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 <dV2Sc.53037$zc4.22492124@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> ,
"trailboss" <trailboss@optonline.net> wrote:

> 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...

Dude, don't bogart the whole bong. Pass that ----!

Uh, I think your calendar is still turned to 2003. You might want to
hump your butt down to the local bookstore and pick up a 2004 version.
You do know we invaded Iraq LAST year don't you?

 

In article <dV2Sc.53037$zc4.22492124@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> ,
"trailboss" <trailboss@optonline.net> wrote:

> 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...

Dude, don't bogart the whole bong. Pass that ----!

Uh, I think your calendar is still turned to 2003. You might want to
hump your butt down to the local bookstore and pick up a 2004 version.
You do know we invaded Iraq LAST year don't you?

 

In article <dV2Sc.53037$zc4.22492124@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> ,
"trailboss" <trailboss@optonline.net> wrote:

> 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...

Dude, don't bogart the whole bong. Pass that ----!

Uh, I think your calendar is still turned to 2003. You might want to
hump your butt down to the local bookstore and pick up a 2004 version.
You do know we invaded Iraq LAST year don't you?

 

In article <dV2Sc.53037$zc4.22492124@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> ,
"trailboss" <trailboss@optonline.net> wrote:

> 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...

Dude, don't bogart the whole bong. Pass that ----!

Uh, I think your calendar is still turned to 2003. You might want to
hump your butt down to the local bookstore and pick up a 2004 version.
You do know we invaded Iraq LAST year don't you?

 

In article <TS2Sc.53032$zc4.22486164@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> ,
"trailboss" <trailboss@optonline.net> wrote:

> Got yer facts wrong on foreign aid bub...18 billion? we give 10 BILLION
> ALONE to israel...

How is that a contradiction? Israel is far and away the largest
recipient of US assistance. Israel gets more than the entire continent
of Africa (if you don't count Egypt whose aid is in return for making
peace with Israel). Israel could get $10 billion (actually they don't,
but they could) and the entire budget could still be $18 billion. In
fact, the budget is $18 billion. Look it up.

> And there is a lot more to "foreign assistance" then just money...subsidies
> and other assistance pump it to well over 60 billion a year...the war in
> Iraq is just a blip on the radar.........

Ok, let's accept your figure of $60 billion per year. Most subsidies
actually support US producers, but lets not quibble. The Iraq war has
cost over $125 billion so far. That money will run out before Oct., so
Bush will soon be asking for more. Then, the FY 2005 budget will include
even more. So, we could be looking at expenditures of over $200 billion
by this time next year. How is that a blip on the radar? If you think
$60 billion is worth getting worked up over, then what do you have to
say about $200 billion?

>
> > Ha, ha. Talk about misinformed. For FY 2004, the foreign assistance
> > budget was about $18 billion. The war in Iraq has cost well over $125
> > billion and will end up costing a lot more. Only Enron's accountant (or
> > Bush's budget analysts) would argue that cutting foreign aid would save
> > enough to pay for the war. Moreover, most of the countries in the
> > coalition are exactly the countries that receive aid. In fact, that is
> > why they are in the coalition. That why it should properly be called the
> > "Coalition of the Billing" rather than "Willing". Although Israel, the
> > largest aid recipient, is not in the coalition. Of course, if Bush cut
> > Israel's funds, he would be out on his butt in a New York minute (not
> > that I like that reality, but it is reality).
> >
> > >

 

In article <TS2Sc.53032$zc4.22486164@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> ,
"trailboss" <trailboss@optonline.net> wrote:

> Got yer facts wrong on foreign aid bub...18 billion? we give 10 BILLION
> ALONE to israel...

How is that a contradiction? Israel is far and away the largest
recipient of US assistance. Israel gets more than the entire continent
of Africa (if you don't count Egypt whose aid is in return for making
peace with Israel). Israel could get $10 billion (actually they don't,
but they could) and the entire budget could still be $18 billion. In
fact, the budget is $18 billion. Look it up.

> And there is a lot more to "foreign assistance" then just money...subsidies
> and other assistance pump it to well over 60 billion a year...the war in
> Iraq is just a blip on the radar.........

Ok, let's accept your figure of $60 billion per year. Most subsidies
actually support US producers, but lets not quibble. The Iraq war has
cost over $125 billion so far. That money will run out before Oct., so
Bush will soon be asking for more. Then, the FY 2005 budget will include
even more. So, we could be looking at expenditures of over $200 billion
by this time next year. How is that a blip on the radar? If you think
$60 billion is worth getting worked up over, then what do you have to
say about $200 billion?

>
> > Ha, ha. Talk about misinformed. For FY 2004, the foreign assistance
> > budget was about $18 billion. The war in Iraq has cost well over $125
> > billion and will end up costing a lot more. Only Enron's accountant (or
> > Bush's budget analysts) would argue that cutting foreign aid would save
> > enough to pay for the war. Moreover, most of the countries in the
> > coalition are exactly the countries that receive aid. In fact, that is
> > why they are in the coalition. That why it should properly be called the
> > "Coalition of the Billing" rather than "Willing". Although Israel, the
> > largest aid recipient, is not in the coalition. Of course, if Bush cut
> > Israel's funds, he would be out on his butt in a New York minute (not
> > that I like that reality, but it is reality).
> >
> > >

 

In article <TS2Sc.53032$zc4.22486164@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> ,
"trailboss" <trailboss@optonline.net> wrote:

> Got yer facts wrong on foreign aid bub...18 billion? we give 10 BILLION
> ALONE to israel...

How is that a contradiction? Israel is far and away the largest
recipient of US assistance. Israel gets more than the entire continent
of Africa (if you don't count Egypt whose aid is in return for making
peace with Israel). Israel could get $10 billion (actually they don't,
but they could) and the entire budget could still be $18 billion. In
fact, the budget is $18 billion. Look it up.

> And there is a lot more to "foreign assistance" then just money...subsidies
> and other assistance pump it to well over 60 billion a year...the war in
> Iraq is just a blip on the radar.........

Ok, let's accept your figure of $60 billion per year. Most subsidies
actually support US producers, but lets not quibble. The Iraq war has
cost over $125 billion so far. That money will run out before Oct., so
Bush will soon be asking for more. Then, the FY 2005 budget will include
even more. So, we could be looking at expenditures of over $200 billion
by this time next year. How is that a blip on the radar? If you think
$60 billion is worth getting worked up over, then what do you have to
say about $200 billion?

>
> > Ha, ha. Talk about misinformed. For FY 2004, the foreign assistance
> > budget was about $18 billion. The war in Iraq has cost well over $125
> > billion and will end up costing a lot more. Only Enron's accountant (or
> > Bush's budget analysts) would argue that cutting foreign aid would save
> > enough to pay for the war. Moreover, most of the countries in the
> > coalition are exactly the countries that receive aid. In fact, that is
> > why they are in the coalition. That why it should properly be called the
> > "Coalition of the Billing" rather than "Willing". Although Israel, the
> > largest aid recipient, is not in the coalition. Of course, if Bush cut
> > Israel's funds, he would be out on his butt in a New York minute (not
> > that I like that reality, but it is reality).
> >
> > >

 

In article <TS2Sc.53032$zc4.22486164@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> ,
"trailboss" <trailboss@optonline.net> wrote:

> Got yer facts wrong on foreign aid bub...18 billion? we give 10 BILLION
> ALONE to israel...

How is that a contradiction? Israel is far and away the largest
recipient of US assistance. Israel gets more than the entire continent
of Africa (if you don't count Egypt whose aid is in return for making
peace with Israel). Israel could get $10 billion (actually they don't,
but they could) and the entire budget could still be $18 billion. In
fact, the budget is $18 billion. Look it up.

> And there is a lot more to "foreign assistance" then just money...subsidies
> and other assistance pump it to well over 60 billion a year...the war in
> Iraq is just a blip on the radar.........

Ok, let's accept your figure of $60 billion per year. Most subsidies
actually support US producers, but lets not quibble. The Iraq war has
cost over $125 billion so far. That money will run out before Oct., so
Bush will soon be asking for more. Then, the FY 2005 budget will include
even more. So, we could be looking at expenditures of over $200 billion
by this time next year. How is that a blip on the radar? If you think
$60 billion is worth getting worked up over, then what do you have to
say about $200 billion?

>
> > Ha, ha. Talk about misinformed. For FY 2004, the foreign assistance
> > budget was about $18 billion. The war in Iraq has cost well over $125
> > billion and will end up costing a lot more. Only Enron's accountant (or
> > Bush's budget analysts) would argue that cutting foreign aid would save
> > enough to pay for the war. Moreover, most of the countries in the
> > coalition are exactly the countries that receive aid. In fact, that is
> > why they are in the coalition. That why it should properly be called the
> > "Coalition of the Billing" rather than "Willing". Although Israel, the
> > largest aid recipient, is not in the coalition. Of course, if Bush cut
> > Israel's funds, he would be out on his butt in a New York minute (not
> > that I like that reality, but it is reality).
> >
> > >

 

This is America, love it or leave it!
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Jeff wrote:
><snip>