 sj |
||
|
||
BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: toadfrog Date: 13 Jul 03 - 06:35 PM Hey, Bobert! You sometimes make a lot of sense, and can really write English, when you try. Keep it up! I hope, as you do, that some future administration may someday get us out of the mess this one got us into. But I doubt it. In the case of Vietnam, every government from Truman on down got us one step deeper, because no one wanted to back off and be called unpatriotic. I'm very much afraid that Iraq is going to be like Vietnam (without the jungle). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Amergin Date: 13 Jul 03 - 06:33 PM jesus christ, don...that article sent chills down my spine....makes me wonder if their trying to get us all killed.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Jul 03 - 06:10 PM It's not accurate to describe them as fascists. Rattlesnakes and crocodiles are both pretty dangerous, but it is not a good idea to confuse the two, just because they can both kill you. They are dangerous in different ways, and are vulnerable in different ways, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Greg F. Date: 13 Jul 03 - 05:58 PM The Neo-Cons as crypto-fascists? I don't see anything hidden or unavowed about their fascist bent. They're quite proud of it, in fact. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Don Firth Date: 13 Jul 03 - 05:34 PM Scapegoat for precisely what, GUEST,B? Looks like you're groping for a rejoinder here. Groups do like to identify themselves, and these folks ("new conservatives," "neo-conservatives," or "neo-cons") have identified themselves as a group. I'm hardly name-calling, as you are trying to imply, when I use the name they applied to themselves. If you're trying to refute what I say by accusing me of "name-calling," sorry--no sale! Attacking a person (argumentum ad hominem) instead of addressing the points of a statement or argument he or she has made is a well-known logical fallacy and is invariably used as a diversionary tactic--an effort to draw attention away from the real issues. You're going to have to do a whole lot better than that. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: GUEST,B Date: 13 Jul 03 - 02:35 PM The man who lumped himself into a goup fell into the same trap of group identification. Most Americans are individuals, at least to some degree. It is easier to invent a group so that you can blame (hate) many people all at once. Close relative of the scapegoat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: GUEST,B Date: 13 Jul 03 - 02:26 PM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Deckman Date: 13 Jul 03 - 01:26 PM Bobert ... perfectly said. Bob |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Don Firth Date: 13 Jul 03 - 01:24 PM Yeah, GUEST,B, that's what the neo-cons keep trying to say--now. But I think the tag got picked up when one of those folks listed in my post just above proudly announced, "We are the new conservatives!" So the name stuck. Too bad. So sad. Perfectly descriptive, though, when you consider that they regard themselves as a new breed of conservative as distinct from the old breed, and some of the old conservatives are a bit appalled at their excesses. Also, if you don't like labels, don't use them yourself. Example: when the neo-cons accuse those who disagree with them as being "unpatriotic." Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: GUEST,B Date: 13 Jul 03 - 12:33 PM The term(s) Neo-con, neo-conservative or neo-Conservative is the latest effort of liberals to define their enemies. A straw dog that the Left will attack and destroy before your eyes, making them feel better. Kennedy would be far more conservative than any mainstream Repub. of 2003, and proud of it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Bobert Date: 13 Jul 03 - 08:40 AM Thanks, Don, fir the assist. But really, Deckman and others, the US has painted itself into a corner with this pre-emptive doctrine in terms of having cooperative partners. I Bush's haste to war, he all but drove a stake thru the hear of the United Nations, he angered and humiliated our allies and he shreaded our credibility in the world's eye. I don't think it is possible for this administration to mend the damage. It is my hopes, however, that the next administartion will abandon this doctrine and worlk their butts off trying to restore some stability to the world community. If not, that corner is going to get smaller and smaller... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Jul 03 - 08:35 AM An interesting term "neo-cons". In the light of the situation via-a-vis the the French, I imagine it would be a term that they might find particularly fitting to refer to the peopple running the show in Washington. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Hrothgar Date: 13 Jul 03 - 07:27 AM One of the little problems that the US might have found in Iraq is that the only organised bodies capable of running a stable government are the Islamic religious groups. I can just imagine how popular that idea is with Dubya & Co. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Don Firth Date: 13 Jul 03 - 01:39 AM Neo-conservative. George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Karl Rove, Paul Wolfowitz, Dan Quayle, and Ollie North are all what has come to be called "neo-conservatives" or "neo-cons." What marks them as distinct from old fashioned conservatives such as Barry Goldwater is that conservatives like Goldwater are much too liberal and progressive for them. I would not necessarily go so far as to say that neo-cons are crypto-fascists, but when you get that far to the right, the lines of demarcation do tend to get a bit fuzzy. Authoritarianism, elitism, militarism, erosion of civil liberties, a drive for world empire. . . . Well, certainly not! This is America! It can't happen here! Can it? What some right-wingers will try to tell you is the words "neo-conservatives" or "neo-cons" refer to former liberals who have seen the light and have converted to the true faith, but that's pure hog wallow. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Deckman Date: 13 Jul 03 - 12:47 AM Bobert ... Question. What is a neo-con? Bob |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Bobert Date: 12 Jul 03 - 11:02 PM Saddest thing about the "quagmire" is that it has marginalized the US as a respected super power that sometimes does what world opinion expects of it, such as in Bosnia, for example. In many forms of self defense one is taught to use the "minumum force" necessary but after the invasion of two countries in the last 18 or so months, the US can no longer hide under the *self defense* banner. Sure, it can go ahead and invade one country after another until it itself implodes from the costs of doing so, but it can no longer expect the rest of the world to buy any of it's rationales for going to war... Yeah, right, Us! Sure they're ou to get you... or us... Hahahahah... Good news for the new generation of bad people.... Just something for you neo-cons to ponder... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: GUEST,B Date: 12 Jul 03 - 10:41 PM (alias Claymore) Thank you, Rapaire. Some of us appreciate your service. I too was National Guard in the Viet Nam era, just lucky no one called me. "Society building" was used where I feel "nation building" was meant, somewhere back in this thread. Shure no one has the _____ to explain their position on this one? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Deckman Date: 12 Jul 03 - 10:04 PM Rapaire ... Hmmmm? Maybe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Rapparee Date: 12 Jul 03 - 09:11 PM Upon reflection, I don't think that there will be an Iraqi quagmire, or that such a thing already exists. I think that it's an Afghan-Iraqi quagmire, and soon to be an Afghan-Iraqi-Liberian quagmire. "...we were neck deep in the Big Muddy..." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Janie Date: 12 Jul 03 - 07:10 PM Don--it is getting scarier and scarier, isn't it? Toadfrog--all I know is name calling never works. And it takes two to have a screaming match. Educating others is more likely to be more persuasive than arguing with them. And to really influence some one, you have got to understand where they are starting from. Can't do that without respectful listening. Besides, it isn't necessary to bring everyone over to your point of view, just enough people who vote to either oust Bush or make it clear to him that he will lose the election if he doesn't change his foreign policy. Janie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Don Firth Date: 12 Jul 03 - 02:27 PM By the way, GUEST,B--I wasn't suggesting anything like that. I was merely pointing to the irony of it apparently being safer in a war zone than it is on some city streets in the U. S. There seem to be a lot of people in this country who are not particularly bothered by violence and even regard it as high on the agenda as a method for solving whatever problems they might have. Too bad so many of them are in the government. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Deckman Date: 12 Jul 03 - 02:22 PM Thanks for posting that information Don. Reading it carefully is enough to put me over the edge. I wonder where this is all going to end? Bob |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Don Firth Date: 12 Jul 03 - 02:10 PM The reason the Bush administration went into this thing without an exit strategy is because they don't plan to leave. This was their first major step in establishing a military presence in the Middle East. Rather than waiting for a withdrawal of our troops, watch for our presence in the Middle East to expand. Don Firth Addendum:— Interesting! I tried to go to the Project for the New American Century's web site so I could supply you with a link to the relevant article (written by those who are currently members of the Bush administration) so you could read their intentions written in their own words. But this morning I got: Network ErrorUnable to request URL from hostMaybe too many people have been exploring this site, reading the articles, learning the Bush administration's true intentions, and not liking it much. Anyway, here is a link to an article that gives a brief synopsis of some of the things found on the PNAC web site—> BOINK! In this article, Pitt does not exaggerate. He merely tells you what he learned by reading stuff on the PNAC web site. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: GUEST,B Date: 12 Jul 03 - 02:08 PM Don Firth: Thanks. I would rather be a soldier stationed in Iraq than be forced to live in some of our urban areas. General statement: There is a difference between "nation building" and "society building". I think the US is a great nation. As far as a society, you tell me. On your next vacation, does anyone plan to visit So Central LA? So Bronx? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: toadfrog Date: 12 Jul 03 - 01:05 AM Janie: Yes, in theory of course you are right. And I did hear someone once give a thoughtful opinion to the effect it would be right to go into Iraq. One could build a respectable case, for example, that it was necessary somehow to control Sadaam, that the sanctions were ultimately even worse for the Iraqis than invading them, and that the whole area had to be stopped from gradually sliding into disaster. If someone used that argument, I'd have to think for a while about my answer. And we could intelligently try to persuade each other, or agree to disagree. But the majority don't think like that. They think Sadaam caused the crash at the World Trade Center, or at least supported Al Quaeda and was about to give them chemical weapons and maybe A-bombs, and that we had to invade Iraq to Fight Terrism [sic] and Eradicate Evil. And if they fervently believe things that just aren't true, what do you say? Just, "no, you're wrong, you idiot"? Even worse, a lot of people are just plain proud their country is powerful and can kick foreigners around. What do you say to them? Try convincing GUEST Claymore, say. An exercise in frustration, ending in a screaming match. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Janie Date: 12 Jul 03 - 12:25 AM I hope so Bob. We need to talk WITH those who don't share our beliefs about the course on which our country should be. Nothing much will change if we just talk among ourselves. Preaching to the choir, you know. I for one welcome the serious thoughts of those who thought (or still think) we did the right thing to go into Iraq. I want to know--as events at home and abroad unfold, in what direction(s) everyone's thoughts are evolving. Our best hopes for enfluencing others toward our own point of view, is to first understand and appreciate theirs. Janie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Amos Date: 12 Jul 03 - 12:15 AM Hear, hear, Bob. Keep on staying alert--it's our only defense against creeping mass hypnosis. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Deckman Date: 11 Jul 03 - 11:46 PM It's like we (us) Americans DON'T learn! I first served in the Army in that strange period between Korea and the beginnings of Nam. I was in active reserve status (medics) during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Then came the Berlin Wall, and guess what, I was active duty again. I served willingly. Since those times, I've observed mistake after mistake after mistake in U.S. foreign policy and wars. I am EXTREMELY angry and frustrated. I do all that I know how to do. I read. I study. I discuss. I ask questions. I ALWAYS vote. And yet I feel completly powerless. When was the election held that voted the U.S. as "BOSS OF THE WORLD?" I know I didn't sleep through it, as I keep alert. Perhaps it will be through serious and thoughtful discussion groups like this, worldwide through the freedom of the Internet, that will save us from ourselves. I dunno? Bob |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Janie Date: 11 Jul 03 - 11:36 PM The die is cast, I fear. IMHO Bush and the policies he has set into motion will result in the United States government causing more death, destruction and terror in the world than Osama bin Laden ever dreamed of being able to cause. We will continue to lose civil rights, which is a much greater threat to our democracy than any outside force could be. We are indeed entering a quagmire. There is still time to turn back and limit the damage done to our country and our world, but it will have to happen quickly--and it ain't gonna. With a nine year old son that I absolutely will not see senselessly sacrificed to this, my Country's terribly misbegotten "mission", I am just starting to research emmigration options. I have little doubt that the USA will still be deeply and tragically embroiled in this when he turns 18. President Bush and terrorists all act out of conviction. Pretty damn scary. Those who do not recognize that belief and truth are not synonyms are always dangerous, because they can never recognize or acknowledge the legitimacy of another perspective. This is one of the main roots of war, and what the propoganda machines play to in rallying a population to a "cause". Let there be mercy. Janie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Amos Date: 11 Jul 03 - 11:24 PM If we want to play Empire builder, for goodness' sake, we have to learn how to build Empires. The French colons and the Brits both left behind them very workable infrastructure -- no matter how wrong their colonizations were, the machinery for hygeine, education, and production were in place in Rabat, Tangiers, Kuala Lumpur, and the major cities of Injjuh. Maybe these places would have done better to evolve their own ways of building sewers and pipes -- but how many ways can there be? The point is that if you are going to overthrow order and bring chaos, you better be ready to put in some alternative form of order, or some one else will step up and do it for you. Saddam was suppressing the hell out of the people of Baghdad, but it was an orderly suppression. (Of course, graves are orderly and quiet, too!). It was really dumb not to have a plan of restoration in hand and ready to roll out the minute it was militarily feasible. What did Bush think -- spontaneous civilization was going to spring full-blown from the smoke and blood of his little battle? Sheesh! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: mg Date: 11 Jul 03 - 10:31 PM Of course there are many problems...how could there not be? Remove the police structure here and see what happens overnight. But if anyone can stand to hear some good news, and please don't read further if it will upset you, I just read a very encouraging report from a major in the Corps of Engineers...reporting on how the oil was being pumped, power was being restored, water was being somewhat purified and pumped. It is going to be a very prosperous country, and there will be a ripple effect. We do need to have a "civil affairs" setup, and we need to specific ally train peacekeepers...someone wisely suggested that that is a very good place for women in the military...you certainly need some for checkpoint situations involving women civilians, and you don't have some of the problems that you have with a force of young males in a country.. I think from the start there should have been plans to use certain segments of the Iraqi Army for security and of course for engineering....the Iraqi engineers pleaded to be put to use...of course there are still military considerations but who knows... mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Ebbie Date: 11 Jul 03 - 10:31 PM Like most of us, I'm heartsick about the whole thing. The only thing I'm glad of at this moment is that the gungho, chop chop mudcats who crowed about our easy 'win' in Iraq are not at this moment making excuses for the dismal situation, complete with references to the "battle plan", as though they expected us to swallow it. I appreciate their silence. Does anyone care to make a(ny) prediction as to a likely scenario for the next two years in the US? Will we find ourselves spread so thin across the globe that we implode? Or will we become a lauded Superman who flies to the aid of the downtrodden, afflicted and poor? Will we enter a boom economy as we make war- or will we have to suck it up and 'use it up, make it do or do without'? For the record, I'm in favor of sending our share of peacekeeping troops into Liberia under the umbrella and leadership of the UN and in conjunction with other countries' troops adhering to the various treaties and agreements. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Rapparee Date: 11 Jul 03 - 09:30 PM Armies aren't designed to rebuild countries, never have been. Armies are designed to fight and win wars. During WWII, there were "Civil Affairs Units" sent as part of an invasion -- for example, my father served in the 4th CAU in Manila. These units were specially trained and supported to provide temporary government, police, and infrastructure support until the local civilian government could again take over. Regular soldiers, infantry, armor, artillery, MPs, aren't trained or focused for civil affairs and shouldn't be expected to handle such duties. Seems to me like someone has blundered.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Don Firth Date: 11 Jul 03 - 09:22 PM Just an observation: GUEST,B's quoting of homocide statistics makes it sound as if it's safer to be in uniform in Iraq than it is to be back home in the USA. Lot of food for thought there. . . . In the meantime, how come in the background I can hear echoes of Pete Seeger singing Knee Deep in the Big Muddy? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Little Hawk Date: 11 Jul 03 - 01:49 PM Looking back to the 40's, the Germans also proved very adept at scoring quick military victories with their superb military forces...but not nearly so good at dealing with the aftermath in the conquered areas. This is because the main talent of highly organized aggressors is destruction, not society-building...and also because people just don't like being invaded and conquered by foreigners for some reason (?). Strange, isn't it? - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: GUEST,B Date: 11 Jul 03 - 12:55 PM Cut and run is what his detractors want, not what President Bush wants. If Bush were really a liar we would see WMD coming out of very hole-in-the-ground in Iraq, planted by us (US). Easily done if you think about it. We have about 28,000 homocides in the US each year. Disputed numbers, granted, and "murder" and "homocide" are not exactly the same thing. We have lost about 100 young men in Iraq by combat/assination and about the same in vehicle accidents. None of us is happy about any of this. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: redhorse Date: 11 Jul 03 - 10:48 AM If the US government thinks it'll be in a position to pull out the troops in just a year, it's only be because they think they'll be able to pass the buck of looking after Iraq to some other sucker. Look out for Bush softening his position towards UN and agreeing that maybe they should after all have a "peacekeeping role". Maybe that was what he needed Blair's support for; so the British would be there to hold the baby when he cuts and runs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Rapparee Date: 11 Jul 03 - 09:38 AM Sorry for the rant, but having been there and done that, we get right touchy about the Guard being called cowards and draft dodgers. None of use wanted to go, fer goshshakes. And sitting in SEATAC airport, waiting for the flight back home, one side of the aisle in uniform and the other with long hair, neither side talking to each other even though they're all the same age, each side knowing that with a little twist of fate the sides could be switched.... Actually, I'd much rather have been at Woodstock. And the Guard and Reserves are often called up today, and they die just as they did in the '60s. Sorry about the rant, but it's a nerve. And yeah, I agree with the Quagmire.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Rapparee Date: 11 Jul 03 - 09:33 AM I wish to hell that folks would stop using the National Guard as an example of draft dodging during 'Nam time! Yes, there were rich cats' sons, and I'd name some except that would be beating around The Bush, who joined the Guard because of "pull." But! Dear old LBJ activated 24,000 reservists and Guardsmen in 1968; of these 10,000 were sent to Vietnam and elsewhere. I bloody well know, since both my brother and I were among them -- and he went to Chu Lai and I went to Korea ("blood relatives in a a combat zone" and all that). That Guard unit won a second Meritorious Unit citation to go with their first, which was won on Guadacanal. Members also won medals from the Bronze Star with V downwards. Another unit, of the 151st Infantry from Indiana's Guard, was LRRP -- and they "enjoyed" a shower of "Stars" as well, several being Silver as well as Bronze with V. My cousin served as a point man with the 9th Division. Not all of the reservists and Guardsmen came home -- we were lucky, since all who were activated originally came back (although some, like my brother, with healed physical wounds and unhealed psychological ones). Now, GOD DAMN IT!, knock it off, okay??? There were and are f**koffs in every outfit.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Janie Date: 11 Jul 03 - 09:28 AM MSNBC quoted Bush yesterday as admitting we have a "security issue" in Iraq. A security issue? A Security Issue? A SECURITY ISSUE?!!!??? Outrageous. Janie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: GUEST Date: 11 Jul 03 - 08:33 AM Janie - it is a sad state of affairs, but please don't let it overwhelm you to the point of helplessness and despair. Please try to cheer up - play some music. The best thing you can do is stay politically aware, speak out when inspired to do so, and vote sensibly, which I'm sure you know and I'm betting you already do. Best wishes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: TIA Date: 11 Jul 03 - 07:45 AM The "ostriches" will never let on that they might have been wrong. Like their hero King George, they will simply re-state their original position to match the facts. (Term borrowed from Richard Cohen...see the blicky). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: An Pluiméir Ceolmhar Date: 11 Jul 03 - 07:44 AM Fortunately the shrub has a short attention span, so maybe the US will just pull out overnight. Then again, maybe that's not how Halliburton got where it is today. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Hrothgar Date: 11 Jul 03 - 07:15 AM Janie, when you said "Many of our government leaders are of our generation, and experienced 1st hand the terrible effect the Vietnam war had on our society" I hope you didn't think that they were stupid enough to actually see active service. I think they lived their nice, comfortable, cushioned lives, with odd inconveniences like having to pretend to join the National Guard, and only talked to people who shared their own ideas. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 11 Jul 03 - 07:02 AM On UK Channel 4, Jon Snow asked their middle-east correspondent Lindsay Hilsum to sum up the mood in Baghdad. "It's terribly sad, Jon," she said. "I have spent time in Baghdad over several years and the people have always been friendly and welcoming. Now that's all gone. There is a real sense of danger, and no-one trusts anyone." US troops in Baghdad are so inept at the task they've been given that they're now being trained by the Brits, who were never needed in the first place. In northern Iraq, the US tactic is to destroy any remaining relationship with one-time NATO buddy Turkey, just as I and many others predicted even in the immediate aftermath of 9-11. It isn't hindsight to say that the post-victory aftermath was always going to be harder than the war. Most of the world was saying it beforehand, and the administration even paid lip-service to this view. Yet not a thought was given to the issues involved. In Afghanistan, less than three per cent of the land area is under ISAF stewardship. The rest is left to warlords, and in many communities life is as bad as ever it was with the Taliban. Attempts at sowing the seeds of a US trained army in Kabul are not helped when its soldiers get shot by their American friends. Having learnt nothing whatsoever in Iraq and Afghanistan, the administration now runs round threatening Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, you name it, but always standing shoulder to shoulder with the criminal Sharon. US morality Bush-style is now seen for what it is - victor's justice, at any price. Guantanamo prisoners will be convicted even if they have to be convicted in secret, without their own lawyers, and no opportunity to cross-examine their accusers. No wonder the US will not condemn Sharia law in Saudi Arabia. As for the Camp Delta motto, "Honorbound to defend freedom," which apparently marines parrot at each other when saluting - what sickening hypocrisy. It would have taken real imagination for a comedian to have written that slogan into a parody. There has been one tiny bit of progress though. The lynchmob element at Mudcat, so vociferous with messages of revenge and retribution after 9-11, has been shamed to silence. At least until the Holywood blockbuster "Saving Private Lynch" allows them to glow with pride again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: kendall Date: 11 Jul 03 - 05:39 AM Did anyone see the poll on CNN last night? 80% of thise responding said Bush lied about Iraq and nuclear weapons. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Geoff the Duck Date: 11 Jul 03 - 04:27 AM Here's a thread you may not have spotted BLICKY . Read the instructions carefully, then follow them. 51st State - I thought England became that when Maggie Thatcher crawled up Ronnie Reagan's backside. Nowadays we have Blair trying to insert himself up Bush's. A PAIR OF PRIZE LIARS by anyone's standards. Over here Blair is trying EVERYTHING he possibly can, to try and distract the public from the fact that the report he used to get Parliament to vote for war, is a total pack of lies. Quack! GtD. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Mark Clark Date: 11 Jul 03 - 01:10 AM Why do you think the Resident is popular? Because some talking head on your television set said so? Do you seriously think the people who bought Congress, the Judiciary and the media weren't smart enough to buy the pollsters too? Or do you think the pollsters weren't for sale? (Support your reasoning with concrete examples.) - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: michaelr Date: 11 Jul 03 - 12:00 AM Lady Jean and Janie -- there's a link on that page that says: "Congressman Woolsey not your representative? Click here". It will take you to a list of all members of congress, where you can find yours. Cheers, Michael |
|
Subject: RE: BS: As predicted: Quagmire Iraq From: Bobert Date: 10 Jul 03 - 11:14 PM Heck, why stop at 51, Amerigin. Howz 30, 'er 73,... 'er two or three hundred? Heck, the flag is gonna look more like a clear winter sky with all them stars. Hmmmmmm? Gettin' back to Iraq as the 51st state. Like wouldn't it be wild if they elected Saddam to the Senate? Hey, he could write a book, have a big house in Martha's Vineyard right down the road from the Bushes and be doing a book tour for his latest book entitled "Missed Me"... and all of this in just a few years... So like why stop with Iraq? Howz Senator Kadafi sound? Or Senator Bin Laden? Hmmmmm? Bobert |
