Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying

rb608 typed:
snip
The body count won't reset on November 8. You're wrong if you think
we won't care.

Is that "we" as in you and your blue state friends, or "we" as in you and
those dumb bastids from red states?
--
TL,
Tim
-------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 16:22:05 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:

... Comparatively, no
one really gives a **** about Iraq. Oh, sure, some folks like to get
all worked up and protest, use it to weasel into office (or weasel
another out), or use it as a sad attempt to relive the "hippie" days
they missed out on or can't really remember, but at the end of the day,
most folks, from the US blue-collar factory worker to the wealthiest
Arab to the migrant worker from the south-of-the-US-Mexico border to the
Asian tycoon, and from Beirut to Beijing to Bogota to Boston, the vast
majority simply don't care, because it doesn't affect them, personally,
very much at all. ...

The friends and relatives of the 3,000 dead American servicemen
care, and the 21,000 horribly mangled and their friends and
relatives care.

I've no doubt they care a great deal, but that number of people, when
compared to the number of people who could potentially care, will appear
very small indeed. I didn't address the comparative few who did care,
only the comparatively very large number who didn't, don't, and never
will. For example: on many, if not most or all, of the
Spanish-language news broadcasts (even those that originate in the US),
Iraq continues to be way down the list of "major news."

Not to mention over half a million dead Iraqis who are beyond caring.

Um, and that has to do with the number of people who care or don't care
how? IAC, why are you so sure that it is "half a million dead Iraqis?"

And the red states have given much more than their fair share of
American cannon fodder to the rat-******* neocons who lied us
into this quagmire.

And yet another illustration of the several reasons that there is a good
chance the Dems are yet again going to snatch defeat from the jaws of
victory...wild accusations that reek of hypocrisy. The general
population may not _really_ care about Iraq as a major issue to them,
but they can sense when they are being so blatantly and hypocritically
BS'ed. No one really "lied 'us' into this quagmire," giving the word
"lied" the everyday meaning. About the only way anyone "lied" about
anything was to themselves, and Dems were and are just as guilty as
Republicans. If your reference is to the oft-bleated "There were no
WMDs!" buzzword BS, it's just that - BS. True enough, he didn't have
sophisticated ICBMs with nuclear warheads or even tacnukes, but he
absolutely did have weapons and capabilities that would produce _mass_
destruction, and a most of it was much more practically dangerous than
some ****ant third-world nukes.

The problem isn't that there has been a war, the problem is largely that
there hasn't been one.

HTH,
R

Tim J. wrote:
rb608 typed:
snip
The body count won't reset on November 8. You're wrong if you think
we won't care.

Is that "we" as in you and your blue state friends, or "we" as in you and
those dumb bastids from red states?

I'm going to guess it includes anyone to whom a few hundred thousand
needless deaths and maimings is not a matter of complete indifference.
I suppose that anyone who wants to take the time to subdivide them in
one way or another is perfectly free to do so.

Wolfgang

Tim J. wrote:
Is that "we" as in you and your blue state friends, or "we" as in you and
those dumb bastids from red states?

No, I meant the dumb bastids in blue states too. g

For the record, I meant those in rdean's "most in the US will go back
to not really
caring."

Joe F.

On 30 Oct 2006 09:04:48 -0800, "rb608" wrote:

wrote:
Going into Iraq was "consistent with the United States and other
countries continuing to take necessary actions against international
terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those who planned,
authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of September 11,
2001."

Just a second there fella. Fact check: The word "Iraq" is not
contained anywhere in the AUMF.

You mean other than in the heading, the name and when I quit counting,
12 times in the first 4 paragraphs?

It has been conclusively and factually shown that Saddam Hussein and
the nation of Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with those attacks and
no functional relationship with the organization behind them despite
Bush, Cheney, & Rice's continuous selling of that lie.

And "selling of that lie" or otherwise, Clinton, et al, were saying the
same things. IAC, I didn't comment on whether or not Iraq was involved
or not, only that many Dems agreed with the language. Also IAC, that
was only one of several reasons given.

Without that responsibility or relationship, the invasion of Iraq was
clearly NOT "consistent with the United States and other countries
continuing to take necessary actions against international terrorists
and terrorist organizations, including those who planned, authorized,
committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001." It
had nothing to do with it. It was a lie sold to the US people, the
price for which we will be paying for generations.

The body count won't reset on November 8. You're wrong if you think we
won't care.

Oh, I've no doubt that the rabid anti-this or thats/pro-notthis or
notthats in the US appear to be "caring" themselves into getting
hammered in the 2008 US elections, too. If you really do care, educate
yourself and try to be objective when you attempt to get others to care.
Here's ya a start: why is the Pentagon (including Rumsfeld, et al), the
news media, and the supposedly-caring general populace ignoring those
battlefield officers who are saying things like, "We needed and continue
to need to be here, but we also need the ability to start acting like a
wartime army and not meter maids and crossing guards..." and what would
your opinion be as to why each is ignoring them? Secondly, does the Tet
Offensive figure into all of this, and if so, how?

HTH,
R

Joe F.

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
... Comparatively, no
one really gives a **** about Iraq.

The friends and relatives of the 3,000 dead American servicemen
care, and the 21,000 horribly mangled and their friends and
relatives care.

I've no doubt they care a great deal, but that number of people, when
compared to the number of people who could potentially care, will appear
very small indeed. I didn't address the comparative few who did care,
only the comparatively very large number who didn't, don't, and never
will. For example: on many, if not most or all, of the
Spanish-language news broadcasts (even those that originate in the US),
Iraq continues to be way down the list of "major news."

Hard to believe you'd try to say that the #1 issue, by far,
in the upcoming election is something no one really gives
a **** about. Seems to me if Iraq is the #1 issue, by far,
most of the American electorate does indeed give a ****
about it.

And the red states have given much more than their fair share of
American cannon fodder to the rat-******* neocons who lied us
into this quagmire.

And yet another illustration of the several reasons that there is a good
chance the Dems are yet again going to snatch defeat from the jaws of
victory...wild accusations that reek of hypocrisy. The general
population may not _really_ care about Iraq as a major issue to them,
but they can sense when they are being so blatantly and hypocritically
BS'ed.

LOL !! STOP !! You're killin' me here ! The general population
of red state morons wouldn't know BS if they were hauling it
around in the back of their pick-em-up trucks with the gun
rack, and the confederate flag and the "My kid beat the ****
out of your honor student" bumper sticker. Good lord, 13.5
million people listen to Rush Limbaugh fer cryin' out loud
and you're telling me they can sense BS ? Get real.

No one really "lied 'us' into this quagmire," giving the word
"lied" the everyday meaning.

Yeah, they did, using any reasonable meaning of the word "lied"
you can come up with. Denial is not a river in Egypt, Richard.

The problem isn't that there has been a war, the problem is largely that
there hasn't been one.

We can agree on that point. Our energies and resources should
have been focused in Afghanistan.

--
Ken Fortenberry

wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 16:22:05 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:

... Comparatively, no
one really gives a **** about Iraq. Oh, sure, some folks like to get
all worked up and protest, use it to weasel into office (or weasel
another out), or use it as a sad attempt to relive the "hippie" days
they missed out on or can't really remember, but at the end of the day,
most folks, from the US blue-collar factory worker to the wealthiest
Arab to the migrant worker from the south-of-the-US-Mexico border to the
Asian tycoon, and from Beirut to Beijing to Bogota to Boston, the vast
majority simply don't care, because it doesn't affect them, personally,
very much at all. ...

The friends and relatives of the 3,000 dead American servicemen
care, and the 21,000 horribly mangled and their friends and
relatives care.

I've no doubt they care a great deal, but that number of people, when
compared to the number of people who could potentially care, will appear
very small indeed. I didn't address the comparative few who did care,
only the comparatively very large number who didn't, don't, and never
will. For example: on many, if not most or all, of the
Spanish-language news broadcasts (even those that originate in the US),
Iraq continues to be way down the list of "major news."

Experience and better judgment notwithstanding, one inexplicably feels
that somewhere in there might lurk a bit of meaning. One can only
lament the sad fact that the words provide no hints as to what that
meaning might be.

Not to mention over half a million dead Iraqis who are beyond caring.

Um, and that has to do with the number of people who care or don't care
how?

Well, some of them might have had relatives, friends, business
associates, acquaintances or what have you who are still alive. Hell,
it is at least theoretically possible that even some people who never
met any of them or even heard of any of them by name might take an
interest. It's a human thing.....you wouldn't understand.

IAC, why are you so sure that it is "half a million dead Iraqis?"

YAWN!

And the red states have given much more than their fair share of
American cannon fodder to the rat-******* neocons who lied us
into this quagmire.

And yet another illustration of the several reasons that there is a good
chance the Dems are yet again going to snatch defeat from the jaws of
victory...wild accusations that reek of hypocrisy.

Zzzzzzzzzzzz......

The general
population may not _really_ care about Iraq as a major issue to them,
but they can sense when they are being so blatantly and hypocritically
BS'ed.

Thus explaining why nobody bought that bull**** about weapons of mass
destruction and why the alleged war in Iraq never happened.

No one really "lied 'us' into this quagmire,"

Huh? Quagmire? What quagmire? Why wasn't I informed?

giving the word "lied" the everyday meaning.

You should never.....EVER.....under any circumstances use the word
"meaning".......or, for that matter, any other word whose meaning is a
mystery to you. To put it in more general terms, as long as you have
nothing to say, that is precisely what you should say.

About the only way anyone "lied" about
anything was to themselves, and Dems were and are just as guilty as
Republicans.

You know what the word "hilarious" means? It means envisioning you and
the chimps you hang out with telling each other stuff like that and
bobbing your heads more or less in unison and saying, "uh huh....uh
huh.....uh huh.....uh huh........"

If your reference is to the oft-bleated "There were no
WMDs!" buzzword BS, it's just that - BS. True enough, he didn't have
sophisticated ICBMs with nuclear warheads or even tacnukes, but he
absolutely did have weapons and capabilities that would produce _mass_
destruction, and a most of it was much more practically dangerous than
some ****ant third-world nukes.

Well, THAT part is certainly true.....but just TRY to convince your
average whacko Lib of how dangerous a baba ganoush bomb or laser guided
falafel is and see how far you get!

The problem isn't that there has been a war, the problem is largely that
there hasn't been one.

Hm......I suppose it's probably all the dead people that are confusing
everybody......one of those whatyacall "counterintuitive" thingies.

Wolfgang
STILL the best show in town.....and it's STILL FREE!!

wrote:
You mean other than in the heading, the name and when I quit counting,
12 times in the first 4 paragraphs?

I mean the Authorization to Use Military Force, passed September 18,
2001. That bill does not reference Iraq. If you meant H.J. Res 114,
where that window dressing repeated from AUMF is buried as Whereas #23
out of 25, then yeah, I'll give that to you; but to imply that the
invasion of Iraq was in any substantial way connected to 9/11 is no
less dishonest.

why is the Pentagon (including Rumsfeld, et al), the
news media, and the supposedly-caring general populace ignoring those
battlefield officers

I am admittedly unqualified to put myself in the place of battlefield
strategist. Nor am I privy to whatever delusions or machinations go on
in the heads of our so-called leaders. I'm more accusatory as to why
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, et al ignored the UN weapons inspectors
and their own intelligence agencies when the information didn't fit
their agendas.

Secondly, does the Tet Offensive figure into all of this, and if so, how?

Oh my; a Viet Nam analogy? Whodathunk it. Yeah sure, I could drone on
stupidly about the effect various chronological religious observations
may have on the level of violence; but I try to stay on topic (even
when off topic), I eschew long posts, and I'd be wrong.

Joe F.

wrote:

...Clinton, et al, were saying the same things.

I keep telling you guys, you should just go ahead and impeach the
******* again! Um......you might want to be prepared to do it on your
own nickel, though. I've got a sneaking suspicion that even the
"pedophile values" party isn't going to be overly eager to bankroll
another shot on the taxpayers' tab.

IAC, I didn't comment on whether or not Iraq was involved
or not, only that many Dems agreed with the language. Also IAC, that
was only one of several reasons given.

Hm.....

O.k., you didn't say anything. Noted.

...I've no doubt that the rabid anti-this or thats/pro-notthis or
notthats in the US appear to be "caring" themselves into getting
hammered in the 2008 US elections, too.

And you should never doubt that we are all touched by your touching
concern for the underserving rabble.

If you really do care, educate
yourself and try to be objective when you attempt to get others to care.

HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!........he said "objective"......HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

Here's ya a start: why is the Pentagon (including Rumsfeld, et al), the
news media, and the supposedly-caring general populace ignoring those
battlefield officers who are saying things like, "We needed and continue
to need to be here, but we also need the ability to start acting like a
wartime army and not meter maids and crossing guards..."

Ooh! Ooh! I know! I know! It's because if you've got a whole bunch
of cretins and you add a couple of cretins you've got a whole bunch of
cretins and if you've got a whole bunch of cretins and you remove a
couple of cretins you've got a whole bunch of
cretins.....and......and.....um.....oh yeah, the vast majority don't
really care what a bunch of cretins thinks or has to say.

and what would
your opinion be as to why each is ignoring them?

Hm......for precisely the same reasons that your counsel is so highly
sought after?

Secondly, does the Tet
Offensive figure into all of this,

Well, of course it does.....duh!

and if so, how?

It's driving up the price of absinthe.

Wolfgang
oprah oprah

Wolfgang typed:
Tim J. wrote:
rb608 typed:
snip
The body count won't reset on November 8. You're wrong if you think
we won't care.

Is that "we" as in you and your blue state friends, or "we" as in
you and those dumb bastids from red states?

I'm going to guess it includes anyone to whom a few hundred thousand
needless deaths and maimings is not a matter of complete indifference.
I suppose that anyone who wants to take the time to subdivide them in
one way or another is perfectly free to do so.

That's actually the answer I was seeking. Both you and Joe are now cleared
of charges. ;-)

....but the sad truth is that many (whether or not that constitutes a
majority, I can't say) *are* as indifferent as rdean describes. If some of
these polls are any indictator, most can't find Iraq, Iran, or probably
Wisconsin on a map. Once they were shown where these countries (yes, that
includes The Peoples Republic of Wisconsin) are located, my quess is that
they'd think that was far enough from them as to be safe, but only if they
were able to locate their own state on a map.
--
TL,
Tim
-------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj