[Eeyore]

John Reid became the first senior Cabinet figure to admit Britian's foreign
policy was turning young Muslims to terrorism.

The Home Secretary's remarks end at least three years of denial by the
Government that the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have been a key factor
behind the alarming rise in Islamic extremism.

The most stubborn refusal to accept the argument has come from the Prime
Minister.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770

And this in a 'right wing' paper !

Graham

[ScottW]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...
John Reid became the first senior Cabinet figure to admit Britian's foreign
policy was turning young Muslims to terrorism.

The Home Secretary's remarks end at least three years of denial by the
Government that the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have been a key factor
behind the alarming rise in Islamic extremism.

The most stubborn refusal to accept the argument has come from the Prime
Minister.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770

And this in a 'right wing' paper !

So...the sooner you surrender, the safer you'll be.

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in message
...
John Reid became the first senior Cabinet figure to admit Britian's foreign
policy was turning young Muslims to terrorism.

The Home Secretary's remarks end at least three years of denial by the
Government that the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have been a key factor
behind the alarming rise in Islamic extremism.

The most stubborn refusal to accept the argument has come from the Prime
Minister.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770

And this in a 'right wing' paper !

So...the sooner you surrender, the safer you'll be.

No, your right-wing 'patriots' have increased our risk exponentially.
There's no doubt about that, and there's not a damned thing we can do
about it at this point.

How many generations of damage do you suppose that we've created,
toopid?

How many generations do you suppose that we should 'stay the course'
before we leave?

Do you disagree with Kissinger's statement that military victory in
Iraq is no longer possible? If yes, based on what?

And how many generations do you suppose it might take for Iraq to form
a functioning democratic government that can survive after we do leave?

Just curious.

Here's to the 'safe and secure' environment that we've created:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15848198/

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...

ScottW wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in message
...
John Reid became the first senior Cabinet figure to admit Britian's foreign
policy was turning young Muslims to terrorism.

The Home Secretary's remarks end at least three years of denial by the
Government that the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have been a key
factor
behind the alarming rise in Islamic extremism.

The most stubborn refusal to accept the argument has come from the Prime
Minister.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770

And this in a 'right wing' paper !

So...the sooner you surrender, the safer you'll be.

No, your right-wing 'patriots' have increased our risk exponentially.

Our risk at home? ..no I don't think so.

There's no doubt about that,

Yes...there is. You seem to think individuals
are more dangerous than state sponsored terrorism.
I don't.

and there's not a damned thing we can do
about it at this point.

How many generations of damage do you suppose that we've created,
toopid?

How many generations do you suppose that we should 'stay the course'
before we leave?

Do you disagree with Kissinger's statement that military victory in
Iraq is no longer possible? If yes, based on what?

Military victory was achieved long ago.
What is going on today is not a military campaign IMO.


And how many generations do you suppose it might take for Iraq to form
a functioning democratic government that can survive after we do leave?

Thats up to the Iraqi's.

Just curious.

Here's to the 'safe and secure' environment that we've created:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15848198/

We created this alone? I don't think so.
We couldn't do it without all those peace loving muslims
you're so proud of.

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...

ScottW wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in message
...
John Reid became the first senior Cabinet figure to admit Britian's foreign
policy was turning young Muslims to terrorism.

The Home Secretary's remarks end at least three years of denial by the
Government that the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have been a key
factor
behind the alarming rise in Islamic extremism.

The most stubborn refusal to accept the argument has come from the Prime
Minister.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770

And this in a 'right wing' paper !

So...the sooner you surrender, the safer you'll be.

No, your right-wing 'patriots' have increased our risk exponentially.

Our risk at home? ..no I don't think so.

Really? Then you disagree with the NIE, Sen. McCain, and a host of
others. The 'fight the terrorists there' argument was
smoke-and-mirrors.

There's no doubt about that,

Yes...there is. You seem to think individuals
are more dangerous than state sponsored terrorism.
I don't.

No, I seem to think that our action in Iraq has not mitigated
state-sponsored terrorism one bit, while vastly increasing those pesky
individual terrorists exponentially.

Not to mention draining our national wealth, international standing,
military, and a host of other bad things.

and there's not a damned thing we can do
about it at this point.

How many generations of damage do you suppose that we've created,
toopid?

How many generations do you suppose that we should 'stay the course'
before we leave?

Do you disagree with Kissinger's statement that military victory in
Iraq is no longer possible? If yes, based on what?

Military victory was achieved long ago.

Disagree. You probably don't need reminding, you military genius you,
that there is a part of an OPORD that discusses how things are to be
situated at the end of the day. It's called the 'Commander's Intent.'
Just because we never had that in our plan doesn't make that
requirement go away.

What is going on today is not a military campaign IMO.

Then you'd have no problem with the military pulling out tomorrow, as
they're not performing a military mission there. We should send cops or
something.

When you shoot at somebody who's shooting at you, it's combat. When you
don't control the terrain, you can't declare victory. We control pieces
of terrain sometimes.

And how many generations do you suppose it might take for Iraq to form
a functioning democratic government that can survive after we do leave?

Thats up to the Iraqi's.

Just curious.

Here's to the 'safe and secure' environment that we've created:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15848198/

We created this alone? I don't think so.
We couldn't do it without all those peace loving muslims
you're so proud of.

Another leap in 'logic' from toopid.

Moron.

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...

ScottW wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...

ScottW wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in message
...
John Reid became the first senior Cabinet figure to admit Britian's
foreign
policy was turning young Muslims to terrorism.

The Home Secretary's remarks end at least three years of denial by the
Government that the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have been a key
factor
behind the alarming rise in Islamic extremism.

The most stubborn refusal to accept the argument has come from the Prime
Minister.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770

And this in a 'right wing' paper !

So...the sooner you surrender, the safer you'll be.

No, your right-wing 'patriots' have increased our risk exponentially.

Our risk at home? ..no I don't think so.

Really? Then you disagree with the NIE, Sen. McCain, and a host of
others.

Where's the proof?

The 'fight the terrorists there' argument was
smoke-and-mirrors.

There's no doubt about that,

Yes...there is. You seem to think individuals
are more dangerous than state sponsored terrorism.
I don't.

No, I seem to think that our action in Iraq has not mitigated
state-sponsored terrorism one bit, while vastly increasing those pesky
individual terrorists exponentially.

You're self centered approach is noted while ignoring that Saddam
was gleefully paying families of young suicide bombers
thousands.


Not to mention draining our national wealth,
international standing,
military, and a host of other bad things.

and there's not a damned thing we can do
about it at this point.

How many generations of damage do you suppose that we've created,
toopid?

How many generations do you suppose that we should 'stay the course'
before we leave?

Do you disagree with Kissinger's statement that military victory in
Iraq is no longer possible? If yes, based on what?

Military victory was achieved long ago.

Disagree. You probably don't need reminding, you military genius you,
that there is a part of an OPORD that discusses how things are to be
situated at the end of the day. It's called the 'Commander's Intent.'

The initial intent was get in and get out quick.
You guys can argue that all this subsequent nation building
is military action but I disagree.

Just because we never had that in our plan doesn't make that
requirement go away.

What is going on today is not a military campaign IMO.

Then you'd have no problem with the military pulling out tomorrow, as
they're not performing a military mission there. We should send cops or
something.

Got some spare cops handy? We should train Iraqis and let them
have the country. Their already starting to clamor for more responsibility.
Is it our responsibility to make sure they don't abuse it?


When you shoot at somebody who's shooting at you, it's combat.

So cops are often in combat.

When you
don't control the terrain, you can't declare victory. We control pieces
of terrain sometimes.

Old school. They go where they want when they want.


And how many generations do you suppose it might take for Iraq to form
a functioning democratic government that can survive after we do leave?

Thats up to the Iraqi's.

Just curious.

Here's to the 'safe and secure' environment that we've created:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15848198/

We created this alone? I don't think so.
We couldn't do it without all those peace loving muslims
you're so proud of.

Another leap in 'logic' from toopid.

LOL!

Moron.

Cut and run...again.

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...

ScottW wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...

ScottW wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in message
...
John Reid became the first senior Cabinet figure to admit Britian's
foreign
policy was turning young Muslims to terrorism.

The Home Secretary's remarks end at least three years of denial by the
Government that the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have been a key
factor
behind the alarming rise in Islamic extremism.

The most stubborn refusal to accept the argument has come from the Prime
Minister.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770

And this in a 'right wing' paper !

So...the sooner you surrender, the safer you'll be.

No, your right-wing 'patriots' have increased our risk exponentially.

Our risk at home? ..no I don't think so.

Really? Then you disagree with the NIE, Sen. McCain, and a host of
others.

Where's the proof?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1880275,00.html

"No reasonable person can possibly deny that our intervention in Iraq
has been an enormous stimulus to terrorist activity worldwide. Efforts
by John McCain and others to discount the significance of that factor
by pointing out that the attacks on 9/11 occurred before our overthrow
of Saddam Hussein is as trivial and irrelevant as they are
disingenuous." -- Ray Close, who served as the top CIA official in
Saudi Arabia

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeeho...behind_the_nie

"Defenders of the war in Iraq, such as Vice President Cheney, contend
that since the United States has not been hit since Sept. 11, the
threat cannot be growing. In fact, the terrorists understand that for
now it is easier to kill Americans in Iraq than in America, and at this
they have succeeded. After the Heathrow plot to destroy U.S.-bound
commercial jets and the disclosure of a homegrown cell next-door in
Canada, suggesting that the danger is subsiding bespeaks obliviousness
or denial."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...092801455.html

So you're either oblivious or in a state of denial. I have no problem
with that assessment.

Remember, toopid, that there was an eight-year span between WTC I and
WTC II.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n2036338.shtml

And so on.

Now on the one hand, we should trust these people with illegal wiretaps
and so on, but on the other hand, we should ignore them when they say
that our invasion of Iraq has made the terrorism problem worse.

Make up your 'mind.'

The 'fight the terrorists there' argument was
smoke-and-mirrors.

There's no doubt about that,

Yes...there is. You seem to think individuals
are more dangerous than state sponsored terrorism.
I don't.

No, I seem to think that our action in Iraq has not mitigated
state-sponsored terrorism one bit, while vastly increasing those pesky
individual terrorists exponentially.

You're self centered approach is noted while ignoring that Saddam
was gleefully paying families of young suicide bombers
thousands.

I am, I confess, primarily concerned with the US. I think that we
should cooperate, help out, coordinate, and do everything that we can
with the rest of the world to try to stop terrorism where possible.

But yes, I think the primary responsibility of our military,
intelligence, politicians, diplomatic efforts, and so on, should be
directed at our population and national safety.

Not one of Saddam's suicide bombers did anything here IFAIK.

Not to mention draining our national wealth,
international standing,
military, and a host of other bad things.

and there's not a damned thing we can do
about it at this point.

How many generations of damage do you suppose that we've created,
toopid?

How many generations do you suppose that we should 'stay the course'
before we leave?

Do you disagree with Kissinger's statement that military victory in
Iraq is no longer possible? If yes, based on what?

Military victory was achieved long ago.

Disagree. You probably don't need reminding, you military genius you,
that there is a part of an OPORD that discusses how things are to be
situated at the end of the day. It's called the 'Commander's Intent.'

The initial intent was get in and get out quick.
You guys can argue that all this subsequent nation building
is military action but I disagree.

Then, once again, we do not need the military there.

Just because we never had that in our plan doesn't make that
requirement go away.

What is going on today is not a military campaign IMO.

Then you'd have no problem with the military pulling out tomorrow, as
they're not performing a military mission there. We should send cops or
something.

Got some spare cops handy? We should train Iraqis and let them
have the country. Their already starting to clamor for more responsibility.
Is it our responsibility to make sure they don't abuse it?

We've been training the Iraqis for some years now, toopid. Don't you
remember? "We know have 192,000 fully-trained Iraqis..."

"The U.S. military says there are 100,000 Iraqi troops. The number
given for trained and equipped Iraqi troops has fluctuated wildly over
the past year and has been the subject of debate in Washington."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/...raq/index.html

"November 20, 2005: Rumsfeld said: "The U.S.-led coalition continues to
make progress in training Iraqi security forces, [placing] their number
at 212,000[, disputing] reports that fewer than 1,000 Iraqis were
capable of fighting the insurgency without coalition assistance."
Rumsfeld called "the lower number 'a red herring'" and said "it does
not reflect the involvement of Iraqis in securing their country."

"February 24, 2006: According to CNN: "Pentagon: Iraqi troops
downgraded. No Iraqi battalion capable of fighting without U.S.
support."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...New_Iraqi_army

When you shoot at somebody who's shooting at you, it's combat.

So cops are often in combat.

You tell me, toopid:

com·bat (km-bt, kmbt)
v. com·bat·ed or com·bat·ted, com·bat·ing or com·bat·ting,
com·bats
v.tr.
1. To oppose in battle; fight against.
2. To oppose vigorously; struggle against. See Synonyms at oppose.
v.intr.
To engage in fighting; contend or struggle.
n. (kmbt)
Fighting, especially armed battle; strife. See Synonyms at conflict.
adj. (kmbt)
1. Of or relating to combat: flew 50 combat missions.
2. Intended for use or deployment in combat: combat boots; combat
troops.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/combat

Go take an ESL class, umkay?

When you
don't control the terrain, you can't declare victory. We control pieces
of terrain sometimes.

Old school. They go where they want when they want.

The insurgents or us? LOL!

And when they leave, the enemy goes where they want, when they want.

Old school? LOL!

What a moron. Who needs that army or marines then? You can do it all by
air now, with your 'new school' thinking.

And how many generations do you suppose it might take for Iraq to form
a functioning democratic government that can survive after we do leave?

Thats up to the Iraqi's.

Just curious.

Here's to the 'safe and secure' environment that we've created:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15848198/

We created this alone? I don't think so.
We couldn't do it without all those peace loving muslims
you're so proud of.

Another leap in 'logic' from toopid.

LOL!

See proof of your stupidity in the links provided above.

Moron.

Cut and run...again.

I don't see where I said that. Please point out where your 'mind'
picked up that nugget.

Moron.

[MiNe 109]

In article om,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

Remember, toopid, that there was an eight-year span between WTC I and
WTC II.

Those initials used to remind me only of Bach's Well-Temper Clavier.

Stephen

[George M. Middius]

MiNe 109 said:

Remember, toopid, that there was an eight-year span between WTC I and
WTC II.

Those initials used to remind me only of Bach's Well-Temper Clavier.

Would you prefer WTC 83 and WTC 01?




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ps.com...

ScottW wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...

ScottW wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...

ScottW wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in message
...
John Reid became the first senior Cabinet figure to admit Britian's
foreign
policy was turning young Muslims to terrorism.

The Home Secretary's remarks end at least three years of denial by the
Government that the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have been a key
factor
behind the alarming rise in Islamic extremism.

The most stubborn refusal to accept the argument has come from the
Prime
Minister.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770

And this in a 'right wing' paper !

So...the sooner you surrender, the safer you'll be.

No, your right-wing 'patriots' have increased our risk exponentially.

Our risk at home? ..no I don't think so.

Really? Then you disagree with the NIE, Sen. McCain, and a host of
others.

Where's the proof?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1880275,00.html

"No reasonable person can possibly deny that our intervention in Iraq
has been an enormous stimulus to terrorist activity worldwide. Efforts
by John McCain and others to discount the significance of that factor
by pointing out that the attacks on 9/11 occurred before our overthrow
of Saddam Hussein is as trivial and irrelevant as they are
disingenuous." -- Ray Close, who served as the top CIA official in
Saudi Arabia

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeeho...behind_the_nie


The above is a worldwide view. Not a domestic one.

"Defenders of the war in Iraq, such as Vice President Cheney, contend
that since the United States has not been hit since Sept. 11, the
threat cannot be growing. In fact, the terrorists understand that for
now it is easier to kill Americans in Iraq than in America, and at this
they have succeeded. After the Heathrow plot to destroy U.S.-bound
commercial jets and the disclosure of a homegrown cell next-door in
Canada, suggesting that the danger is subsiding bespeaks obliviousness
or denial."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...092801455.html


This says the danger is not subsiding...but doens't claim
exponential increases in risk in the homeland.

How'd you manage to sabatoge a post so indents are eliminated?
Anyway, your own references don't support your claims....again.

ScottW

[Eeyore]

ScottW wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in message

John Reid became the first senior Cabinet figure to admit Britian's foreign
policy was turning young Muslims to terrorism.

The Home Secretary's remarks end at least three years of denial by the
Government that the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have been a key factor
behind the alarming rise in Islamic extremism.

The most stubborn refusal to accept the argument has come from the Prime
Minister.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770

And this in a 'right wing' paper !

So...the sooner you surrender, the safer you'll be.

Who do you want us to 'surrender' to ?

Graham

[Eeyore]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

ScottW wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in message

John Reid became the first senior Cabinet figure to admit Britian's foreign
policy was turning young Muslims to terrorism.

The Home Secretary's remarks end at least three years of denial by the
Government that the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have been a key factor
behind the alarming rise in Islamic extremism.

The most stubborn refusal to accept the argument has come from the Prime
Minister.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770

And this in a 'right wing' paper !

So...the sooner you surrender, the safer you'll be.

No, your right-wing 'patriots' have increased our risk exponentially.
There's no doubt about that, and there's not a damned thing we can do
about it at this point.

Actually there is.

BushCo could easily make it even worse still.

Graham

[Eeyore]

ScottW wrote:

Military victory was achieved long ago.
What is going on today is not a military campaign IMO.

What's that got to do with the price of fish ?


And how many generations do you suppose it might take for Iraq to form
a functioning democratic government that can survive after we do leave?

Thats up to the Iraqi's.

Just curious.

Here's to the 'safe and secure' environment that we've created:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15848198/

We created this alone? I don't think so.

We ? It was a neocon idea.


We couldn't do it without all those peace loving muslims
you're so proud of.

Iraq under Saddam was a secular society !

Graham

[Eeyore]

ScottW wrote:

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message

No, I seem to think that our action in Iraq has not mitigated
state-sponsored terrorism one bit, while vastly increasing those pesky
individual terrorists exponentially.

You're self centered approach is noted while ignoring that Saddam
was gleefully paying families of young suicide bombers
thousands.

To have a pop at Israel, not the USA and Europe.

Graham

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ps.com...

ScottW wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...

ScottW wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...

ScottW wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in message
...
John Reid became the first senior Cabinet figure to admit Britian's
foreign
policy was turning young Muslims to terrorism.

The Home Secretary's remarks end at least three years of denial by the
Government that the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have been a key
factor
behind the alarming rise in Islamic extremism.

The most stubborn refusal to accept the argument has come from the
Prime
Minister.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770

And this in a 'right wing' paper !

So...the sooner you surrender, the safer you'll be.

No, your right-wing 'patriots' have increased our risk exponentially.

Our risk at home? ..no I don't think so.

Really? Then you disagree with the NIE, Sen. McCain, and a host of
others.

Where's the proof?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1880275,00.html

"No reasonable person can possibly deny that our intervention in Iraq
has been an enormous stimulus to terrorist activity worldwide. Efforts
by John McCain and others to discount the significance of that factor
by pointing out that the attacks on 9/11 occurred before our overthrow
of Saddam Hussein is as trivial and irrelevant as they are
disingenuous." -- Ray Close, who served as the top CIA official in
Saudi Arabia

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeeho...behind_the_nie


The above is a worldwide view. Not a domestic one.

Good thing the US is not in the world. And we've chosen a hell of a
good way to say "Thanks!" to our allies.;-)

"Defenders of the war in Iraq, such as Vice President Cheney, contend
that since the United States has not been hit since Sept. 11, the
threat cannot be growing. In fact, the terrorists understand that for
now it is easier to kill Americans in Iraq than in America, and at this
they have succeeded. After the Heathrow plot to destroy U.S.-bound
commercial jets and the disclosure of a homegrown cell next-door in
Canada, suggesting that the danger is subsiding bespeaks obliviousness
or denial."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...092801455.html


This says the danger is not subsiding...but doens't claim
exponential increases in risk in the homeland.

How'd you manage to sabatoge a post so indents are eliminated?
Anyway, your own references don't support your claims....again.

Myopia noted.

Moron.

[ScottW]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


ScottW wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in message

John Reid became the first senior Cabinet figure to admit Britian's foreign
policy was turning young Muslims to terrorism.

The Home Secretary's remarks end at least three years of denial by the
Government that the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have been a key
factor
behind the alarming rise in Islamic extremism.

The most stubborn refusal to accept the argument has come from the Prime
Minister.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770

And this in a 'right wing' paper !

So...the sooner you surrender, the safer you'll be.

Who do you want us to 'surrender' to ?

Wow...you are easily confused.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


ScottW wrote:

Military victory was achieved long ago.
What is going on today is not a military campaign IMO.

What's that got to do with the price of fish ?


And how many generations do you suppose it might take for Iraq to form
a functioning democratic government that can survive after we do leave?

Thats up to the Iraqi's.

Just curious.

Here's to the 'safe and secure' environment that we've created:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15848198/

We created this alone? I don't think so.

We ? It was a neocon idea.

Sectarian violence was a neocon idea?
Thats a new one.



We couldn't do it without all those peace loving muslims
you're so proud of.

Iraq under Saddam was a secular society !

A secular police state...

Apparently the freedom for muslims experiment is a failure.
They simply can't stop killing each other given the opportunity.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


ScottW wrote:

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message

No, I seem to think that our action in Iraq has not mitigated
state-sponsored terrorism one bit, while vastly increasing those pesky
individual terrorists exponentially.

You're self centered approach is noted while ignoring that Saddam
was gleefully paying families of young suicide bombers
thousands.

To have a pop at Israel, not the USA and Europe.

Why do you find that acceptable?

ScottW

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...

ScottW wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ps.com...

ScottW wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...

ScottW wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in
message
oups.com...

ScottW wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in message
...
John Reid became the first senior Cabinet figure to admit Britian's
foreign
policy was turning young Muslims to terrorism.

The Home Secretary's remarks end at least three years of denial by
the
Government that the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have been a
key
factor
behind the alarming rise in Islamic extremism.

The most stubborn refusal to accept the argument has come from the
Prime
Minister.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770

And this in a 'right wing' paper !

So...the sooner you surrender, the safer you'll be.

No, your right-wing 'patriots' have increased our risk exponentially.

Our risk at home? ..no I don't think so.

Really? Then you disagree with the NIE, Sen. McCain, and a host of
others.

Where's the proof?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1880275,00.html

"No reasonable person can possibly deny that our intervention in Iraq
has been an enormous stimulus to terrorist activity worldwide. Efforts
by John McCain and others to discount the significance of that factor
by pointing out that the attacks on 9/11 occurred before our overthrow
of Saddam Hussein is as trivial and irrelevant as they are
disingenuous." -- Ray Close, who served as the top CIA official in
Saudi Arabia

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeeho...behind_the_nie


The above is a worldwide view. Not a domestic one.

Good thing the US is not in the world. And we've chosen a hell of a
good way to say "Thanks!" to our allies.;-)

"Defenders of the war in Iraq, such as Vice President Cheney, contend
that since the United States has not been hit since Sept. 11, the
threat cannot be growing. In fact, the terrorists understand that for
now it is easier to kill Americans in Iraq than in America, and at this
they have succeeded. After the Heathrow plot to destroy U.S.-bound
commercial jets and the disclosure of a homegrown cell next-door in
Canada, suggesting that the danger is subsiding bespeaks obliviousness
or denial."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...092801455.html


This says the danger is not subsiding...but doens't claim
exponential increases in risk in the homeland.

How'd you manage to sabatoge a post so indents are eliminated?
Anyway, your own references don't support your claims....again.

Myopia noted.

Moron.

LOL...is bringing less and less of a cogent argument in line with your
bore me to death strategy?

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:

Apparently the freedom for muslims experiment is a failure.

Did we invade a country called 'Muslim'?

They simply can't stop killing each other given the opportunity.

The country of Iraq was/is an artificial entity. There is no national
identity.

Using your 'logic' one has to wonder why the entire Middle East has not
erupted into warfare.

Moron.

[Eeyore]

ScottW wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in message
ScottW wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in message

John Reid became the first senior Cabinet figure to admit Britian's foreign
policy was turning young Muslims to terrorism.

The Home Secretary's remarks end at least three years of denial by the
Government that the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have been a key
factor
behind the alarming rise in Islamic extremism.

The most stubborn refusal to accept the argument has come from the Prime
Minister.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770

And this in a 'right wing' paper !

So...the sooner you surrender, the safer you'll be.

Who do you want us to 'surrender' to ?

Wow...you are easily confused.

I see you have no answer. No great surprise.

Let me ask you again......
Who do you want us to 'surrender' to ?

And no daft 'cutesy' comments this time ok ?

Graham

[Eeyore]

ScottW wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in message
ScottW wrote:

Military victory was achieved long ago.
What is going on today is not a military campaign IMO.

What's that got to do with the price of fish ?


And how many generations do you suppose it might take for Iraq to form
a functioning democratic government that can survive after we do leave?

Thats up to the Iraqi's.

Just curious.

Here's to the 'safe and secure' environment that we've created:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15848198/

We created this alone? I don't think so.

We ? It was a neocon idea.

Sectarian violence was a neocon idea?
Thats a new one.

Invading foreign countries whose history and culture you neither know nor can
understand is a neocon idea, yes.


We couldn't do it without all those peace loving muslims
you're so proud of.

Iraq under Saddam was a secular society !

A secular police state...

So ? Big deal. So was all of eastern Europe not so long ago. Let them sort it
out for themselves. They don't need or want Uncle Sam to do it for them with his
size 15 boots.

How about the police state currently being built in the USA ? Are you not
complaining about that ?


Apparently the freedom for muslims experiment is a failure.
They simply can't stop killing each other given the opportunity.

It's tribal not religious differences primarily.

If anyone in the Whitehouse knew any history of the region they wouldn't be
running round in circles like dumb**** idiots now.

Graham

[Eeyore]

ScottW wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in message
ScottW wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message

No, I seem to think that our action in Iraq has not mitigated
state-sponsored terrorism one bit, while vastly increasing those pesky
individual terrorists exponentially.

You're self centered approach is noted while ignoring that Saddam
was gleefully paying families of young suicide bombers
thousands.

To have a pop at Israel, not the USA and Europe.

Why do you find that acceptable?

It's Israels' turf. Let them fix it. The 2 sides have been going at each other
for donkey's years.


Graham

[Eeyore]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

ScottW wrote:

Apparently the freedom for muslims experiment is a failure.

Did we invade a country called 'Muslim'?

They simply can't stop killing each other given the opportunity.

The country of Iraq was/is an artificial entity. There is no national
identity.

Using your 'logic' one has to wonder why the entire Middle East has not
erupted into warfare.

Give it a chance ! Bush has got another 2 yrs yet.

I'd personally like to see him drummed out of office ( for stupidity mainly ).
Blair can go too.

Graham

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...

ScottW wrote:

Apparently the freedom for muslims experiment is a failure.

Did we invade a country called 'Muslim'?

They simply can't stop killing each other given the opportunity.

The country of Iraq was/is an artificial entity. There is no national
identity.

Using your 'logic' one has to wonder why the entire Middle East has not
erupted into warfare.

It has a long history of doing just that.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


ScottW wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in message
ScottW wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in message

John Reid became the first senior Cabinet figure to admit Britian's
foreign
policy was turning young Muslims to terrorism.

The Home Secretary's remarks end at least three years of denial by the
Government that the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have been a key
factor
behind the alarming rise in Islamic extremism.

The most stubborn refusal to accept the argument has come from the Prime
Minister.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770

And this in a 'right wing' paper !

So...the sooner you surrender, the safer you'll be.

Who do you want us to 'surrender' to ?

Wow...you are easily confused.

I see you have no answer. No great surprise.

Let me ask you again......
Who do you want us to 'surrender' to ?

Mohammed.


And no daft 'cutesy' comments this time ok ?

Having recently shown you to be a daft idiot
prone to making false accusations I'm not inclined
to treat you worthy of serious conversation.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


ScottW wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in message
ScottW wrote:

Military victory was achieved long ago.
What is going on today is not a military campaign IMO.

What's that got to do with the price of fish ?


And how many generations do you suppose it might take for Iraq to form
a functioning democratic government that can survive after we do leave?

Thats up to the Iraqi's.

Just curious.

Here's to the 'safe and secure' environment that we've created:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15848198/

We created this alone? I don't think so.

We ? It was a neocon idea.

Sectarian violence was a neocon idea?
Thats a new one.

Invading foreign countries whose history and culture you neither know nor can
understand is a neocon idea, yes.


We couldn't do it without all those peace loving muslims
you're so proud of.

Iraq under Saddam was a secular society !

A secular police state...

So ? Big deal. So was all of eastern Europe not so long ago. Let them sort it
out for themselves.

Tell it to the Balkan residents.

They don't need or want Uncle Sam to do it for them with his
size 15 boots.

How about the police state currently being built in the USA ? Are you not
complaining about that ?

Shouldn't we be sorting that out ourselves? Hypocrite.



Apparently the freedom for muslims experiment is a failure.
They simply can't stop killing each other given the opportunity.

It's tribal not religious differences primarily.

Oh well that's different......So how come all the killing seems
to always be a sunni on shiite tribe or vice versa?

ScottW

[Eeyore]

ScottW wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in message
ScottW wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in message
ScottW wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in message

John Reid became the first senior Cabinet figure to admit Britian's
foreign
policy was turning young Muslims to terrorism.

The Home Secretary's remarks end at least three years of denial by the
Government that the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have been a key
factor
behind the alarming rise in Islamic extremism.

The most stubborn refusal to accept the argument has come from the Prime
Minister.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770

And this in a 'right wing' paper !

So...the sooner you surrender, the safer you'll be.

Who do you want us to 'surrender' to ?

Wow...you are easily confused.

I see you have no answer. No great surprise.

Let me ask you again......
Who do you want us to 'surrender' to ?

Mohammed.

Which one ? There's loads of them.


And no daft 'cutesy' comments this time ok ?

Having recently shown you to be a daft idiot
prone to making false accusations I'm not inclined
to treat you worthy of serious conversation.

You're so detached from reality I frankly don't care.

Graham

[Eeyore]

ScottW wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in message
ScottW wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in message
ScottW wrote:

Military victory was achieved long ago.
What is going on today is not a military campaign IMO.

What's that got to do with the price of fish ?

And how many generations do you suppose it might take for Iraq to form
a functioning democratic government that can survive after we do leave?

Thats up to the Iraqi's.

Just curious.

Here's to the 'safe and secure' environment that we've created:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15848198/

We created this alone? I don't think so.

We ? It was a neocon idea.

Sectarian violence was a neocon idea?
Thats a new one.

Invading foreign countries whose history and culture you neither know nor can
understand is a neocon idea, yes.


We couldn't do it without all those peace loving muslims
you're so proud of.

Iraq under Saddam was a secular society !

A secular police state...

So ? Big deal. So was all of eastern Europe not so long ago. Let them sort it
out for themselves.

Tell it to the Balkan residents.

Your point is ????


They don't need or want Uncle Sam to do it for them with his
size 15 boots.

How about the police state currently being built in the USA ? Are you not
complaining about that ?

Shouldn't we be sorting that out ourselves? Hypocrite.

Sorting it out ? You guys have just lost habeas corpus. Is that your idea of
'sorting it out' ?


Apparently the freedom for muslims experiment is a failure.
They simply can't stop killing each other given the opportunity.

It's tribal not religious differences primarily.

Oh well that's different......So how come all the killing seems
to always be a sunni on shiite tribe or vice versa?

What's your point ?

Graham

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in message

Iraq under Saddam was a secular society !

A secular police state...

So ? Big deal. So was all of eastern Europe not so long ago. Let them sort it
out for themselves.

Tell it to the Balkan residents.

How does this relate to your point Iraq, toopid?

Or are you bouncing off walls again?

They don't need or want Uncle Sam to do it for them with his
size 15 boots.

How about the police state currently being built in the USA ? Are you not
complaining about that ?

Shouldn't we be sorting that out ourselves? Hypocrite.

Are the Brits planning on invading us? Moron.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Eeyore wrote:
ScottW wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in message
ScottW wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in message
ScottW wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in message

John Reid became the first senior Cabinet figure to admit Britian's
foreign
policy was turning young Muslims to terrorism.

The Home Secretary's remarks end at least three years of denial by the
Government that the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have been a key
factor
behind the alarming rise in Islamic extremism.

The most stubborn refusal to accept the argument has come from the Prime
Minister.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770

And this in a 'right wing' paper !

So...the sooner you surrender, the safer you'll be.

Who do you want us to 'surrender' to ?

Wow...you are easily confused.

I see you have no answer. No great surprise.

Let me ask you again......
Who do you want us to 'surrender' to ?

Mohammed.

Which one ? There's loads of them.

And no daft 'cutesy' comments this time ok ?

Having recently shown you to be a daft idiot
prone to making false accusations I'm not inclined
to treat you worthy of serious conversation.

You're so detached from reality I frankly don't care.

toopid can't grasp reality.

We had a window of opportunity to be successful in Iraq. That window is
long gone, as in likely well-closed by 2004.

It's like an (American) football team that forgot to put its defense on
the field for three quarters of the game. Suddenly, the coach realizes
his mistake. He gets 5-6 guys and throws them on the field. Some of
them are offensive players playing roles brand-new to them. None of
them are prepared for what is going on in the game. The coaching staff
is muddled and confused.

Now that the score is about 156-35, toopid worries that we may have a
mess on our hands and that we can't surrender. He just can't quite
grasp that his coaching team of bushie, rice, rummy, cheney, et al,
screwed up the game plan so badly that there is literally no hope of
recovery.

toopid confuses ideology and wishful thinking with reality quite
regularly, in case you haven't noticed...;-)

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...

ScottW wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in message

Iraq under Saddam was a secular society !

A secular police state...

So ? Big deal. So was all of eastern Europe not so long ago. Let them sort
it
out for themselves.

Tell it to the Balkan residents.

How does this relate to your point Iraq, toopid?

Non-intervention is his point...not mine.
He's the admirer of Neville...are you?


ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...

ScottW wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in message

Iraq under Saddam was a secular society !

A secular police state...

So ? Big deal. So was all of eastern Europe not so long ago. Let them sort
it
out for themselves.

Tell it to the Balkan residents.

How does this relate to your point Iraq, toopid?

Non-intervention is his point...not mine.

Trying to control what happens everywhere on earth is you rpoint.

He's the admirer of Neville...are you?

I'm a huge admirer of preemptive action, just like you are, as it's
been a proven winner a couple of times in our recent history.

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...

ScottW wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...

ScottW wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in message

Iraq under Saddam was a secular society !

A secular police state...

So ? Big deal. So was all of eastern Europe not so long ago. Let them
sort
it
out for themselves.

Tell it to the Balkan residents.

How does this relate to your point Iraq, toopid?

Non-intervention is his point...not mine.

Trying to control what happens everywhere on earth is you rpoint.

So you don't agree with Clintons actions there.
How come you didn't RIP then?

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...

ScottW wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...

ScottW wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in message

Iraq under Saddam was a secular society !

A secular police state...

So ? Big deal. So was all of eastern Europe not so long ago. Let them
sort
it
out for themselves.

Tell it to the Balkan residents.

How does this relate to your point Iraq, toopid?

Non-intervention is his point...not mine.

Trying to control what happens everywhere on earth is you rpoint.

So you don't agree with Clintons actions there.

I never said that, did I?

How come you didn't RIP then?

Do you see any dissimilarities between how Clinton handled the Balkans
vs. bushie's handling of Iraq? Let me give you some hints to help you
study history:

Hint: The 1995 bombing was not a unilateral US action, but part of
NATO/UN
http://www.afsouth.nato.int/factshee...eFactSheet.htm
Hint: The US was invited to send our military as a part of a UN/NATO
force to the Balkans by the local governments involved to implement
Dayton Accords (IFOR).
Hint: The US didn't unilaterally invade a sovereign nation in the
Balkans.
Hint: NATO/UN forces had a clear mission in the Balkans.
Hint: NATO/UN forces had overwhelming force in the Balkans.
Hint: The Balkans solution was derived primarily through diplomatic
means and negotiation.

And so on.

But you knew all of that, you military genius you. Yet, I get the
feeling this is somehow all lost on you. ;-)

Moron.

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...

ScottW wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...

ScottW wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...

ScottW wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in message

Iraq under Saddam was a secular society !

A secular police state...

So ? Big deal. So was all of eastern Europe not so long ago. Let them
sort
it
out for themselves.

Tell it to the Balkan residents.

How does this relate to your point Iraq, toopid?

Non-intervention is his point...not mine.

Trying to control what happens everywhere on earth is you rpoint.

So you don't agree with Clintons actions there.

I never said that, did I?

So you don't always mean what you say. Who would've guessed.

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...

ScottW wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...

ScottW wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...

ScottW wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in message

Iraq under Saddam was a secular society !

A secular police state...

So ? Big deal. So was all of eastern Europe not so long ago. Let them
sort
it
out for themselves.

Tell it to the Balkan residents.

How does this relate to your point Iraq, toopid?

Non-intervention is his point...not mine.

Trying to control what happens everywhere on earth is you rpoint.

So you don't agree with Clintons actions there.

I never said that, did I?

So you don't always mean what you say. Who would've guessed.

Pulling an Arns by dishonestly snipping?

What a surprise.

Moron.

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...

ScottW wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...

ScottW wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...

ScottW wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in
message
ups.com...

ScottW wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in message

Iraq under Saddam was a secular society !

A secular police state...

So ? Big deal. So was all of eastern Europe not so long ago. Let
them
sort
it
out for themselves.

Tell it to the Balkan residents.

How does this relate to your point Iraq, toopid?

Non-intervention is his point...not mine.

Trying to control what happens everywhere on earth is you rpoint.

So you don't agree with Clintons actions there.

I never said that, did I?

So you don't always mean what you say. Who would've guessed.

Pulling an Arns by dishonestly snipping?

You're far to verbose to reproduce in entirety.
You claiming there was something relevant that shows
your position is not conflicted?...no...I didn't think so.

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...

ScottW wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...

ScottW wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...

ScottW wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in
message
ups.com...

ScottW wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in message

Iraq under Saddam was a secular society !

A secular police state...

So ? Big deal. So was all of eastern Europe not so long ago. Let
them
sort
it
out for themselves.

Tell it to the Balkan residents.

How does this relate to your point Iraq, toopid?

Non-intervention is his point...not mine.

Trying to control what happens everywhere on earth is you rpoint.

So you don't agree with Clintons actions there.

I never said that, did I?

So you don't always mean what you say. Who would've guessed.

Pulling an Arns by dishonestly snipping?

You're far to verbose to reproduce in entirety.

Sure. Why try to understand what someone else is saying?

It's far easier to snip and say what you wish the other person was
saying.

You claiming there was something relevant that shows
your position is not conflicted?...no...I didn't think so.

See?

LOL!

Moron.

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...

ScottW wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...

ScottW wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...

ScottW wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in
message
oups.com...

ScottW wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in
message
ups.com...

ScottW wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in
message

Iraq under Saddam was a secular society !

A secular police state...

So ? Big deal. So was all of eastern Europe not so long ago.
Let
them
sort
it
out for themselves.

Tell it to the Balkan residents.

How does this relate to your point Iraq, toopid?

Non-intervention is his point...not mine.

Trying to control what happens everywhere on earth is you rpoint.

So you don't agree with Clintons actions there.

I never said that, did I?

So you don't always mean what you say. Who would've guessed.

Pulling an Arns by dishonestly snipping?

You're far to verbose to reproduce in entirety.

Sure. Why try to understand what someone else is saying?

When they're as loony as you, I can't think of a good reason.


It's far easier to snip and say what you wish the other person was
saying.

You claiming there was something relevant that shows
your position is not conflicted?...no...I didn't think so.

See?

I see, you've got nothing...again.

ScottW