Cycloptichorn wrote:Funny, but snide insults don't address the problems we face in the middle east.
Cycloptichorn
I can only assume you are directing your remark to c.i.
Because if you're addressing me, it's very interesting to see you slide in with a post critical of my harmless little joke, but say nothing in response to c.i.'s many, many, ....
many, insulting posts.
It can only be an insult when it's not true.
Quote:I can only assume you are directing your remark to c.i.
Because if you're addressing me, it's very interesting to see you slide in with a post critical of my harmless little joke, but say nothing in response to c.i.'s many, many, .... many, insulting posts.
No, I was addressing it to you; for while CI does make insulting posts, he also takes the time to discuss policy and issues relating to the topic, bring new ideas and news stories to the table, etc., whereas you... don't. At least, not in a long time, not in this thread.
Cycloptichorn
In your case, ticomaya, your harmless little jokes are harmless to who?
Where did you earn your low license to practice lowyering?
cicerone imposter wrote:It can only be an insult when it's not true.
That's true only in your rich fantasy life, c.i.
I do live a "rich" life, and it's not because we are materially wealthy. It's not a fantasy, ticomaya. I live it for real. Many would want to live as I do; retired, travel the world, have friends all over this world.
Cycloptichorn wrote:Quote:I can only assume you are directing your remark to c.i.
Because if you're addressing me, it's very interesting to see you slide in with a post critical of my harmless little joke, but say nothing in response to c.i.'s many, many, .... many, insulting posts.
No, I was addressing it to you; for while CI does make insulting posts, he also takes the time to discuss policy and issues relating to the topic, bring new ideas and news stories to the table, etc., whereas you... don't. At least, not in a long time, not in this thread.
Cycloptichorn
No, I get it, Cyclops. All of the many insults from c.i. directed at all of the conservatives in his sights are just fine in your book, but my little joke causes you consternation. It's quite obvious, and you shouldn't spend any more time trying to spin it otherwise.
cicerone imposter wrote:I do live a "rich" life, and it's not because we are materially wealthy. It's not a fantasy, ticomaya. I live it for real. Many would want to live as I do; retired, travel the world, have friends all over this world.
Congratulations, c.i. Only in America.
FROM IBC DAILY COUNTS AS OF
JULY 7, 2006
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/
01/01/2003 through 12/31/2005 = 32,972;
01/01/2003 through 05/31/2006 = 42,879;
01/01/2003 through 07/
07/2006 =
43,927;
07/01/2006 through 07/
07/2006 =
214;
214 / 7 = 30.6 per day;
30.6 x 31 = about
948 in July.
01/01/2003 through 06/30/2006 =
43,927 - 214 = 43,713;
01/01/2006 through 05/31/2006 = 42,879 - 32,972 = 9,907; 9,907 / 5 = 1982 per month;
June 2006 =
43,713 - 42,879 =
834.
ican711nm wrote: ICAN PREDICTIONS MADE IN JUNE 2006
1,050 
Iraqi civilians died violently in June 2006.
950 Iraqi civilians died violently in July 2006.
850 Iraqi civilians died violently in August 2006.
...
Quote:No, I get it, Cyclops. All of the many insults from c.i. directed at all of the conservatives in his sights are just fine in your book, but my little joke causes you consternation. It's quite obvious, and you shouldn't spend any more time trying to spin it otherwise.
It takes more than a joke (which was actually humorous, as you will note that I pointed out) to cause me consternation. I was merely commenting on your lack of ability/desire to bring substantive discussion to the table.
Cycloptichorn
My recommendation is ruthless. But first before explaining it again, I'll again define the enemy of Israel and America and humanity.
eitm = evil inhuman terrorist malignancy =
those who murder civilians +
those who abet the murder of civilians +
those who advocate the murder of civilians +
those who are silent witnesses to the murder of civilians +
those who allow the murderers of civilians sanctuary.
eitm have declared war on civilians worldwide; waged war on civilians worldwide; and murdered civilians worldwide.
eitm are not civilians, but dead ones are being counted by the UN (for example) as violent civilian deaths.
I cannot see victory occurring for Israel or the US or humanity until and unless we abandon the notion that we are morally obligated to minimize casualties among non-eitm (i.e., true civilians as well as other non-eitm) in the vicinity of eitm, while attempting to maximize casualties among eitm. We cannot really tell the difference anyway, unless we were, by means of some great tecnological break through, able to read the minds of eitm and non-eitm alike. Furthermore, a great many more non-eitm will die if we fail or are even slow to exterminate the eitm, than will die if we speedily exterminate all eitm including some non-eitm in the vicinity of eitm.
So I say again exterminate the eitm AND some of those that happen to be in the vicinity of eitm--just as we did in WWII in the fire bombing of Dresden and Hamburg Germany, and in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Japan in winning WWII--but first announce our intention to do just that. We may succeed thereby in getting a few non-eitm (maybe thousands) to escape to safety and even exterminate a few eitm (maybe thousands) themselves in the process of executing such escape.
McGentrix
The invasion of Afghanistan was virtually an American show all the way. If other countries played a part it was insignificant. I suggest you read the book 'The Hunt for bin Laden' by Robin Moore. We invaded Afghanistan in October 2001. It was US aircraft and US Special Forces that went in there and kicked the Teliban's butt. But we never followed through. We were the ones who made the promises to destroy Al Qaeda, the Teliban and rebuild the country. We didn't do any of that. We cut and ran and put the majority of our troops and money into Iraq. We left Afghanistan by the wayside. As of spring 2006 we had
23,000 troops vs. 3,000 UN troops in Afghanistan. In May 2006 the UN said it would double its troops in southern Afghanistan. They are to take over operations from the Americans. We will start withdrawing some of our troops as the UN moves in. As of this day I don't know the manpower strength of UN or American forces in Afghanistan. But whatever they are that's Bush's decision.
As president and Commander in Chief, Bush makes the decision as to the amount of resources that will be commited to any military enterprise. If the UN has a greater presence in Afghanistan then that's Bush's decision. If he wanted less of a UN presence there would be less UN; period.
Now people like you blame others for the failure of Afghanistan. It's not the others who are the blame, it's the Bush administration. Afghanistan is another one of their foreign policy failures.
ican711nm wrote:My recommendation is ruthless. But first before explaining it again, I'll again define the enemy of Israel and America and humanity.
eitm = evil inhuman terrorist malignancy =
those who murder civilians +
those who abet the murder of civilians +
those who advocate the murder of civilians +
those who are silent witnesses to the murder of civilians +
those who allow the murderers of civilians sanctuary.
eitm have declared war on civilians worldwide; waged war on civilians worldwide; and murdered civilians worldwide.
eitm are not civilians, but dead ones are being counted by the UN (for example) as violent civilian deaths.
I cannot see victory occurring for Israel or the US or humanity until and unless we abandon the notion that we are morally obligated to minimize casualties among non-eitm (i.e., true civilians as well as other non-eitm) in the vicinity of eitm, while attempting to maximize casualties among eitm. We cannot really tell the difference anyway, unless we were, by means of some great tecnological break through, able to read the minds of eitm and non-eitm alike. Furthermore, a great many more non-eitm will die if we fail or are even slow to exterminate the eitm, than will die if we speedily exterminate all eitm including some non-eitm in the vicinity of eitm.
So I say again exterminate the eitm AND some of those that happen to be in the vicinity of eitm--just as we did in WWII in the fire bombing of Dresden and Hamburg Germany, and in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Japan in winning WWII--but first announce our intention to do just that. We may succeed thereby in getting a few non-eitm (maybe thousands) to escape to safety and even exterminate a few eitm (maybe thousands) themselves in the process of executing such escape.
So I assume by this America was
eitm during WW II.
xingu wrote:McGentrix
The invasion of Afghanistan was virtually an American show all the way. If other countries played a part it was insignificant. I suggest you read the book 'The Hunt for bin Laden' by Robin Moore. We invaded Afghanistan in October 2001. It was US aircraft and US Special Forces that went in there and kicked the Teliban's butt. But we never followed through. We were the ones who made the promises to destroy Al Qaeda, the Teliban and rebuild the country. We didn't do any of that. We cut and ran and put the majority of our troops and money into Iraq. We left Afghanistan by the wayside. As of spring 2006 we had
23,000 troops vs. 3,000 UN troops in Afghanistan. In May 2006 the UN said it would double its troops in southern Afghanistan. They are to take over operations from the Americans. We will start withdrawing some of our troops as the UN moves in. As of this day I don't know the manpower strength of UN or American forces in Afghanistan. But whatever they are that's Bush's decision.
As president and Commander in Chief, Bush makes the decision as to the amount of resources that will be commited to any military enterprise. If the UN has a greater presence in Afghanistan then that's Bush's decision. If he wanted less of a UN presence there would be less UN; period.
Now people like you blame others for the failure of Afghanistan. It's not the others who are the blame, it's the Bush administration. Afghanistan is another one of their foreign policy failures.
If you choose to read and trust a work of fiction over the actual UN reports specifying the UN role in Afghanistan, then you are completely hopeless and not worth interacting with any longer.
Good day.
Latest poll.
One thing I found interesting in this poll;
So I have a question for yo'all.
Are we winning, losing or is it a stalemate?
My take is it's a stalemate. Your winning if you can destroy or weaken, over a period of time, the enemy forces. It this situation the enemy forces are getting stronger. Attacks are increasing. We, on the other hand, are not getting weaker or stronger.
It's kind of like Vietnam; it just goes on and on and on........
Quote:If you choose to read and trust a work of fiction over the actual UN reports specifying the UN role in Afghanistan, then you are completely hopeless and not worth interacting with any longer.
Good day.
I might remind you that we ordered the UN inspectors out of Iraq so we could attack that country. It matters little what UN reports says, we rule, we dictate because we have the power.
If we want the UN in, they will be in; if we want them out then out they go. It's Bush's decision.
Good day
There was an interesting show on Charlie Rose last night with Thomas E Ricks about the Iraq war.
The president and Rummy keep telling the American people that if the generals ask for more troops, they will get it. The other side of this coin is the simple fact that there are no more troops. Generals at least understand the logistics when they're already using reserves to increasing limits. Where are the extra troops coming from?
The message from this administratioin to the American people is only politics while our soldiers are getting killed because they didn't plan this war or exit strategy. They're trying to shift the problem to the generals.
Ricks also said most of the generals are angry at this administration.
Why are Americans so stupid they can't see through the lies?
'Waiting to Get Blown Up'
Some Troops in Baghdad Express Frustration With the War and Their Mission
By Joshua Partlow
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 27, 2006; Page A01
BAGHDAD, July 26 Army Staff Sgt. Jose Sixtos considered the simple question about morale for more than an hour. But not until his convoy of armored Humvees had finally rumbled back into the Baghdad military base, and the soldiers emptied the ammunition from their machine guns, and passed off the bomb-detecting robot to another patrol, did he turn around in his seat and give his answer.
"Think of what you hate most about your job. Then think of doing what you hate most for five straight hours, every single day, sometimes twice a day, in 120-degree heat," he said. "Then ask how morale is."
Frustrated? "You have no idea," he said.
As President Bush plans to deploy more troops in Baghdad, U.S. soldiers who have been patrolling the capital for months describe a deadly and infuriating mission in which the enemy is elusive and success hard to find. Each day, convoys of Humvees and Bradley Fighting Vehicles leave Forward Operating Base Falcon in southern Baghdad with the goal of stopping violence between warring Iraqi religious sects, training the Iraqi army and police to take over the duty, and reporting back on the availability of basic services for Iraqi civilians.
But some soldiers in the 2nd Battalion, 6th Infantry Regiment, 1st Armored Division -- interviewed over four days on base and on patrols -- say they have grown increasingly disillusioned about their ability to quell the violence and their reason for fighting. The battalion of more than 750 people arrived in Baghdad from Kuwait in March, and since then, six soldiers have been killed and 21 wounded.
"It sucks. Honestly, it just feels like we're driving around waiting to get blown up. That's the most honest answer I could give you," said Spec. Tim Ivey, 28, of San Antonio, a muscular former backup fullback for Baylor University. "You lose a couple friends and it gets hard."
"No one wants to be here, you know, no one is truly enthused about what we do," said Sgt. Christopher Dugger, the squad leader. "We were excited, but then it just wears on you -- there's only so much you can take. Like me, personally, I want to fight in a war like World War II. I want to fight an enemy. And this, out here," he said, motioning around the scorched sand-and-gravel base, the rows of Humvees and barracks, toward the trash-strewn streets of Baghdad outside, "there is no enemy, it's a faceless enemy. He's out there, but he's hiding."
"We're trained as an Army to fight and destroy the enemy and then take over," added Dugger, 26, of Reno, Nev. "But I don't think we're trained enough to push along a country, and that's what we're actually doing out here."
"It's frustrating, but we are definitely a help to these people," he said. "I'm out here with the guys that I know so well, and I couldn't picture myself being anywhere else."
