Analysis: Iraq is no Vietnam

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think if Russia,France, Germany all would have put in 100,000 troops each, we might have alot better handle on things. Just a guess! I think also we are envied all around the world and some of the leaders and their citizens get some kind of sick enjoyment out of seeing us struggle. IMO

You forget that all of those countries were vehemently opposed to the War, and the bridges were royally burned when all of the reconstruction contracts were awarded almost exclusively to US multi-nationals, giving the finger not only to those countries who opposed the war, but also to those countries (like the UK) who came in on your side (even against the objections of their own people).

What exactly do they owe Bush? Everyone told him that this would be a disaster, and it is; and now you want other countries to dig you out of the hole.... crackers....

erekose, i seriously doubt if russia, france, and germany could come up with 100,000 troops combined. surely you should know that.........

eta: the cracker comment was totally uncalled for

He didn't say "could", he said "would". And they "wouldn't" because they opposed the war. Seems simple enough to me...

Actually I said "crackers" which has a different meaning in the UK, which other UK-ers can confirm.

[kaydee457 13]

I think if Russia,France, Germany all would have put in 100,000 troops each, we might have alot better handle on things. Just a guess! I think also we are envied all around the world and some of the leaders and their citizens get some kind of sick enjoyment out of seeing us struggle. IMO

You forget that all of those countries were vehemently opposed to the War, and the bridges were royally burned when all of the reconstruction contracts were awarded almost exclusively to US multi-nationals, giving the finger not only to those countries who opposed the war, but also to those countries (like the UK) who came in on your side (even against the objections of their own people).

What exactly do they owe Bush? Everyone told him that this would be a disaster, and it is; and now you want other countries to dig you out of the hole.... crackers....

All of these countries had very large financial interests in Iraq, particularly in terms of weapons and defense technologies.

France and Germany were coverty smuggling nuclear technology and other technologies to Iraq.

As far as the Russians are concerned we are still trying to figure out what and to who/whom they're exporting critical and sensitive technologies to.

It's a nasty and complicated world out there.

I've said too much already.

Now THAT statement is the most intelligent thing you've ever said to date!

[Ban Hammer 13,977]

I think if Russia,France, Germany all would have put in 100,000 troops each, we might have alot better handle on things. Just a guess! I think also we are envied all around the world and some of the leaders and their citizens get some kind of sick enjoyment out of seeing us struggle. IMO

You forget that all of those countries were vehemently opposed to the War, and the bridges were royally burned when all of the reconstruction contracts were awarded almost exclusively to US multi-nationals, giving the finger not only to those countries who opposed the war, but also to those countries (like the UK) who came in on your side (even against the objections of their own people).

What exactly do they owe Bush? Everyone told him that this would be a disaster, and it is; and now you want other countries to dig you out of the hole.... crackers....

erekose, i seriously doubt if russia, france, and germany could come up with 100,000 troops combined. surely you should know that.........

eta: the cracker comment was totally uncalled for

He didn't say "could", he said "would". And they "wouldn't" because they opposed the war. Seems simple enough to me...

Actually I said "crackers" which has a different meaning in the UK, which other UK-ers can confirm.

uh huh......and of course, you just have to use that when talking to marc

i was not aware that marc was from the uk................

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think if Russia,France, Germany all would have put in 100,000 troops each, we might have alot better handle on things. Just a guess! I think also we are envied all around the world and some of the leaders and their citizens get some kind of sick enjoyment out of seeing us struggle. IMO

You forget that all of those countries were vehemently opposed to the War, and the bridges were royally burned when all of the reconstruction contracts were awarded almost exclusively to US multi-nationals, giving the finger not only to those countries who opposed the war, but also to those countries (like the UK) who came in on your side (even against the objections of their own people).

What exactly do they owe Bush? Everyone told him that this would be a disaster, and it is; and now you want other countries to dig you out of the hole.... crackers....

erekose, i seriously doubt if russia, france, and germany could come up with 100,000 troops combined. surely you should know that.........

eta: the cracker comment was totally uncalled for

He didn't say "could", he said "would". And they "wouldn't" because they opposed the war. Seems simple enough to me...

Actually I said "crackers" which has a different meaning in the UK, which other UK-ers can confirm.

uh huh......and of course, you just have to use that when talking to marc

i was not aware that marc was from the uk................

What does that have to do with it? Why should I adapt my modes of conventional speech just because someone might be offended? Interpret it that way if you want, but that's not what was intended - and if you don't believe me you're perfectly free to ask another Brit what "crackers" means.

[Alex+R 0]

Crackers just means "insane."

crackers

SYLLABICATION: crack·ers

PRONUNCIATION: krkrz

ADJECTIVE: Chiefly British Slang Insane; mad.

ETYMOLOGY: Probably from cracker, breakdown.

(bartleby.com)

Looks like the only person who insinuated something bad about Marc was you Chuckles!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Crackers just means "insane."

crackers

SYLLABICATION: crack·ers

PRONUNCIATION: krkrz

ADJECTIVE: Chiefly British Slang Insane; mad.

ETYMOLOGY: Probably from cracker, breakdown.

(bartleby.com)

Looks like the only person who insinuated something bad about Marc was you Chuckles!

Charles is convinced that I'm a liar

That's ok because I'm convinced that he's an ignorant wanker (I'm sure he's heard of the British-ism)

[kaydee457 13]

I think if Russia,France, Germany all would have put in 100,000 troops each, we might have alot better handle on things. Just a guess! I think also we are envied all around the world and some of the leaders and their citizens get some kind of sick enjoyment out of seeing us struggle. IMO

You forget that all of those countries were vehemently opposed to the War, and the bridges were royally burned when all of the reconstruction contracts were awarded almost exclusively to US multi-nationals, giving the finger not only to those countries who opposed the war, but also to those countries (like the UK) who came in on your side (even against the objections of their own people).

What exactly do they owe Bush? Everyone told him that this would be a disaster, and it is; and now you want other countries to dig you out of the hole.... crackers....

erekose, i seriously doubt if russia, france, and germany could come up with 100,000 troops combined. surely you should know that.........

eta: the cracker comment was totally uncalled for

He didn't say "could", he said "would". And they "wouldn't" because they opposed the war. Seems simple enough to me...

Actually I said "crackers" which has a different meaning in the UK, which other UK-ers can confirm.

uh huh......and of course, you just have to use that when talking to marc

i was not aware that marc was from the uk................

What does that have to do with it? Why should I adapt my modes of conventional speech just because someone might be offended? Interpret it that way if you want, but that's not what was intended - and if you don't believe me you're perfectly free to ask another Brit what "crackers" means.

Please control your temper. If you're a Brit then in my opinion you don't really have any input to this thread that's of substance since the issues concern americans and that's why I began this thread.

Please do not disrupt my threads again.

Thank you.

[Alex+R 0]

Please control your temper. If you're a Brit then in my opinion you don't really have any input to this thread that's of substance since the issues concern americans and that's why I began this thread.

Please do not disrupt my threads again.

Thank you.

Your thread? What, did you pee on it and mark your territory?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think if Russia,France, Germany all would have put in 100,000 troops each, we might have alot better handle on things. Just a guess! I think also we are envied all around the world and some of the leaders and their citizens get some kind of sick enjoyment out of seeing us struggle. IMO

You forget that all of those countries were vehemently opposed to the War, and the bridges were royally burned when all of the reconstruction contracts were awarded almost exclusively to US multi-nationals, giving the finger not only to those countries who opposed the war, but also to those countries (like the UK) who came in on your side (even against the objections of their own people).

What exactly do they owe Bush? Everyone told him that this would be a disaster, and it is; and now you want other countries to dig you out of the hole.... crackers....

erekose, i seriously doubt if russia, france, and germany could come up with 100,000 troops combined. surely you should know that.........

eta: the cracker comment was totally uncalled for

He didn't say "could", he said "would". And they "wouldn't" because they opposed the war. Seems simple enough to me...

Actually I said "crackers" which has a different meaning in the UK, which other UK-ers can confirm.

uh huh......and of course, you just have to use that when talking to marc

i was not aware that marc was from the uk................

What does that have to do with it? Why should I adapt my modes of conventional speech just because someone might be offended? Interpret it that way if you want, but that's not what was intended - and if you don't believe me you're perfectly free to ask another Brit what "crackers" means.

Please control your temper. If you're a Brit then in my opinion you don't really have any input to this thread that's of substance since the issues concern americans and that's why I began this thread.

Please do not disrupt my threads again.

Thank you.

Here's your disruption right here (see bolded).

Incidentally I've noticed how you've gone from "I have worldly experience, therefore I know best" to "Immigrants can't express opinions".

For someone who's apparently a member of this country's armed forces - you certainly aren't a good representative of your country's values.

Edited November 18, 2006 by erekose

[Carol&Marc 0]

I think if Russia,France, Germany all would have put in 100,000 troops each, we might have alot better handle on things. Just a guess! I think also we are envied all around the world and some of the leaders and their citizens get some kind of sick enjoyment out of seeing us struggle. IMO

You forget that all of those countries were vehemently opposed to the War, and the bridges were royally burned when all of the reconstruction contracts were awarded almost exclusively to US multi-nationals, giving the finger not only to those countries who opposed the war, but also to those countries (like the UK) who came in on your side (even against the objections of their own people).

What exactly do they owe Bush? Everyone told him that this would be a disaster, and it is; and now you want other countries to dig you out of the hole.... crackers....

erekose, i seriously doubt if russia, france, and germany could come up with 100,000 troops combined. surely you should know that.........

eta: the cracker comment was totally uncalled for

He didn't say "could", he said "would". And they "wouldn't" because they opposed the war. Seems simple enough to me...

Actually I said "crackers" which has a different meaning in the UK, which other UK-ers can confirm.

uh huh......and of course, you just have to use that when talking to marc

i was not aware that marc was from the uk................

Bloody HE!!.........Mate.......................I think?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Please control your temper. If you're a Brit then in my opinion you don't really have any input to this thread that's of substance since the issues concern americans and that's why I began this thread.

Please do not disrupt my threads again.

Thank you.

Your thread? What, did you pee on it and mark your territory?

Commonly referred to as the "B!tch Fit"

Edited November 18, 2006 by erekose

[GaryC 7]

In reality the troops that come from New Orleans, Baltimore, Washington DC and Atlanta are SAFER in Iraq than in their own home towns!! Iraq has a lower death rate per 1000 than those cities and a whole bunch of countries! Read this:

Spinning The Reality Of Iraq War

By ALICIA COLON

May 16, 2006

It's that time of year when New Yorkers start making their summer vacation plans. Renting a place in the Hamptons? Nah, been there, done that. How about a Parisian jaunt? Noooo. Too many riots. Well, how about visiting a country that's ancient, historic, beautiful and exotic - Iraq? Sure, there's a little war going on there, but when you look at the violent death statistics in the world, it's safer than a number of other popular travel destinations. Believe it or not.

I happened to catch Rep. Steve King, a Republican of Iowa, on C-span last week and he rattled off some startling figures that demonstrate how off-base journalists are when it comes to reporting on the war in Iraq. According to Mr. King, the violent death rate in Iraq is 25.71 per 100,000. That may sound high, but not when you compare it to places like Colombia (61.7), South Africa (49.6), Jamaica (32.4), and Venezuela (31.6). How about the violent death rates in American cities? New Orleans before Hurricane Katrina was 53.1. FBI statistics for 2004-05 have Washington at 45.9, Baltimore at 37.7, and Atlanta at 34.9.

The point Mr. King was making is that if journalists covered only the violence in these other cities and countries, as they do in Iraq, our perceptions of these places would also be highly negative.

Of course, I'm not serious about Iraq being a prime vacation spot, at least not yet. However, while this country of very brave people has made enormous strides in a relatively short time, it is hardly being reported to the American people. Why?

On a daily basis, mainstream journalists are spewing out anything they can that is negative about the Bush administration, regardless of whether the information threatens our national security. Leaking highly classified information to the public during a war should be grounds for criminal investigations. Instead, it's been deemed worthy of reward.

Dana Priest of the Washington Post received a Pulitzer for reporting that the CIA was holding terrorist suspects in secret European prisons. The New York Times exposed intimate details of the CIA charter flights ferrying prisoners overseas. The names of the charter companies were disclosed and the Times even ran a picture displaying the identification number of one of the aircraft. Al Qaeda must be so grateful to these newspapers for doing all their legwork.

Now the big brouhaha is about the phone-number database that the government maintains, and we're supposed to get upset that our civil rights are being invaded. I don't care if the FBI has my phone number - Radio Shack, Macy's, and the New York Times have it as well. Besides, the phone companies that are cooperating with the government are furnishing only numbers, not names and addresses. NSA is looking for patterns to detect terrorist activity, not to record your conversations with your mother.

Before the phone database furor, there was the "wiretap" uproar. Let's be clear: Wiretapping is what Democrat Robert Kennedy did to Martin Luther King Jr. There is a huge difference between that activity and eavesdropping on communications between America and other countries to thwart potential terrorist attacks.

The thinking public knows this, and recognizes that national security trumps our right to privacy, which has always been ignored by the IRS anyhow. Syndicated columnist Thomas Sowell said it best in a January column at Townhall.com headlined "Fourth estate or Fifth Column?" He writes: "With all the turmoil and bloodshed in Iraq, both military and civilian people returning from that country are increasingly expressing amazement at the difference between what they have seen with their own eyes and the far worse, one-sided picture that the media presents to the public here."

It's not just the war that gets spun out of reality. Another Pulitzer went to the Times-Picayune of New Orleans, which tied with a paper in Biloxi, Miss., for its coverage of Hurricane Katrina. That much of the coverage was a pack of lies meant absolutely nothing to the Pulitzer panel. Nevertheless, the distorted coverage did its job. The nation was outraged at the horrific images conjured up by the newspapers. Forty bodies were stacked in freezers, reporter Brian Thevenot wrote - or were they? Mr. Thevenot later admitted that he never verified that information before rushing it into print. His reporting, too, won a Pulitzer.

Maybe we should start awarding a new journalism award for uncovering the absolute truth, regardless of who's in office. Wouldn't that be unique?

The reality is that the Iraqi people and the coalition forces are winning the battle to rid the country of the murderous Islamofascists. In a few years, tourists will be flocking to Iraq, site of the most famous ancient city, Babylon, and other cultural treasures. That's the truth - believe it or not.

http://www.nysun.com/article/32787

[GaryC 7]

The silence here is deafening.

[Alex+R 0]

The silence here is deafening.

What, you want people to argue with the dittohead column you posted?

Or to point out that it's scary to think that the U.S. occupies a country and we're patting ourselves on the back because it's not as bad as some other places?

Too boring.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The silence here is deafening.

What, you want people to argue with the dittohead column you posted?

Or to point out that it's scary to think that the U.S. occupies a country and we're patting ourselves on the back because it's not as bad as some other places?

Too boring.

Yeah if Iraq is safer than half the southern USA, perhaps we should all move over there