The thing didn't start until February? Six months ago? The Iraq war began
March 20, 2003. Bush declared the end of major combat operations (when Bush
landed on the carrier, where the "Mission Accomplished" banner was
prominently posted) on May 1, 2003. By my calendar that was over a year
ago...

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world...special_030115
_timeline.fbk.html

Jeez, this kind of ignorance is dangerous...



"trailboss" <trailboss@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:dV2Sc.53037$zc4.22492124@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv. net...
> Actually he didnt declare mission accomplished till a few months ago...the
> thing didnt even start till february (the rest was buildup)...that was
only
> 6 months ago on MY calendar...
>
>
>
> <Matt Osborn> wrote in message
> news:tfigh0dut56ag6od9efs6ifm23rf0fi1m9@4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 18:10:02 -0400, Jeff <nothing@here.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Bush already declared "mission accomplished" over a year ago. Since
> > >then, Congress has willingly approved additional funds. Unfortunately,
> > >Iraq is now in a state of complete chaos and comprises a much greater
> > >threat to US interests then it did before the war. Bush has managed to
> > >get us in a quagmire and quagmires and not easily gotten out of.
> >
> > Absolute nonsense. Why don't you write to a few of the troops over
> > there and discover what is really happening?
>
>

 

The thing didn't start until February? Six months ago? The Iraq war began
March 20, 2003. Bush declared the end of major combat operations (when Bush
landed on the carrier, where the "Mission Accomplished" banner was
prominently posted) on May 1, 2003. By my calendar that was over a year
ago...

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world...special_030115
_timeline.fbk.html

Jeez, this kind of ignorance is dangerous...



"trailboss" <trailboss@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:dV2Sc.53037$zc4.22492124@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv. net...
> Actually he didnt declare mission accomplished till a few months ago...the
> thing didnt even start till february (the rest was buildup)...that was
only
> 6 months ago on MY calendar...
>
>
>
> <Matt Osborn> wrote in message
> news:tfigh0dut56ag6od9efs6ifm23rf0fi1m9@4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 18:10:02 -0400, Jeff <nothing@here.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Bush already declared "mission accomplished" over a year ago. Since
> > >then, Congress has willingly approved additional funds. Unfortunately,
> > >Iraq is now in a state of complete chaos and comprises a much greater
> > >threat to US interests then it did before the war. Bush has managed to
> > >get us in a quagmire and quagmires and not easily gotten out of.
> >
> > Absolute nonsense. Why don't you write to a few of the troops over
> > there and discover what is really happening?
>
>

 

The thing didn't start until February? Six months ago? The Iraq war began
March 20, 2003. Bush declared the end of major combat operations (when Bush
landed on the carrier, where the "Mission Accomplished" banner was
prominently posted) on May 1, 2003. By my calendar that was over a year
ago...

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world...special_030115
_timeline.fbk.html

Jeez, this kind of ignorance is dangerous...



"trailboss" <trailboss@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:dV2Sc.53037$zc4.22492124@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv. net...
> Actually he didnt declare mission accomplished till a few months ago...the
> thing didnt even start till february (the rest was buildup)...that was
only
> 6 months ago on MY calendar...
>
>
>
> <Matt Osborn> wrote in message
> news:tfigh0dut56ag6od9efs6ifm23rf0fi1m9@4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 18:10:02 -0400, Jeff <nothing@here.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Bush already declared "mission accomplished" over a year ago. Since
> > >then, Congress has willingly approved additional funds. Unfortunately,
> > >Iraq is now in a state of complete chaos and comprises a much greater
> > >threat to US interests then it did before the war. Bush has managed to
> > >get us in a quagmire and quagmires and not easily gotten out of.
> >
> > Absolute nonsense. Why don't you write to a few of the troops over
> > there and discover what is really happening?
>
>

 

Working link: http://tinyurl.com/4yga9

"Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
news:Pd6dndx__M5sjYTcRVn-tQ@comcast.com...
> The thing didn't start until February? Six months ago? The Iraq war began
> March 20, 2003. Bush declared the end of major combat operations (when
Bush
> landed on the carrier, where the "Mission Accomplished" banner was
> prominently posted) on May 1, 2003. By my calendar that was over a year
> ago...
>
>
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world...special_030115
> _timeline.fbk.html
>
> Jeez, this kind of ignorance is dangerous...
>
>
>
> "trailboss" <trailboss@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:dV2Sc.53037$zc4.22492124@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv. net...
> > Actually he didnt declare mission accomplished till a few months
ago...the
> > thing didnt even start till february (the rest was buildup)...that was
> only
> > 6 months ago on MY calendar...
> >
> >
> >
> > <Matt Osborn> wrote in message
> > news:tfigh0dut56ag6od9efs6ifm23rf0fi1m9@4ax.com...
> > > On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 18:10:02 -0400, Jeff <nothing@here.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Bush already declared "mission accomplished" over a year ago. Since
> > > >then, Congress has willingly approved additional funds.
Unfortunately,
> > > >Iraq is now in a state of complete chaos and comprises a much greater
> > > >threat to US interests then it did before the war. Bush has managed
to
> > > >get us in a quagmire and quagmires and not easily gotten out of.
> > >
> > > Absolute nonsense. Why don't you write to a few of the troops over
> > > there and discover what is really happening?
> >
> >
>
>

 

Working link: http://tinyurl.com/4yga9

"Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
news:Pd6dndx__M5sjYTcRVn-tQ@comcast.com...
> The thing didn't start until February? Six months ago? The Iraq war began
> March 20, 2003. Bush declared the end of major combat operations (when
Bush
> landed on the carrier, where the "Mission Accomplished" banner was
> prominently posted) on May 1, 2003. By my calendar that was over a year
> ago...
>
>
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world...special_030115
> _timeline.fbk.html
>
> Jeez, this kind of ignorance is dangerous...
>
>
>
> "trailboss" <trailboss@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:dV2Sc.53037$zc4.22492124@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv. net...
> > Actually he didnt declare mission accomplished till a few months
ago...the
> > thing didnt even start till february (the rest was buildup)...that was
> only
> > 6 months ago on MY calendar...
> >
> >
> >
> > <Matt Osborn> wrote in message
> > news:tfigh0dut56ag6od9efs6ifm23rf0fi1m9@4ax.com...
> > > On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 18:10:02 -0400, Jeff <nothing@here.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Bush already declared "mission accomplished" over a year ago. Since
> > > >then, Congress has willingly approved additional funds.
Unfortunately,
> > > >Iraq is now in a state of complete chaos and comprises a much greater
> > > >threat to US interests then it did before the war. Bush has managed
to
> > > >get us in a quagmire and quagmires and not easily gotten out of.
> > >
> > > Absolute nonsense. Why don't you write to a few of the troops over
> > > there and discover what is really happening?
> >
> >
>
>

 

Working link: http://tinyurl.com/4yga9

"Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
news:Pd6dndx__M5sjYTcRVn-tQ@comcast.com...
> The thing didn't start until February? Six months ago? The Iraq war began
> March 20, 2003. Bush declared the end of major combat operations (when
Bush
> landed on the carrier, where the "Mission Accomplished" banner was
> prominently posted) on May 1, 2003. By my calendar that was over a year
> ago...
>
>
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world...special_030115
> _timeline.fbk.html
>
> Jeez, this kind of ignorance is dangerous...
>
>
>
> "trailboss" <trailboss@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:dV2Sc.53037$zc4.22492124@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv. net...
> > Actually he didnt declare mission accomplished till a few months
ago...the
> > thing didnt even start till february (the rest was buildup)...that was
> only
> > 6 months ago on MY calendar...
> >
> >
> >
> > <Matt Osborn> wrote in message
> > news:tfigh0dut56ag6od9efs6ifm23rf0fi1m9@4ax.com...
> > > On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 18:10:02 -0400, Jeff <nothing@here.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Bush already declared "mission accomplished" over a year ago. Since
> > > >then, Congress has willingly approved additional funds.
Unfortunately,
> > > >Iraq is now in a state of complete chaos and comprises a much greater
> > > >threat to US interests then it did before the war. Bush has managed
to
> > > >get us in a quagmire and quagmires and not easily gotten out of.
> > >
> > > Absolute nonsense. Why don't you write to a few of the troops over
> > > there and discover what is really happening?
> >
> >
>
>

 

Working link: http://tinyurl.com/4yga9

"Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
news:Pd6dndx__M5sjYTcRVn-tQ@comcast.com...
> The thing didn't start until February? Six months ago? The Iraq war began
> March 20, 2003. Bush declared the end of major combat operations (when
Bush
> landed on the carrier, where the "Mission Accomplished" banner was
> prominently posted) on May 1, 2003. By my calendar that was over a year
> ago...
>
>
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world...special_030115
> _timeline.fbk.html
>
> Jeez, this kind of ignorance is dangerous...
>
>
>
> "trailboss" <trailboss@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:dV2Sc.53037$zc4.22492124@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv. net...
> > Actually he didnt declare mission accomplished till a few months
ago...the
> > thing didnt even start till february (the rest was buildup)...that was
> only
> > 6 months ago on MY calendar...
> >
> >
> >
> > <Matt Osborn> wrote in message
> > news:tfigh0dut56ag6od9efs6ifm23rf0fi1m9@4ax.com...
> > > On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 18:10:02 -0400, Jeff <nothing@here.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Bush already declared "mission accomplished" over a year ago. Since
> > > >then, Congress has willingly approved additional funds.
Unfortunately,
> > > >Iraq is now in a state of complete chaos and comprises a much greater
> > > >threat to US interests then it did before the war. Bush has managed
to
> > > >get us in a quagmire and quagmires and not easily gotten out of.
> > >
> > > Absolute nonsense. Why don't you write to a few of the troops over
> > > there and discover what is really happening?
> >
> >
>
>

 

In article <10hhrs3ceu3j211@corp.supernews.com>,
"CRWLR" <noneofyourbusiness@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Bush already declared "mission accomplished" over a year ago. Since
> > then, Congress has willingly approved additional funds. Unfortunately,
> > Iraq is now in a state of complete chaos and comprises a much greater
> > threat to US interests then it did before the war. Bush has managed to
> > get us in a quagmire and quagmires and not easily gotten out of.
> >
>
> Yes, who would have thought that freedom from an oppressive dictator would
> be so poorly received? The fact is that the freedom is well received by
> almost everybody, except a few Sunnis (one in particular) that stand to
> loose power because they are a minority. If they worked to build the power
> base instead of working to tear it apart, thenig would be much different,
> and we would be winning the peace as well as having already won the war.

Would you mind identifying that one particular Sunni? I'm curious given
there is nobody that matches that description. Also, how does your
analysis explain the fact that the US is currently embroiled in battles
with Shia Muslims throughout the southern part of Iraq? You are correct
that most Iraqis were happy to be liberated. However, it is equally
correct to say that most Iraqis would now like the US to leave.

> Isreal is not part of the coalition because their participation would be
> inflamatory, at least they are not a public denounciator of the action in
> Iraq. If they disapprove, and there is no reason to suspect they do
> disapprove, then they do it quietly and behind the scenes to affect the
> change they think is needed. France, Germany, Russia, and China are all
> benefactors of America's largesse, if not in direct foreign aid then by
> other forms of our generosity.
>
> They decry our benevolence all of the way to the bank, so to speak.

Fair enough. Would you mind detailing some of the "largesse" of which
you speak?

>
> > > Need help with a famine? Wrestling with an epidemic? Call France.
> >
> > Good call. France has a more generous aid program.
> >
>
> --------. France couldn't help find a way out of a wet paper bag, let alone
> decide that getting out of the bag was theright course of action.

Well, -------- or not, thems the facts. See the chart on this page and
compares France's aid contributions to those of the US:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/c...id=2540&page=6


> > In the future, together with Congress, I will work to redirect this
> money
> > > toward solving the vexing social problems we still have at home.
> >
> > Great move.
> >
>
> What is your objection here?

None. I was agreeing with you.

> Much of the reason has to do with Afghanistan being able to operate its own
> security and form a government that at least attempts to work well. Iraq has
> not been able to do this, and we can't simply walk away and let the same
> kind of dicatorial government spring up where one was crushed.

Humm. I thought the whole point of your posting was that we not could
could walk away from Iraq, but should walk away within 60 days. Now all
of a sudden, we can't walk away. Which is it?

> > > (If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you are reading it in
> English,
> > > thank a soldier.)
> >
> > This last sentence is non-sensical. The article is in English. In what
> > other language could it be read?
> >
>
>
> It isn't nonsensical at all. If you can read it in English, you have America
> to thank, because without America it would have been translated into another
> language.

This is even more nonsensical than the original sentence. Are you aware
that countries other than America speak English? Are you aware that the
language is called "English" rather than "American" because it
originated in England? And are you further aware that England had more
to do with ------ing English than any other nation? In fact, were it
not for the English monarchy, you might be speaking Spanish or French
yourself. Do you really believe that a Nigerian who is capable of
reading this article in English as a result of his country having been
colonized by England has America to thank?

> Why do you hate America so much?

I would not even have bothered to reply to this post had it not been for
this line. As Samuel Johnson said, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a
scoundrel." Where have I said anything that suggests I "hate" America?
If ------ing ignorance is American, then perhaps you are right. I do
hate ignorance.

 

In article <10hhrs3ceu3j211@corp.supernews.com>,
"CRWLR" <noneofyourbusiness@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Bush already declared "mission accomplished" over a year ago. Since
> > then, Congress has willingly approved additional funds. Unfortunately,
> > Iraq is now in a state of complete chaos and comprises a much greater
> > threat to US interests then it did before the war. Bush has managed to
> > get us in a quagmire and quagmires and not easily gotten out of.
> >
>
> Yes, who would have thought that freedom from an oppressive dictator would
> be so poorly received? The fact is that the freedom is well received by
> almost everybody, except a few Sunnis (one in particular) that stand to
> loose power because they are a minority. If they worked to build the power
> base instead of working to tear it apart, thenig would be much different,
> and we would be winning the peace as well as having already won the war.

Would you mind identifying that one particular Sunni? I'm curious given
there is nobody that matches that description. Also, how does your
analysis explain the fact that the US is currently embroiled in battles
with Shia Muslims throughout the southern part of Iraq? You are correct
that most Iraqis were happy to be liberated. However, it is equally
correct to say that most Iraqis would now like the US to leave.

> Isreal is not part of the coalition because their participation would be
> inflamatory, at least they are not a public denounciator of the action in
> Iraq. If they disapprove, and there is no reason to suspect they do
> disapprove, then they do it quietly and behind the scenes to affect the
> change they think is needed. France, Germany, Russia, and China are all
> benefactors of America's largesse, if not in direct foreign aid then by
> other forms of our generosity.
>
> They decry our benevolence all of the way to the bank, so to speak.

Fair enough. Would you mind detailing some of the "largesse" of which
you speak?

>
> > > Need help with a famine? Wrestling with an epidemic? Call France.
> >
> > Good call. France has a more generous aid program.
> >
>
> --------. France couldn't help find a way out of a wet paper bag, let alone
> decide that getting out of the bag was theright course of action.

Well, -------- or not, thems the facts. See the chart on this page and
compares France's aid contributions to those of the US:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/c...id=2540&page=6


> > In the future, together with Congress, I will work to redirect this
> money
> > > toward solving the vexing social problems we still have at home.
> >
> > Great move.
> >
>
> What is your objection here?

None. I was agreeing with you.

> Much of the reason has to do with Afghanistan being able to operate its own
> security and form a government that at least attempts to work well. Iraq has
> not been able to do this, and we can't simply walk away and let the same
> kind of dicatorial government spring up where one was crushed.

Humm. I thought the whole point of your posting was that we not could
could walk away from Iraq, but should walk away within 60 days. Now all
of a sudden, we can't walk away. Which is it?

> > > (If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you are reading it in
> English,
> > > thank a soldier.)
> >
> > This last sentence is non-sensical. The article is in English. In what
> > other language could it be read?
> >
>
>
> It isn't nonsensical at all. If you can read it in English, you have America
> to thank, because without America it would have been translated into another
> language.

This is even more nonsensical than the original sentence. Are you aware
that countries other than America speak English? Are you aware that the
language is called "English" rather than "American" because it
originated in England? And are you further aware that England had more
to do with ------ing English than any other nation? In fact, were it
not for the English monarchy, you might be speaking Spanish or French
yourself. Do you really believe that a Nigerian who is capable of
reading this article in English as a result of his country having been
colonized by England has America to thank?

> Why do you hate America so much?

I would not even have bothered to reply to this post had it not been for
this line. As Samuel Johnson said, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a
scoundrel." Where have I said anything that suggests I "hate" America?
If ------ing ignorance is American, then perhaps you are right. I do
hate ignorance.

 

In article <10hhrs3ceu3j211@corp.supernews.com>,
"CRWLR" <noneofyourbusiness@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Bush already declared "mission accomplished" over a year ago. Since
> > then, Congress has willingly approved additional funds. Unfortunately,
> > Iraq is now in a state of complete chaos and comprises a much greater
> > threat to US interests then it did before the war. Bush has managed to
> > get us in a quagmire and quagmires and not easily gotten out of.
> >
>
> Yes, who would have thought that freedom from an oppressive dictator would
> be so poorly received? The fact is that the freedom is well received by
> almost everybody, except a few Sunnis (one in particular) that stand to
> loose power because they are a minority. If they worked to build the power
> base instead of working to tear it apart, thenig would be much different,
> and we would be winning the peace as well as having already won the war.

Would you mind identifying that one particular Sunni? I'm curious given
there is nobody that matches that description. Also, how does your
analysis explain the fact that the US is currently embroiled in battles
with Shia Muslims throughout the southern part of Iraq? You are correct
that most Iraqis were happy to be liberated. However, it is equally
correct to say that most Iraqis would now like the US to leave.

> Isreal is not part of the coalition because their participation would be
> inflamatory, at least they are not a public denounciator of the action in
> Iraq. If they disapprove, and there is no reason to suspect they do
> disapprove, then they do it quietly and behind the scenes to affect the
> change they think is needed. France, Germany, Russia, and China are all
> benefactors of America's largesse, if not in direct foreign aid then by
> other forms of our generosity.
>
> They decry our benevolence all of the way to the bank, so to speak.

Fair enough. Would you mind detailing some of the "largesse" of which
you speak?

>
> > > Need help with a famine? Wrestling with an epidemic? Call France.
> >
> > Good call. France has a more generous aid program.
> >
>
> --------. France couldn't help find a way out of a wet paper bag, let alone
> decide that getting out of the bag was theright course of action.

Well, -------- or not, thems the facts. See the chart on this page and
compares France's aid contributions to those of the US:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/c...id=2540&page=6


> > In the future, together with Congress, I will work to redirect this
> money
> > > toward solving the vexing social problems we still have at home.
> >
> > Great move.
> >
>
> What is your objection here?

None. I was agreeing with you.

> Much of the reason has to do with Afghanistan being able to operate its own
> security and form a government that at least attempts to work well. Iraq has
> not been able to do this, and we can't simply walk away and let the same
> kind of dicatorial government spring up where one was crushed.

Humm. I thought the whole point of your posting was that we not could
could walk away from Iraq, but should walk away within 60 days. Now all
of a sudden, we can't walk away. Which is it?

> > > (If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you are reading it in
> English,
> > > thank a soldier.)
> >
> > This last sentence is non-sensical. The article is in English. In what
> > other language could it be read?
> >
>
>
> It isn't nonsensical at all. If you can read it in English, you have America
> to thank, because without America it would have been translated into another
> language.

This is even more nonsensical than the original sentence. Are you aware
that countries other than America speak English? Are you aware that the
language is called "English" rather than "American" because it
originated in England? And are you further aware that England had more
to do with ------ing English than any other nation? In fact, were it
not for the English monarchy, you might be speaking Spanish or French
yourself. Do you really believe that a Nigerian who is capable of
reading this article in English as a result of his country having been
colonized by England has America to thank?

> Why do you hate America so much?

I would not even have bothered to reply to this post had it not been for
this line. As Samuel Johnson said, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a
scoundrel." Where have I said anything that suggests I "hate" America?
If ------ing ignorance is American, then perhaps you are right. I do
hate ignorance.