P2P-Zone  

Go Back   P2P-Zone > Political Asylum
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Political Asylum Publicly Debate Politics, War, Media.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 03-02-04, 08:16 AM   #1
span
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,260
Default 343

Mike Novak
Quote:
The news media, which constantly accuse the Bush administration of exaggerating the threat in Iraq, are constantly exaggerating the number of U.S. combat deaths there. I first pointed this out last August. For a while, the exaggeration stopped, but early in January it recommenced. The round number "500" was apparently irresistible.

Yet as of January 15, exactly ten months after the war began on March 16, 2003, the official number of U.S. combat deaths listed by the Defense Department was 343. Another 155 had died from non-hostile causes, including 100 in accidents and others from illness. Since non-hostile causes are responsible for army deaths in peacetime as well as wartime, in bases at home as well as in war zones, many of the non-hostile deaths ought not to be counted as specific to Iraq, although, of course, a portion of them are.

These 343 (not 500) combat deaths, furthermore, need to be set in context. During 2003, the number of homicides in Chicago was 599, in New York City 596, in Los Angeles 505, in Detroit 361, in Philadelphia 347, in Baltimore 271, in Houston 276, and in Washington 247. That makes 3,002 murders in only eight cities.

The least the media could do is print the number of combat deaths in Iraq in two columns. The first would show the number of days since the war began (as of January 15, 305). The second column might show the number of combat deaths as of the same date (343).

Since January 15, the death toll has climbed in one of its upward spurts, as roadside bombings by more sophisticated agencies become more deadly. The countdown toward the turnover of the levers of government to Iraqi leaders is now less than 150 days away. We can expect the bitter despair of the Sunni diehards and the foreign jihadists to grow. They will try to stop history in its tracks. They will become ever more violent. They have been drawn like moths to bang against the brightness of our troops in the dark. Now, more than ever, we need a steady hand at the American helm. Now is not the time for recriminations and retreat.

The war in Iraq has been one of the noblest and brightest pages in American history. At enormous risk to ourselves, and at great cost, our troops have liberated an entire people from one of the most sadistic despots in history. In the near future, they will leave behind a far better infrastructure (better schools, hospitals and clinics, power grids, telephone systems, oil technology, television, etc.) than has heretofore existed in Iraq, a greater array of free media, and the first beginnings of a new form of republican government not before experienced on the ancient soil hallowed by Hammurabi. The fear Saddam struck in the hearts of his neighbors, and the instability he promoted in the region, will be no more.

Those who died in that cause have given an unforgettable gift to the Iraqi people, which will be remembered with gratitude for generations to come. Their extraordinary achievements have burnished the glory of our nation, and their fame will long outlive the early opposition of those compromised by their past dealings with Saddam. The rich rewards raked in from Saddam's network of international bribery are only now being revealed. The predictions of those who marched against the war — about massive streams of refugees, hunger, the unleashing of weapons of mass destruction, immense domestic destruction, huge uprisings in "the Arab street," etc. — have been proved false.

The international terrorist groups led by al Qaeda have now been deprived of their bases in Afghanistan, their potential source of chemical and biological agents in Iraq, their support from Libya, their unrestricted access to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and the reliability of their hitherto totally safe assistance from Iran and Syria. All this our honored dead have won for us. Their families deserve to glory in it for generations.

"Greater love no man hath," the Good Book tells us, "than that he lay down his life for his friends." This, too, they have done for their fellow citizens. They have saved the cause of liberty from the shame of appeasing terror. They have protected their homeland and countrymen.

One day it will be a great boast for their children: "My father fought in Iraqi Freedom. He altered the course of history." And so they will be remembered by grandchildren, so long as memory lives.
i think the choice is clear for Bush, pull out of Chicago completely or these deaths will just keep mounting.

NO BLOOD FOR LARGE DEPARTMENT STORE OWNED TOWERS!!!

BUSH LIED CHICAGONIANS DIED!!!
span is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-04, 08:43 AM   #2
tambourine-man
BANG BANG BANG (repeat as necessary)
 
tambourine-man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Soon to be elsewhere
Posts: 1,327
Default Re: 343

Quote:
Originally posted by span
i think the choice is clear for Bush, pull out of Chicago completely or these deaths will just keep mounting.
Hahahar... you beat me to the joke... fair article regarding reporting of figures (though the author should have researched the average level of deaths caused by 'non-hostile causes' and 'accidents and illness' in peacetime and made a comparison between the two to determine the level that could "be counted as specific to Iraq". (Might also have been a good idea to look at the definitions of these sub-headings)). But overall, it's a fair point.

It all goes a little awry when the author talks about "the predictions of those who marched against the war — about massive streams of refugees, hunger, the unleashing of weapons of mass destruction, immense domestic destruction, huge uprisings in "the Arab street," etc. — have been proved false". I'm not getting onto the WMD argument again... see another thread for that one. But to disregard the possible implosion of Iraq, at this early stage is, at best presumptuous.

The 'history is on our side' line and the religious overture is where I start to veer away. Good post though.
__________________
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction" Dick Cheney - August 26, 2002

"I did not authorise the leaking of the name of David Kelly. Nobody was authorised to name David Kelly. I believe we have acted properly throughout" Tony Blair - July 22, 2003
tambourine-man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-04, 10:20 AM   #3
JackSpratts
 
JackSpratts's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 10,013
Default

that whole analysis is lame. huge numbers of those serving in iraq are reservists who wouldn't be doing any fulltime activities in the military. they'd be working thier peacetime jobs at home.

the fact remains that 500 people are dead who would not have been dead in in iraq had bush not sent them there under false pretenses. anything else is speculation serving a political stance.

then there are the injured and mutilated...

- js.
JackSpratts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-04, 10:41 AM   #4
span
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,260
Default

you do understand the purpose of joining the military is to serve your country?

it's not some kind of program designed to get you your college money while you lounge around drinking beer, it's job is to train you to serve your country whichever way the commander in chief tells you.

if they didn't want to fight for their country then maybe they shouldn't have enlisted..
span is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-04, 01:49 PM   #5
JackSpratts
 
JackSpratts's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 10,013
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by span
you do understand the purpose of joining the military is to serve your country?
say, you’re finally beginning to grasp the debate. are they serving their country or just bush’s & co goals? the two can be mutually exclusive.

- js.
JackSpratts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-04, 01:55 PM   #6
span
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,260
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by JackSpratts
say, you’re finally beginning to grasp the debate. are they serving their country or just bush’s & co goals? the two can be mutually exclusive.

- js.
oh and what nefarious goals are those? stealing OIL? well i sure wish they'd hurry up, this $1.65 a gallon shit for the last few months is killing me.
span is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-04, 02:07 PM   #7
scooobiedooobie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 381
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by JackSpratts
that whole analysis is lame.
i can't believe anyone could possibly label that whole analysis as lame.

an excerpt.....
Quote:
The war in Iraq has been one of the noblest and brightest pages in American history. At enormous risk to ourselves, and at great cost, our troops have liberated an entire people from one of the most sadistic despots in history. In the near future, they will leave behind a far better infrastructure (better schools, hospitals and clinics, power grids, telephone systems, oil technology, television, etc.) than has heretofore existed in Iraq, a greater array of free media, and the first beginnings of a new form of republican government not before experienced on the ancient soil hallowed by Hammurabi. The fear Saddam struck in the hearts of his neighbors, and the instability he promoted in the region, will be no more.

Those who died in that cause have given an unforgettable gift to the Iraqi people, which will be remembered with gratitude for generations to come. Their extraordinary achievements have burnished the glory of our nation, and their fame will long outlive the early opposition of those compromised by their past dealings with Saddam. The rich rewards raked in from Saddam's network of international bribery are only now being revealed. The predictions of those who marched against the war — about massive streams of refugees, hunger, the unleashing of weapons of mass destruction, immense domestic destruction, huge uprisings in "the Arab street," etc. — have been proved false.

The international terrorist groups led by al Qaeda have now been deprived of their bases in Afghanistan, their potential source of chemical and biological agents in Iraq, their support from Libya, their unrestricted access to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and the reliability of their hitherto totally safe assistance from Iran and Syria. All this our honored dead have won for us. Their families deserve to glory in it for generations.
if you can actually see those words as lame, i feel very sorry for you.
Quote:
the fact remains that 500 people are dead who would not have been dead in in iraq had bush not sent them there under false pretenses. anything else is speculation serving a political stance.
the fact is, your entire statement is nothing but speculation.... serving a political stance.
scooobiedooobie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-04, 02:22 PM   #8
scooobiedooobie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 381
Default

Are Liberals Aiding And Abetting The Enemy?
Barbara Stock, 10/22/03


Nearly every day attacks in Iraq from outside terrorists or Saddam loyalists take the life of an American soldier or Marine.

President Bush continues to warn the world about the enemy they face. He continues, despite opposition, to say we will not allow this evil to engulf the world. If we must fight this enemy with a handful of allies, he will continue the battle. He has made this pledge and the enemy knows he intends to keep his word.

In the United States Senate, Ted Kennedy pontificates and calls the President of the United States a liar. Liberals proclaim to the world that our President is an evil and a deceitful man who led us into an immoral war under false pretenses. They insist that it’s President Bush that’s responsible for the deaths of young Americans in Iraq, overlooking the terrorists.

Perhaps the worst Secretary of State we have ever had, Madeleine Albright, goes on foreign soil and tells a receptive French populous that “US President George W. Bush's foreign policy is not good for America, not good for the world.” She has a book to peddle.

If you were Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein, which one would you cheer? If you belonged to al Qaeda or Hamas or Islamic Jihad, which party would you like to see win the American election next year?

There is a serious problem in this country. Taking a page from the North Vietnam playbook, the terrorists know that all they have to do is to continue the random killing of soldiers; divide the American public; terrorize the local population; let the voice of the politically motivated left in America be heard and they will win. They will win and we will lose. We will lose Iraq. We will lose the Middle East. We may lose the United States and perhaps civilization as we know it.

Al-Jazeera broadcast this: "I tell the American people we will continue fighting you and we will continue martyrdom operations inside and outside the United States until you stop your injustice, and you end your foolishness," he said. "Jihad must continue until an Islamic government is established.” Bin Laden insinuates that if we just leave Iraq to him, all will be well. Give him Iraq and the war is over. If liberals believe him and win in 2004, the result could be fatal. Imagine Iraq’s oil wealth in the hands of bin Laden. Imagine Iran’s nuclear weapons under his control.

The Clinton Administration continues to make the rounds to re-write history in their favor. Madeleine Albright, defending Bill Clinton said this: "This is hard to say and I haven't found a way to say it that doesn't sound crass, but it is the truth that those {attacks before Sept. 11} were happening overseas and while there were Americans who died, there were not thousands and it did not happen on U. S. soil." In her mind that made the losses acceptable.

Apparently Ms. Albright had forgotten that our military ships and embassies are American soil. While not thousands, it was hundreds and they did nothing. Did the liberals take steps to protect American civilians and military? No, instead, they cut the military to the bone and blinded our intelligence capabilities.

Clinton now says he told Bush bin Laden was our biggest threat, yet he turned him down three times when he had the opportunity to take custody of him. They dare call Bush a liar?

Did the liberals demand that the President do something about the growing threat to this country and her people? They were silent except for the rhetoric to defend Clinton when he fired off millions of dollars worth of cruise missiles that hit nothing but sand, empty tents and aspirin factories. That was their response to terror attacks.

Sensing support here in the States from the left gives courage to the enemy to continue the killing.

World domination is bin Laden’s vision. He feels it’s his destiny. One said they would not rest until the flag of Islam flies over the White House.

With danger looming, liberals want to throw President Bush out of office and blame him for “falling out of favor in the world”. When did being President become a popularity contest of world opinion? When liberals had control in the 1990’s, they turned a blind eye to terrorism. Hundreds died, thousands were maimed and they did nothing. The enemy grew in number and power. We were a weak paper tiger easily attacked and killed without fear of retaliation. Clinton was “popular” and we paid a heavy price for his being loved by the world body.

The terrorists want the weak back in office, so they can continue their war without obstruction. They will be able to carry out their attacks without fear. They will overrun Iraq after liberals turn tail and run, as they always do and the entire Middle East will belong to bin Laden. They will turn on Israel. At some point, even liberals will have to take a stand or surrender.

It’s true we are losing brave young men and women in Iraq. How many more will die when the war comes here as it will, if we abandon Iraq. Bin Laden will not stop with the Middle East. His kind never does. Make a choice America.

Next year will perhaps be the most important vote we ever cast. In its simplest terms if could be a matter of life...or death.

http://www.americandaily.com/item/3785
scooobiedooobie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-04, 02:35 PM   #9
span
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,260
Default

the following is a satire piece on the whole Gore endorsing Dean thing, text was changed in Gore's speech and names replaced to produce a satirical article, this disclaimer is for the idiot(s) that fail to realize this

MIDDLE EAST--Speaking at the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Palestine this morning,international terrorist Osama bin Laden endorsed Howard Dean for President:

"...Howard Dean really is the only candidate who has committed to cutting and running out of the holy land and that's what the Great Satan needs if it wants to live . We need to remake the America; we need to remake the Kalihfah; we need to take it back on behalf of the great kings of old. So I'm very proud and honored to endorse Howard Dean to be the next president of the Great Satan," bin Laden began.

"Terrorism is a team sport. And I want to do everything I can to kill -- anybody that isn't interested in my judgment about who, among these candidates has the best chance to lead the Great Satan out of Mecca. I want to do everything I can to convince you to get behind Howard Dean and let's make this a successful terrorist campaign as a group. It is about all of us and all of us terrorists need to get behind the weakest canidate with the least foreign policy experience. Now I don't respect the prerogative of the voters and the caucuses and the primaries. I'm just saying choose him or die, I'm offering my judgment and I'm also going to say one other thing here," bin Laden continued.

"Years ago, former prophet Mohammad said in the muslim ummah that there ought to be an 6th pillar, speak no ill of Democrats. We're terrorists and we find that kind of commandment accessible, but not to the extent that we can't recognize the evil of the Great Satan today, I would urge all of the other terrorist organizations to endorse Dean as well. Here we are in Palestine. We need to keep our eyes on the terror. This terrorist organization cannot afford to have four more years of a Bush-Cheney administration. We can't afford to be killed from long range by Predator drone planes. What is going on in this Bush White House today is bad for our organization. And it's slowly beginning to sink into more and more Americans out there. And we can't oppose our friends the Democrats to the point where we seriously damage our ability to kill Americans for years to come," bin Laden said.

"Now, one other thing, I've spent a long time thinking about subverting US national security and national defense. And I've heard a lot of folks who, in my opinion, made a judgment about the War on Terror that was just plain evil and against Allah, saying that Howard Dean's decision to oppose the Iraq war calls his judgment on foreign policy into question. Excuse me. He was the only major candidate who made the correct judgment about the Iraq war. And he had the determination to help me and other terrorist organizations and regimes. And that's important in helping us kill more innocents" bin Laden said.

"Because those judgments, that lack of care for dead Americans is what we want in a puppet president. Our organization has been weakened in our ability to fight the Great Satan because of the evil choice that the Bush administration made in taking you into a war on terror. It was the jews that attacked you, not Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein is a good guy and personal friend and he's hiding in my French villa, we're all pissed off, but it was a mistake to get you into a quagmire over here, so don't tell me that because Howard Dean was the only major candidate who was looking after our interests, that that somehow calls his judgment into question on foreign policy, so whether it is inspiring enthusiasm at the terrorist grassroots and promising to remake the the Great Satan into the hollow shell it once was under my buddy Clinton, whether it is a domestic agenda that gets your nation farther away from justice or whether it is protecting us from the evil Republicans in the world, I have come to the conclusion that in a field of great candidates, one candidate clearly will pander to what we want, and so I'm asking all of you to join in this grassroots movement to elect Howard Dean President the Great Satan," bin Laden said.

http://www.aldaynet.org/blog/archive...orses_dean.php
span is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-04, 04:17 PM   #10
JackSpratts
 
JackSpratts's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 10,013
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by scooobiedooobie


the fact is, your entire statement is nothing but speculation.... serving a political stance.
scoob, there are nothing but facts in my statement you quoted. i said "500 dead" and "false pretenses." let's see, which of those two do you consider "specualtion" lol? there 500 dead and bush lied (or didn't tell the truth) about the wmd's (either way the pretense was false).

as for the rest of it i mentioned "huge numbers of...reservists" who'd still be home had bush not ordered them to war. no speculation there.

and oh yeah, i said that analysis is lame. it is. but obviously that's opinion, based on the author's distortion of the circumstances surrounding those deaths. now the rest of his opinion, particularly the parts you quoted like "Those who died in that cause have given an unforgettable gift to the Iraqi people, which will be remembered with gratitude for generations to come" isn't just lame.

it's absurd.

- js.
JackSpratts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-04, 06:04 PM   #11
scooobiedooobie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 381
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by JackSpratts
scoob, there are nothing but facts in my statement you quoted. i said "500 dead" and "false pretenses." let's see, which of those two do you consider "specualtion" lol? there 500 dead and bush lied (or didn't tell the truth) about the wmd's (either way the pretense was false).

as for the rest of it i mentioned "huge numbers of...reservists" who'd still be home had bush not ordered them to war. no speculation there.
this is the statement that I was talking about.. it's the one i quoted....
Quote:
the fact remains that 500 people are dead who would not have been dead in in iraq had bush not sent them there under false pretenses. anything else is speculation serving a political stance.
your reference to reservists was in an entirely separate statement. lol.. pay attention jacky

saying we went to war under false pretenses is nothing but pure speculation, fueled by liberal hate-filled propoganda. 90% of the iraqi peple want us there. do you seriously think that getting rid of a cruel murdering dictator is a bad thing? you seem to forget that this war is a war on terrorism, and only when the world comes together to defeat terrorism, can peace come. it also seems you've forgotten 9/11.

saying that we went to war "under false pretenses" has become yet another catch phrase for the anti-bush crowd, meant soley to serve their political agenda.

have you been reading noam chomsky again?

Quote:
and oh yeah, i said that analysis is lame. it is. but obviously that's opinion, based on the author's distortion of the circumstances surrounding those deaths. now the rest of his opinion, particularly the parts you quoted like "Those who died in that cause have given an unforgettable gift to the Iraqi people, which will be remembered with gratitude for generations to come" isn't just lame.

it's absurd.
those who have died would not consider it absurd, the iraqi people do not consider it absurd, and you should not consider it absurd. shame on you.
scooobiedooobie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-04, 08:07 PM   #12
theknife
my name is Ranking Fullstop
 
theknife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by scooobiedooobie
saying we went to war under false pretenses is nothing but pure speculation, fueled by liberal hate-filled propoganda. 90% of the iraqi peple want us there. do you seriously think that getting rid of a cruel murdering dictator is a bad thing? you seem to forget that this war is a war on terrorism, and only when the world comes together to defeat terrorism, can peace come. it also seems you've forgotten 9/11.

saying that we went to war "under false pretenses" has become yet another catch phrase for the anti-bush crowd, meant soley to serve their political agenda.

have you been reading noam chomsky again?


those who have died would not consider it absurd, the iraqi people do not consider it absurd, and you should not consider it absurd. shame on you.
didn't i hear this routine on talk radio today? and yesterday and the day before...infinitum? the neocons keep trying to stake out that moral high ground like our friend Scoobie here but it doesn't fly...

the war serves the GOP's political agenda as neatly as war criticism fits the Dem's political agenda...saying we went to war with Iraq "to fight terrorism" is every bit as inconclusive as as saying we went to war "under false pretenses".

make no mistake: conservatives support the war in Iraq largely coz it's being waged by a conservative president. period. not because it's the right thing to do, not to save the poor Iraqi people, not to "fight terrorism". you can bet your bottom dollar that, had a Democratic president invaded Iraq, the most vocal critics would be the conservatives.

so don't get on a high horse about political agendas and propaganda...the spin goes both ways.
theknife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-04, 08:23 PM   #13
JackSpratts
 
JackSpratts's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 10,013
Default

when i say false pretenses i refer specifically to two falsehoods: iraqi wmd's and the hussein al-queada link. no speculation. neither are in dispute. both are false, and both were pretenses for war.

when scoob's case is collapsing apparently she resorts to finger wagging. save your shame for your bizarre bush apologists.

- js.
JackSpratts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-04, 10:18 PM   #14
scooobiedooobie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 381
Default

Quote:
didn't i hear this routine on talk radio today? and yesterday and the day before...infinitum? the neocons keep trying to stake out that moral high ground like our friend Scoobie here but it doesn't fly...
i don't listen to talk radio..unless it's early in the morning, at that time of day i like humor...not politics.
Quote:
the war serves the GOP's political agenda as neatly as war criticism fits the Dem's political agenda...saying we went to war with Iraq "to fight terrorism" is every bit as inconclusive as as saying we went to war "under false pretenses".

make no mistake: conservatives support the war in Iraq largely coz it's being waged by a conservative president. period. not because it's the right thing to do, not to save the poor Iraqi people, not to "fight terrorism". you can bet your bottom dollar that, had a Democratic president invaded Iraq, the most vocal critics would be the conservatives.

so don't get on a high horse about political agendas and propaganda...the spin goes both ways.
Quote:
when i say false pretenses i refer specifically to two falsehoods: iraqi wmd's and the hussein al-queada link. no speculation. neither are in dispute. both are false, and both were pretenses for war.

when scoob's case is collapsing apparently she resorts to finger wagging. save your shame for your bizarre bush apologists.
oh come on...falsehoods, false pretenses....
we know hussein had weapons of mass destruction. he used them against the kurds, against the iranians and against his own people.

and, as david kay said.."we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD program. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved."

you don’t seem to see any relevance in that statement.

kay also had this to say…

"We know that terrorists were passing through Iraq, and we know that there was little control over Iraq's weapon capabilities. I think it shows that Iraq was a very dangerous place. The country had the technology, the ability to produce, there were terrorist groups passing through the country - and no central control."

this war was necessary, and it was the right thing to do. it was a direct reaction to 9/11, wmd's, terrorism, and a murderous dictator defying ceasefire accords. it's these components which clearly makes iraq part of the war on terror and is why saddam had to be removed.


on another note....good debates aren't about trying to pound your point of view into others. a good debate is about exchanging ideas and info intelligently with other people.. and making people think about things they may not have considered. try to use those quidelines, guidelines liberals don't seem to like. as it is, all you two manage to do is come off sounding like typical single-minded bush-hating terror apologists.
scooobiedooobie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-04, 01:38 AM   #15
tambourine-man
BANG BANG BANG (repeat as necessary)
 
tambourine-man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Soon to be elsewhere
Posts: 1,327
Default

I'd like to register my interest in this thread, but my lack of enthusiasm for covering old territory.

A thread concerning WMD and 'anti-americanism'
A thread that moved onto WMD
Quote:
Originally posted by scooobiedooobie
...single-minded bush-hating terror apologists.
I love it when people say that (use commas between your adjectives next time, though).
Condescending???
__________________
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction" Dick Cheney - August 26, 2002

"I did not authorise the leaking of the name of David Kelly. Nobody was authorised to name David Kelly. I believe we have acted properly throughout" Tony Blair - July 22, 2003

Last edited by tambourine-man : 04-02-04 at 01:59 AM.
tambourine-man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-04, 06:16 AM   #16
theknife
my name is Ranking Fullstop
 
theknife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by tambourine-man
Quote:
Originally posted by scooobiedooobie
...single-minded bush-hating terror apologists.
I love it when people say that (use commas between your adjectives next time, though).
Condescending???
at the end of the day, that's all she's got, TM - that's why she repeats it over and over
theknife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-04, 08:37 AM   #17
scooobiedooobie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 381
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by tambourine-man
single-minded bush-hating terror apologists.......I love it when people say that (use commas between your adjectives next time, though).
Condescending???
uhm...condescending tm? strange that you didn't find jack initially using the term "bizzare bush apologists" condescending.
Quote:
Originally posted by JackSpratts
save your shame for your bizarre bush apologists.
lol, you guys crack me up! keep right on pissing in the wind, that's all you're really doing....but you do it so well!
scooobiedooobie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-04, 09:13 AM   #18
tambourine-man
BANG BANG BANG (repeat as necessary)
 
tambourine-man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Soon to be elsewhere
Posts: 1,327
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by scooobiedooobie
uhm...condescending tm? strange that you didn't find jack initially using the term "bizzare bush apologists" condescending.
I wasn't suggesting your accusation of "single-minded bush-hating terror apologists" was condescending. If you'll notice, I believe there was a question mark after the word 'condescending' (actually, there's three, none of them were rhetorical and you still managed to miss them). The question I was asking was whether you considered my intentionally patronising point, of using commas between your adjectives, as 'condescending' (in reference to one of your recent posts - keep up sweetheart ).

Incidentally though, I don't find your "single-minded bush-hating terror apologists" comment condescending. I find it convenient. See the above post's links regarding the use of the term 'anti-americanism' as a sloppy way of disregarding enquiry. The difference between being a "bizzare bush apologist" and defending Bush's stance and actions to the hilt is relatively slight. In contrast, the difference between being a "single-minded bush-hating terror apologist" and merely critisizing Bush is huge. Difficult to accept, I know... but try your best and you might get an 'A' for effort.
__________________
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction" Dick Cheney - August 26, 2002

"I did not authorise the leaking of the name of David Kelly. Nobody was authorised to name David Kelly. I believe we have acted properly throughout" Tony Blair - July 22, 2003
tambourine-man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-04, 01:00 PM   #19
scooobiedooobie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 381
Default

Quote:
Incidentally though, I don't find your "single-minded bush-hating terror apologists" comment condescending. I find it convenient. See the above post's links regarding the use of the term 'anti-americanism' as a sloppy way of disregarding enquiry. The difference between being a "bizzare bush apologist" and defending Bush's stance and actions to the hilt is relatively slight. In contrast, the difference between being a "single-minded bush-hating terror apologist" and merely critisizing Bush is huge. Difficult to accept, I know... but try your best and you might get an 'A' for effort.
lol...you keep on trying tm, you may actually manage to make a valid point yet!












you already have an A for effort
scooobiedooobie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-04, 01:18 PM   #20
scooobiedooobie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 381
Default

a letter from a marine....



-----Original Message-----
From: Lt Col Scot S. Seitz
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 8:40 AM
To: 1MAW MWSS171 All Personnel
Cc: Col Stephen M Fenstermacher; Lt Col Stephen F Kirkpatrick;
Lt. Col Eric T Chase

Subject: ACCOMPLISHMENTS (The news that won't be printed or reported by our journalists.]


Marines and Sailors,

As we approach the end of the year I think it is important to share a few thoughts about what you've accomplished directly, in some cases, and indirectly in many others. I am speaking about what the Bush Administration and each of you has contributed by wearing the uniform, because the fact that you wear the uniform contributes 100% to the capability of the nation to send a few onto the field to execute national policy. As you read about these achievements you are a part of, I would call your attention to two things:

1. This is good news that hasn't been fit to print or report on TV.

2. It is much easier to point out the errors a man makes when he makes the tough decisions, rarely is the positive as aggressively pursued.


Since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1...

... the first battalion of the new Iraqi Army has graduated and is on active duty.

... over 60,000 Iraqis now provide security to their fellow citizens.

... nearly all of Iraq's 400 courts are functioning.

... the Iraqi judiciary is fully independent.

... on Monday, October 6 power generation hit 4,518 megawatts-exceeding the prewar average.

... all 22 universities and 43 technical institutes and colleges are open, as are nearly all primary and secondary schools.

... by October 1, Coalition forces had rehab-ed over 1,500 schools - 500 more than scheduled.

... teachers earn from 12 to 25 times their former salaries.

... all 240 hospitals and more than 1200 clinics are open.

... doctors salaries are at least eight times what they were under Saddam.

... pharmaceutical distribution has gone from essentially nothing to 700 tons in May to a current total of 12,000 tons.

... the Coalition has helped administer over 22 million vaccinations to Iraq's children.

... a Coalition program has cleared over 14,000 kilometers of Iraq's 27,000 kilometers of weed-choked canals which now irrigate tens of thousands of farms. This project has created jobs for more than 100,000 Iraqi men and women.

... we have restored over three-quarters of prewar telephone services and over two-thirds of the potable water production.

... there are 4,900 full-service telephone connections. We expect 50,000 by year-end.

... the wheels of commerce are turning. >From bicycles to satellite dishes to cars and trucks, businesses are coming to life in all major cities and towns.

... 95 percent of all prewar bank customers have service and first-time customers are opening accounts daily.

... Iraqi banks are making loans to finance businesses.

... the central bank is fully independent.

... Iraq has one of the worlds most growth-oriented investment and banking laws.

... Iraq has a single, unified currency for the first time in 15 years.

... satellite TV dishes are legal.

... foreign journalists aren't on 10-day visas paying mandatory and extortionate fees to the Ministry of Information for "minders" and other government spies.

... there is no Ministry of Information.

... there are more than 170 newspapers.

... you can buy satellite dishes on what seems like every street
corner.

... foreign journalists (and everyone else) are free to come and go.

... a nation that had not one single element - legislative, judicial or executive - of a representative government, now does.

... in Baghdad alone residents have selected 88 advisory councils. Baghdad's first democratic transfer of power in 35 years happened when the city council elected its new chairman.

... today in Iraq chambers of commerce, business, school and professional organizations are electing their leaders all over the country.

... 25 ministers, selected by the most representative governing body in Iraq's history, run the day-to-day business of government.

... the Iraqi government regularly participates in international events. Since July the Iraqi government has been represented in over two dozen international meetings, including those of the UN General Assembly, the Arab League, the World Bank and IMF and, today, the Islamic Conference Summit. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs today announced that it is reopening over 30 Iraqi embassies around the world.

... Shia religious festivals that were all but banned, aren't.

... for the first time in 35 years, in Karbala thousands of Shiites
celebrate the pilgrimage of the 12th Imam.

... the Coalition has completed over 13,000 reconstruction projects, large and small, as part of a strategic plan for the reconstruction of Iraq.

... Uday and Queasy are dead - and no longer feeding innocent Iraqis to the zoo lions, raping the young daughters of local leaders to force cooperation, torturing Iraq's soccer players for losing games, or murdering critics.

... children aren't imprisoned or murdered when their parents disagree with the government.

... political opponents aren't imprisoned, tortured, executed, maimed, or are forced to watch their families die for disagreeing with Saddam.

... millions of longsuffering Iraqis no longer live in perpetual terror.

... Saudis will hold municipal elections.

... Qatar is reforming education to give more choices to parents.

... Jordan is accelerating market economic reforms.

... the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded for the first time to an Iranian - a Muslim woman who speaks out with courage for human rights, for democracy and for peace.

... Saddam is gone.

... Iraq is free.

... President Bush has not faltered or failed.

... Yet, little or none of this information has been published by the Press corps that prides itself on bringing you all the news that's important.

Iraq under US lead control has come further in six months than Germany did in seven years or Japan did in nine years following WWII. Military deaths from fanatic Nazi's, and Japanese numbered in the thousands and continued for over three years after WWII victory was declared.

It took the US over four months to clear away the twin tower debris, let alone attempt to build something else in its place.

Now, take into account that Congress fought President Bush on every aspect of his handling of this country's war and the post-war reconstruction; and that they continue to claim on a daily basis on national TV that this conflict has been a failure.

Taking everything into consideration, even the unfortunate loss of our brothers and sisters in this conflict, do you think anyone else in the world could have accomplished as much as the United States and the Bush administration in so short a period of time?

These are things worth writing about. Get the word out. Write to
someone you think may be able to influence our Congress or the press to tell the story.

Above all, be proud that you are a part of this historical precedent.

God Bless you all. Have a great Holiday.

Semper Fidelis,

Lt Col Scot S Seitz
scooobiedooobie is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump






All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© www.p2p-zone.com - Napsterites - 2000 - 2024 (Contact grm1@iinet.net.au for all admin enquiries)