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

August 18, 2007

"Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message

news:46c63682$0$15368$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...

>

> "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message

> news:1jnxi.14221$t9.10266@bignews7.bellsouth.net...

>> Jerry Okamura wrote:

>>> <wbyeats@ireland.com> wrote in message

>>> news:ssbbc3lbvq648s20778q3k7ltpl51hcrko@4ax.com...

>>>> On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 01:53:45 -0700, "Jerry Okamura"

>>>> <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:

>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> <wbyeats@ireland.com> wrote in message

>>>>> news:47u9c39k4b52vcmhut1u9jr5lt9nl52550@4ax.com...

>>>>>> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 14:41:52 -0700, "Jerry Okamura"

>>>>>> <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> <wbyeats@ireland.com> wrote in message

>>>>>>> news:s2h9c3h37obkroj2kpri1hg9d7c5qrgkgl@4ax.com...

>>>>>>>> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 09:38:45 -0700, "Jerry Okamura"

>>>>>>>> <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> <wbyeats@ireland.com> wrote in message

>>>>>>>>> news:f3r8c35j2esfp2h8g5hgois0ggc0dfa56a@4ax.com...

>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 02:13:47 -0700, "Jerry Okamura"

>>>>>>>>>> <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> 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.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> 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.

>>>>

>>>> You're right - Iraq is stale. The end of the year is the quickest the

>>>> US could leave period.

>>>>

>>> Why?

>>

>> Because.

>>

> A response one gets when talking to children.....

Your question is dumb and doesn't deserve a response.

How do you propose moving about 300,000 people and all their equipment?

(160,000 Military, ~140,000 American contractors)

Here I am responding to another one of your dumb quizzes!

August 18, 2007

On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 13:59:07 -0700, "Jerry Okamura"

<okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:

(snip)

>>>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.

C'mon - take a guess. The first letter is A.

>>> Which brings us back to my comment. "If" you believe that

>>>success is not possible, then why don't the democrats following your

>>>advice

>>>and withdrawing our military IMMEDIATELY....

>>

>> I don't know - ask them. Because they're not as smart as me? (vbg)

>> Bush is in it up to his neck (or over his head). The Dems are in it up

>> to their chest. It's all relative responsibility, but, as Truman said,

>> the buck stops here.

>>

>Yes, and apparently Bush feels that success is important, and he is trying

>to do just that. The dems on the other hand, seem to be sitting on a fence,

>trying to decide which side of the fence they should be one, holding their

>finger to the wind, to make that decision....

At this point Bush's search for success is like Curtis LeMay's plan to

bomb Viet Nam back into the Stone Age. He might succeed but there's

not going to be anything left on which to pin success. It's a total

fuck up and most of America now realizes it. The scenario I posited

above seems now to be the most probable outcome.

WB Yeats

August 19, 2007

Jerry Okamura wrote:

>

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

> news:46C3D47C.17097B7E@hotmMOVEail.com...

> > Jerry Okamura wrote:

> >>

> >> Is success in Iraq important or is it not important? Are you going to

> >> answer me one of these days?

> >

> > Define success. Are you going to answer me one of these days?

> >

> You either have not been reading my messages, or you have chosen to ignore

As if I read each and every of your posts..

> my responses. I have defined success a lot of times on these newsgroups.

Then you shouldn't have any trouble pasting it in again ->

> Besides, you don't need my definition of success. Use your own definition

> of success, then answer the question.

August 19, 2007

Jerry Okamura wrote:

> "Sid9" <sid9@verizon.net> wrote in message

> > Jerry Okamura wrote:

> >> <rayadaps54@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> >>> On Aug 16, 4:17 pm, "Sid9" <s...@verizon.net> wrote:

> >>>> Jerry Okamura wrote:

> >>>>> "Sid9" <s...@verizon.net> wrote in message

> >>>>>> Jerry Okamura wrote:

> >>>>>>> "Rich Travsky" <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message

> >>>>>>> news:46C3D47C.17097B7E@hotmMOVEail.com...

> >>>>>>>> Jerry Okamura wrote:

> >>>>>>>>> Is success in Iraq important or is it not important? Are you

> >>>>>>>>> going to answer me one of these days?

> >>>>

> >>>>>>>> Define success. Are you going to answer me one of these days?

> >>>>

> >>>>>>> You either have not been reading my messages, or you have chosen

> >>>>>>> to ignore my responses. I have defined success a lot of times

> >>>>>>> on these newsgroups. Besides, you don't need my definition of

> >>>>>>> success. Use your own definition of success, then answer the

> >>>>>>> question.

> >>>>

> >>>>>> There is no "success" in an

> >>>>>> ill conceived enterprise that

> >>>>>> was doomed from the it's

> >>>>>> flawed concept

> >>>>

> >>>>> If you cannot achieve success, and if success is not important

> >>>>> then we should not be there in the first place, and we should get

> >>>>> the helll out of Dodge IMMEDIATELY. If success is not important,

> >>>>> then it does not matte what Patreus has to say about progess,

> >>>>> because success is not imporant or we cannot achieve success in

> >>>>> any event, so why should the democrats wait until they hear from

> >>>>> Patreus? Why aren't they taking aciton to get us our of Dodge

> >>>>> IMMEDIATELY? Why do they keep throwing money at a problem that

> >>>>> cannot be successful? Why didn't they cut off all funding for the

> >>>>> effort in Iraq? Perhaps becuase they do not share your belief that

> >>>>> success is not important, or because they do not share your belief

> >>>>> that success in not possible?

> >>>>

> >>>> Ask the "Uniter Decider Commander in Chief"

> >>>>

> >>>> This is his party....no effort on your part will

> >>>> shift responsibility away from bush,jr.

> >>>>

> >>>> The Republican line seems to be to try to

> >>>> shift responsibility away from the creator.

> >>>>

> >>>> The creator of this mess and his Republican

> >>>> cohorts- Hide quoted text -

> >>>>

> >>>> - Show quoted text -

> >>>

> >>> read the HISTORY of Iraq from 3300B.C. there have been MANY

> >>> CONQUERORS of Iraq---ALL who had NO LONG-TERM SUCCESS in that

> >>> region---

> >>> Sumerians,Akkadians,Kassites,Elamites,Babylonians,Amorites,Hittites,Minnati,Hurrians,Aramerians,Assyrians,Scythians,Chaldians,Medes,Persians,Macedonians(Under

> >>> Alexander the great),Seluciucids,Romans,Parthians,Sassinid

> >>> Persians,Arabs(under the banner of Islam),Sejuk

> >>> turks,Mongols,Ottoman Turks,french,British(Lawrence of

> >>> Arabia),Short-lived nativist monarchys,Saddam Hussien,United

> >>> States-------Get the Picture??? !!!!!!!!! History has PROVEN to Me

> >>> beyond a shadow of a

> >>> doubt that we will be just ANOTHER INEFFECTIVE CONQUEROR making NO

> >>> LONG-TERM DIFFERENCE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

> >>>

> >> That does not mean that it will happen again. It only means that it

> >> "might" not be possible. But one thing I can guarantee, success is

> >> not possible, if you give up.......

> >

> > Give up what?

> > A lose-lose situation

> > that bush,jr has America in?

>

> It is a lose lose situation when you give up.

It's lose-lose when you cook up a pack of lies to go to war.

RT

August 19, 2007

Jerry Okamura wrote:

> <wbyeats@ireland.com> wrote in message

> > 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.

> >

> >> Which brings us back to my comment. "If" you believe that

> >>success is not possible, then why don't the democrats following your

> >>advice

> >>and withdrawing our military IMMEDIATELY....

> >

> > I don't know - ask them. Because they're not as smart as me? (vbg)

> > Bush is in it up to his neck (or over his head). The Dems are in it up

> > to their chest. It's all relative responsibility, but, as Truman said,

> > the buck stops here.

> >

> Yes, and apparently Bush feels that success is important, and he is trying

> to do just that. The dems on the other hand, seem to be sitting on a fence,

> trying to decide which side of the fence they should be one, holding their

> finger to the wind, to make that decision....

No, they're watching a trickle of republicons come around. Like senators like

Hagel. And then there's this

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Sessions_GOP_will_be_ready_by_0527.html

Republican Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) said this morning on CBS'

Face the Nation that "unless something extraordinary happens," most

members of Congress believe that troop withdrawal should be on the

table in September.

"We have to be realistic," he said. "We have to know that we can't

achieve everything we'd like to achieve. We have a limited number of

men and women we can send to Iraq, and we can't overburden them."

...

August 19, 2007

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."

...

August 19, 2007

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

August 19, 2007

"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?

August 19, 2007

"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?

August 20, 2007

"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...?

August 20, 2007

"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?

August 20, 2007

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

August 20, 2007

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

August 20, 2007

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.

August 20, 2007

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

August 20, 2007

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

August 20, 2007

<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....

August 20, 2007

<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"?

August 20, 2007

<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.

August 20, 2007

"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.....

August 20, 2007

"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....

>

August 20, 2007

"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?

August 20, 2007

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

August 20, 2007

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.

August 20, 2007

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.

Sign In

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

Recommended Posts

Guest Sid9

Popular Days

Popular Days

Guest wbyeats@ireland.com

Guest Rich Travsky

Guest Rich Travsky

Guest Rich Travsky

Guest Rich Travsky

Guest wbyeats@ireland.com

Guest Jerry Okamura

Guest Jerry Okamura

Guest Jerry Okamura

Guest Jerry Okamura

Guest Rich Travsky

Guest Rich Travsky

Guest Rich Travsky

Guest wbyeats@ireland.com

Guest wbyeats@ireland.com

Guest Jerry Okamura

Guest Jerry Okamura

Guest Jerry Okamura

Guest Jerry Okamura

Guest Jerry Okamura

Guest Jerry Okamura

Guest Desmond and Molly Jones

Guest GW Chimpzilla's Eye-Rack Neocon Ut

Guest Sid9

Join the conversation

Browse

Activity

Support