"President Bush said today that the latest spate of bloodshed in Iraq
reflected the desperation of terrorists who cannot stop the creation
of a free country."

http://tinyurl.com/slic

That is to say that even though Americans and responsible Iraqis and
foreigners are getting mowed down like Custer's men at Little Big
Horn, we are winning the war. The enemy is bound to get tired of
slaughtering us soon, and then, of course, they'll surrender in short
order.

George M. Middius wrote:



"President Bush said today that the latest spate of bloodshed in Iraq
reflected the desperation of terrorists who cannot stop the creation
of a free country."

http://tinyurl.com/slic

That is to say that even though Americans and responsible Iraqis and
foreigners are getting mowed down like Custer's men at Little Big
Horn, we are winning the war. The enemy is bound to get tired of
slaughtering us soon, and then, of course, they'll surrender in short
order.

William Westmoreland, where are you when we need you?

Nexus 6

George M. Middius wrote:

"President Bush said today that the latest spate of bloodshed in Iraq
reflected the desperation of terrorists who cannot stop the creation
of a free country."

http://tinyurl.com/slic

That is to say that even though Americans and responsible Iraqis and
foreigners are getting mowed down like Custer's men at Little Big
Horn, we are winning the war. The enemy is bound to get tired of
slaughtering us soon, and then, of course, they'll surrender in short
order.


How many manifestations against the war have you participated in
February-March 2003 ?
Did you believe in WMD at this time ?
Did you really think that NATO's inspectors was lying to US people ?

I tell you all that and forgetting that you are also a specialist of the
crusade !
Is George a predestined name ?

_bibliography_
http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saintg05.htm
http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/golden184.htm

LOL !

Lionel wrote:
George M. Middius wrote:


"President Bush said today that the latest spate of bloodshed in Iraq
reflected the desperation of terrorists who cannot stop the creation
of a free country."

http://tinyurl.com/slic

That is to say that even though Americans and responsible Iraqis and
foreigners are getting mowed down like Custer's men at Little Big
Horn, we are winning the war. The enemy is bound to get tired of
slaughtering us soon, and then, of course, they'll surrender in short
order.


How many manifestations against the war have you participated in
February-March 2003 ?
Did you believe in WMD at this time ?
Did you really think that NATO's inspectors was lying to US people ?

I tell you all that and forgetting that you are also a specialist of the
crusade !
Is George a predestined name ?

_bibliography_
http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saintg05.htm
http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/golden184.htm

LOL !


Here for the fans, a RAO daily scene of "George's killing the beast" :
http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/stg05012.jpg

Interesting information ?
http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/pst00701.htm

George M. Middius wrote in message . ..
"President Bush said today that the latest spate of bloodshed in Iraq
reflected the desperation of terrorists who cannot stop the creation
of a free country."

http://tinyurl.com/slic

That is to say that even though Americans and responsible Iraqis and
foreigners are getting mowed down like Custer's men at Little Big
Horn, we are winning the war. The enemy is bound to get tired of
slaughtering us soon, and then, of course, they'll surrender in short
order

Hey genius, your own harebrained "analysis" notes that "responsible
Iraqis" and "foreigners" as well as Americans are terror targets in
Iraq.

Why don't you take a deep breath, think about why that might be and
then get back to us.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message

"President Bush said today that the latest spate of bloodshed in Iraq
reflected the desperation of terrorists who cannot stop the creation
of a free country."

http://tinyurl.com/slic

That is to say that even though Americans and responsible Iraqis and
foreigners are getting mowed down like Custer's men at Little Big
Horn, we are winning the war.

Obviously Middius is oblivious to the events of June 6, 1944.

The enemy is bound to get tired of
slaughtering us soon, and then, of course, they'll surrender in short
order.

It actually works out that way, sometimes. Anybody who thinks that what's
going on now is a slaughter of US soldiers, is totally lacking in historical
perspective. One such person appears to be our local hero, George Middius.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"George M. Middius" wrote in message


"President Bush said today that the latest spate of bloodshed in Iraq
reflected the desperation of terrorists who cannot stop the creation
of a free country."

http://tinyurl.com/slic

That is to say that even though Americans and responsible Iraqis and
foreigners are getting mowed down like Custer's men at Little Big
Horn, we are winning the war.


Obviously Middius is oblivious to the events of June 6, 1944.


The enemy is bound to get tired of
slaughtering us soon, and then, of course, they'll surrender in short
order.


It actually works out that way, sometimes. Anybody who thinks that what's
going on now is a slaughter of US soldiers, is totally lacking in historical
perspective. One such person appears to be our local hero, George Middius.


The big difference is that in Normandie 1944 the US soldiers were
considered as heros by French people.
Despite thousands civil deaths in Le Havre, Brest, Rouen, Caen,
Saint-Etienne... bombing by the Brit & USA air forces, the French people
continued to support *their liberators*.
I seriously doubt that US army as the same latitude in Iraq or anywhere
else in the Muslim world.

"Lionel" wrote in message


Arny Krueger wrote:

"George M. Middius" wrote in message


"President Bush said today that the latest spate of bloodshed in
Iraq reflected the desperation of terrorists who cannot stop the
creation of a free country."

http://tinyurl.com/slic

That is to say that even though Americans and responsible Iraqis and
foreigners are getting mowed down like Custer's men at Little Big
Horn, we are winning the war.

Obviously Middius is oblivious to the events of June 6, 1944.

The enemy is bound to get tired of
slaughtering us soon, and then, of course, they'll surrender in
short order.

It actually works out that way, sometimes. Anybody who thinks that
what's going on now is a slaughter of US soldiers, is totally
lacking in historical perspective. One such person appears to be our
local hero, George Middius.

The big difference is that in Normandie 1944 the US soldiers were
considered as heroes by French people.

Another big difference is that at Normandy the US had about 10,000
casualties in one day, as opposed to dribs and drabs of one to three per
day, with some days zero, in Iraq. The George Custer metaphor Middius uses
is almost as inappropriate, as Custer lost about 300 men in less than a day
at little Big Horn.

Radical liberal posturing about US casualties in Iraq is reaching amazing
heights. Yesterday I was watching some posture-matic guest on CNN who was
seriously comparing Sunday's losses to the Tet Offensive. This guy was
obviously old enough to know better.

If you want to compare apples to apples, compare Iraq to Germany, not
France. Normandy was not primarily about liberating France, that was just a
fortuitous side-effect.

It's not clear how big of a difference there is between Iraq and post-war
Germany. For one thing, it's been said that a lot of these suicide bombers
aren't Iraquis. This is supported by the numbers of innocent Iraquis that
the terrorists kill.

Despite thousands civil deaths in Le Havre, Brest, Rouen, Caen,
Saint-Etienne... bombing by the Brit & USA air forces, the French
people continued to support *their liberators*.

I talked with a WWII veteran who stayed on with the occupation army. He told
me that Germany was a very dangerous place for at least 6 months after the
surrender. There were die-hard Nazis who nurtured dreams of getting back
into power if they could keep things disrupted enough. In Sierra Leone,
Sierra Leonese who cooperated with the rebels and foreign terrorists have
somewhat strangely suffered rather high rates of mortality, once some degree
of order was restored. If you are part of the previous violent government,
its either kill or be killed as there are many accounts that need to be
settled.

I seriously doubt that US army as the same latitude in Iraq or
anywhere else in the Muslim world.

The fact that the US has been able to enlist something like 60,000 Iraquis
to work for them suggests to me that not everybody sees the US as their
oppressor. There seem to be two major sources of disruption in Iraq that
have little or nothing to do with the wishes of the average man in the
street. These are the Baath party members who are likely to become dead meat
in the long run, and foreign terrorists who are full of fundamentalist
bravado and have come to Iraq to go hand-to-hand with the US Military.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Lionel" wrote in message



Arny Krueger wrote:


"George M. Middius" wrote in message
om


"President Bush said today that the latest spate of bloodshed in
Iraq reflected the desperation of terrorists who cannot stop the
creation of a free country."


http://tinyurl.com/slic


That is to say that even though Americans and responsible Iraqis and
foreigners are getting mowed down like Custer's men at Little Big
Horn, we are winning the war.


Obviously Middius is oblivious to the events of June 6, 1944.


The enemy is bound to get tired of
slaughtering us soon, and then, of course, they'll surrender in
short order.


It actually works out that way, sometimes. Anybody who thinks that
what's going on now is a slaughter of US soldiers, is totally
lacking in historical perspective. One such person appears to be our
local hero, George Middius.


The big difference is that in Normandie 1944 the US soldiers were
considered as heroes by French people.


Another big difference is that at Normandy the US had about 10,000
casualties in one day, as opposed to dribs and drabs of one to three per
day, with some days zero, in Iraq.


That's not a valid comparison. At some point in our existence we are
going to reach the point where zero casualities is the only think
acceptable, if we haven't already. In the old days dying in battle was
supposed to be a thing of honor, now it's only a waste of life.

"trotsky" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Lionel" wrote in message



Arny Krueger wrote:


"George M. Middius" wrote in message



"President Bush said today that the latest spate of bloodshed in
Iraq reflected the desperation of terrorists who cannot stop the
creation of a free country."


http://tinyurl.com/slic


That is to say that even though Americans and responsible Iraqis
and foreigners are getting mowed down like Custer's men at Little
Big Horn, we are winning the war.


Obviously Middius is oblivious to the events of June 6, 1944.


The enemy is bound to get tired of
slaughtering us soon, and then, of course, they'll surrender in
short order.


It actually works out that way, sometimes. Anybody who thinks that
what's going on now is a slaughter of US soldiers, is totally
lacking in historical perspective. One such person appears to be
our local hero, George Middius.


The big difference is that in Normandie 1944 the US soldiers were
considered as heroes by French people.

Another big difference is that at Normandy the US had about 10,000
casualties in one day, as opposed to dribs and drabs of one to three
per day, with some days zero, in Iraq.

That's not a valid comparison.

I agree that there isn't a 1:1 mapping.

At some point in our existence we are
going to reach the point where zero causalities is the only think
acceptable, if we haven't already.

At that point, we effectively hand the keys to our country over to the first
guy who has just one person who is willing to die.

Listening to many young soldiers talk, we're a long way from that.

In the old days dying in battle was supposed to be a thing of honor, now
it's only a waste of life.

Handing the keys to our country over to the first guy who has just one
person who is willing to die, is a waste of life that many would not
tolerate. It's quite clear that having even 19 people who were willing to
die did absolutely nothing to hurt our resolve to fight.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Lionel" wrote in message


I seriously doubt that US army as the same latitude in Iraq or
anywhere else in the Muslim world.


The fact that the US has been able to enlist something like 60,000 Iraquis
to work for them suggests to me that not everybody sees the US as their
oppressor.

I haven't said and I will never say that US are Iraq oppressors.
Just want to say that in my point of view US credit is going down in
Muslim world.

There seem to be two major sources of disruption in Iraq that
have little or nothing to do with the wishes of the average man in the
street. These are the Baath party members who are likely to become dead meat
in the long run, and foreign terrorists who are full of fundamentalist
bravado and have come to Iraq to go hand-to-hand with the US Military.


I would like to be as optimist as you are, it's a sincere wish.

"Lionel" wrote in message


Arny Krueger wrote:
"Lionel" wrote in message

I seriously doubt that US army as the same latitude in Iraq or
anywhere else in the Muslim world.

The fact that the US has been able to enlist something like 60,000
Iraqis to work for them suggests to me that not everybody sees the
US as their oppressor.

I haven't said and I will never say that US are Iraq oppressors.

Good.

Just want to say that in my point of view US credit is going down in
Muslim world.

Frankly, as far as the radicals go, I don't we could go any lower. As far as
the moderates go, I think they are going to feel more empathy for us, the
worse the radicals beat them up.

There seem to be two major sources of disruption in Iraq that
have little or nothing to do with the wishes of the average man in
the street. These are the Baath party members who are likely to
become dead meat in the long run, and foreign terrorists who are
full of fundamentalist bravado and have come to Iraq to go
hand-to-hand with the US Military.

I would like to be as optimist as you are, it's a sincere wish.

Thanks. However, I wasn't really being optimistic, because I didn't say what
I think the outcome will be. I don't have a clear idea of what the outcome
will be.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"trotsky" wrote in message


Arny Krueger wrote:

"Lionel" wrote in message




Arny Krueger wrote:


"George M. Middius" wrote in message
om

"President Bush said today that the latest spate of bloodshed in
Iraq reflected the desperation of terrorists who cannot stop the
creation of a free country."

http://tinyurl.com/slic

That is to say that even though Americans and responsible Iraqis
and foreigners are getting mowed down like Custer's men at Little
Big Horn, we are winning the war.

Obviously Middius is oblivious to the events of June 6, 1944.

The enemy is bound to get tired of
slaughtering us soon, and then, of course, they'll surrender in
short order.

It actually works out that way, sometimes. Anybody who thinks that
what's going on now is a slaughter of US soldiers, is totally
lacking in historical perspective. One such person appears to be
our local hero, George Middius.

The big difference is that in Normandie 1944 the US soldiers were
considered as heroes by French people.


Another big difference is that at Normandy the US had about 10,000
casualties in one day, as opposed to dribs and drabs of one to three
per day, with some days zero, in Iraq.


That's not a valid comparison.


I agree that there isn't a 1:1 mapping.


At some point in our existence we are
going to reach the point where zero causalities is the only think
acceptable, if we haven't already.


At that point, we effectively hand the keys to our country over to the first
guy who has just one person who is willing to die.

Listening to many young soldiers talk, we're a long way from that.


Right. Doesn't sound that different from driving up in a car bomb.


In the old days dying in battle was supposed to be a thing of honor, now

it's only a waste of life.

Handing the keys to our country over to the first guy who has just one
person who is willing to die, is a waste of life that many would not
tolerate. It's quite clear that having even 19 people who were willing to
die did absolutely nothing to hurt our resolve to fight.


Arny, how does one "hand over the keys to the country"? Do you think
the U.S. is in danger of being taken over by foreign powers? We're the
ones doing the taking over, remember?

"Lionel" wrote in message
...

The big difference is that in Normandie 1944 the US soldiers were
considered as heros by French people.
Despite thousands civil deaths in Le Havre, Brest, Rouen, Caen,
Saint-Etienne... bombing by the Brit & USA air forces, the French people
continued to support *their liberators*.
I seriously doubt that US army as the same latitude in Iraq or anywhere
else in the Muslim world.


For nowadyas, do we count France as being part of the Muslim world?




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"trotsky" wrote in message
...


Arny Krueger wrote:
"Lionel" wrote in message



Arny Krueger wrote:


"George M. Middius" wrote in message
om


"President Bush said today that the latest spate of bloodshed in
Iraq reflected the desperation of terrorists who cannot stop the
creation of a free country."


http://tinyurl.com/slic


That is to say that even though Americans and responsible Iraqis and
foreigners are getting mowed down like Custer's men at Little Big
Horn, we are winning the war.


Obviously Middius is oblivious to the events of June 6, 1944.


The enemy is bound to get tired of
slaughtering us soon, and then, of course, they'll surrender in
short order.


It actually works out that way, sometimes. Anybody who thinks that
what's going on now is a slaughter of US soldiers, is totally
lacking in historical perspective. One such person appears to be our
local hero, George Middius.


The big difference is that in Normandie 1944 the US soldiers were
considered as heroes by French people.


Another big difference is that at Normandy the US had about 10,000
casualties in one day, as opposed to dribs and drabs of one to three per
day, with some days zero, in Iraq.


That's not a valid comparison. At some point in our existence we are
going to reach the point where zero casualities is the only think
acceptable, if we haven't already. In the old days dying in battle was
supposed to be a thing of honor, now it's only a waste of life.


There is no honor in it. It is a waste of life. However, sometimes it is
necessary, to prevent a greater waste of life or to preserve liberty.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
"Lionel" wrote in message
...


The big difference is that in Normandie 1944 the US soldiers were
considered as heros by French people.
Despite thousands civil deaths in Le Havre, Brest, Rouen, Caen,
Saint-Etienne... bombing by the Brit & USA air forces, the French people
continued to support *their liberators*.
I seriously doubt that US army as the same latitude in Iraq or anywhere
else in the Muslim world.



For nowadyas, do we count France as being part of the Muslim world?


Do your best, count France with US friends... or enemies as suggested by
a famous journalist...
You have a government of liars and mystificators, you should better
prove to the rest of the world that you don't like to be manipulated as
you have been recently.

If you sincerely do that the whole antagonism France/USA can be cleaned
during the next rugby match in Australia...
....France will inflict a light defeat only to US "chocolate" team. ;-)

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
"trotsky" wrote in message
...


That's not a valid comparison. At some point in our existence we are
going to reach the point where zero casualities is the only think
acceptable, if we haven't already. In the old days dying in battle was
supposed to be a thing of honor, now it's only a waste of life.



There is no honor in it. It is a waste of life. However, sometimes it is
necessary, to prevent a greater waste of life or to preserve liberty.


I guess I'm a little unclear on this "preservation of liberty", too.
If, in Iraq, the majority of the populace is likely to vote for a
religious based government, then we're not really interested in
democracy, right? We're *dictating* what form of government they can
have. That's dictatorship, and has nothing to do with liberty.

"trotsky" wrote in message
...


Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
"trotsky" wrote in message
...


That's not a valid comparison. At some point in our existence we are
going to reach the point where zero casualities is the only think
acceptable, if we haven't already. In the old days dying in battle was
supposed to be a thing of honor, now it's only a waste of life.



There is no honor in it. It is a waste of life. However, sometimes it
is
necessary, to prevent a greater waste of life or to preserve liberty.


I guess I'm a little unclear on this "preservation of liberty", too.
If, in Iraq, the majority of the populace is likely to vote for a
religious based government, then we're not really interested in
democracy, right?

I think we'd like to give them more than one shot to get it
right. Being new to democracy and all, you really think they
will get fair and open elections the first time?

We're *dictating* what form of government they can
have. That's dictatorship, and has nothing to do with liberty.

Only think I'd like to see dictated is that the elections aren't a
one time event.

ScottW

"Lionel" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Lionel" wrote in message


I seriously doubt that US army as the same latitude in Iraq or
anywhere else in the Muslim world.


The fact that the US has been able to enlist something like 60,000
Iraquis
to work for them suggests to me that not everybody sees the US as their
oppressor.

I haven't said and I will never say that US are Iraq oppressors.
Just want to say that in my point of view US credit is going down in
Muslim world.

And the Muslim worlds credit is **** in the US. Many people are of
the opinion that these people are incapable of policing themselves.


There seem to be two major sources of disruption in Iraq that
have little or nothing to do with the wishes of the average man in the
street. These are the Baath party members who are likely to become dead
meat
in the long run, and foreign terrorists who are full of fundamentalist
bravado and have come to Iraq to go hand-to-hand with the US Military.


I would like to be as optimist as you are, it's a sincere wish.

Except the foreigners are committing more terrorism against the
Iraqis to intimidate against cooperation than direct attacks on US
forces. I hope they accelerate the training and deployment of Iraqi
security forces.

ScottW

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 00:41:52 GMT, trotsky wrote:

There is no honor in it. It is a waste of life. However, sometimes it is
necessary, to prevent a greater waste of life or to preserve liberty.


I guess I'm a little unclear on this "preservation of liberty", too.
If, in Iraq, the majority of the populace is likely to vote for a
religious based government, then we're not really interested in
democracy, right? We're *dictating* what form of government they can
have. That's dictatorship, and has nothing to do with liberty.

Do you like wallpaper, BTW?

--
td

"trotsky" wrote in message
...


Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
"trotsky" wrote in message
...


That's not a valid comparison. At some point in our existence we are
going to reach the point where zero casualities is the only think
acceptable, if we haven't already. In the old days dying in battle was
supposed to be a thing of honor, now it's only a waste of life.



There is no honor in it. It is a waste of life. However, sometimes it is
necessary, to prevent a greater waste of life or to preserve liberty.


I guess I'm a little unclear on this "preservation of liberty", too.
If, in Iraq, the majority of the populace is likely to vote for a
religious based government, then we're not really interested in
democracy, right? We're *dictating* what form of government they can
have. That's dictatorship, and has nothing to do with liberty.


You made a leap that I never made.

My statement was generalized, about war.
Countries go to war based upon self interest.
That is what we did in Iraq. As it happens,
getting rid of Saddam and establishing a
more or less democratic goverment is in our
self interest.

As far as your comments about a religious based government,
that is not likely to be a demoracy, so, after the initial
vote, the people can never change back to a pluralistic
government. Use common sense, suppose they change their mind
after ten years. TOO BAD! They got a theocratic dictatorship
they can't get rid of.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:5aEnb.45906$gi2.2193@fed1read01...

"Lionel" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Lionel" wrote in message


I seriously doubt that US army as the same latitude in Iraq or
anywhere else in the Muslim world.


The fact that the US has been able to enlist something like 60,000
Iraquis
to work for them suggests to me that not everybody sees the US as
their
oppressor.

I haven't said and I will never say that US are Iraq oppressors.
Just want to say that in my point of view US credit is going down in
Muslim world.

And the Muslim worlds credit is **** in the US. Many people are of
the opinion that these people are incapable of policing themselves.


There seem to be two major sources of disruption in Iraq that
have little or nothing to do with the wishes of the average man in the
street. These are the Baath party members who are likely to become
dead
meat
in the long run, and foreign terrorists who are full of fundamentalist
bravado and have come to Iraq to go hand-to-hand with the US Military.


I would like to be as optimist as you are, it's a sincere wish.

Except the foreigners are committing more terrorism against the
Iraqis to intimidate against cooperation than direct attacks on US
forces. I hope they accelerate the training and deployment of Iraqi
security forces.

A big mistake not to do it earlier.
Also a mistake was disbanding the army and not paying the soldiers.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

ScottW wrote:

"Lionel" wrote in message
...

I haven't said and I will never say that US are Iraq oppressors.
Just want to say that in my point of view US credit is going down in
Muslim world.

And the Muslim worlds credit is **** in the US. Many people are of
the opinion that these people are incapable of policing themselves.

Yes but they haven't 300,000 soldiers in California so you cannot really
compare and know what they are feeling now.
Listen, your George, Dick, Colin... have unshamely lied to the face of
the world (WMD lol!), they have decided over NATO's resolutions that
they should attack Iraq. Now the most of Arabians are sure that all
these invasions : Afganistan, Iraq where perfectly prepared and
scheduled and that they have only one objective : oil and gas.
For them US are stealing their resources. So you can imagine what they
are thinking about your democracy, your security...


There seem to be two major sources of disruption in Iraq that
have little or nothing to do with the wishes of the average man in the
street. These are the Baath party members who are likely to become dead

meat

in the long run, and foreign terrorists who are full of fundamentalist
bravado and have come to Iraq to go hand-to-hand with the US Military.


I would like to be as optimist as you are, it's a sincere wish.


Except the foreigners are committing more terrorism against the
Iraqis to intimidate against cooperation than direct attacks on US
forces. I hope they accelerate the training and deployment of Iraqi
security forces.


Everything has a cost, depends on what *you* are prepared to pay.

ScottW wrote:
"trotsky" wrote in message
...


Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

"trotsky" wrote in message
...


That's not a valid comparison. At some point in our existence we are
going to reach the point where zero casualities is the only think
acceptable, if we haven't already. In the old days dying in battle was
supposed to be a thing of honor, now it's only a waste of life.



There is no honor in it. It is a waste of life. However, sometimes it

is

necessary, to prevent a greater waste of life or to preserve liberty.


I guess I'm a little unclear on this "preservation of liberty", too.
If, in Iraq, the majority of the populace is likely to vote for a
religious based government, then we're not really interested in
democracy, right?


I think we'd like to give them more than one shot to get it
right. Being new to democracy and all, you really think they
will get fair and open elections the first time?


What, with Dubya's people monitoring the action? You're probably right.


We're *dictating* what form of government they can
have. That's dictatorship, and has nothing to do with liberty.


Only think I'd like to see dictated is that the elections aren't a
one time event.

ScottW

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
"trotsky" wrote in message
...


Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

"trotsky" wrote in message
...


That's not a valid comparison. At some point in our existence we are
going to reach the point where zero casualities is the only think
acceptable, if we haven't already. In the old days dying in battle was
supposed to be a thing of honor, now it's only a waste of life.



There is no honor in it. It is a waste of life. However, sometimes it is
necessary, to prevent a greater waste of life or to preserve liberty.


I guess I'm a little unclear on this "preservation of liberty", too.
If, in Iraq, the majority of the populace is likely to vote for a
religious based government, then we're not really interested in
democracy, right? We're *dictating* what form of government they can
have. That's dictatorship, and has nothing to do with liberty.



You made a leap that I never made.

My statement was generalized, about war.


Was it? Where is this "preservation of liberty" in 2003?


Countries go to war based upon self interest.


Right. Viva la libertad.


That is what we did in Iraq. As it happens,
getting rid of Saddam and establishing a
more or less democratic goverment is in our
self interest.

As far as your comments about a religious based government,
that is not likely to be a demoracy, so, after the initial
vote, the people can never change back to a pluralistic
government. Use common sense, suppose they change their mind
after ten years. TOO BAD! They got a theocratic dictatorship
they can't get rid of.


Of course. Taking over the whole world's the only answer.

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 20:22:27 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
wrote:

My statement was generalized, about war.
Countries go to war based upon self interest.
That is what we did in Iraq. As it happens,
getting rid of Saddam and establishing a
more or less democratic goverment is in our
self interest.

Conquer Europe next?

--
td

The Stainless Steel Boob Orchestra said:

Conquer Europe next?

Would you Brits object if somebody annexed France?

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 21:04:32 -0500, George M. Middius
wrote:

Would you Brits object if somebody annexed France?

Not really, no.

--
td

"Lionel" wrote in message
...
ScottW wrote:

"Lionel" wrote in message
...

I haven't said and I will never say that US are Iraq oppressors.
Just want to say that in my point of view US credit is going down in
Muslim world.

And the Muslim worlds credit is **** in the US. Many people are of
the opinion that these people are incapable of policing themselves.

Yes but they haven't 300,000 soldiers in California so you cannot really
compare and know what they are feeling now.
Listen, your George, Dick, Colin... have unshamely lied to the face of
the world (WMD lol!), they have decided over NATO's resolutions that
they should attack Iraq.

You guys need to understand the US is not going to allow these "one world"
governments to dictate our foreign policy. If nothing else, these attempts
to
do so mobilize support for any leader that says it won't be so.
Much like France has rallied behind Chiraque.

ScottW

"trotsky" wrote in message
...


Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
"trotsky" wrote in message
...


Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

"trotsky" wrote in message
...


That's not a valid comparison. At some point in our existence we are
going to reach the point where zero casualities is the only think
acceptable, if we haven't already. In the old days dying in battle
was
supposed to be a thing of honor, now it's only a waste of life.



There is no honor in it. It is a waste of life. However, sometimes it
is
necessary, to prevent a greater waste of life or to preserve liberty.


I guess I'm a little unclear on this "preservation of liberty", too.
If, in Iraq, the majority of the populace is likely to vote for a
religious based government, then we're not really interested in
democracy, right? We're *dictating* what form of government they can
have. That's dictatorship, and has nothing to do with liberty.



You made a leap that I never made.

My statement was generalized, about war.


Was it? Where is this "preservation of liberty" in 2003?



All I was talking about was thet war is sometimes necessary to
prevent greater loss of life or to preserve liberty.
I didn't say those were the only reasons nations got to war.
I didn't say that those were the only valid reasons nations go to war.
I didn't say anything about Iraq.
I didn't say that the reason for the Iraq war was to preserve liberty.

Stop making assumptions, and
stop putting words in my mouth.
Other than that, I am not going to get into an
argument with you for the purpose of supporting statements
that I never made, nor ever intended to be made.



As far as your comments about a religious based government,
that is not likely to be a demoracy, so, after the initial
vote, the people can never change back to a pluralistic
government. Use common sense, suppose they change their mind
after ten years. TOO BAD! They got a theocratic dictatorship
they can't get rid of.


Of course. Taking over the whole world's the only answer.


Again:
Stop making assumptions, and
stop putting words in my mouth.
Other than that, I am not going to get into an
argument with you for the purpose of supporting statements
that I never made, nor ever intended to be made.






----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"The Stainless Steel Boob Orchestra" wrote in message
news:ec7upvoti677706k558re91j60b3r8d5pv@rdmzrnewst xt.nz...
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 20:22:27 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
wrote:

My statement was generalized, about war.
Countries go to war based upon self interest.
That is what we did in Iraq. As it happens,
getting rid of Saddam and establishing a
more or less democratic goverment is in our
self interest.

Conquer Europe next?



Why?




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 11:31:09 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Another big difference is that at Normandy the US had about 10,000
casualties in one day, as opposed to dribs and drabs of one to three per
day, with some days zero, in Iraq. The George Custer metaphor Middius uses
is almost as inappropriate, as Custer lost about 300 men in less than a day
at little Big Horn.

Another big difference is that Germany invaded Czechoslovakia, Poland,
France, England, and Russia, while Iraq invaded... no one.

--

Jacob Kramer

Jacob Kramer said:

Another big difference is that Germany invaded Czechoslovakia, Poland,
France, England, and Russia, while Iraq invaded... no one.

Only if you maintain, as Saddam Hussein and his predecessors did, that
Kuwait and Iran are not sovereign nations but mere offshoots of
Greater Iraq.

Langis wrote:
You are being a little unfair - Presidenté Bush has done an excellent
job of liberating Iraq to a whole new wave of terror!

So when will Tony Bush face a no confidence vote?

Nexus 6

Nexus 6 said:

So when will Tony Bush face a no confidence vote?

Maybe when he becomes a national hero in France.......

trotsky wrote:


I guess I'm a little unclear on this "preservation of liberty", too. If,
in Iraq, the majority of the populace is likely to vote for a religious
based government, then we're not really interested in democracy, right?
We're *dictating* what form of government they can have. That's
dictatorship, and has nothing to do with liberty.

It will be great for the oil biz.

Nexus 6

The Stainless Steel Boob Orchestra wrote:

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 20:22:27 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
wrote:


My statement was generalized, about war.
Countries go to war based upon self interest.
That is what we did in Iraq. As it happens,
getting rid of Saddam and establishing a
more or less democratic goverment is in our
self interest.


Conquer Europe next?

Wot?

The *curtains*?

Nexus 6

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:


Conquer Europe next?




Why?


Because it's there?

Nexus 6

Jacob Kramer wrote:

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 11:31:09 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


Another big difference is that at Normandy the US had about 10,000
casualties in one day, as opposed to dribs and drabs of one to three per
day, with some days zero, in Iraq. The George Custer metaphor Middius uses
is almost as inappropriate, as Custer lost about 300 men in less than a day
at little Big Horn.


Another big difference is that Germany invaded Czechoslovakia, Poland,
France, England, and Russia, while Iraq invaded... no one.

Yes, but it thought about it.

At least once.

I hear they found the master plan for the Iraqi invasion of
New Hampshire.

Nexus 6

George M. Middius wrote:


Jacob Kramer said:


Another big difference is that Germany invaded Czechoslovakia, Poland,
France, England, and Russia, while Iraq invaded... no one.


Only if you maintain, as Saddam Hussein and his predecessors did, that
Kuwait and Iran are not sovereign nations but mere offshoots of
Greater Iraq.

OKOKOK....sheesh.

They hadn't invaded anyone in a while.

Doesn't that count?

Nexus 6