Robert Calco wrote: > It's very simple Leland. You love Mookie because, well... you lost > your mind. Or rather, your mind has been abducted by a false premise. > > Somewhere in the dark abyss that is your cerebral cortex, the MoveOn > notion that George Bush is the root of all evil took root and you are > now able only to apply its inexorable binary logic: that is, the > people he deems as evil must naturally be the good guys, the ones who > want peace. > I'm not using President Bush's likes or dislikes as a kind of reverse barometer to determine who I trust or don't trust. With all the propaganda flying around, completely void of any substantive proof, it makes it very difficult to see a solution to the problem of violence in Iraq and the problem of bring home the troops.
> Mookie is high on the allies' list as a trouble-maker and co- > conspirator with the Iranian mullahs to expand the reach of their > particular brand of oppression and hate in the region. > Again, this is all baseless speculation and could simply be rumors, propaganda, and otherwise misleading information leaked by President Bush and Maliki to justify going after al-Sadr, because he posses a threat to the grand Neo-Conservative plan for the middle east. As you know, if this is true, it wouldn't be the first time this has happened. > Since the enemy of your enemy is your friend, you now cannot help but > see a veritable Mother Theresa or Nelson Mandela in Mookie---a guy > frankly even the mullahs don't trust, so tightly on their leash is he > now. (Note the primitive PR makeover, akin to Hitlery!'s "moderate" > guise during the election---they have people like you apparently in > mind when they undergo these patently phoney and painfully obvious > transformations). > Again, their is so much BS coming out from the Administration regarding Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and other target, which seem to be locked in to the Administration agenda since before the 2000 elections, that I don't believe a word anybody has to say. <g> Regards, LelandJ > - Bob > > On May 27, 2007, at 12:27 PM, Leland F. Jackson, CPA wrote: > > >> I'm a little bit confused, and usually when I'm a little confused, >> it's >> because I'm only being told half the story, or the story is a >> misrepresentation of the facts, so the pieces don't fit together. >> >> Let's see: >> >> 1) Al-Sadr is a uniter who wants to unit Iraq and institute a >> policy of >> tolerance to stop the senseless killing of Shiite and Sunni. >> 2) Al-Sadr wants to remove the extremist element from his military >> and >> police forces. >> 3) Al-Sadr want to remove the Al Qaeda influence from Iraq, which has >> infiltrated the country in the chaos of post war Iraq. >> 4) Maliki and the Maliki government formerly sought, and received, >> the >> blessings from Al-Sadr in establishing the government. >> 5) Both Maliki and Al-Sadr are members of the majority Shiite >> branch of >> the Islamic religion. >> 6) Al-Sadr want to end the U.S. occupation of Iraq, but Maliki has >> not >> yet called for President Bush to withdraw U.S. military forces form >> Iraq. >> >> Almost all the goals of Al-Sadr match the goals of the Bush >> Administration, so it would seem al-Sadr is a good thing, but >> somewhere >> along the way the U.S. supported government of Maliki was labeled the >> good thing, and al_Sadr has been deionized as a Maliki critic. Not >> only >> that, it appears that al-Sadr has been made a military target for >> possible elimination. Now I ask you, is that the kind of Democracy >> the >> U.S. wants to see in Iraq? >> >> Perhaps you could elaborate on exactly what makes you think that al- >> Sadr >> is not a moderate, given that he is a Shiite, same as Maliki and the >> majority Shiite Maliki government. Why is Maliki a good Shiite and >> al-Sadr a bad Shiite? Both Maliki and al_Sadr have military forces >> that >> have engaged in combat. Both al-Sadr and Maliki have been accussed of >> running death squad that torture and then kill Sunni or anyone else >> that >> appear to threaten their authority. So tell me why Maliki is good and >> al-Sadr is bad. >> >> All I can say is the world of Iraq is a wacky world. Everybody in >> Iarq >> seems a little bit crazy and are busy wacking others or getting wacked >> themselves. In the mean time the U.S. finds herself smack-dab in the >> middle of a civil war in which American has not taken any side other >> than to engage anyone else engaged in combat. This mean the U.S. >> forces >> are trying to stop the killing by ending the civil strife, but this >> has >> put our forces in the cross hairs from every side currently >> struggling. >> So, President Bush has managed to put the U.S. into a position where >> winning and victory are impossible. >> >> Regards, >> >> LelandJ >> >> Graham Dobson wrote: >> >>> al-Sadir is no moderate and is portrayed by his followers as the >>> reappearance of the Shias' 10th century leader Imam al-Mahdi. If >>> American, >>> British and Iraqi forces are hunting down his gunmen, rest assured >>> this is a >>> major part of the planned surge. >>> >>> >>> Oh, and Maliki and his Iraqi forces are on the path the Sainthood. >>> HaHaaHaaa >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> LelandJ >>> >>> Robert Calco wrote: >>> >>> >>>> No, you're instincts are correct. Leland is preposterous. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> 1) Al-Sadr is opposed to terrorism, especially al Qaeda which he >>>>>>> would >>>>>>> drive out of the country. >>>>>>> 2) Al-Sadr would purge his army and police of extremist. >>>>>>> 3) Al-Sadr wants a unified Iraq with justice for all and a fair >>>>>>> sharing >>>>>>> of the Iraqi wealth. >>>>>>> 4) Al-Sadr would enforce tolerance amoung the Sunni, Shiite, and >>>>>>> Kurdish people and stop the senseless killing. >>>>>>> 5) Al-Sadr would rebuild Iraq into a functioning country and >>>>>>> would >>>>>>> accept aid from the US in the effort to restore Iraq. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Leland! >>>>>> >>>>>> Really? If he is all that forget Iraq, let him run against Hil and >>>>>> Obama for >>>>>> the D nomination. >>>>>> >>>>>> But I seriously doubt that he, or any 'slim, can be trusted with >>>>>> any amount of >>>>>> power or influence. Power corrupts, and absolute power . . . so >>>>>> the man said. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Coming in late (as I usually detest these political things), but, I >>>>> must >>>>> ask--Leland, the citing above--is that what you truly believe? >>>>> I may >>>>> have read that out of context....that seems preposterous! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
