"Scott Erb" <scotterb@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
newsp9Ra.57113$0v4.3878497@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

> "Wilson" <heeley@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns93BA69ED5DC8Dheeley@217.32.252.50...
>> "Scott Erb" <scotterb@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
>> > I certainly hope that council moves Iraq towards a stable
>> > democracy, but it's pretty easy to find people in the various
>> > factions who will serve, the test comes with whether or not power
>> > gets back on, stability comes to the streets, Americans stop being
>> > ambushed, and the economy of Iraq gets moving again.
>> >
>> > Clearly, though, this is *not* what the neo-cons expected. They
>> > thought Chalabi, with ties to the Pentagon, would be welcomed by
>> > the Iraqi people. This was clearly not expected, and their
>> > improvising. One can hope this council is effective, but it's
>> > existence alone says little about where Iraq is headed.
>>
>> You really are a squirmy little fellow, aren't you?
>
> Hardly squirmy, I'm just shoving the cold hard facts in your face, and
> you apparently don't like them.

I accept facts. I do not accept speculative gloom and doom left wing
armageddon scenarios.

Look Erb, the war is barely two months over. Already a multi ethnic
Council is in place in Iraq, for the first time in history, thanks to the
US/UK.

If it were a Communist council, you would be pleading for "reasonable
time"

You would also be applauding them for being "better than the thug they
replaced".

You really are a scream, Scotty.

>
> Deal with reality. Look all over, the policy is in trouble, what's
> happening wasn't expected, and there is real uncertainty on where this
> is going to go. I hate to say "I told you so," but this is *exactly*
> what we've been warning about. Meanwhile, yet another death in Iraq,
> with no stability or end in sight. The one way out is to
> internationalize the conflict, to bring in the UN, to recognize that
> American unilateralism doesn't work.
>
> Otherwise, with North Korea looming, troops already stretched thin,
> the biggest deficit in history...this is all looking like a policy out
> of control.

Ah, yes, the doom and gloom.

We'll have to take your "word" for it that you "warned us exactly" about
the reality of a quick, relatively low casualty end to the the Saddam
regime, with an Iraqi Ruling Council in place after only a month or so.

You can can continue to hope for the huge casualties you predicted, the
rising of the Arab street, a Viet Nam style "quagmire" and such, but that
AINT'T "reality", junior.

Read the Ed/OpEd articles today in the New York Times and Washington
Post. Read Ed Koch, and Mario Cuomo (who are not running for election)

Even with their political bias, they all have a firmer grip on reality
than you can ever hope to achieve, I'm afraid, without some major
questioning of your brainwashed, leftist knee-jerk worldview.

"Wilson" <heeley@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93BA75B14FF67heeley@217.32.252.50...

> Look Erb, the war is barely two months over

The war is not over. Keep watching. I don't think you have a clue how bad
this can get if we don't get the UN involved in leading the political effort
while the US and the UN work on the military side. Unilateralism doesn't
work. But hey, you'll keep going on with posturing, I'll just smile, let
you have the last word if you wish, and hope that our leaders recognize that
a change in policy is needed. My reaction to your rambly post can be
summed up in: "Methinks thou doth protest too much."

"Scott Erb" <scotterb@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:M4bRa.57425$3o3.3837349@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

> "Wilson" <heeley@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns93BA75B14FF67heeley@217.32.252.50...
>
>> Look Erb, the war is barely two months over
>
> The war is not over. Keep watching. I don't think you have a clue
> how bad this can get if we don't get the UN involved in leading the
> political effort while the US and the UN work on the military side.
> Unilateralism doesn't work. But hey, you'll keep going on with
> posturing, I'll just smile, let you have the last word if you wish,
> and hope that our leaders recognize that a change in policy is needed.
> My reaction to your rambly post can be summed up in: "Methinks thou
> doth protest too much."

Methinks you are grasping at straws to justify your pacifist sentiments.

You declared here that "this is not my war", and we accepted that. Maybe
you should stay out of the way, and let those who's war it is complete
the job.

If you and your ilk had their way for another 8 years, Saddam would still
be in power, and continuing with his obscene administration. Who knows
how many more Iraqi lives would be lost and tortured? You supported the
German/French plan, as I recall, that would have legitimized his regime,
and perhaps even protected him from his own dissidents.

I submit, that, just as with anti-fascism and anti-communism, the US and
Britain will be seen to be on the right side of history.

We will carry on and finish the job, because it's the right thing to do.

And as far as your laughable view, that I am protesting, goes, I am fully
supportive of this Administration and that of Tony Blair in it's dealing
with Iraq.

"Protesting" is a characteristic more to be found in the left.

But of course, you knew that, didn't you, you disingenuous fraud.

Wilson <heeley@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:<Xns93BA605C4C8EDheeley@217.32.252.50>...
> "Scott Erb" <scotterb@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
> news:8gUQa.55556$0v4.3795791@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>
> > "Donald L Ferrt" <wolfbat359@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > news:b9eb3efe.0307150624.263a83fc@posting.google.c om...
> >>
> > http://www.montanaforum.com/rednews/...ty/q-postwar.p
> > hp?nn n=6
> >>
> >> Analysis: U.S. failed to plan for postwar Iraq
> >> Knight Ridder News
> >>
> >> WASHINGTON - The small circle of senior civilians in the Defense
> >> Department who dominated planning for postwar Iraq failed to prepare
> >> for the setbacks that have erupted over the past two months.
> >>
> >>
> >> The officials didn't develop any real postwar plans because they
> >> believed that Iraqis would welcome U.S. troops with open arms and
> >> Washington could install a favored Iraqi exile leader as the
> >> country's leader. The Pentagon civilians ignored CIA and State
> >> Department experts who disputed them, resisted White House pressure
> >> to back off from their favored exile leader and when their scenario
> >> collapsed amid increasing violence and disorder, they had no backup
> >> plan.
> >
> > Of course! I couldn't believe the pre-war optimism that we would be
> > welcomed, celebrated as heros, and democracy easily installed. I
> > noted that experts in political systems (like they have at the CIA and
> > State Department) have long concluded that sort of thing isn't likely
> > in a country like Iraq. They let fantasy dictate strategy, wishful
> > think tank thinking dictate policy...and America will pay the price.
> > What they have to do is swallow their pride, go to the UN, and work
> > WITH the rest of the world and recognize we are NOT the kind of
> > unilateral power they fantasized us to be. Their dreams have been
> > proven illusionary.
>
> "Proven"? Only to those with a pre-determined leftist worldview.
>
> These things do not happen overnight.
>
> Let the New York Times explain it to you:
>
> OP-ED COLUMNIST
> Winning the Real War
> By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
> July 16, 2003
>
> Last Sunday was the most important day in Iraq since the start of the
> war, and maybe the most important day in its modern history. It was the
> first day that one could speak about the "liberation" of Iraq. It was the
> day that a multireligious, multiethnic Governing Council of Iraqi men and
> women began to assume some power and responsibility for their own country
> ? the most representative leadership Iraq has ever had.
>


Other great multi-dimensional councils and committees in History:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/leni...18/jan/03c.htm

Resolution Of The All-Russia Central Executive Committee
January 3 (16), 1918

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

Written: 3 January, 1918
First Published: 4 January in Pravda No. 3 and Izvestia No. 2.
Published according to the Pravda text.
Source: Lenin's Collected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, Volume
26, 1972, pp. 427
Translated: Yuri Sdobnikov and George Hanna, Edited by George Hanna
Transcription & HTML Markup: Charles Farrell and David Walters
Online Version: Lenin Internet Archive November, 2000


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



On the basis of all the achievements of the October Revolution, and in
accordance with the Declaration of the Working and Exploited People
adopted at the meeting of the Central Executive Committee of January
3, 1918, all power in the Russian Republic belongs to the Soviets and
the Soviet institutions. Accordingly, any attempt by any person or
institution whatsoever to usurp any of the functions of state power
will be regarded as a counter-revolutionary act. All such attempts
will be suppressed by every means at the disposal of the Soviet power,
including the use of armed force.


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

Collected Works Volume 26
Collected Works Table of Contents
Lenin Works Archive

=======================================

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commit..._Public_Safety

Committee of Public Safety
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The Committee of Public Safety (French Comité de Salut Public), set up
by the National Convention on 6 April 1793, formed the de facto
executive government of France during the Terror phase 1793-1794 of
the French Revolution.

Under war conditions, and with national survival seemingly at stake,
the Jacobins under Robespierre centralised denunciations, trials and
executions under the supervision of this committee of twelve members.

The Committee ceased meeting in 1795.

"Scott Erb" <scotterb@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:M4bRa.57425$3o3.3837349@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Wilson" <heeley@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns93BA75B14FF67heeley@217.32.252.50...
>
> > Look Erb, the war is barely two months over
>
> The war is not over. Keep watching. I don't think you have a clue
how bad
> this can get if we don't get the UN involved in leading the
political effort
> while the US and the UN work on the military side.

Pffffffftttttt! <howling laughter>

The *Iraqis* will be handed the political football, Boris,
not the infinite regressors at the UN.

"Bill Bonde" <sstderr@backpacker.com> wrote in message
news:3F1479E2.5D75A43A@backpacker.com...
>
>
> John Willimans wrote:
> >
> > "Bill Bonde" <sstderr@backpacker.com> wrote in message
> > news:3F146B54.4C857CEF@backpacker.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > John Willimans wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:nQXQa.26905$GF2.6771024@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> > > > > "John Willimans" <john@no-spam-ever.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:BRXQa.56146$3o3.3764356@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > > > Snip...
> > > >
> > > > > > And we still get 15 dead/month and uncounted wounded. It is
> > > > > "liberated"?
> > > > >
> > > > > Right, and in about 280 years the KIA's will catch up
> > > > > with Vietnam. I like the way Leftists are always thinking
> > > > > ahead.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > There were an average of 370 deaths in the Vietnam war from 1961 -
1965.
> > We
> > > > have 200+ in *4 MONTHS*.
> > > >
> > > We've had 32 combat deaths since the end of major combat. 32. More
> > > people have died in accidents.
> >
> > And that doesn't concern you? You aren't concerned that over 200
Americans
> > have died and it now is starting to look like the "evidence' for going
to
> > war was falsified?
> >
> Intelligence data is often not conclusive. The documents that were
> thought authentic turned out to have been forged. There is other
> information, however, suggesting that Saddam did seek uranium.

And that information is? Surely you are not talking about the aluminum
tubes, are you?

None of
> this matters because Saddam should have been overthrown just for the
> human rights violations totally over two million people since he invaded
> Kuwait.
>

So you support peace keeping missions...what am I saying, obviously you are
a *huge* fan of Bill Clinton and his military missions to overthrow human
rights violators.

>
>
> > And *YOU* ***** about Clinton?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
> >
> I recall that Clinton bombed Iraq because of WMDs that Clinton said Iraq
> had.

And I recall a *whole bunch* of Republicans screaming like a babies that he
was distracting.

I recall that Clinton bombed and invaded the Balkans for purely
> human rights reasons. In the case of Iraq, the human rights reasons were
> orders of magnitude greater.

Really? That's neat, but George W. Bush promised Weapons of Mass
Destruction ready to be released in American cities. Until we find these,
his justification is unproven, in other words, it very well could have been
a lie. So far, we know that at best, it was streeeeetched a bit.

"Bill Bonde" <sstderr@backpacker.com> wrote in message
news:3F14792A.3B630922@backpacker.com...
>
>
> John Willimans wrote:
> >
> > "Bill Bonde" <sstderr@backpacker.com> wrote in message
> > news:3F1474F9.FD165F0@backpacker.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > Canard wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 19:43:01 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
> > > > <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >"John Willimans" <john@no-spam-ever.com> wrote in message
> > > > >news:UEYQa.56200$3o3.3767310@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > > > >>
> > > > >> "Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > > > >> news:nQXQa.26905$GF2.6771024@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> > > > >> > "John Willimans" <john@no-spam-ever.com> wrote in message
> > > > >> >
news:BRXQa.56146$3o3.3764356@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > > > >> Snip...
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > > And we still get 15 dead/month and uncounted wounded. It is
> > > > >> > "liberated"?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Right, and in about 280 years the KIA's will catch up
> > > > >> > with Vietnam. I like the way Leftists are always thinking
> > > > >> > ahead.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >> There were an average of 370 deaths in the Vietnam war from
1961 -
> > > > >1965.
> > > > >
> > > > >Ah, U.S. involvement in Vietnam did not get heavy
> > > > >*until* 1965. In Iraq, we have already defeated the Hussein
> > > > >regime and taken control of the country. There is no equivalent
> > > > >of the Viet Cong and certainly no North Vietnamese Army
> > > > >in Iraq. You'll find that disappointing, I'm sure, but it's the
truth.
> > > > >
> > > > ><snip list of courageous American soldiers who have died
> > > > >in Iraq because they don't deserve to have their names posted
> > > > >by an imbecile>
> > > >
> > > > Dude... if there are 200+ American dead in four months,
having
> > > > "...already defeated the Hussein regime and taken control of the
> > > > country", and given that "There is no equivalent of the Viet Cong
and
> > > > certainly no North Vietnamese Army..." present in Iraq, isn't this a
> > > > *bad* indication and not a good one? Only three weeks of those four
> > > > months represent major combat.
> > > >
> > > > The job got done in Iraq, unlike in Vietnam as you point
out,
> > > > yet US soldiers are dying almost every day where you suggest there
is
> > > > no significant enemy. What happens if the resistance in Iraq really
> > > > organizes and *seriously* arms itself?
> > > >
> > > It would have to get weapons from somewhere. If the US figured out
where
> > > they were coming from, that would be reason enough to attack that
> > > country. The Cold War is over, the policy of pretending all roads
don't
> > > lead back to our real enemies is obsolete. If Syria is funnelling arms
> > > in, Syria is likely to see regime change.
> > >
> >
> > Sounds like "draft" time to me.
> >
> Since there is no shortage of soldiers, I doubt it.
>

"The Pentagon is hard pressed to find ground force replacements, either
American or foreign, and the top commander in Iraq, Gen. John Abizaid, says
it is important to maintain the current level of troops, which include about
147,000 Americans and about 13,000 from Britain and other countries."


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,92007,00.html

>
>
>
> > > And assuming they did get serious again, they would start to present a
> > > good target for what the US military has the most advantage, attack
from
> > > the air and heavily armoured vehicles such as tanks.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Furthermore: are Iraq casualties of no concern UNTIL such a
> > > > time as they reach Vietnam levels? You are not concerned now?
> > > >
> > > Are you concerned about how many Americans have died since the Iraqi
war
> > > started from lung cancer?
> > >
> >
> > It's called "Preventable". Look it up.
> >
> The lung cancer isn't largely preventable? What are you saying?

Whom could have prevented it? The President if he would have accepted his
intelligence agencies original findings?

"Bill Bonde" <sstderr@backpacker.com> wrote in message
news:3F147AC9.E1EBE255@backpacker.com...
>
>
> John Willimans wrote:
> >
> > "Bill Bonde" <sstderr@backpacker.com> wrote in message
> > news:3F146F03.5C2C44F4@backpacker.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > John Willimans wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:%VYQa.26914$GF2.6790934@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> > > > > "Scott Erb" <scotterb@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > > > > news:ZPYQa.56213$3o3.3768454@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > http://nytimes.com/aponline/internat...P-Iraq.html?hp
> > > > > > > > Iraqi Council Convenes in First Step Towards Self-Government
> > > > > > > > By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > APPOINTED Iraqi Council.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Bush's idea of the democratic process. Of course, that
shouldn't
> > > > > come as
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > surprise to a propagandist like you, Dr. After all, Bush was
> > > > > appointed
> > > > > > > himself. What could he possibly know about the democratic
> > > > > process?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I certainly hope that council moves Iraq towards a stable
democracy,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > it's pretty easy to find people in the various factions who will
> > > > > serve, the
> > > > > > test comes with whether or not power gets back on, stability
comes
> > > > > to the
> > > > > > streets, Americans stop being ambushed, and the economy of Iraq
gets
> > > > > moving
> > > > > > again.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Clearly, though, this is *not* what the neo-cons expected. They
> > > > > thought
> > > > > > Chalabi, with ties to the Pentagon, would be welcomed by the
Iraqi
> > > > > people.
> > > > > > This was clearly not expected, and their improvising. One can
hope
> > > > > this
> > > > > > council is effective, but it's existence alone says little about
> > > > > where Iraq
> > > > > > is headed.
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh, well, *clearly*, Scott, Paul Bremer and the Bush
administration
> > > > > have been flexible and gotten the process moving quickly. Victory
> > > > > in 21 days.
> > > >
> > > > Who declared Victory? I thought Victory involved disarming Iraq and
> > > > capturing or killing Saddam.
> > > >
> > > > 0 for 2 = Victory?
> > > >
> > > Did we capture or kill Hitler?
> >
> > Pathetic. Yes. He was dead at the end of the war.
> >
> How do you know?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...ews/deathofhit
ler.htm

I haven't read that particular book, but it is pretty well accepted.

That certainly wasn't known for sure at the end of the
> war.
>

No, but most intelligence believed it to be so.

>
> > Is Saddam, or Osama, dead or captured? No. They are "At Large".
> >
> One or both might be dead, might've buried himself in a bunker or cave
> and eaten Madam Bovery's left over arsenic. You don't know.
>

Nope. Bush is failng. Remember, "Dead or Alive". When does Osama get
brought to justice? Our intelligence thinks he is probably alive, and you
*do* trust our intelligence, don't you?



>
>
> --
> "So if you want these horses, I sell them to you. Did you bring some
> gold with you?"
> "Nope."
> "Silver?"
> "Just lead."
> -+John Wayne, "Chisum"