GET SOME! Bush is Toast

[WalterM140]

NEW YORK — If I've heard it once, I've heard it a hundred times from
discouraged Democrats and liberals as the Republican convention here
wrapped up this week. Their shoulders hunched, their eyes at a droop,
they lower their voice to a whisper hoping that if they don't say it
too loud it may not come true: "I...I...I think Bush is going to win."

Clearly, they're watching too much TV. Too much of Arnold
Schwarzenegger, Zell Miller, Dick Cheney and Rudy Giuliani. Too much
of swift boat veterans and Fox News commentators.

Action heroes always look good on TV. On Wednesday night, the GOP even
made an action-hero video and showed it at the convention. There was
White House political czar Karl Rove and other administration
officials dressed up for "war" and going through boot camp on the
National Mall in Washington.

I could only sit there in the convention hall and wish this were the
real thing: Rove, national security adviser Condi Rice and Co. being
sent to Iraq, and our boys and girls being brought home. But then the
lights came up, and everyone sitting in the Bush family box was having
a grand ol' hoot and a holler at the video they just saw.

For some reason, all of this has scared the bejabbers out of the
Democrats. I can hear the wailing and moaning from Berkeley, Calif.,
to Cambridge, Mass. The frightening scenes from the convention have
sent John Kerry's supporters looking for the shovels so they can dig
their underground bunkers in preparation for another four years of the
Dark Force.

I can't believe all of this whimpering and whining. Kerry has been
ahead in many polls all summer long, but the Republicans come to New
York for one week off-Broadway and suddenly everyone is dressed in
mourning black and sitting shivah?

Exactly what moment was it during the convention that convinced them
that the Republicans had now "connected" with the majority of
Americans and that it was all over? Arnold praising Richard Nixon?
Ooooh, that's a real crowd-pleaser. Elizabeth Dole decrying the
removal of the Ten Commandments from a courthouse wall in Alabama?
Yes, that's a big topic of conversation in the unemployment line in
Akron, Ohio. Georgia Sen. Miller, a Democratic turncoat, looking like
Freddy Krueger at an all-girls camp? His speech — and the look on what
you could see of his strangely lit face — was enough for parents to
send small children to their bedrooms.

My friends — and I include all Democrats, independents and recovering
Republicans in this salutation — do not be afraid. Yes, the Bush
Republicans huff and they puff, but they blow their own house down.

As many polls confirm, a majority of your fellow Americans believe in
your agenda. They want stronger environmental laws, are strong
supporters of women's rights, favor gun control and want the war in
Iraq to end.

Rejoice. You're already more than halfway there when you have the
public on board. Just imagine if you had to go out and do the work to
convince the majority of Americans that women shouldn't be paid the
same as men. All they ask is that you put up a candidate for president
who believes in something and fights for those beliefs.

Is that too much to ask?

The Republicans have no idea how much harm they have done to
themselves. They used to have a folk-hero mayor of New York named Rudy
Giuliani. On 9/11, he went charging right into Ground Zero to see whom
he could help save. Everyone loved Rudy because he seemed as though he
was there to comfort all Americans, not just members of his own party.

But in his speech to the convention this week, he revised the history
of that tragic day for partisan gain:

As chaos ensued, "spontaneously, I grabbed the arm of then-police
commissioner Bernard Kerik and said to Bernie, 'Thank God George Bush
is our president.' And I say it again tonight, 'Thank God George Bush
is our president.' "

Please.

There were the sub-par entertainers nobody knew. There was the show of
"Black Republicans," "Arab-American Republicans" and other minorities
they trot out to show how much they are loved by groups their policies
abuse.

And there were the Band-Aids. The worst display of how out of touch
the Republicans are was those Purple Heart Band-Aids the delegates
wore to mock Kerry over his war wounds, which, for them, did not spill
the required amount of blood.

What they didn't seem to get is that watching at home might have been
millions of war veterans feeling that they were being ridiculed by a
bunch of rich Republicans who would never send their own offspring to
die in Fallujah or Danang.

Kerry supporters and Bush-bashers should not despair. These
Republicans have not made a permanent dent in Kerry's armor. The only
person who can do that is John Kerry. And by coming out swinging as he
did just minutes after Bush finished his speech Thursday night, Kerry
proved he knows that the only way to win this fight is to fight — and
fight hard.

He must realize that he faces Al Gore's fate only if he fails to stand
up like the hero he is, only if he sits on the fence and keeps
justifying his vote for the Iraq war instead of just saying, "Look, I
was for it just like 70% of America until we learned the truth, and
now I'm against it, like the majority of Americans are now."

Kerry needs to trust that his victory is only going to happen by
inspiring the natural base of the Democratic Party — blacks, working
people, women, the poor and young people. Women and people of color
make up 62% of this country. That's a big majority. Give them a reason
to come out on Nov. 2.

--Michael Moore

[W. D. Allen Sr.]

You got it right in your first paragraph! With his lead at this point in
time George is all but guaranteed to win!

Learn to live with it, since you will anyway. That is, unless you "move to
France" like the Hollywood blow-hards who said they would do it but never
did!

WDA

end

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
om...
> NEW YORK - If I've heard it once, I've heard it a hundred times from
> discouraged Democrats and liberals as the Republican convention here
> wrapped up this week. Their shoulders hunched, their eyes at a droop,
> they lower their voice to a whisper hoping that if they don't say it
> too loud it may not come true: "I...I...I think Bush is going to win."
>
> Clearly, they're watching too much TV. Too much of Arnold
> Schwarzenegger, Zell Miller, Dick Cheney and Rudy Giuliani. Too much
> of swift boat veterans and Fox News commentators.
>
> Action heroes always look good on TV. On Wednesday night, the GOP even
> made an action-hero video and showed it at the convention. There was
> White House political czar Karl Rove and other administration
> officials dressed up for "war" and going through boot camp on the
> National Mall in Washington.
>
> I could only sit there in the convention hall and wish this were the
> real thing: Rove, national security adviser Condi Rice and Co. being
> sent to Iraq, and our boys and girls being brought home. But then the
> lights came up, and everyone sitting in the Bush family box was having
> a grand ol' hoot and a holler at the video they just saw.
>
> For some reason, all of this has scared the bejabbers out of the
> Democrats. I can hear the wailing and moaning from Berkeley, Calif.,
> to Cambridge, Mass. The frightening scenes from the convention have
> sent John Kerry's supporters looking for the shovels so they can dig
> their underground bunkers in preparation for another four years of the
> Dark Force.
>
> I can't believe all of this whimpering and whining. Kerry has been
> ahead in many polls all summer long, but the Republicans come to New
> York for one week off-Broadway and suddenly everyone is dressed in
> mourning black and sitting shivah?
>
> Exactly what moment was it during the convention that convinced them
> that the Republicans had now "connected" with the majority of
> Americans and that it was all over? Arnold praising Richard Nixon?
> Ooooh, that's a real crowd-pleaser. Elizabeth Dole decrying the
> removal of the Ten Commandments from a courthouse wall in Alabama?
> Yes, that's a big topic of conversation in the unemployment line in
> Akron, Ohio. Georgia Sen. Miller, a Democratic turncoat, looking like
> Freddy Krueger at an all-girls camp? His speech - and the look on what
> you could see of his strangely lit face - was enough for parents to
> send small children to their bedrooms.
>
> My friends - and I include all Democrats, independents and recovering
> Republicans in this salutation - do not be afraid. Yes, the Bush
> Republicans huff and they puff, but they blow their own house down.
>
> As many polls confirm, a majority of your fellow Americans believe in
> your agenda. They want stronger environmental laws, are strong
> supporters of women's rights, favor gun control and want the war in
> Iraq to end.
>
> Rejoice. You're already more than halfway there when you have the
> public on board. Just imagine if you had to go out and do the work to
> convince the majority of Americans that women shouldn't be paid the
> same as men. All they ask is that you put up a candidate for president
> who believes in something and fights for those beliefs.
>
> Is that too much to ask?
>
> The Republicans have no idea how much harm they have done to
> themselves. They used to have a folk-hero mayor of New York named Rudy
> Giuliani. On 9/11, he went charging right into Ground Zero to see whom
> he could help save. Everyone loved Rudy because he seemed as though he
> was there to comfort all Americans, not just members of his own party.
>
> But in his speech to the convention this week, he revised the history
> of that tragic day for partisan gain:
>
> As chaos ensued, "spontaneously, I grabbed the arm of then-police
> commissioner Bernard Kerik and said to Bernie, 'Thank God George Bush
> is our president.' And I say it again tonight, 'Thank God George Bush
> is our president.' "
>
> Please.
>
> There were the sub-par entertainers nobody knew. There was the show of
> "Black Republicans," "Arab-American Republicans" and other minorities
> they trot out to show how much they are loved by groups their policies
> abuse.
>
> And there were the Band-Aids. The worst display of how out of touch
> the Republicans are was those Purple Heart Band-Aids the delegates
> wore to mock Kerry over his war wounds, which, for them, did not spill
> the required amount of blood.
>
> What they didn't seem to get is that watching at home might have been
> millions of war veterans feeling that they were being ridiculed by a
> bunch of rich Republicans who would never send their own offspring to
> die in Fallujah or Danang.
>
> Kerry supporters and Bush-bashers should not despair. These
> Republicans have not made a permanent dent in Kerry's armor. The only
> person who can do that is John Kerry. And by coming out swinging as he
> did just minutes after Bush finished his speech Thursday night, Kerry
> proved he knows that the only way to win this fight is to fight - and
> fight hard.
>
> He must realize that he faces Al Gore's fate only if he fails to stand
> up like the hero he is, only if he sits on the fence and keeps
> justifying his vote for the Iraq war instead of just saying, "Look, I
> was for it just like 70% of America until we learned the truth, and
> now I'm against it, like the majority of Americans are now."
>
> Kerry needs to trust that his victory is only going to happen by
> inspiring the natural base of the Democratic Party - blacks, working
> people, women, the poor and young people. Women and people of color
> make up 62% of this country. That's a big majority. Give them a reason
> to come out on Nov. 2.
>
> --Michael Moore

[Leadfoot]

"W. D. Allen Sr." > wrote in message
...
> You got it right in your first paragraph! With his lead at this point in
> time George is all but guaranteed to win!
>
> Learn to live with it, since you will anyway. That is, unless you "move to
> France" like the Hollywood blow-hards who said they would do it but never
> did!
>
> WDA
>

I think Howard Dean had the same feeling just before he got his ass kicked
in Iowa

[Steve R.]

I read that and wonderd who could write such a bunch of BS and actually
believe it, then I saw who wrote it. All made sense then.
Steve R.
(son of Democrats turned Repubs in the 60's. Been to the sandbox, going back
in 6mo. Believes in what we're doing there and will vote for GWB again.)
:o)

>
> "WalterM140" > wrote in message
> om...
> > NEW YORK - If I've heard it once, I've heard it a hundred times from
> > discouraged Democrats and liberals as the Republican convention here
> > wrapped up this week. Their shoulders hunched, their eyes at a droop,
> > they lower their voice to a whisper hoping that if they don't say it
> > too loud it may not come true: "I...I...I think Bush is going to win."
> >
> > Clearly, they're watching too much TV. Too much of Arnold
> > Schwarzenegger, Zell Miller, Dick Cheney and Rudy Giuliani. Too much
> > of swift boat veterans and Fox News commentators.
> >
> > Action heroes always look good on TV. On Wednesday night, the GOP even
> > made an action-hero video and showed it at the convention. There was
> > White House political czar Karl Rove and other administration
> > officials dressed up for "war" and going through boot camp on the
> > National Mall in Washington.
> >
> > I could only sit there in the convention hall and wish this were the
> > real thing: Rove, national security adviser Condi Rice and Co. being
> > sent to Iraq, and our boys and girls being brought home. But then the
> > lights came up, and everyone sitting in the Bush family box was having
> > a grand ol' hoot and a holler at the video they just saw.
> >
> > For some reason, all of this has scared the bejabbers out of the
> > Democrats. I can hear the wailing and moaning from Berkeley, Calif.,
> > to Cambridge, Mass. The frightening scenes from the convention have
> > sent John Kerry's supporters looking for the shovels so they can dig
> > their underground bunkers in preparation for another four years of the
> > Dark Force.
> >
> > I can't believe all of this whimpering and whining. Kerry has been
> > ahead in many polls all summer long, but the Republicans come to New
> > York for one week off-Broadway and suddenly everyone is dressed in
> > mourning black and sitting shivah?
> >
> > Exactly what moment was it during the convention that convinced them
> > that the Republicans had now "connected" with the majority of
> > Americans and that it was all over? Arnold praising Richard Nixon?
> > Ooooh, that's a real crowd-pleaser. Elizabeth Dole decrying the
> > removal of the Ten Commandments from a courthouse wall in Alabama?
> > Yes, that's a big topic of conversation in the unemployment line in
> > Akron, Ohio. Georgia Sen. Miller, a Democratic turncoat, looking like
> > Freddy Krueger at an all-girls camp? His speech - and the look on what
> > you could see of his strangely lit face - was enough for parents to
> > send small children to their bedrooms.
> >
> > My friends - and I include all Democrats, independents and recovering
> > Republicans in this salutation - do not be afraid. Yes, the Bush
> > Republicans huff and they puff, but they blow their own house down.
> >
> > As many polls confirm, a majority of your fellow Americans believe in
> > your agenda. They want stronger environmental laws, are strong
> > supporters of women's rights, favor gun control and want the war in
> > Iraq to end.
> >
> > Rejoice. You're already more than halfway there when you have the
> > public on board. Just imagine if you had to go out and do the work to
> > convince the majority of Americans that women shouldn't be paid the
> > same as men. All they ask is that you put up a candidate for president
> > who believes in something and fights for those beliefs.
> >
> > Is that too much to ask?
> >
> > The Republicans have no idea how much harm they have done to
> > themselves. They used to have a folk-hero mayor of New York named Rudy
> > Giuliani. On 9/11, he went charging right into Ground Zero to see whom
> > he could help save. Everyone loved Rudy because he seemed as though he
> > was there to comfort all Americans, not just members of his own party.
> >
> > But in his speech to the convention this week, he revised the history
> > of that tragic day for partisan gain:
> >
> > As chaos ensued, "spontaneously, I grabbed the arm of then-police
> > commissioner Bernard Kerik and said to Bernie, 'Thank God George Bush
> > is our president.' And I say it again tonight, 'Thank God George Bush
> > is our president.' "
> >
> > Please.
> >
> > There were the sub-par entertainers nobody knew. There was the show of
> > "Black Republicans," "Arab-American Republicans" and other minorities
> > they trot out to show how much they are loved by groups their policies
> > abuse.
> >
> > And there were the Band-Aids. The worst display of how out of touch
> > the Republicans are was those Purple Heart Band-Aids the delegates
> > wore to mock Kerry over his war wounds, which, for them, did not spill
> > the required amount of blood.
> >
> > What they didn't seem to get is that watching at home might have been
> > millions of war veterans feeling that they were being ridiculed by a
> > bunch of rich Republicans who would never send their own offspring to
> > die in Fallujah or Danang.
> >
> > Kerry supporters and Bush-bashers should not despair. These
> > Republicans have not made a permanent dent in Kerry's armor. The only
> > person who can do that is John Kerry. And by coming out swinging as he
> > did just minutes after Bush finished his speech Thursday night, Kerry
> > proved he knows that the only way to win this fight is to fight - and
> > fight hard.
> >
> > He must realize that he faces Al Gore's fate only if he fails to stand
> > up like the hero he is, only if he sits on the fence and keeps
> > justifying his vote for the Iraq war instead of just saying, "Look, I
> > was for it just like 70% of America until we learned the truth, and
> > now I'm against it, like the majority of Americans are now."
> >
> > Kerry needs to trust that his victory is only going to happen by
> > inspiring the natural base of the Democratic Party - blacks, working
> > people, women, the poor and young people. Women and people of color
> > make up 62% of this country. That's a big majority. Give them a reason
> > to come out on Nov. 2.
> >
> > --Michael Moore
>
>

[Guinnog65]

"Steve R." > wrote in message
news:jQt_c.1192$Va5.918@trnddc01...
>
> I read that and wonderd who could write such a bunch of BS and actually
> believe it, then I saw who wrote it. All made sense then.
> Steve R.
> (son of Democrats turned Repubs in the 60's. Been to the sandbox, going
> back
> in 6mo. Believes in what we're doing there

Including the prisoner abuse? Including targetting civilians?

>and will vote for GWB again.)
> :o)

Use your vote how you like. Use it wisely and use it well.

[B2431]

>From: "Guinnog65"
>Date: 9/20/2004 5:01 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"Steve R." > wrote in message
>news:jQt_c.1192$Va5.918@trnddc01...
>>
>> I read that and wonderd who could write such a bunch of BS and actually
>> believe it, then I saw who wrote it. All made sense then.
>> Steve R.
>> (son of Democrats turned Repubs in the 60's. Been to the sandbox, going
>> back
>> in 6mo. Believes in what we're doing there
>
>Including the prisoner abuse? Including targetting civilians?

Hopefully the prisoner abuse has been stopped. If a civilian bears arms against
coalotion or Iraqui forces he's a valid target. If a bad guy hides behind
civilians then it's his fault the civilians get greased.

As for civilians dancing on recently attacked military vehicles just how is the
guy in the Apache to know they aren't the ones that attacked or aren't still
attacking the vehicles?

There are risks to being stupid in a war zone.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Guinnog65]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Guinnog65"
>>Date: 9/20/2004 5:01 PM Central Daylight Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>"Steve R." > wrote in message
>>news:jQt_c.1192$Va5.918@trnddc01...
>>>
>>> I read that and wonderd who could write such a bunch of BS and actually
>>> believe it, then I saw who wrote it. All made sense then.
>>> Steve R.
>>> (son of Democrats turned Repubs in the 60's. Been to the sandbox, going
>>> back
>>> in 6mo. Believes in what we're doing there
>>
>>Including the prisoner abuse? Including targetting civilians?
>
> Hopefully the prisoner abuse has been stopped.

Hopefully.

>If a civilian bears arms against
> coalotion or Iraqui forces he's a valid target. If a bad guy hides behind
> civilians then it's his fault the civilians get greased.

Right.

> As for civilians dancing on recently attacked military vehicles just how
> is the
> guy in the Apache to know they aren't the ones that attacked or aren't
> still
> attacking the vehicles?

Er... common sense?

> There are risks to being stupid in a war zone.

As the US policy makers are finding out. At the cost, unfortunately of a lot
of US troops and an even greater number of Iraqi civilians.

[BUFDRVR]

Guinnog65 wrote:

>As the US policy makers are finding out. At the cost, unfortunately of a lot
>of US troops and an even greater number of Iraqi civilians.

And you don't give a damn about either one. One is simply a pawn to you, the
other an object to be abused by a dictator you wish was still in power.

Gotta love the bleeding heart liberals.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[B2431]

>From: "Guinnog65"
>Date: 9/20/2004 6:45 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>> >From: "Guinnog65"
>>>Date: 9/20/2004 5:01 PM Central Daylight Time
>>>Message-id: >
>>>
>>>"Steve R." > wrote in message
>>>news:jQt_c.1192$Va5.918@trnddc01...
>>>>
>>>> I read that and wonderd who could write such a bunch of BS and actually
>>>> believe it, then I saw who wrote it. All made sense then.
>>>> Steve R.
>>>> (son of Democrats turned Repubs in the 60's. Been to the sandbox, going
>>>> back
>>>> in 6mo. Believes in what we're doing there
>>>
>>>Including the prisoner abuse? Including targetting civilians?
>>
>> Hopefully the prisoner abuse has been stopped.
>
>Hopefully.
>
>>If a civilian bears arms against
>> coalotion or Iraqui forces he's a valid target. If a bad guy hides behind
>> civilians then it's his fault the civilians get greased.
>
>Right.
>
>> As for civilians dancing on recently attacked military vehicles just how
>> is the
>> guy in the Apache to know they aren't the ones that attacked or aren't
>> still
>> attacking the vehicles?
>
>Er... common sense?

I can tell you have never been in combat. I have and can tell you if I found
anyone on or near a recently shot up U.S. military vehicle, whether they were
openly armed or not, it's a good assumption they had something to do with the
attack and are then valid targets. If they were there a day later common sense
would say they weren't. Bear in mind the bad guys in Iraq are not wearing
uniforms. If you don't understand the ramifications of the read the Geneva
Conventions.
>
>> There are risks to being stupid in a war zone.
>
>As the US policy makers are finding out. At the cost, unfortunately of a lot
>of US troops and an even greater number of Iraqi civilians.

All of which could end today if the insurgents laid down their weapons as
ordered by the occupation forces and Interim government.

If you really cared about the loss of life you would spend as much effort
telling the other side to stop shooting as you do blaming the U.S. forces.

I am not saying neither you nor the Iraqis should be happy with the invasion
and occupation, but take a look at what is actually happening there, not just
the negative news.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Guinnog65]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> Guinnog65 wrote:
>
>>As the US policy makers are finding out. At the cost, unfortunately of a
>>lot
>>of US troops and an even greater number of Iraqi civilians.
>
> And you don't give a damn about either one. One is simply a pawn to you,
> the
> other an object to be abused by a dictator you wish was still in power.

How dare you tell me what I do and don't care about. How dare you tell me I
wish Hussein (who your country supported for years and I campaigned against)
was still in power.

> Gotta love the bleeding heart liberals.

Butcha don't gotta love the no-brain, other-people's-children-die redneck
neocons. Oh no.

[Guinnog65]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Guinnog65"
>>Date: 9/20/2004 6:45 PM Central Daylight Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>>> >From: "Guinnog65"
>>>>Date: 9/20/2004 5:01 PM Central Daylight Time
>>>>Message-id: >
>>>>
>>>>"Steve R." > wrote in message
>>>>news:jQt_c.1192$Va5.918@trnddc01...
>>>>>
>>>>> I read that and wonderd who could write such a bunch of BS and
>>>>> actually
>>>>> believe it, then I saw who wrote it. All made sense then.
>>>>> Steve R.
>>>>> (son of Democrats turned Repubs in the 60's. Been to the sandbox,
>>>>> going
>>>>> back
>>>>> in 6mo. Believes in what we're doing there
>>>>
>>>>Including the prisoner abuse? Including targetting civilians?
>>>
>>> Hopefully the prisoner abuse has been stopped.
>>
>>Hopefully.
>>
>>>If a civilian bears arms against
>>> coalotion or Iraqui forces he's a valid target. If a bad guy hides
>>> behind
>>> civilians then it's his fault the civilians get greased.
>>
>>Right.
>>
>>> As for civilians dancing on recently attacked military vehicles just how
>>> is the
>>> guy in the Apache to know they aren't the ones that attacked or aren't
>>> still
>>> attacking the vehicles?
>>
>>Er... common sense?
>
> I can tell you have never been in combat. I have and can tell you if I
> found
> anyone on or near a recently shot up U.S. military vehicle, whether they
> were
> openly armed or not, it's a good assumption they had something to do with
> the
> attack and are then valid targets.

Including the journalists? I wouldn't agree with that. Was your combat
experience by any chance in the US's little adventure in SE Asia that so
dominates US politics to this day? If it was, maybe you should ask yourself
if applying the same strategies as you did there is really such a good idea?

>If they were there a day later common sense
> would say they weren't. Bear in mind the bad guys in Iraq are not wearing
> uniforms. If you don't understand the ramifications of the read the Geneva
> Conventions.

I am familiar with the Geneva Conventions. Where does it say you are allowed
to kill unarmed civilians if you *think* they are sympathetic to the
opposition? Surely common sense would tell you that by doing this you merely
guarantee the opposition a fresh supply of recruits? This seems obvious to
me.

>>
>>> There are risks to being stupid in a war zone.
>>
>>As the US policy makers are finding out. At the cost, unfortunately of a
>>lot
>>of US troops and an even greater number of Iraqi civilians.
>
> All of which could end today if the insurgents laid down their weapons as
> ordered by the occupation forces and Interim government.

True. My money is that they won't though. Why would they do that when they
are doing so well? I don't think the puppet, sorry "interim" government has
too much credibility in anybody's eyes outside the US!

> If you really cared about the loss of life you would spend as much effort
> telling the other side to stop shooting as you do blaming the U.S. forces.

I suspect they may not read Usenet!

> I am not saying neither you nor the Iraqis should be happy with the
> invasion
> and occupation, but take a look at what is actually happening there, not
> just
> the negative news.

Fair point. If at any time the US invasion force does something I approve
of, I'll let you know.

[B2431]

>From: "Guinnog65"
>Date: 9/21/2004 1:18 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>> >From: "Guinnog65"
>>>Date: 9/20/2004 6:45 PM Central Daylight Time
>>>Message-id: >
>>>
>>>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>>>> >From: "Guinnog65"
>>>>>Date: 9/20/2004 5:01 PM Central Daylight Time
>>>>>Message-id: >
>>>>>
>>>>>"Steve R." > wrote in message
>>>>>news:jQt_c.1192$Va5.918@trnddc01...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I read that and wonderd who could write such a bunch of BS and
>>>>>> actually
>>>>>> believe it, then I saw who wrote it. All made sense then.
>>>>>> Steve R.
>>>>>> (son of Democrats turned Repubs in the 60's. Been to the sandbox,
>>>>>> going
>>>>>> back
>>>>>> in 6mo. Believes in what we're doing there
>>>>>
>>>>>Including the prisoner abuse? Including targetting civilians?
>>>>
>>>> Hopefully the prisoner abuse has been stopped.
>>>
>>>Hopefully.
>>>
>>>>If a civilian bears arms against
>>>> coalotion or Iraqui forces he's a valid target. If a bad guy hides
>>>> behind
>>>> civilians then it's his fault the civilians get greased.
>>>
>>>Right.
>>>
>>>> As for civilians dancing on recently attacked military vehicles just how
>>>> is the
>>>> guy in the Apache to know they aren't the ones that attacked or aren't
>>>> still
>>>> attacking the vehicles?
>>>
>>>Er... common sense?
>>
>> I can tell you have never been in combat. I have and can tell you if I
>> found
>> anyone on or near a recently shot up U.S. military vehicle, whether they
>> were
>> openly armed or not, it's a good assumption they had something to do with
>> the
>> attack and are then valid targets.
>
>Including the journalists? I wouldn't agree with that.

If the jouralists were that close to a military action then they were too close
or not under cover. Accidents happen. Please don't try to suggest they were
targeted as a result of U.S. policy because it isn't true. All that happens
when journalists are deliberately targeted is bad press.

Was your combat
>experience by any chance in the US's little adventure in SE Asia that so
>dominates US politics to this day? If it was, maybe you should ask yourself
>if applying the same strategies as you did there is really such a good idea?
>
What strategy do you refer to? It was a tactical action. My combat experience
is at the tactical level. Please don't confuse the terms.

>>If they were there a day later common sense
>> would say they weren't. Bear in mind the bad guys in Iraq are not wearing
>> uniforms. If you don't understand the ramifications of the read the Geneva
>> Conventions.
>
>I am familiar with the Geneva Conventions. Where does it say you are allowed
>to kill unarmed civilians if you *think* they are sympathetic to the
>opposition?

I didn't say that it did. I said the enemy isn't wearing uniforms. The Geneva
Convention allows killing civilians bearing arms against you. If unarmed
civilians enter a valid target, in this case the vehicle and its immediate
vicinity, they put themselves at risk. I seriously doubt the Appache crew was
aware the people on the vehicle were unarmed.

>Surely common sense would tell you that by doing this you merely
>guarantee the opposition a fresh supply of recruits? This seems obvious to
>me.
>
You keep using the term "common sense" so you really should apply it to
yourself as well. The U.S. military has gone out of its way to reduce civilian
casualties and colateral damage. When the bad guys fire from mosques they can
be legitimately targeted. You haven't seen that done by U.S. forces.

There is not now, never been or is there going to be a U.S. policy of targeting
innocent civilians. To do so is counter productive as you say.

>>>
>>>> There are risks to being stupid in a war zone.
>>>
>>>As the US policy makers are finding out. At the cost, unfortunately of a
>>>lot
>>>of US troops and an even greater number of Iraqi civilians.
>>
>> All of which could end today if the insurgents laid down their weapons as
>> ordered by the occupation forces and Interim government.
>
>True. My money is that they won't though. Why would they do that when they
>are doing so well? I don't think the puppet, sorry "interim" government has
>too much credibility in anybody's eyes outside the US!
>
>> If you really cared about the loss of life you would spend as much effort
>> telling the other side to stop shooting as you do blaming the U.S. forces.
>
>I suspect they may not read Usenet!

You missed the point. You have criticised the U.S. forces, but not the bad guys
who slowly saw hostage's heads off or blow up innocent children with car bombs.

>
>> I am not saying neither you nor the Iraqis should be happy with the
>> invasion
>> and occupation, but take a look at what is actually happening there, not
>> just
>> the negative news.
>
>Fair point. If at any time the US invasion force does something I approve
>of, I'll let you know.

I take it you don't approve of getting rid of hussein, improving the
infrastructure in most of Iraq, allowing a relatively free press, cell phones,
internet access, access to international news etc?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Guinnog65]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...

snip

>>>>> As for civilians dancing on recently attacked military vehicles just
>>>>> how
>>>>> is the
>>>>> guy in the Apache to know they aren't the ones that attacked or aren't
>>>>> still
>>>>> attacking the vehicles?
>>>>
>>>>Er... common sense?
>>>
>>> I can tell you have never been in combat. I have and can tell you if I
>>> found
>>> anyone on or near a recently shot up U.S. military vehicle, whether they
>>> were
>>> openly armed or not, it's a good assumption they had something to do
>>> with
>>> the
>>> attack and are then valid targets.
>>
>>Including the journalists? I wouldn't agree with that.
>
> If the jouralists were that close to a military action then they were too
> close
> or not under cover. Accidents happen. Please don't try to suggest they
> were
> targeted as a result of U.S. policy because it isn't true. All that
> happens
> when journalists are deliberately targeted is bad press.

Hear hear. Killing journalists is bad. If it was deliberate policy, it was
bad policy. If it was accidental it shows poor discipline and/or lax ROE.

> Was your combat
>>experience by any chance in the US's little adventure in SE Asia that so
>>dominates US politics to this day? If it was, maybe you should ask
>>yourself
>>if applying the same strategies as you did there is really such a good
>>idea?
>>
> What strategy do you refer to? It was a tactical action. My combat
> experience
> is at the tactical level. Please don't confuse the terms.

I try not to. It was you who brought up your combat experience as
(presumably) giving you a more informed opinion on these matters.

I think a major problem in Iraq has been the apparent total *lack* of any
overall postwar strategy. In this absence, mistaken tactical decisions like
the one we are talking about become perceived as a strategy.

>>>If they were there a day later common sense
>>> would say they weren't. Bear in mind the bad guys in Iraq are not
>>> wearing
>>> uniforms. If you don't understand the ramifications of the read the
>>> Geneva
>>> Conventions.
>>
>>I am familiar with the Geneva Conventions. Where does it say you are
>>allowed
>>to kill unarmed civilians if you *think* they are sympathetic to the
>>opposition?
>
> I didn't say that it did. I said the enemy isn't wearing uniforms. The
> Geneva
> Convention allows killing civilians bearing arms against you. If unarmed
> civilians enter a valid target, in this case the vehicle and its immediate
> vicinity, they put themselves at risk. I seriously doubt the Appache crew
> was
> aware the people on the vehicle were unarmed.

So do you honestly believe the Apache crew who fired on the crowd believed
themselves to be under threat? It is very hard to see that from my reading
of the events...

>>Surely common sense would tell you that by doing this you merely
>>guarantee the opposition a fresh supply of recruits? This seems obvious to
>>me.
>>
> You keep using the term "common sense" so you really should apply it to
> yourself as well. The U.S. military has gone out of its way to reduce
> civilian
> casualties and colateral damage.

Well, I'd like to see that but to be honest I cannot see the evidence for
this from the events of the last year.

>When the bad guys fire from mosques they can
> be legitimately targeted. You haven't seen that done by U.S. forces.
>
> There is not now, never been or is there going to be a U.S. policy of
> targeting
> innocent civilians. To do so is counter productive as you say.

Yes. But the massive and uncounted civilian casualties in the war have,
whether intended or not, helped lead us to the present chaotic and unhappy
situation.

>>>>
>>>>> There are risks to being stupid in a war zone.
>>>>
>>>>As the US policy makers are finding out. At the cost, unfortunately of a
>>>>lot
>>>>of US troops and an even greater number of Iraqi civilians.
>>>
>>> All of which could end today if the insurgents laid down their weapons
>>> as
>>> ordered by the occupation forces and Interim government.
>>
>>True. My money is that they won't though. Why would they do that when they
>>are doing so well? I don't think the puppet, sorry "interim" government
>>has
>>too much credibility in anybody's eyes outside the US!
>>
>>> If you really cared about the loss of life you would spend as much
>>> effort
>>> telling the other side to stop shooting as you do blaming the U.S.
>>> forces.
>>
>>I suspect they may not read Usenet!
>
> You missed the point. You have criticised the U.S. forces, but not the bad
> guys
> who slowly saw hostage's heads off or blow up innocent children with car
> bombs.

I absolutely and without reservation condemn these tactics too. The
difficulty is, they are only answerable to their own. *We* on the other hand
are supposed to be fighting to give them something better. We are supposed
to set a higher example. We are supposed to be trying to win 'hearts and
minds'. At the moment that is not being seen to happen.

>>
>>> I am not saying neither you nor the Iraqis should be happy with the
>>> invasion
>>> and occupation, but take a look at what is actually happening there, not
>>> just
>>> the negative news.
>>
>>Fair point. If at any time the US invasion force does something I approve
>>of, I'll let you know.
>
> I take it you don't approve of getting rid of hussein, improving the
> infrastructure in most of Iraq, allowing a relatively free press, cell
> phones,
> internet access, access to international news etc?

Getting rid of Hussein was a good thing. The other freedoms you refer to
will not count for much until or unless there is law and order and an end to
killing. It is a reflection on how things have gone since the invasion that
so many Iraqis will support the terrorists. It is a worse one that many
Iraqis actually regret the passing of Hussein. If that isn't a vote of no
confidence, what is it?

[B2431]

>From: "Guinnog65"
>Date: 9/21/2004 4:36 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>
>snip
>
>>>>>> As for civilians dancing on recently attacked military vehicles just
>>>>>> how
>>>>>> is the
>>>>>> guy in the Apache to know they aren't the ones that attacked or aren't
>>>>>> still
>>>>>> attacking the vehicles?
>>>>>
>>>>>Er... common sense?
>>>>
>>>> I can tell you have never been in combat. I have and can tell you if I
>>>> found
>>>> anyone on or near a recently shot up U.S. military vehicle, whether they
>>>> were
>>>> openly armed or not, it's a good assumption they had something to do
>>>> with
>>>> the
>>>> attack and are then valid targets.
>>>
>>>Including the journalists? I wouldn't agree with that.
>>
>> If the jouralists were that close to a military action then they were too
>> close
>> or not under cover. Accidents happen. Please don't try to suggest they
>> were
>> targeted as a result of U.S. policy because it isn't true. All that
>> happens
>> when journalists are deliberately targeted is bad press.
>
>Hear hear. Killing journalists is bad. If it was deliberate policy, it was
>bad policy. If it was accidental it shows poor discipline and/or lax ROE.

Or, as I said, he was in the wrong place. All the discipline in the world won't
prevent innocent people from getting killed in war. Your anti American bias is
showing.

>
>> Was your combat
>>>experience by any chance in the US's little adventure in SE Asia that so
>>>dominates US politics to this day? If it was, maybe you should ask
>>>yourself
>>>if applying the same strategies as you did there is really such a good
>>>idea?
>>>
>> What strategy do you refer to? It was a tactical action. My combat
>> experience
>> is at the tactical level. Please don't confuse the terms.
>
>I try not to. It was you who brought up your combat experience as
>(presumably) giving you a more informed opinion on these matters.

I brought it up because unlike you, I know what can happen when things get hot.
Bad things happen to good people. These things happen. It doesn't mean the good
people were targeted.
>
>I think a major problem in Iraq has been the apparent total *lack* of any
>overall postwar strategy. In this absence, mistaken tactical decisions like
>the one we are talking about become perceived as a strategy.

How was it a mistake? You don't know what all the facts are other than an
airstrike was called, the situation was still in flux and shots were fired.
Your anti military bias is showing.
>
>>>>If they were there a day later common sense
>>>> would say they weren't. Bear in mind the bad guys in Iraq are not
>>>> wearing
>>>> uniforms. If you don't understand the ramifications of the read the
>>>> Geneva
>>>> Conventions.
>>>
>>>I am familiar with the Geneva Conventions. Where does it say you are
>>>allowed
>>>to kill unarmed civilians if you *think* they are sympathetic to the
>>>opposition?
>>
>> I didn't say that it did. I said the enemy isn't wearing uniforms. The
>> Geneva
>> Convention allows killing civilians bearing arms against you. If unarmed
>> civilians enter a valid target, in this case the vehicle and its immediate
>> vicinity, they put themselves at risk. I seriously doubt the Appache crew
>> was
>> aware the people on the vehicle were unarmed.
>
>So do you honestly believe the Apache crew who fired on the crowd believed
>themselves to be under threat? It is very hard to see that from my reading
>of the events...

Again, you have no idea about how the system works. I never said the Apache was
under threat. It doesn't matter that he felt under fire, he was responding to a
call for assistance from a ground force that WAS attacked. Your anti military
bias is showing.

>
>>>Surely common sense would tell you that by doing this you merely
>>>guarantee the opposition a fresh supply of recruits? This seems obvious to
>>>me.
>>>
>> You keep using the term "common sense" so you really should apply it to
>> yourself as well. The U.S. military has gone out of its way to reduce
>> civilian
>> casualties and colateral damage.
>
>Well, I'd like to see that but to be honest I cannot see the evidence for
>this from the events of the last year.
>
>>When the bad guys fire from mosques they can
>> be legitimately targeted. You haven't seen that done by U.S. forces.
>>
>> There is not now, never been or is there going to be a U.S. policy of
>> targeting
>> innocent civilians. To do so is counter productive as you say.
>
>Yes. But the massive and uncounted civilian casualties in the war have,
>whether intended or not, helped lead us to the present chaotic and unhappy
>situation.

The war would be over if the bad guys stopped shooting. Stop blaming the U.S.
for everything gone wrong.

>
>>>>>
>>>>>> There are risks to being stupid in a war zone.
>>>>>
>>>>>As the US policy makers are finding out. At the cost, unfortunately of a
>>>>>lot
>>>>>of US troops and an even greater number of Iraqi civilians.
>>>>
>>>> All of which could end today if the insurgents laid down their weapons
>>>> as
>>>> ordered by the occupation forces and Interim government.
>>>
>>>True. My money is that they won't though. Why would they do that when they
>>>are doing so well? I don't think the puppet, sorry "interim" government
>>>has
>>>too much credibility in anybody's eyes outside the US!
>>>
>>>> If you really cared about the loss of life you would spend as much
>>>> effort
>>>> telling the other side to stop shooting as you do blaming the U.S.
>>>> forces.
>>>
>>>I suspect they may not read Usenet!
>>
>> You missed the point. You have criticised the U.S. forces, but not the bad
>> guys
>> who slowly saw hostage's heads off or blow up innocent children with car
>> bombs.
>
>I absolutely and without reservation condemn these tactics too. The
>difficulty is, they are only answerable to their own. *We* on the other hand
>are supposed to be fighting to give them something better. We are supposed
>to set a higher example. We are supposed to be trying to win 'hearts and
>minds'. At the moment that is not being seen to happen.
>
>>>
>>>> I am not saying neither you nor the Iraqis should be happy with the
>>>> invasion
>>>> and occupation, but take a look at what is actually happening there, not
>>>> just
>>>> the negative news.
>>>
>>>Fair point. If at any time the US invasion force does something I approve
>>>of, I'll let you know.
>>
>> I take it you don't approve of getting rid of hussein, improving the
>> infrastructure in most of Iraq, allowing a relatively free press, cell
>> phones,
>> internet access, access to international news etc?
>
>Getting rid of Hussein was a good thing. The other freedoms you refer to
>will not count for much until or unless there is law and order and an end to
>killing.

If everything settles down in 6 months and Iraq is at peace will you come back
and tell us the U.S. did a good thing?

It is a reflection on how things have gone since the invasion that
>so many Iraqis will support the terrorists. It is a worse one that many
>Iraqis actually regret the passing of Hussein. If that isn't a vote of no
>confidence, what is it?

OK, let's revisit another war for a moment. The vast majority of the Soviet
populace hated Stalin. Many initially welcomed Hitler's invasion. Almost to a
person the Soviets banded together to expel and invader. This happens in almost
every invaded country situation. Look at the coalition that expelled Sadam from
Kuwait and how nations that didn't get along with each other did so for the
cause.


Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Guinnog65]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...

(snip defensive pro US stuff)

>>Getting rid of Hussein was a good thing. The other freedoms you refer to
>>will not count for much until or unless there is law and order and an end
>>to
>>killing.
>
> If everything settles down in 6 months and Iraq is at peace will you come
> back
> and tell us the U.S. did a good thing?

Oh yes. No problem. And if green men come and ask me to take them to my
leader, I'll be prepared for that too!

> It is a reflection on how things have gone since the invasion that
>>so many Iraqis will support the terrorists. It is a worse one that many
>>Iraqis actually regret the passing of Hussein. If that isn't a vote of no
>>confidence, what is it?
>
> OK, let's revisit another war for a moment. The vast majority of the
> Soviet
> populace hated Stalin. Many initially welcomed Hitler's invasion. Almost
> to a
> person the Soviets banded together to expel and invader. This happens in
> almost
> every invaded country situation. Look at the coalition that expelled Sadam
> from
> Kuwait and how nations that didn't get along with each other did so for
> the
> cause.

Wow! So you are comparing the US forces with the Wehrmacht? And you call
*me* anti-American! (I am not, btw, I am anti this illegal invasion)

They do have the same helmets I suppose...

[B2431]

>From: "Guinnog65"
>Date: 9/21/2004 12:50 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>
>(snip defensive pro US stuff)
Good, and you also snipped your own uninformed commentary.

>
>>>Getting rid of Hussein was a good thing. The other freedoms you refer to
>>>will not count for much until or unless there is law and order and an end
>>>to
>>>killing.
>>
>> If everything settles down in 6 months and Iraq is at peace will you come
>> back
>> and tell us the U.S. did a good thing?
>
>Oh yes. No problem. And if green men come and ask me to take them to my
>leader, I'll be prepared for that too!
>
>> It is a reflection on how things have gone since the invasion that
>>>so many Iraqis will support the terrorists. It is a worse one that many
>>>Iraqis actually regret the passing of Hussein. If that isn't a vote of no
>>>confidence, what is it?
>>
>> OK, let's revisit another war for a moment. The vast majority of the
>> Soviet
>> populace hated Stalin. Many initially welcomed Hitler's invasion. Almost
>> to a
>> person the Soviets banded together to expel and invader. This happens in
>> almost
>> every invaded country situation. Look at the coalition that expelled Sadam
>> from
>> Kuwait and how nations that didn't get along with each other did so for
>> the
>> cause.
>
>Wow! So you are comparing the US forces with the Wehrmacht?

Did I say that? I was comparing the Soviet reaction to the invasion.


And you call
>*me* anti-American! (I am not, btw, I am anti this illegal invasion)

The invasion was perfectly legal since sadam defied a dozen UN resolutions,
abrogated his own agreements with the U.S. and had consistanly been shooting at
U.S. and British aircraft that were enforcing the no fly zones sadam agreed
to.

>
>They do have the same helmets I suppose...

The helmets don't even look anything alike.
Nice try.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Guinnog65]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Guinnog65"
>>Date: 9/21/2004 12:50 PM Central Daylight Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>(snip defensive pro US stuff)
> Good, and you also snipped your own uninformed commentary.
>
>>
>>>>Getting rid of Hussein was a good thing. The other freedoms you refer to
>>>>will not count for much until or unless there is law and order and an
>>>>end
>>>>to
>>>>killing.
>>>
>>> If everything settles down in 6 months and Iraq is at peace will you
>>> come
>>> back
>>> and tell us the U.S. did a good thing?
>>
>>Oh yes. No problem. And if green men come and ask me to take them to my
>>leader, I'll be prepared for that too!
>>
>>> It is a reflection on how things have gone since the invasion that
>>>>so many Iraqis will support the terrorists. It is a worse one that many
>>>>Iraqis actually regret the passing of Hussein. If that isn't a vote of
>>>>no
>>>>confidence, what is it?
>>>
>>> OK, let's revisit another war for a moment. The vast majority of the
>>> Soviet
>>> populace hated Stalin. Many initially welcomed Hitler's invasion. Almost
>>> to a
>>> person the Soviets banded together to expel and invader. This happens in
>>> almost
>>> every invaded country situation. Look at the coalition that expelled
>>> Sadam
>>> from
>>> Kuwait and how nations that didn't get along with each other did so for
>>> the
>>> cause.
>>
>>Wow! So you are comparing the US forces with the Wehrmacht?
>
> Did I say that? I was comparing the Soviet reaction to the invasion.

So you would consider the Iraqis the invaders? In their own country? A
somewht unusual way of looking at things!

> And you call
>>*me* anti-American! (I am not, btw, I am anti this illegal invasion)
>
> The invasion was perfectly legal since sadam defied a dozen UN
> resolutions,
> abrogated his own agreements with the U.S. and had consistanly been
> shooting at
> U.S. and British aircraft that were enforcing the no fly zones sadam
> agreed
> to.

Not a point of view shared by Kofi Annan of the UN. Nor by the majority of
people I talk to.

There was a thing mentioned a lot at the time of the war about WMDs. Now
that this justification for the war has turned out to be false, do you still
have no problem at all about the war's legality?

>>They do have the same helmets I suppose...
>
> The helmets don't even look anything alike.

I think they look very similar. And like alot of the Nazi kit, it was a very
good design.

> Nice try.

Thank you!

[B2431]

>From: "Guinnog65"
>Date: 9/21/2004 3:50 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>> >From: "Guinnog65"
>>>Date: 9/21/2004 12:50 PM Central Daylight Time
>>>Message-id: >
>>>
>>>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>(snip defensive pro US stuff)
>> Good, and you also snipped your own uninformed commentary.
>>
>>>
>>>>>Getting rid of Hussein was a good thing. The other freedoms you refer to
>>>>>will not count for much until or unless there is law and order and an
>>>>>end
>>>>>to
>>>>>killing.
>>>>
>>>> If everything settles down in 6 months and Iraq is at peace will you
>>>> come
>>>> back
>>>> and tell us the U.S. did a good thing?
>>>
>>>Oh yes. No problem. And if green men come and ask me to take them to my
>>>leader, I'll be prepared for that too!
>>>
>>>> It is a reflection on how things have gone since the invasion that
>>>>>so many Iraqis will support the terrorists. It is a worse one that many
>>>>>Iraqis actually regret the passing of Hussein. If that isn't a vote of
>>>>>no
>>>>>confidence, what is it?
>>>>
>>>> OK, let's revisit another war for a moment. The vast majority of the
>>>> Soviet
>>>> populace hated Stalin. Many initially welcomed Hitler's invasion. Almost
>>>> to a
>>>> person the Soviets banded together to expel and invader. This happens in
>>>> almost
>>>> every invaded country situation. Look at the coalition that expelled
>>>> Sadam
>>>> from
>>>> Kuwait and how nations that didn't get along with each other did so for
>>>> the
>>>> cause.
>>>
>>>Wow! So you are comparing the US forces with the Wehrmacht?
>>
>> Did I say that? I was comparing the Soviet reaction to the invasion.
>
>So you would consider the Iraqis the invaders? In their own country? A
>somewht unusual way of looking at things!

Since you insist on not reading what I wrote this discussion is closed.
>
>> And you call
>>>*me* anti-American! (I am not, btw, I am anti this illegal invasion)
>>
>> The invasion was perfectly legal since sadam defied a dozen UN
>> resolutions,
>> abrogated his own agreements with the U.S. and had consistanly been
>> shooting at
>> U.S. and British aircraft that were enforcing the no fly zones sadam
>> agreed
>> to.
>
>Not a point of view shared by Kofi Annan of the UN. Nor by the majority of
>people I talk to.
>
>There was a thing mentioned a lot at the time of the war about WMDs. Now
>that this justification for the war has turned out to be false, do you still
>have no problem at all about the war's legality?
>
>>>They do have the same helmets I suppose...
>>
>> The helmets don't even look anything alike.
>
>I think they look very similar. And like alot of the Nazi kit, it was a very
>good design.
>
In my collection I have one of each type of German steel helmet to see
production. I also have the current U.S. helmet. They do not look alike. This
discussion is closed.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Guinnog65]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...

(snip)

>>>>> OK, let's revisit another war for a moment. The vast majority of the
>>>>> Soviet
>>>>> populace hated Stalin. Many initially welcomed Hitler's invasion.
>>>>> Almost
>>>>> to a
>>>>> person the Soviets banded together to expel and invader. This happens
>>>>> in
>>>>> almost
>>>>> every invaded country situation. Look at the coalition that expelled
>>>>> Sadam
>>>>> from
>>>>> Kuwait and how nations that didn't get along with each other did so
>>>>> for
>>>>> the
>>>>> cause.
>>>>
>>>>Wow! So you are comparing the US forces with the Wehrmacht?
>>>
>>> Did I say that? I was comparing the Soviet reaction to the invasion.
>>
>>So you would consider the Iraqis the invaders? In their own country? A
>>somewht unusual way of looking at things!
>
> Since you insist on not reading what I wrote this discussion is closed.

(unanswered)

>>> And you call
>>>>*me* anti-American! (I am not, btw, I am anti this illegal invasion)
>>>
>>> The invasion was perfectly legal since sadam defied a dozen UN
>>> resolutions,
>>> abrogated his own agreements with the U.S. and had consistanly been
>>> shooting at
>>> U.S. and British aircraft that were enforcing the no fly zones sadam
>>> agreed
>>> to.
>>
>>Not a point of view shared by Kofi Annan of the UN. Nor by the majority of
>>people I talk to.
>>
>>There was a thing mentioned a lot at the time of the war about WMDs. Now
>>that this justification for the war has turned out to be false, do you
>>still
>>have no problem at all about the war's legality?

(unanswered)

>>>>They do have the same helmets I suppose...
>>>
>>> The helmets don't even look anything alike.
>>
>>I think they look very similar. And like alot of the Nazi kit, it was a
>>very
>>good design.
>>
> In my collection I have one of each type of German steel helmet to see
> production. I also have the current U.S. helmet. They do not look alike.
> This
> discussion is closed.

Ok. As a certain contributor to this NG used to say, thanks for playing!

Enjoy your helmet collection.

;)

[BUFDRVR]

Guinnog65 wrote:

>How dare you tell me what I do and don't care about.

You told me by your posts.

>How dare you tell me I
>wish Hussein
>was still in power.

You said you were concerned for Iraqi citzens in regards to U.S. military
strikes, you never mentioned the alternative. Sounds to me like you support the
alternative.

>Butcha don't gotta love the no-brain, other-people's-children-die redneck
>neocons. Oh no.

I love when you anger these people and they break out "neocon". I've seen Iraq
in person. Have you?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Guinnog65]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> Guinnog65 wrote:
>
>>How dare you tell me what I do and don't care about.
>
> You told me by your posts.
>
>>How dare you tell me I
>>wish Hussein
>>was still in power.
>
> You said you were concerned for Iraqi citzens in regards to U.S. military
> strikes, you never mentioned the alternative. Sounds to me like you
> support the
> alternative.

I am concerned at any unnecessary deaths in this needless and illegal war.

>>Butcha don't gotta love the no-brain, other-people's-children-die redneck
>>neocons. Oh no.
>
> I love when you anger these people and they break out "neocon".

It saddens me when you anger these people and they break out 'liberal'.

I am more disappointed by your obtuseness than angry. If I got angry every
time one of you people demonstrated that patriotism is more important to you
than thinking, I would never be able to read Usenet.

>I've seen Iraq
> in person. Have you?

Is this an Art Kramer style response?! No, I have never been to Iraq. Does
this mean I should not have an opinion on how my taxes are spent?

Do you think the war on Iraq was a good idea?

Do you think it was legal?

Do you think it has been a success?

[BUFDRVR]

Guinnog65 wrote:

>I am concerned at any unnecessary deaths in this needless and illegal war.

This war is not illegal, despite what Annan says.

> If I got angry every
>time one of you people demonstrated that patriotism is more important to you
>than thinking, I would never be able to read Usenet.

I never even infered that patriotism was more important than thinking, quite
the opposite. You have resorted to using DNC talking points, that tells me you
are the one not thinking.

>>I've seen Iraq
>> in person. Have you?
>
>Is this an Art Kramer style response?!

No, you accused me of being willing to send other peoples children to war
without going myself, I was simply pointing out that I have gone (kind of)
myself.

>Do you think the war on Iraq was a good idea?

Yes.

>Do you think it was legal?

Yes.

>Do you think it has been a success?

Yes.

Ok, now my turn. If you believe Operation Iraqi Freedom was illegal, what did
you think of Operation Allied Force (NATOs bombing of Yugoslavia)? I only ask
because the Sec. Gen. of the U.N. has been shown to be a hipocrit on the issue
and I'm interested where you stand.

Before you answer, just a few facts. Both operations *did not* have U.N.
resolutions authorizing the use of force. Both operations had, as one of the
goals, to relieve the suffering of an oppressed people and both involved the
occupation of a soverign nations territory. Following one operation it was
shown that the nations leader had killed just over 3,000 people in an attempt
to ethnically cleanse a region. The other operation has found single mass
graves containing nearly twice that amount and the full number may reach
50,000. I'll leave it to you to match the executions with the proper country
(Yugoslavia or Iraq).


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"