Enough pessimism -- how about the good news

[deveil]

S E E E ! ! !
i told you it was marc!!!!!!!
(or did everyone else already know?)(ya derty baastird you )

Look guys--discussing this further is pointless. Marco knows this is an isolated forum where he can have fun using silly circuitous arguements and unsubstantiated statements in order to get a rise out of us. I'm sure its like watching a dog go round and round chasing its tail. There is no way we can ever change his mind--so what is the point?

Instead, I think it is best to plan ahead. As bad as things are--try to imagine if yet another idiot conservative neo-con succeeds Bushie in the next election. That will further cement their agenda and help ensure the widening gap between the haves and the have-nots will only grow. The next election will be even more critical than the last in determining the future course of our country.

Get involved with your friends, groups, associations--whatever. Every single vote DOES count!

marc

Anyone see any parrallels in what's going on in the "real" world and the Tolkienesque Lord of the Rings world?

[deveil]

marc, only a testimonial from the so called brian v h can save you now, dude! (is he a real guy? haven't met him myself)( wait...those darned black helicopters are outside again...gotta go.............................

[Joe Schad]

Marco,

You haven't answered my questions, so I will add one more.

The paper today said that the number of people below the poverty line has increased for the forth year in a row as has the number of people without health insurance.

Question:
1. Do you believe that it is in the best interest of society/goverments for people to be secure in matters of survival and health and thereby have a social safety net for all citizens?

2. Isn't this Republican administration responsible for the increase of people below the poverty line and the increase in the number of people without health insurance?

I do believe that you are much like George Bush. Strong in your beliefs and you will let not fact change those beliefs. It is my hope that enough people will see your views and approach for what it is, danger to the country and vote, vote, vote every single Republican out of office at every level of government. Hopefully we can prevent the fraud with the elections that has occured in the last two.

Joe

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Option 1: Primary

Declare victory and move our troops to the border of Syria and Iran for six months the take them all out.

Option 2: Admit it was a mistake in the first place and bring all the troops home now.

I prefer option 2.

A question for you Marco.

Why should we make our children pay for this war as we are doing by not budgeting for the costs and deficit spending?

Do you believe the establishment of an Islamic State alighened with Iran( of the Axis of Evil) is success for the USA? If so Why?

Is a civil war in Iraq really bad for the US?


Joe

I know I said I would drop out of this.

[Marco Zee]

Let me reply to the first of your two most recent posts. Your words will be in << >> quotations.

<<I too supported the war. >> RE: here we agree.

<<So we should admit defeat and leave.>> RE: Like I said in an earlier post, IF I thought we were in an no-win situation, I would recommend IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL. I do not feel we are losing, quite to the contrary, I think we are doing what we need to do to support democratic forces within Iraq to become independent and self sufficient.

<<Your simplistic formulation of "killing and defeating
terrorists" shows a fundamental misunderstanding: it just doesn't
work, they are the original "whack-a-mole". Two more are recruited
for every one killed.>>
RE: We only have to kill or capture the terrorists infiltrating into Iraq, not every single terrorist in the Moslem world, in order to provide adequate security for the Iraqi's and our troops, until the Iraqi's can provide their own security, and the troops can depart. I don't share your view that there is an unlimited number of terrorists just lining up to battle the US Army & Marines. If there were "so many", why don't they just show up and overrun us in one day, or one week? The answer is that they don't have infinite numbers, or even large numbers....that's why their tactics have to be hit-and-run bombings. At the last election, 9 suicide bombers showed up trying to disrupt the elections. 8 Million showed up to vote. Do the math.

<<Our conventional troops are the world's best
at defeating an enemy who stands and fights, but they are ill-
equipped, organized or trained to fight a guerrilla war.>>
RE: Can you name another army in the world, besides Israel, who can better fight terrorist tactics? Our troops are trained for guerrilla and urban fighting as well as conventional fighting.

<<... they are in a no-win situation>>
Re: Here we disagree.

but they haven't answered "what course?">>
Re: The answer has not changed in the past 2 1/2 years....I don't know how many ways you can restate the same thing: provide security until the Iraqi governament and Iraqi security forces are self sufficient and able to function independent of US assistance. Is this so hard to understand????

<<Lastly, as Kerry pointed out, what the Congressional
resolution authorized is not what the administration did: they were
supposed to let the UN process run, but they cut it off and invaded.>>
RE: The resolution was conditional on Saddam complying with #1441, and gave Bush sole authority to prosecute the war IF U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 found Saddam in violation,...which it did with a UNANIMOUS 16-0 vote in the Security Council.

IF SADDAM HAD COMPLIED WITH 1441 AND DISARMED, LIKE QUADDAFIT DID, HE WOULD STILL BE RULING IRAQ AND HIS SONS WOULD STILL BE ALIVE, FAT, RICH , AND HAPPY. IT IS SADDAM'S FAULT AND MISCALCULATION, NOT BUSH'S, THAT WE ATTACKED HIM. Remarkably, I don't hear anyone blaming Saddam for this war, only Bush.

<< you can't spread the responsibility to the Congress too
much>>
RE: Congress abdicated their responsibility to Bush in that resolution, allowing Bush to be the final arbitor of going to war, or not. And Kerry & other Dems voted for it.

<<My argument is with the administration's bungling failure of
execution, not the principle of taking out Saddam. Fact is, we had
already been at war with Iraq for along time, our pilots exchanging
shots with the Iraqi air defense missiles every day. >>
RE: Another EXCELLENT point Hugh !!! The current Iraq war is really just a continuation of Desert Storm, where Saddam agreed to disarm as part of his surrender. After 17 resolutions and 12 years, he had NOT complied, and it was after he snubbed this 17th resolution, 1441, that Bush drew the line and took out Saddam. But your point that there was ongoing conflict with Saddam from 1991 to 2003, esp with regards to the No-Fly Zones, is dead on accurate.

<<Desert Storm, when we had near universal support.>>
RE: There was near universal support to remove Saddam from Kuwait, but the coalition quickly dissolved when the mission extended to removing Saddam from Iraq. The monday morning quarterback Democrats still whine about Bush 41 "not finishing the job" back in 1991. And yet, these are the same folks who are reluctant to finish the job now. By the way, only a handful of Dem Senators, including Al Gore, voted in favor of Desert Storm. After the war was "won" in 100 hours, they all had egg on their faces. And so, this time around, the Dems wanted to be "in favor" of the war, so as to avoid their well deserved reputation of being "weak on defense". Thats how Bush 43 got "sole authority" to make war on Saddam, thanks in large part to Democratic Senators (Kerry, Clinton, Edwards, Lieberman, Daschle) trying to prove they were "hawks".

<<This was a result of Bush's dissing civilized world opinion
on the environment and the ABM treaty (for the sake of what? one
missile site in Alaska that can't pass an operational test? feel
safer?). Felt good to be in-your-face to those limp-wristed
Europeans, didn't it? Wasn't worth the consequences, was it? We may
have seen the high water mark of American power and prestige in the
world - during the Daddy Bush administration. With Shrub in the oval
office, it's been all downhill... - Hugh >>
RE: for anyone still paying attention, how many European nations supported our efforts in Iraq? I'll stipulate that there are 26 European nations........the correct answer is.......................23..........only the limp-wristed French, the waffling Belgians, and the Germans, did not support the invasion.

THE FINAL CHAPTER OF THIS PLAY WILL NOT BE WRITTEN BY YOU OR I OR ANYONE ON THIS FORUM. IT WILL BE WRITTEN BY THE CITIZENS OF IRAQ, WHO, WITH ANY LUCK, WILL GRAB FREEDOM, LIBERTY, AND DEMOCRACY BY THE THROAT AND NOT LET GO. THE IRAQI'S WILL DETERMINE IF THEY HAVE THE WILL, INTELLIGENCE, GOOD SENSE, AND COURAGE TO MAKE THIS FLEDGLING DEMOCRACY BECOME A REALITY.

The two elections later this year will greatly determine the direction of this conflict. I am hoping that the Iraqi's succeed, but I certainly understand the concern and doubts of those who think that Iraqi democracy may only be a hollow dream that may not come to fruition. We'll see.

Take care,

Marco

[Matthew]

Option 3

Admit mistake, apologize and beg for help.

W needs to admit he was wrong and that he let his desire for war against Saddam and his arrogance lead him to believe in faulty intellegence regarding WMDs.

He needs to apologize to America, Iraq, the world and to all of the families who have lost loved ones.

And he needs to get on bended knee and ask the rest of the world to help fix this problem he has created. Beg France and Germany and Russia to send troops. He can remind them that the US bailed them out in the past. But he mostly needs to beg. And to show true contrition, he needs to replace the key people resposible for this debacle: replace Condie with someone who has a heart, replace Rumsfield, well, with anyone who has some measure of competence and accountability. W could also prove he is a man of his word when it comes to firing the person responsible for a national security leak.


Matthew

[Marco Zee]

Joe,
I wanted to answer your posts earlier as you asked some very interesting questions. But I got a bit long-winded with Hugh's reply. So, I'll try to get to yours later tonight or tomorrow....sorry for the delay.
Marco

[mcelrah]

OK, let's have the poll: I voted for Kerry (having voted for Reagan
twice and Daddy Bush once, then Clinton twice). I believe that makes
me what's called a "Reagan Democrat". To quote Karl Rove: "As
people get more money, they tend to vote Republican, except if they
get too much education, then they vote Democrat." Since this area's
prosperity is based on large numbers of degreed professionals, I
suspect you may find the CHGPA constituency leans to the blue side
vice red and does not split 50/50. - Hugh

On 31 Aug 2005, at 15:57, Marco Zee wrote:

>
> Gary,
> I am a very sincere person.
> I say what I say because that's exactly what I believe and feel.
> Otherwise, why waste your time and mine?
> You are free to disagree with my opinions and perceptions, but I
> hope we can at least agree on "the facts" of any discussion we
> have. I am still waiting for you to present your "better plan" for
> Iraq, since it is a FACT that we have soldiers in harm's way
> there. Perhaps you are still formulating it, or prefer others to
> say it for you, which is fine. If I thought or believed that the
> Iraq situation was hopeless and unwinable, I would advocate for
> immediate withdrawal.....obviously I believe that Iraq has great
> upside potential and is clearly winable, if the Iraqi's and the
> troops are given enough time and support.
>
> Matt,
> President Bush received over 60 million votes in November.
> This forum has 150 members.....is it any surprise that one of those
> 150 members is one of those 60 million voters? The DC area was
> fairly evenly divided during the elections: namely, Virginia, WV,
> and North Carolina preferred Bush, while DC, Maryland, and
> Pennsylvania went for Kerry. I would "guess" that about half of
> the members on this list supported, and support President Bush, but
> this is not a fact, but an estimate. Perhaps we could do a poll on
> this?
> As far as being a member of this list, I was on the previous
> list for over 10 years, and simply migrated over here when the club
> changed its webpage. I still belong to the MHGA, but haven't flown
> in the mountains for more than 7 years, having barely enough free
> time to fly with my mosquito.
> As far as I can tell, there is no requirement to be a member
> of this CHGPA to participate in the forum discussions. If it is,
> then let me know, and I will gladly depart the list, or join the
> club "officially", so as not to be violating any rules.
> I started this discussion to point out the "good" things
> happening in the country. The discussion has been mainly dominated
> by the Iraq war however, which is fine. So, as long as you entered
> the discussion with a comment about Iraq, I will pose to you the
> same "big question": namely, what do you propose we do with the
> troops in Iraq NOW, since it is a fact that they are there and
> taking casualties?
>
> Gary and Joe,
> I am only one person arguing against a handful.....I swear I will
> respond to your earlier posts ASAP....I haven't forgetten about
> you guys LOL. I have other responsibilities besides spewing "right
> wing venom" LOL.
>
> Still waiting to hear a "better plan"......
>
> Marco
>

[mcelrah]

Hmmm - are there supposed to be some quotations in this? - Hugh

On 31 Aug 2005, at 21:38, Marco Zee wrote:

>
> Let me reply to the first of your two most recent posts. Your
> words will be in > quotations.
>
> RE: here we agree.
>
> RE: Like I said in an earlier post, IF I thought we were in an
> no-win situation, I would recommend IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL. I do not
> feel we are losing, quite to the contrary, I think we are doing
> what we need to do to support democratic forces within Iraq to
> become independent and self sufficient.
>
>
> RE: We only have to kill or capture the terrorists infiltrating
> into Iraq, not every single terrorist in the Moslem world, in order
> to provide adequate security for the Iraqi's and our troops, until
> the Iraqi's can provide their own security, and the troops can
> depart. I don't share your view that there is an unlimited number
> of terrorists just lining up to battle the US Army & Marines. If
> there were "so many", why don't they just show up and overrun us in
> one day, or one week? The answer is that they don't have infinite
> numbers, or even large numbers....that's why their tactics have to
> be hit-and-run bombings. At the last election, 9 suicide bombers
> showed up trying to disrupt the elections. 8 Million showed up to
> vote. Do the math.
>
Hugh's reply: "only" kill the infiltrators? If it were that easy,
wouldn't we have done it by now? Hit-and-run bombings are
devastatingly effective - so a handful of committed terrorists can
dominate the majority who just want to live their lives. Fact is,
there is a strong current of support for the insurgency, because the
Iraqis don't want foreign troops on their soil. That's what I mean
by "counterproductive". Since the administration didn't have a
realistic plan for dealing with Iraq the morning after, it would have
been better to string Saddam up to the nearest light pole and leave
town immediately.
>
> RE: Can you name another army in the world, besides Israel, who
> can better fight terrorist tactics? Our troops are trained for
> guerrilla and urban fighting as well as conventional fighting.

> Hugh's reply: Yes, the British. But in general, armies aren't
> much good for it. It's police work.
>
> Re: Here we disagree.
>
> but they haven't answered "what course?">>
> Re: The answer has not changed in the past 2 1/2 years....I don't
> know how many ways you can restate the same thing: provide security
> until the Iraqi governament and Iraqi security forces are self
> sufficient and able to function independent of US assistance. Is
> this so hard to understand????

> Hugh's reply: "The answer hasn't changed in 2 1/2 years" - what an
> indictment, if it were true! Would means we hadn't learned
> anything. Fact is, administration was in denial that we were an
> occupying force under international law; that there wouldn't be
> much oil revenue to finance reconstruction; that they couldn't
> legally seize what oil revenue there was; that the greetings with
> flowers wouldn't last very long; that the insurgency wasn't just a
> flash in the pan, the work of "dead-enders"; that there never were
> any WMD. Administration has had to backtrack on every one of these
> points. The milestone you state would take several years - and the
> administration knows they don't have that long. Can't keep
> grinding the ground forces down with repeat deployments; can't
> maintain public acquiescence that long. Mark my words: we'll be
> out in two years or less, and the ostensible goalposts will be
> moved closer as necessary to permit a declaration of victory
> followed by expeditious final departure. Then the Iraqis will
> fight it out. How long did it take Saigon to fall after Nixon
> declared "peace with honor"?
>
> RE: The resolution was conditional on Saddam complying with #1441,
> and gave Bush sole authority to prosecute the war IF U.N. Security
> Council Resolution 1441 found Saddam in violation,...which it did
> with a UNANIMOUS 16-0 vote in the Security Council.
>
> IF SADDAM HAD COMPLIED WITH 1441 AND DISARMED, LIKE QUADDAFIT DID,
> HE WOULD STILL BE RULING IRAQ AND HIS SONS WOULD STILL BE ALIVE,
> FAT, RICH , AND HAPPY. IT IS SADDAM'S FAULT AND MISCALCULATION,
> NOT BUSH'S, THAT WE ATTACKED HIM. Remarkably, I don't hear anyone
> blaming Saddam for this war, only Bush.

Hugh's reply: Agree that Ba'ath regime just didn't get it about the
inspections, etc. Let me be clear: I have no moral objection to
acting like a world hegemon, invading other countries, and deposing
dictators. I like it that Milosevic is in the Hague - would like it
better if they had turned him over to the Kosovo Albanians for slow
death. My issue is about choosing your battles. Doing Iraq in the
lame way we did means we have fewer and less palatable military
options for dealing with North Korea and Iran. Alienating the rest
of the civilized world with egregious sticks in the eye is bad for
American power. The UN is an instrument of U.S. power - which we
keep trashing to our own detriment.
>
>
>>
>>

[mcelrah]

Begin forwarded message:

From: mcelrah@verizon.net (mcelrah@verizon.net)
Date: 31 August 2005 23:24:04 GMT-04:00
To: mcelrah@verizon.net (mcelrah@verizon.net)
Subject: Re: Enough pessimism -- how about the good news


See interposed replies below. - hugh


On 31 Aug 2005, at 23:06, mcelrah@verizon.net (mcelrah@verizon.net) wrote:

Hmmm - are there supposed to be some quotations in this? - Hugh


On 31 Aug 2005, at 21:38, Marco Zee wrote:

Let me reply to the first of your two most recent posts.? Your words will be in > quotations.


?RE: here we agree.


? RE:? Like I said in an earlier post, IF I thought we were in an no-win situation, I would recommend IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL.? I do not feel we are losing, quite to the contrary, I think we are doing what we need to do to support democratic forces within Iraq to become independent and self sufficient.




RE:? We only have to kill or capture the terrorists infiltrating into Iraq, not every single terrorist in the Moslem world, in order to provide adequate security for the Iraqi's and our troops, until the Iraqi's can provide their own security, and the? troops can depart.? I don't share your view that there is an unlimited number of terrorists just lining up to battle the US Army & Marines.? If there were "so many", why don't they just show up and overrun us in one day, or one week?? The answer is that they don't have infinite numbers, or even large numbers....that's why their tactics have to be hit-and-run bombings.? At the last election, 9 suicide bombers showed up trying to disrupt the elections.? 8 Million showed up to vote. ? Do the math.

Hugh's reply:? "only" kill the infiltrators?? If it were that easy, wouldn't we have done it by now?? Hit-and-run bombings are devastatingly effective - so a handful of committed terrorists can dominate the majority who just want to live their lives.? Fact is, there is a strong current of support for the insurgency, because the Iraqis don't want foreign troops on their soil.? That's what I mean by "counterproductive".? Since the administration didn't have a realistic plan for dealing with Iraq the morning after, it would have been better to string Saddam up to the nearest light pole and leave town immediately.

RE:? Can you name another army in the world, besides Israel, who can better fight terrorist tactics?? Our troops are trained for guerrilla and urban fighting as well as conventional fighting.

Hugh's reply:? Yes, the British.? But in general, armies aren't much good for it.? It's police work.


Re:? Here we disagree.


but they haven't answered "what course?">>
Re:? The answer has not changed in the past 2 1/2 years....I don't know how many ways you can restate the same thing: provide security until the Iraqi governament and Iraqi security forces are self sufficient and able to function independent of US assistance. ? Is this so hard to understand????

Hugh's reply:? "The answer hasn't changed in 2 1/2 years" - what an indictment, if it were true!? Would means we hadn't learned anything.? Fact is, administration was in denial that we were an occupying force under international law;? that there wouldn't be much oil revenue to finance reconstruction; that they couldn't legally seize what oil revenue there was;? that the greetings with flowers wouldn't last very long; that the insurgency wasn't just a flash in the pan, the work of "dead-enders"; that there never were any WMD.? Administration has had to backtrack on every one of these points.? The milestone you state would take several years - and the administration knows they don't have that long. ? Can't keep grinding the ground forces down with repeat deployments; can't maintain public acquiescence that long.? Mark my words: we'll be out in two years or less, and the ostensible goalposts will be moved closer as necessary to permit a declaration of victory followed by expeditious final departure.? Then the Iraqis will fight it out.? How long did it take Saigon to fall after Nixon declared "peace with honor"?


RE:? The resolution was conditional on Saddam complying with #1441, and gave Bush sole authority to prosecute the war IF U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 found Saddam in violation,...which it did with a UNANIMOUS 16-0 vote in the Security Council.


IF SADDAM HAD COMPLIED WITH 1441 AND DISARMED, LIKE QUADDAFIT DID, HE WOULD STILL BE RULING IRAQ AND HIS SONS WOULD STILL BE ALIVE, FAT, RICH , AND HAPPY. ? IT IS SADDAM'S FAULT AND MISCALCULATION, NOT BUSH'S, THAT WE ATTACKED HIM.? Remarkably, I don't hear anyone blaming Saddam for this war, only Bush.

Hugh's reply:? Agree that Ba'ath regime just didn't get it about the inspections, etc.? Let me be clear:? I have no moral objection to acting like a world hegemon, invading other countries, and deposing dictators.? I like it that Milosevic is in the Hague - would like it better if they had turned him over to the Kosovo Albanians for slow death.? My issue is about choosing your battles.? Doing Iraq in the lame way we did means we have fewer and less palatable military options for dealing with North Korea and Iran.? Alienating the rest of the civilized world with egregious sticks in the eye is bad for American power.? The UN is an instrument of U.S. power - which we keep trashing to our own detriment.

[Flying Lobster]

Here's a little data point for Marco:

Since the invasion of Iraq terrorist attacks worldwide have increased greatly. Very hard to figure out how this can be interpreted to mean that invading Iraq was a necessary anti-terrorist action.

marc (without an "o")

[Flying Lobster]

Couple more data points. If you have any doubts that the Bushie policies are dragging down the low and middle income classes, read this from the NY Times (unless, of course, in a Limbaughesque world you view the Times as the leftist-leaning, Congress-influencing organ of Al-Queda):


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/31/natio ... le_popular


As the tax policies favor principally the rich, the Bushies at the same time made sure that the lower level income segments of the population will no longer have any place left to run and hide. Bankruptcy protections for individuals have largely been eliminated (while being preserved, of course, for larger businesses), so we will see a huge upswing in bank foreclosures and families being thrown out of their homes.

While the richest segments of society can remain confortable with policies that ensure them wealth no matter how ruinous they might be to the rest of the population, ultimately the cumulative effect of all of the neo-con agenda will eliminate wealth and productivity in our country.

If you honestly think the Bushies care about the economic welfare of the lower and middle income segments of our society--I'd sure like to see an example.

If you honestly think the Bushies care about the alarming rate of lack of adequate healthcare in our country--I'd sure like to see an example.

marc

[Marco Zee]

Marc,
I was hoping you would clarify your earlier remarks.
I am referring to the our previous conversation:

<<I am still not sure what you are suggesting we should do NOW with our troops in Iraq. I am supporting the current plan, because I have yet to hear a "better" plan. But I am open to hear ways to improve upon the current plan if nobody can come up with an original "new & better plan". On an earlier post you mentioned immediate withdrawal and a nuclear attack on the border regions, which, of course was not serious, but an attempt at humor ( I hope). In your most recent post, you said:
<<The only outcome of this stupid folly in Iraq will ultimately be some kind of Islamic state aligned with Iran. The only thing that can prevent it is continued US/UN military presence or an all-out civil war which will lead to the establishment of quasi-independent warlord states (like Afganistan, really). >>

RE:So Marc, are you saying the the US/UN military presence needs to stay in Iraq to avoid the formation of an Islamic state aligned with Iran??? So you are in favor of keeping the troops in Iraq? If not, what are you proposing?

You also said:
<<The real battle is coming, and the battlefield of hearts and minds will be more important than just who's got the most hardware. >>

RE: So, are you saying we should withdraw from Iraq and regroup for some larger, more important battle that is coming? Could you clarify on what battle is coming, exactly, and how best we should prepare for it?

On a positive note, I would agree that the Baathists and the Al-Queda terrorists are distinct groups. No doubt. But they have, and had, a common enemy, the USA. So, it's the old "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" routine. Saddam, as best we know at this point, did not have a direct operational link to the 911 attacks, and President Bush has not claimed this. Like I said in earlier posts, the Baathists and Saddam have been defeated, and we are now fighting the mostly foreign Al-Queda terrorists in Iraq. >>

Thanks,

Marco

PS: Joe, I haven't forgotten about ya. Check back later.

[deveil]

[huddlec]

Marco,
?
The main point I am making is that Bush and his confreres have consistently stated in the same breath, the words "terrorists, 9/11, Saddam, WMD" until most of the Fox News, ConservativeRightRadio, non-reading public came to believe that Saddam practically led the 9/11 charge.? He did it on purpose and he also, on purpose, didn't make any attempt to make it CLEAR to this same public that there was no direct link.? Most of the terrorists involved in 9/11 came out of the country that he supports and his father supported.?
?
Now for some humor:? I was at a planning lecture at the National Building Museum after the last election. The speaker was a lawyer from Mississippi talking about their Main Street program in that state. Before he got going, he gave a little preamble about how we need to have a vision if we want to get anywhere in meeting our goals. He started off asking for 2 people in the audience to finish this phrase:? "I never thought I'd see the day when..."? My hand shot up and he called on me. I stood up and said, "I never thought I'd see the day when that lying son of a bitch got a second term."? Brought the house down (most planners, TG, think and don't vote R) and I've had a smile on my face ever since.
?
I am not paid to come up with solution to the war in Iraq, Bush is. I would suggest that if you still have your Sunday (8/28)?Post Outlook section still sitting around that you read Lewis M. Simons' piece entitled A Tale of Two Wars.
?
Same BS, different war.
?
Christy
?


Marco Zee <marcoz757@aol.com> wrote:

Hey Christy,
As you concede, President Bush NEVER said "directly" that Saddam was responsible for 911. A quote of him saying this does not exist anywhere.

He did, however, repeatedly state that Saddam with his WMD's was in a position to provide WMD's to terrorists, which was true based on the intelligence known at that time, as he was aiding and even paying terrorists, ie Hezbollah, for suicide bombings in Israel. Saddam's links to terrorist organizations have been well documented, even though a direct link to 911 cannot be found conclusively.

Now, I will grant you that a substantial percentage of the American public, when polled, believed that Saddam played a role in 911, and that the Bush Administration did not go "out of their way" to disavow them of that belief. But to say that President Bush blamed Saddam directly for 911 is simply unfounded and cannot be documented anywhere.

As far as using patronizing wording to Gary, I was simply trying to encourage him to continue his posts as he was indicating that he wasn't completely comfortable posting his thoughts and positions. Your wording is certainly "less threatening" than mine, I grant you. My bad.

Do you have an opinion on how best to proceed in Iraq?

Do you have an opinion on my "good news points" in my initial post?

Thanks for the reply,

Marco

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[brianvh]

I know marcO. Though I've never actually seen them side by side, he and
marC wouldn't pass the silouette (sp) test and can't possibly be the same
person. They're both really nice guys on opposite sides of an issue, but
unless you knew them beforehand, just judging from emails you'd think
either one was a wacko if you happened to have the opposite viewpoint.

I'd love to say more, but better stop before they form an unholy alliance
to take me out.

Brian Vant-Hull
301-646-1149

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, deveil wrote:

>
> marc, only a testimonial from the so called brian v h can save you now, dude! (is he a real guy? haven't met him myself)( wait...those darned black helicopters are outside again...gotta go.............................
>

[Flying Lobster]

Keep those avatars coming Gary. Better yet, how about a cartoon?

marc

[Flying Lobster]

Marc,
I was hoping you would clarify your earlier remarks.
I am referring to the our previous conversation:

<<I am still not sure what you are suggesting we should do NOW with our troops in Iraq. I am supporting the current plan, because I have yet to hear a "better" plan. But I am open to hear ways to improve upon the current plan if nobody can come up with an original "new & better plan". On an earlier post you mentioned immediate withdrawal and a nuclear attack on the border regions, which, of course was not serious, but an attempt at humor ( I hope). In your most recent post, you said:
<<The only outcome of this stupid folly in Iraq will ultimately be some kind of Islamic state aligned with Iran. The only thing that can prevent it is continued US/UN military presence or an all-out civil war which will lead to the establishment of quasi-independent warlord states (like Afganistan, really). >>

RE:So Marc, are you saying the the US/UN military presence needs to stay in Iraq to avoid the formation of an Islamic state aligned with Iran??? So you are in favor of keeping the troops in Iraq? If not, what are you proposing?

You also said:
<<The real battle is coming, and the battlefield of hearts and minds will be more important than just who's got the most hardware. >>

RE: So, are you saying we should withdraw from Iraq and regroup for some larger, more important battle that is coming? Could you clarify on what battle is coming, exactly, and how best we should prepare for it?

On a positive note, I would agree that the Baathists and the Al-Queda terrorists are distinct groups. No doubt. But they have, and had, a common enemy, the USA. So, it's the old "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" routine. Saddam, as best we know at this point, did not have a direct operational link to the 911 attacks, and President Bush has not claimed this. Like I said in earlier posts, the Baathists and Saddam have been defeated, and we are now fighting the mostly foreign Al-Queda terrorists in Iraq. >>

Thanks,

Marco

PS: Joe, I haven't forgotten about ya. Check back later.

Thought I answered your questions quite directly, but I will repeat and further clarify:

I said an Islamic fundamentalist state is unavoidable.

The Sunni's--who's ruling political arm is the Baathist party--will not accept this.

The US is in the middle serving as cannon fodder to prevent the two sides from having it out.

ITs important to understand that this situation would not exist if GW BUSH--and his lying henchmen (Condi is more of a guy than a gal)--had not decided to screw off the rest of the world and go invade.

So, and read this very carefully so there is no misunderstanding,

the choices are:

1. Stay the course (however long that might be) and hope some kind of polyglot government can be formed by peoples that have never experienced or have any understanding of what it takes to have a true democracy. This of course is a scenario without a conceivable endpoint and will entail continued massive US investment in terms of money and lives. I do not favor this scenario, because, honestly, I wouldn't trade a thousand of their lives for one American one. And the arguement that this will somehow serve as an example to the mideast of a democracy and ultimate help it spread is a total crock of crap.

2. Get the troops out ASAP. Its a bad choice, but the lesser of two evils.

I'm not much of a military strategist, but I do know that getting into a war is sheer f'in stupidity if the intent is not to actually win it. Thus, having troops perform in theatre where the enemy can be potentially anyone, and choosing right or wrong can mean killing somebody who is innocent or being killed yourself, must be pure hell. We need to end this, and we need to end it now, because, as I said, the "Real" battle is coming.

marc

[deveil]

"unHOLY ALLIANCE...TAKE HIM OUT".
anybody else get that? he should get a PAT on the back for that.

"confreres".......hmmmm? gonna hafta look that one up (SHOW OFF!)

i gotta break free of this ...'got important stuff to do!

[Marco Zee]

<< "I never thought I'd see the day when that lying son of a bitch got a second term."?>>

Christy,
You STOLE MY LINE !!!!
That's exactly what I said after the 1996 Election LOL. Great minds DO think alike LOL. I'm glad your remark keeps a smile on your face...much nicer than frown or scowl.

?
<<The main point I am making is that Bush and his confreres have consistently stated in the same breath, the words "terrorists, 9/11, Saddam, WMD"...>>

Christy,
The President repeatedly stated that the greatest threat to our homeland was a terrorist attack with WMD's, not airliners. Does anybody refute this?

Al-Queda has proven that they can infiltrate into the USA, and Iraq/Saddam had sufficient WMD's (or so every intelligence agency in the world believed) and terrorist contacts to potentially pass off a WMD to Al-Queda for importation and detonation here in the USA. And that in a post 9/11 world, he (Bush) was going to act to prevent this unholy alliance from becoming a fait accompli, as opposed to awaiting the detonation and then trying to pick up the pieces afterwards.

It's hard to put all that into 10 second soundbite, but all of your word "ingredients" are in there.....terrorist, 9/11, Saddam, WMD. But he clearly did NOT state that Saddam was directly linked to 9/11.

And like you said, I don't think that the administration worked "very hard" to "dissuade" people who believed that Saddam was linked to 9/11 directly. Certainly the press and the loyal opposition certainly said this repeatedly, ie no link between Saddam & 9/11, but since many people do not believe the assertions of the "mainstream media" and the Dems, it's not surprising that they didn't believe them on this point. That's what happens when you lose your credibility on national security issues (amongst others).

thanks for the post,

Marco

[Marco Zee]

Marc,
thanks for the clarification....it was quite illuminating. More later. I'm still not sure what you mean by the "real battle" that's coming.....do you mean a war with Islamic Fundamentalists? or someone else (Korea, China, Iran, Republicans LOL?). thanks,
Marco

<<We need to end this, and we need to end it now, because, as I said, the "Real" battle is coming.>>

Joe, you're next !!!

[huddlec]

Might have been your line as well, but you can't say that a guy who may have lied about letting an intern go down on him is quite as bad as a guy who lied so as to kill off thousands of people. I'll pick the former over the latter anyday.
Christy

Marco Zee <marcoz757@aol.com> wrote:

>

Christy,
You STOLE MY LINE !!!!
That's exactly what I said after the 1996 Election LOL. Great minds DO think alike LOL. I'm glad your remark keeps a smile on your face...much nicer than frown or scowl.

?


Christy,
The President repeatedly stated that the greatest threat to our homeland was a terrorist attack with WMD's, not airliners. Does anybody refute this?

Al-Queda has proven that they can infiltrate into the USA, and Iraq/Saddam had sufficient WMD's (or so every intelligence agency in the world believed) and terrorist contacts to potentially pass off a WMD to Al-Queda for importation and detonation here in the USA. And that in a post 9/11 world, he (Bush) was going to act to prevent this unholy alliance from becoming a fait accompli, as opposed to awaiting the detonation and then trying to pick up the pieces afterwards.

It's hard to put all that into 10 second soundbite, but all of your word "ingredients" are in there.....terrorist, 9/11, Saddam, WMD. But he clearly did NOT state that Saddam was directly linked to 9/11.

And like you said, I don't think that the administration worked "very hard" to "dissuade" people who believed that Saddam was linked to 9/11 directly. Certainly the press and the loyal opposition certainly said this repeatedly, ie no link between Saddam & 9/11, but since many people do not believe the assertions of the "mainstream media" and the Dems, it's not surprising that they didn't believe them on this point. That's what happens when you lose your credibility on national security issues (amongst others).

thanks for the post,

Marco

Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page

[Marco Zee]

Christy

Hmmmm....what is a LIE???

Is it a lie to assert something you sincerely believe to be true at the time based on the best, currently available evidence (human and nonhuman intelligence), but which later turns out to be erroneous, or partially erroneous, or unsupported by facts at a later date?

I would say that it would NOT be a lie, but a truthful statement based on imperfect information. Here's a simple example, my wife arrives home and asks me where our Son "A" is.......I tell her he is at friend B's house, which is where he told me he was going...but in fact...he left B's house and went to friend C's house without permission or notification. So did I "lie" to my wife because my son was at C's house instead of B's house???? Or did I speak truthfully based on the best available information I had at the time???? (assume that I called every neighbor, and all of them saw him walk into friend B's house; but he slipped out the back of B's house and snuck over to C's house unnoticed by anybody)

A lie is when you know what the truth is, but deliberately state a falsehood so as to intentionally and willfully mislead others.

I would contend that Bush did NOT lie, as he was acting on the best, most current Intelligence available to him from U.S. as well as many other Intelligence services ( British, German, Israeli, Russian, French, etc..) who ALL believed that Saddam had WMD's at the time. The fact that WMD stockpiles were not found, yet, means that
A) he indeed did not have them, or destroyed them,
B) he buried them somewhere, or
C) he moved them to another country or location ie Syria, Iran, etc..

Bill Clinton in 1998 and John Kerry in 2002 claimed that Saddam had WMD's......did they "lie" as well??? They reviewed the same Intel that Bush had available to him. Did they all lie? Or did they view the Intelligence as very credible, and act accordingly.

Intelligence gathering is an imperfect science, as are most sciences, but it a fundamental necessity for our national security. To say that a man, any man, lied because he believed "very credible" yet "faulty" intelligence is UNFAIR, to say the least.

I can't wait to hear the responses to this one !!! LOL.

Marco

PS: Clinton did indeed lie, under oath, and under threat of perjury, about Monica, knowing that he had had an affair with her, but intentionally and willfully lied to mislead the Judge and the Court hearing the Paula Jones Civil case so as to escape the consequences of his actions. To me, it was analagous to Watergate....the cover-up (lying under oath) was worse than the crime (having sex with a bovine in the Oval Office)....but he's from Arkansas, so what do you expect LOL.

[mcelrah]

The Republicans have been successful in getting lower middle-class
people to vote for them - against their economic interests - by
appealing to lifestyle/values/religion. If it's so important to them
to keep gays from marrying that they'll take a pay cut - they got
what they deserved. A large proportion of Ku Klux Klan members used
to be filling station attendants, back when that was a fairly common
job description. I guess when you are at the bottom of the heap,
there is a powerful motivation to keep someone else down.
- Hugh


On 1 Sep 2005, at 07:28, Flying Lobster wrote:

>
> Couple more data points. If you have any doubts that the Bushie
> policies are dragging down the low and middle income classes, read
> this from the NY Times (unless, of course, in a Limbaughesque
> world you view the Times as the leftist-leaning, Congress-
> influencing organ of Al-Queda):
>
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/31/natio ... ensus.html?
> incamp=article_popular
>
>
> As the tax policies favor principally the rich, the Bushies at the
> same time made sure that the lower level income segments of the
> population will no longer have any place left to run and hide.
> Bankruptcy protections for individuals have largely been eliminated
> (while being preserved, of course, for larger businesses), so we
> will see a huge upswing in bank foreclosures and families being
> thrown out of their homes.
>
> While the richest segments of society can remain confortable with
> policies that ensure them wealth no matter how ruinous they might
> be to the rest of the population, ultimately the cumulative effect
> of all of the neo-con agenda will eliminate wealth and productivity
> in our country.
>
> If you honestly think the Bushies care about the economic welfare
> of the lower and middle income segments of our society--I'd sure
> like to see an example.
>
> If you honestly think the Bushies care about the alarming rate of
> lack of adequate healthcare in our country--I'd sure like to see an
> example.
>
> marcgot art?
> http://www.marcfink.com/
> wanna fly?
> http://www.downeastairsports.com/
>

[mcelrah]

Thanks Christy, I finally finished reading Simons' piece yesterday
after this e-mail flurry. Nice to have one's own take affirmed in
print. - Hugh

On 1 Sep 2005, at 10:48, Christy Huddle wrote:

>
> Marco,
>
> The main point I am making is that Bush and his confreres have
> consistently stated in the same breath, the words "terrorists,
> 9/11, Saddam, WMD" until most of the Fox News,
> ConservativeRightRadio, non-reading public came to believe that
> Saddam practically led the 9/11 charge. He did it on purpose and
> he also, on purpose, didn't make any attempt to make it CLEAR to
> this same public that there was no direct link. Most of the
> terrorists involved in 9/11 came out of the country that he
> supports and his father supported.
>
> Now for some humor: I was at a planning lecture at the National
> Building Museum after the last election. The speaker was a lawyer
> from Mississippi talking about their Main Street program in that
> state. Before he got going, he gave a little preamble about how we
> need to have a vision if we want to get anywhere in meeting our
> goals. He started off asking for 2 people in the audience to finish
> this phrase: "I never thought I'd see the day when..." My hand
> shot up and he called on me. I stood up and said, "I never thought
> I'd see the day when that lying son of a bitch got a second term."
> Brought the house down (most planners, TG, think and don't vote R)
> and I've had a smile on my face ever since.
>
> I am not paid to come up with solution to the war in Iraq, Bush
> is. I would suggest that if you still have your Sunday (8/28) Post
> Outlook section still sitting around that you read Lewis M. Simons'
> piece entitled A Tale of Two Wars.
>
> Same BS, different war.
>
> Christy
>
>
>
> Marco Zee <marcoz757@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Quote:
>
> Hey Christy,
> As you concede, President Bush NEVER said "directly" that Saddam
> was responsible for 911. A quote of him saying this does not exist
> anywhere.
>
> He did, however, repeatedly state that Saddam with his WMD's was in
> a position to provide WMD's to terrorists, which was true based on
> the intelligence known at that time, as he was aiding and even
> paying terrorists, ie Hezbollah, for suicide bombings in Israel.
> Saddam's links to terrorist organizations have been well
> documented, even though a direct link to 911 cannot be found
> conclusively.
>
> Now, I will grant you that a substantial percentage of the American
> public, when polled, believed that Saddam played a role in 911, and
> that the Bush Administration did not go "out of their way" to
> disavow them of that belief. But to say that President Bush blamed
> Saddam directly for 911 is simply unfounded and cannot be
> documented anywhere.
>
> As far as using patronizing wording to Gary, I was simply trying to
> encourage him to continue his posts as he was indicating that he
> wasn't completely comfortable posting his thoughts and positions.
> Your wording is certainly "less threatening" than mine, I grant
> you. My bad.
>
> Do you have an opinion on how best to proceed in Iraq?
>
> Do you have an opinion on my "good news points" in my initial post?
>
> Thanks for the reply,
>
> Marco
>
> (end of quote)
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>

[mcelrah]

I think I may have met Marco, if he's the guy with the powered
harness at Oregon Ridge. - Hugh

On 1 Sep 2005, at 11:00, Vant-Hull - Brian wrote:

>
>
> I know marcO. Though I've never actually seen them side by side,
> he and
> marC wouldn't pass the silouette (sp) test and can't possibly be
> the same
> person. They're both really nice guys on opposite sides of an
> issue, but
> unless you knew them beforehand, just judging from emails you'd think
> either one was a wacko if you happened to have the opposite viewpoint.
>
> I'd love to say more, but better stop before they form an unholy
> alliance
> to take me out.
>
> Brian Vant-Hull
> 301-646-1149
>
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, deveil wrote:
>
>
>>
>> marc, only a testimonial from the so called brian v h can save you
>> now, dude! (is he a real guy? haven't met him myself)
>> ( wait...those darned black helicopters are outside again...gotta
>> go.............................
>>
>>
>
>
>