypt - Syrian President Bashar Assad said in an interview >>>>> aired >>>>> Monday that the Bush administration does not have the vision to bring >>>>> peace in Iraq and that his country could help calm the crisis if >>>>> approached. >>>> They need to be asked? >>> Do you suggest that they ought to do it without being asked? >> What's so hard about getting on the telephone with the PM, or Sadr, or >> whothefuckever and say, "Hey there! I'm the lop-eared Syrian ruler-guy, >> why don't you folks start acting right?" >> Why do they have to be asked to do that? >> What the fuck would be accomplished by doing that? > They believe that some belligerent loudmouth like you > would answer the phone. Thanks for ducking the questions. Quote
Guest crusader Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 In article <B5Kyh.20712$VY5.16945@trnddc08>, "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@Yahoo.com> wrote: > "Tough Tonto" <Chemo@subby.com> wrote in message > news:tDtyh.2192$Yl3.2169@trndny09... > >>>>> CAIRO, Egypt - Syrian President Bashar Assad said in an interview > >>>>> aired > >>>>> Monday that the Bush administration does not have the vision to bring > >>>>> peace in Iraq and that his country could help calm the crisis if > >>>>> approached. > >>>> They need to be asked? > >>> Do you suggest that they ought to do it without being asked? > >> What's so hard about getting on the telephone with the PM, or Sadr, or > >> whothefuckever and say, "Hey there! I'm the lop-eared Syrian ruler-guy, > >> why don't you folks start acting right?" > >> Why do they have to be asked to do that? > >> What the fuck would be accomplished by doing that? > > They believe that some belligerent loudmouth like you > > would answer the phone. > > Thanks for ducking the questions. O.P. CAIRO, Egypt - Syrian President Bashar Assad said in an interview aired Monday that the Bush administration does not have the vision to bring peace in Iraq and that his country could help calm the crisis if approached. Assad told ABC's "Good Morning America" that U.S.-Syrian cooperation was the "last chance" to avert a civil war in Iraq Quote
Guest Tough Tonto Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 >> >>>>> CAIRO, Egypt - Syrian President Bashar Assad said in an interview >> >>>>> aired >> >>>>> Monday that the Bush administration does not have the vision to >> >>>>> bring >> >>>>> peace in Iraq and that his country could help calm the crisis if >> >>>>> approached. >> >>>> They need to be asked? >> >>> Do you suggest that they ought to do it without being asked? >> >> What's so hard about getting on the telephone with the PM, or Sadr, or >> >> whothefuckever and say, "Hey there! I'm the lop-eared Syrian >> >> ruler-guy, >> >> why don't you folks start acting right?" >> >> Why do they have to be asked to do that? >> >> What the fuck would be accomplished by doing that? >> > They believe that some belligerent loudmouth like you >> > would answer the phone. >> >> Thanks for ducking the questions. > > O.P. > > CAIRO, Egypt - Syrian President Bashar Assad said in an interview aired > Monday that the Bush administration does not have the vision to bring > peace in Iraq and that his country could help calm the crisis if > approached. Assad told ABC's "Good Morning America" that U.S.-Syrian > cooperation was the "last chance" to avert a civil war in Iraq Quote
Guest _invertebrate_ Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@Yahoo.com> wrote in message news:B5Kyh.20712$VY5.16945@trnddc08... > "Tough Tonto" <Chemo@subby.com> wrote in message > news:tDtyh.2192$Yl3.2169@trndny09... >>> What's so hard about getting on the telephone with the PM, or Sadr, or >>> whothefuckever and say, "Hey there! I'm the lop-eared Syrian ruler-guy, >>> why don't you folks start acting right?" >>> Why do they have to be asked to do that? >>> What the fuck would be accomplished by doing that? >> They believe that some belligerent loudmouth like you >> would answer the phone. > > Thanks for ducking the questions. I think my response addresses your questions pretty directly, in case you are interested in actually discussing the issue. _invertebrate_ Quote
Guest crusader Posted February 9, 2007 Posted February 9, 2007 In article <VgOyh.2292$Yl3.812@trndny09>, "Tough Tonto" <Chemo@subby.com> wrote: > >> >>>>> CAIRO, Egypt - Syrian President Bashar Assad said in an interview > >> >>>>> aired > >> >>>>> Monday that the Bush administration does not have the vision to > >> >>>>> bring > >> >>>>> peace in Iraq and that his country could help calm the crisis if > >> >>>>> approached. > >> >>>> They need to be asked? > >> >>> Do you suggest that they ought to do it without being asked? > >> >> What's so hard about getting on the telephone with the PM, or Sadr, or > >> >> whothefuckever and say, "Hey there! I'm the lop-eared Syrian > >> >> ruler-guy, > >> >> why don't you folks start acting right?" > >> >> Why do they have to be asked to do that? > >> >> What the fuck would be accomplished by doing that? > >> > They believe that some belligerent loudmouth like you > >> > would answer the phone. > >> > >> Thanks for ducking the questions. > > > > O.P. > > > > CAIRO, Egypt - Syrian President Bashar Assad said in an interview aired > > Monday that the Bush administration does not have the vision to bring > > peace in Iraq and that his country could help calm the crisis if > > approached. Assad told ABC's "Good Morning America" that U.S.-Syrian > > cooperation was the "last chance" to avert a civil war in Iraq Quote
Guest Patriot Games Posted February 9, 2007 Posted February 9, 2007 "_invertebrate_" <_invertebrate_@wormhole.va> wrote in message news:xBOyh.13901$fT1.80@trndny02... > "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@Yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:B5Kyh.20712$VY5.16945@trnddc08... >> "Tough Tonto" <Chemo@subby.com> wrote in message >> news:tDtyh.2192$Yl3.2169@trndny09... >>>> What's so hard about getting on the telephone with the PM, or Sadr, or >>>> whothefuckever and say, "Hey there! I'm the lop-eared Syrian >>>> ruler-guy, >>>> why don't you folks start acting right?" >>>> Why do they have to be asked to do that? >>>> What the fuck would be accomplished by doing that? >>> They believe that some belligerent loudmouth like you >>> would answer the phone. >> Thanks for ducking the questions. > I think my response addresses your questions pretty directly, in case you > are interested in actually discussing the issue. What EXACTLY can Syria do or say? Quote
Guest _invertebrate_ Posted February 10, 2007 Posted February 10, 2007 "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@Yahoo.com> wrote in message news:O%2zh.1057$Yn4.770@trnddc03... > "_invertebrate_" <_invertebrate_@wormhole.va> wrote in message > news:xBOyh.13901$fT1.80@trndny02... >> I think my response addresses your questions pretty directly, in case you >> are interested in actually discussing the issue. > > What EXACTLY can Syria do or say? EXACTLY? I don't know enough about diplomacy to precisely describe a scenario. He is offering to support "the dialogue between the different parties inside Iraq with support from the other parties, like the Americans and any other country in the world." It seems Syria could be in as good a place as any other country to impartially foster meetings between the parties involved. For some reason there seems to be a convention that a third party has to intercede in order for opposed sides to have an excuse to discuss the possibility of ending a conflict, rather than just wait for one's side to win, surrender, or be defeated. And an outside party can be a helpful goad when the parties fighting seem otherwise disinclined to talk. The fact that they are fighting is a good sign that they are disinclined to talk. If we were to take Syria up on this, I guess the word would go out that whatever sides exist in this fight should send representatives to Damascus or somewhere, and they would sit and talk and see if there was any room for compromise to end the fighting. If the sides wouldn't take Syria up on this, then nothing would happen. As I said, I don't know much about diplomacy. I just know that, historically, parties representing different countries, even countries with bad relationships with each others, have met and had discussions with each other, and that sometimes these discussions have been fruitful. The Bush administration seems relatively unaware of this, so a country in the region that wants to make this happen seems like something Bush should be convinced to take advantage of. Not that I entirely trust Syria's intentions, but I don't know how they would be likely to make things worse by getting Iraqis talking to each other. _invertebrate_ Quote
Guest Patriot Games Posted February 10, 2007 Posted February 10, 2007 "_invertebrate_" <_invertebrate_@wormhole.va> wrote in message news:2a8zh.21$8b1.2@trndny03... > "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@Yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:O%2zh.1057$Yn4.770@trnddc03... >> "_invertebrate_" <_invertebrate_@wormhole.va> wrote in message >> news:xBOyh.13901$fT1.80@trndny02... >>> I think my response addresses your questions pretty directly, in case >>> you are interested in actually discussing the issue. >> What EXACTLY can Syria do or say? > EXACTLY? I don't know enough about diplomacy to precisely describe a > scenario. But my pinning you down made you think about it. > For some reason there seems to be a convention that a third party has to > intercede in order for opposed sides to have an excuse to discuss the > possibility of ending a conflict, rather than just wait for one's side to > win, surrender, or be defeated. Without a thrid party one side or the other might just shoot the other across the table! > If we were to take Syria up on this, I guess the word would go out that > whatever sides exist in this fight should send representatives to Damascus > or somewhere, and they would sit and talk and see if there was any room > for compromise to end the fighting. If the sides wouldn't take Syria up > on this, then nothing would happen. Here's the problem. Iraq has a legitimately elected civilian government. The notion of their being another side IS WRONG. There's ONE side. The legitimately elected civilian gov't IS Iraq. Everyone else falls into ONE of these categories: 1) Peaceful law-abiding citizens. 2) Iraqi insurgent-citizens, criminals. 3) Foreign terrorists, criminals. Explain to me why ANYBODY would negotiate with CRIMINALS? > Not that I entirely trust Syria's intentions, but I don't know how they > would be likely to make things worse by getting Iraqis talking to each > other. You think it would be beneficial to LEGITIMIZE CRIMINALS as an actual legal entity thereby worthy of COMPROMISE? Quote
Guest pallet Posted February 10, 2007 Posted February 10, 2007 In article <%1qzh.328$yg7.253@trnddc08>, "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@Yahoo.com> wrote: > "_invertebrate_" <_invertebrate_@wormhole.va> wrote in message > news:2a8zh.21$8b1.2@trndny03... > > "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@Yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:O%2zh.1057$Yn4.770@trnddc03... > >> "_invertebrate_" <_invertebrate_@wormhole.va> wrote in message > >> news:xBOyh.13901$fT1.80@trndny02... > >>> I think my response addresses your questions pretty directly, in case > >>> you are interested in actually discussing the issue. > >> What EXACTLY can Syria do or say? > > EXACTLY? I don't know enough about diplomacy to precisely describe a > > scenario. > > But my pinning you down made you think about it. > > > For some reason there seems to be a convention that a third party has to > > intercede in order for opposed sides to have an excuse to discuss the > > possibility of ending a conflict, rather than just wait for one's side to > > win, surrender, or be defeated. > > Without a thrid party one side or the other might just shoot the other > across the table! > > > If we were to take Syria up on this, I guess the word would go out that > > whatever sides exist in this fight should send representatives to Damascus > > or somewhere, and they would sit and talk and see if there was any room > > for compromise to end the fighting. If the sides wouldn't take Syria up > > on this, then nothing would happen. > > Here's the problem. Iraq has a legitimately elected civilian government. > The notion of their being another side IS WRONG. There's ONE side. The > legitimately elected civilian gov't IS Iraq. Everyone else falls into ONE > of these categories: > > 1) Peaceful law-abiding citizens. > 2) Iraqi insurgent-citizens, criminals. > 3) Foreign terrorists, criminals. > > Explain to me why ANYBODY would negotiate with CRIMINALS? > > > Not that I entirely trust Syria's intentions, but I don't know how they > > would be likely to make things worse by getting Iraqis talking to each > > other. > > You think it would be beneficial to LEGITIMIZE CRIMINALS as an actual legal > entity thereby worthy of COMPROMISE? the bushies are the criminals. and putting up a puppet in Baghdad doesn't cut it. as the following article points out. the U.S. is not wanted in these discussions. so there! By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA, Associated Press writer Thu Feb 1, 6:11 AM ET BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraq invited officials from Iran, Syria and other neighboring nations to Baghdad next month to discuss the security situation in the country, a government official said Thursday. The Foreign Ministry official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to disclose the information, said the talks will be the first of 10 such meetings to take place in the Iraqi capital. Iran was the venue for the last meeting in July. Along with Iran and Syria, Iraq has invited Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Turkey to the discussions. The Arab League, Organization of Islamic Conference and the United Nations also have been asked to attend, the official said. Quote
Guest _invertebrate_ Posted February 11, 2007 Posted February 11, 2007 "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@Yahoo.com> wrote in message news:%1qzh.328$yg7.253@trnddc08... > "_invertebrate_" <_invertebrate_@wormhole.va> wrote in message > news:2a8zh.21$8b1.2@trndny03... >> "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@Yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:O%2zh.1057$Yn4.770@trnddc03... >>> "_invertebrate_" <_invertebrate_@wormhole.va> wrote in message >>> news:xBOyh.13901$fT1.80@trndny02... >>>> I think my response addresses your questions pretty directly, in case >>>> you are interested in actually discussing the issue. >>> What EXACTLY can Syria do or say? >> EXACTLY? I don't know enough about diplomacy to precisely describe a >> scenario. > > But my pinning you down made you think about it. Good on you. >> For some reason there seems to be a convention that a third party has to >> intercede in order for opposed sides to have an excuse to discuss the >> possibility of ending a conflict, rather than just wait for one's side to >> win, surrender, or be defeated. > > Without a thrid party one side or the other might just shoot the other > across the table! How does the third party prevent this? > Here's the problem. Iraq has a legitimately elected civilian government. > The notion of their being another side IS WRONG. There's ONE side. The > legitimately elected civilian gov't IS Iraq. Everyone else falls into ONE > of these categories: > > 1) Peaceful law-abiding citizens. > 2) Iraqi insurgent-citizens, criminals. > 3) Foreign terrorists, criminals. The categories overlap. For example, Sadr sits in Parliament and commands death squads. I don't think it's entirely clear how much the government and the criminals are intertwined. > Explain to me why ANYBODY would negotiate with CRIMINALS? > >> Not that I entirely trust Syria's intentions, but I don't know how they >> would be likely to make things worse by getting Iraqis talking to each >> other. > > You think it would be beneficial to LEGITIMIZE CRIMINALS as an actual > legal entity thereby worthy of COMPROMISE? The key issue is a practical one. Will it do more harm to continue the fighting or to compromise? It depends on what the fighters want. It is somewhat unrealistic to consider the fighters primarily criminals when the country is in a state of near-anarchy, and the criminals are sitting in the government. _invertebrate_ Quote
Guest Patriot Games Posted February 12, 2007 Posted February 12, 2007 "pallet" <georgek@aol.com> wrote in message news:georgek-26EB46.13351010022007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net... > the bushies are the criminals. and putting up a puppet in Baghdad > doesn't cut it. as the following article points out. the U.S. is not > wanted in these discussions. so there! I like where I am in life for a number of reasons, here's one. My children have grown way past being teenagers and my grandchildren have a long way to go before they are teenagers - which means I don't have any teenagers in my life. And you aren't going to be the next one. > Let's see. we kill (execute) people to demonstrate , killing is wrong. We kill the enemy because its fun. Quote
Guest Patriot Games Posted February 12, 2007 Posted February 12, 2007 "_invertebrate_" <_invertebrate_@wormhole.va> wrote in message news:M6Azh.2313$H77.196@trndny08... > "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@Yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:%1qzh.328$yg7.253@trnddc08... >>> For some reason there seems to be a convention that a third party has to >>> intercede in order for opposed sides to have an excuse to discuss the >>> possibility of ending a conflict, rather than just wait for one's side >>> to win, surrender, or be defeated. >> Without a thrid party one side or the other might just shoot the other >> across the table! > How does the third party prevent this? Sorry, that should have been funnier... >> Here's the problem. Iraq has a legitimately elected civilian government. >> The notion of their being another side IS WRONG. There's ONE side. The >> legitimately elected civilian gov't IS Iraq. Everyone else falls into >> ONE of these categories: >> 1) Peaceful law-abiding citizens. >> 2) Iraqi insurgent-citizens, criminals. >> 3) Foreign terrorists, criminals. > The categories overlap. For example, Sadr sits in Parliament and commands > death squads. I don't think it's entirely clear how much the government > and the criminals are intertwined. I don't disagree. So, who EXACTLY is this OTHER SIDE we're suppossed to negotiate with? Sadr has already said he has stood down. >> You think it would be beneficial to LEGITIMIZE CRIMINALS as an actual >> legal entity thereby worthy of COMPROMISE? > The key issue is a practical one. Will it do more harm to continue the > fighting or to compromise? Exactly WHO do we compromise WITH? Who's in charge of the OTHER SIDE? Do you have their telephone number? Maybe Mickey-ears there in Syria can give them a call and find out EXACTLY what they want. Do they have an address? We could get Condi to write up a perfumy letter asking for their list of demands. That would be nice to have to start negotiations, eh? > It depends on what the fighters want. It is somewhat unrealistic to > consider the fighters primarily criminals when the country is in a state > of near-anarchy, and the criminals are sitting in the government. Iraq is a country of over 20 million. That means 19,995,000 are not participating in this alleged anarchy... I'm not saying its wonderful over there but maybe you could start seeing the big picture. Isn't it just a wee bit UNUSUAL when a THIRD PARTY (two in this case) arrive on the scene of the hostages-taken bank robbery and OFFER to mediate a negotiation WHEN WE DON"T EVEN KNOW WHO THE BANK ROBBERS ARE YET? If you don't smell something fishy get your nose checked.... Quote
Guest GW Chimpzilla's Eye-Rack Neocon Ut Posted February 12, 2007 Posted February 12, 2007 Patriot Games wrote: > "pallet" <georgek@aol.com> wrote in message > news:georgek-26EB46.13351010022007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net... >> the bushies are the criminals. and putting up a puppet in Baghdad >> doesn't cut it. as the following article points out. the U.S. is not >> wanted in these discussions. so there! > > I like where I am in life for a number of reasons, here's one. My children > have grown way past being teenagers and my grandchildren have a long way to > go before they are teenagers - which means I don't have any teenagers in my > life. > > And you aren't going to be the next one. > >> Let's see. we kill (execute) people to demonstrate , killing is wrong. > > We kill the enemy because its fun. You don't kill amy enemy because you're a chickenhawk. -- There are only two kinds of Republicans: Millionaires and fools. Quote
Guest firelock_ny@hotmail.com Posted February 12, 2007 Posted February 12, 2007 On Feb 10, 4:35 pm, pallet <geor...@aol.com> wrote: > In article <%1qzh.328$yg7.253@trnddc08>, > "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bast...@Yahoo.com> wrote: > > > You think it would be beneficial to LEGITIMIZE CRIMINALS as an actual legal > > entity thereby worthy of COMPROMISE? > > the bushies are the criminals. and putting up a puppet in Baghdad > doesn't cut it. The majority of the Iraqi people voted for this "puppet". They aren't interested in being ruled by a minority who think that the best contribution to the future of Iraq is to wrap yourself in explosives and blow up a crowd of civilians in a marketplace for Allah. -- Walt Smith Firelock on DALNet Quote
Guest Patriot Games Posted February 13, 2007 Posted February 13, 2007 "GW Chimpzilla's Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia" <gw@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:kk5Ah.273678$aJ.202275@attbi_s21... > Patriot Games wrote: >>> Let's see. we kill (execute) people to demonstrate , killing is wrong. >> We kill the enemy because its fun. > You don't kill amy enemy because you're a chickenhawk. If that makes you feel warm and fuzzy then feel free to believe it. Quote
Guest strabo Posted February 13, 2007 Posted February 13, 2007 firelock_ny@hotmail.com wrote: > On Feb 10, 4:35 pm, pallet <geor...@aol.com> wrote: >> In article <%1qzh.328$yg7.253@trnddc08>, >> "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bast...@Yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> You think it would be beneficial to LEGITIMIZE CRIMINALS as an actual legal >>> entity thereby worthy of COMPROMISE? >> the bushies are the criminals. and putting up a puppet in Baghdad >> doesn't cut it. > > The majority of the Iraqi people voted for this "puppet". > They aren't interested in being ruled by a minority > who think that the best contribution to the > future of Iraq is to wrap yourself in explosives > and blow up a crowd of civilians in a marketplace > for Allah. > A majority voted for Hitler. A majority voted for Stalin. "The people don Quote
Guest _invertebrate_ Posted February 14, 2007 Posted February 14, 2007 "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@Yahoo.com> wrote in message news:U55Ah.10340$Yn4.334@trnddc03... > "_invertebrate_" <_invertebrate_@wormhole.va> wrote in message > news:M6Azh.2313$H77.196@trndny08... >> "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bastard@Yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:%1qzh.328$yg7.253@trnddc08... >>>> For some reason there seems to be a convention that a third party has >>>> to intercede in order for opposed sides to have an excuse to discuss >>>> the possibility of ending a conflict, rather than just wait for one's >>>> side to win, surrender, or be defeated. >>> Without a thrid party one side or the other might just shoot the other >>> across the table! >> How does the third party prevent this? > > Sorry, that should have been funnier... It was kind of funny. >>> Here's the problem. Iraq has a legitimately elected civilian >>> government. The notion of their being another side IS WRONG. There's >>> ONE side. The legitimately elected civilian gov't IS Iraq. Everyone >>> else falls into ONE of these categories: >>> 1) Peaceful law-abiding citizens. >>> 2) Iraqi insurgent-citizens, criminals. >>> 3) Foreign terrorists, criminals. >> The categories overlap. For example, Sadr sits in Parliament and >> commands death squads. I don't think it's entirely clear how much the >> government and the criminals are intertwined. > > I don't disagree. So, who EXACTLY is this OTHER SIDE we're suppossed to > negotiate with? The IRAQIS negotiate. The US could only be an interested outside party. As far as who exactly the people are, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency probably does a fairly accurate job of naming the major insurgent groups. So whichever groups are willing to come to the table are the ones that negotiate. > Sadr has already said he has stood down. I haven't heard that. I heard that in January he and some cohorts had decided to end their boycott of Parliament. I believe other members have ties to violent groups, and I can try to find reporting on such ties if you are interested. Actually, I overlooked a point that might be more important. Iraq's Parliament is hardly functioning because so few members are showing up, out of fear or out of a sense of futility. The government barely exists, practically abdicating the legitimacy conferred upon it by the elections. The vacuum gets filled partly by death squads, and partly by fairly legitimate local governments just making do without a central authority. I suppose these local authorities would also have to be involved in any negotiations. >>> You think it would be beneficial to LEGITIMIZE CRIMINALS as an actual >>> legal entity thereby worthy of COMPROMISE? >> The key issue is a practical one. Will it do more harm to continue the >> fighting or to compromise? > > Exactly WHO do we compromise WITH? Who's in charge of the OTHER SIDE? Do > you have their telephone number? Maybe Mickey-ears there in Syria can > give them a call and find out EXACTLY what they want. > > Do they have an address? We could get Condi to write up a perfumy letter > asking for their list of demands. That would be nice to have to start > negotiations, eh? I'll reiterate that the US wouldn't really be a central party in the negotiations. You rightly point out that groups and their leaders aren't necessarily recognizable and easy to communicate with, and they may not wish to identify themselves. This is a problem that is not necessarily insurmountable. If the call goes out for negotiations to begin, the groups can make it known whether they wish to participate. Not all groups have to participate, that just means they won't have any say in the negotiations. The negotiations will be conducted by whomever shows up, and if too many groups abstain than the negotiations would be irrelevant. If the negotiations are productive, there will be some new understandings between the groups that could lessen the bloodshed. The negotiations might not be productive, but it seems like a worthwhile gamble. >> It depends on what the fighters want. It is somewhat unrealistic to >> consider the fighters primarily criminals when the country is in a state >> of near-anarchy, and the criminals are sitting in the government. > > Iraq is a country of over 20 million. That means 19,995,000 are not > participating in this alleged anarchy... A silly way to frame things. Iraq doesn't need Ahmed to act anarchic in order to be in anarchy. Iraq is more anarchic the less power a legitimate government has to fight threats to law and order in Ahmed's neighborhood, no matter how few villains there are. > I'm not saying its wonderful over there but maybe you could start seeing > the big picture. > > Isn't it just a wee bit UNUSUAL when a THIRD PARTY (two in this case) > arrive on the scene of the hostages-taken bank robbery and OFFER to > mediate a negotiation WHEN WE DON"T EVEN KNOW WHO THE BANK ROBBERS ARE > YET? > > If you don't smell something fishy get your nose checked.... Assuming there is something fishy, what do you think Syria's intentions might be, and how would they do any harm? _invertebrate_ Quote
Guest firelock_ny@hotmail.com Posted February 14, 2007 Posted February 14, 2007 On Feb 13, 6:24 pm, strabo <str...@flashlight.net> wrote: > firelock...@hotmail.com wrote: > > On Feb 10, 4:35 pm, pallet <geor...@aol.com> wrote: > >> In article <%1qzh.328$yg7.253@trnddc08>, > >> "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bast...@Yahoo.com> wrote: > > >>> You think it would be beneficial to LEGITIMIZE CRIMINALS as an actual legal > >>> entity thereby worthy of COMPROMISE? > >> the bushies are the criminals. and putting up a puppet in Baghdad > >> doesn't cut it. > > > The majority of the Iraqi people voted for this "puppet". > > They aren't interested in being ruled by a minority > > who think that the best contribution to the > > future of Iraq is to wrap yourself in explosives > > and blow up a crowd of civilians in a marketplace > > for Allah. > > A majority voted for Hitler. A majority voted for Stalin. A majority voted for John F. Kennedy, Carter and Clinton. By your argument, they're as bad as Hitler and Stalin. Isn't that nice? > "The people don't need to know the results of the election; > it's enough for them to know that there WAS an election." > - Josef Stalin > > "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. > Those who count the votes decide everything." > - Josef Stalin So for Stalin it doesn't matter who votes for who...are you claiming there's a parallel in Iraq? You have evidence for vote fraud there, or you're just assuming it because it fits your mythology? > That's the beauty of democracies. One can always blame the voters. Interesting that you keep harping on "Stalin" while pretending that you're talking about "democracies". It would tend to make one wonder if you have any clue what you are talking about. -- Walt Smith Firelock on DALNet Quote
Guest Patriot Games Posted February 14, 2007 Posted February 14, 2007 "strabo" <strabo@flashlight.net> wrote in message news:1171409173_79@sp6iad.superfeed.net... > firelock_ny@hotmail.com wrote: >> On Feb 10, 4:35 pm, pallet <geor...@aol.com> wrote: >>> In article <%1qzh.328$yg7.253@trnddc08>, >>> "Patriot Games" <Crazy_Bast...@Yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> You think it would be beneficial to LEGITIMIZE CRIMINALS as an actual >>>> legal >>>> entity thereby worthy of COMPROMISE? >>> the bushies are the criminals. and putting up a puppet in Baghdad >>> doesn't cut it. >> The majority of the Iraqi people voted for this "puppet". >> They aren't interested in being ruled by a minority >> who think that the best contribution to the >> future of Iraq is to wrap yourself in explosives >> and blow up a crowd of civilians in a marketplace >> for Allah. > A majority voted for Hitler. A majority voted for Stalin. > That's the beauty of democracies. One can always blame the voters. Anybody could have put up candidates.... Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.