Post by: K Frame on December 29, 2006, 05:29:09 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 29, 2006, 05:31:11 PM
Post by: LAK on December 29, 2006, 05:39:12 PM
After decades of direct support by people in and around several presidential administrations - including that of the present - the "dictator" has been or is going to die for his alleged crimes. While the ongoing ones, of far larger scope and ongoing in countries also currently enjoying the direct support of the current administration are placed conveniently in the background.
Compartmentalization is a wonderful thing. Hold your heads up and be proud.
-----------------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: K Frame on December 29, 2006, 05:53:49 PM
I envy you your crystal ball.
Can you tell me what the market will be doing next Wednesday, please? I'm planning some major moves and would like to know.
Ever hear "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" quote from Winston Churchill?
At its very heart, it signals that in times of conflict and strife, you can find allies in odd places, allies who might not have been allies in previous times, and certainly allies who might very well not be allies in a few days, weeks, or years.
Post by: Ron on December 29, 2006, 06:12:19 PM
His fate was put into the hands of the people who knew him most intimately.
Whether he rotted in jail or was put to death made no difference to me.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 29, 2006, 06:12:47 PM
Just watching Commie News Network and all the dancing. What a farce, and what hypocracy.
After decades of direct support by people in and around several presidential administrations - including that of the present - the "dictator" has been or is going to die for his alleged crimes. While the ongoing ones, of far larger scope and ongoing in countries also currently enjoying the direct support of the current administration are placed conveniently in the background.
Compartmentalization is a wonderful thing. Hold your heads up and be proud.
Saddam Hussein, despite any history he may have had and despite the disposition of any other world powers both past and present, was a menace to the United States and the world at large. His death is no small achievement. We SHOULD hold up our heads and be proud.After decades of direct support by people in and around several presidential administrations - including that of the present - the "dictator" has been or is going to die for his alleged crimes. While the ongoing ones, of far larger scope and ongoing in countries also currently enjoying the direct support of the current administration are placed conveniently in the background.
Compartmentalization is a wonderful thing. Hold your heads up and be proud.
A lesser nation, or a lesser President, would never have achieved this remarkable accomplishment.
Post by: charby on December 29, 2006, 06:20:44 PM
He got his like the Nazi's did at Nuremburg, I'm content that he went to trial and was found guilty.
-C
Post by: Typhoon on December 29, 2006, 06:24:52 PM
Twenty years ago, Saddam was viewed as a stabilizing force in the Middle East.
Careful&
Post by: wingnutx on December 29, 2006, 06:43:56 PM
Twenty years ago, Saddam was viewed as a stabilizing force in the Middle East.
At one point Stalin was out most valuable ally against Hitler.
Post by: Eleven Mike on December 29, 2006, 07:14:16 PM
Post by: Ron on December 29, 2006, 07:16:58 PM
Post by: wingnutx on December 29, 2006, 07:32:54 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 29, 2006, 07:55:13 PM
After reading LAK's post, I don't know which should make me feel more guilt - that we "support" some dictators or that we "impose democracy" on others.
America is sooo EVIL!!
Post by: Eleven Mike on December 29, 2006, 08:19:01 PM
After reading LAK's post, I don't know which should make me feel more guilt - that we "support" some dictators or that we "impose democracy" on others.
You all understand, I hope, that I was disagreeing with LAK. Couldn't tell by your responses. Caught in the web of my own sarcasm! Oh, the humanity!
Post by: Dannyboy on December 29, 2006, 08:36:35 PM
Just watching Commie News Network and all the dancing. What a farce, and what hypocracy.
After decades of direct support by people in and around several presidential administrations - including that of the present - the "dictator" has been or is going to die for his alleged crimes.
After decades of direct support by people in and around several presidential administrations - including that of the present - the "dictator" has been or is going to die for his alleged crimes.
First of all, it's hypocrisy. Before you accuse other of it, you may want to learn how to spell the damn word. Secondly, just how did the current administration directly support Saddam Hussein's regime? Unless, of course, you're referring to the infamous photo of Donald Rumsfeld and Mr. Hussein. In which case, you may want to check the date. Sure, he was a bad man but he didn't directly attack US soil, did he? Yeah, I didn't think so either. So, why was Rummy shaking his hand? Oh yeah, because he was the leader of the country that was at war with Iran, the country that had invaded American soil 4 years earlier. That part conveniently gets forgotten when people refer to our support of Iraq and Saddam Hussein. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is classic foreign policy. Somebody who thinks they're as smart as you do should know that by now.
Post by: Leatherneck on December 29, 2006, 11:33:51 PM
TC
Post by: gunsmith on December 29, 2006, 11:43:40 PM
Not me!
I just assumed "hypocracy" was a new word made up by LAK
to denote a form of gov't, like Democracy.....
Why must you bring up ancient history? Sure the Iranians stormed
the embassy, didn't you know K Rove planned that?
Everybody blames Bush but it's really Rove!
I have direct evidence that Roves Grandfather told Lincoln where to sit and gave the Army officer to much coffee so he would have to use the restroom!
Post by: gunsmith on December 29, 2006, 11:46:26 PM
Saddam wasn't hung, he is not even dead!
He made a deal with some of the billions he has stashed away!
He is vacationing with Elvis Presly off the coast of Africa in a highly secret island paradise.
Post by: K Frame on December 30, 2006, 03:31:38 AM
That's what his wife and many mistresses said...
Ba dah boom!
Post by: Bigjake on December 30, 2006, 05:22:52 AM
good job to our guys that managed to collar that weasle, and fast track him to the hangman's noose
Post by: El Tejon on December 30, 2006, 05:27:08 AM
So he mistakenly violated GWI ceasefire? He mistakenly killed a whole bunch of Kurds and Shia? He mistakenly did not comply with UN sanctions and resolutions?
I can just see the Left's spin on his death, Saddam is a victim, Chimpy McHaliburton should be on trial.
Post by: Ben on December 30, 2006, 05:52:38 AM
Quote
good job to our guys that managed to collar that weasle, and fast track him to the hangman's noose
I'll second the kudos to our troops for capturing him, but as to the fast track to a speedy trial and sentence, that was purely Iraqi. If he went through our justice system, he'd still die, but of old age.
Post by: Paddy on December 30, 2006, 07:12:57 AM
Quote
A lesser nation, or a lesser President, would never have achieved this remarkable accomplishment.
Yeah, and what a bargain, too. It only took 3 years, nine months, 650,000+ deaths (not to mention thousands of amputations and other mutilations) and hundreds of billions of $$. Yep, this President is a real strategerist.
Post by: meinbruder on December 30, 2006, 07:23:45 AM
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is classic foreign policy. Somebody who thinks they're as smart as you do should know that by now.
It is also an Arab proverb. When alliance can flip-flop in a moment of malice, its hard to develop any coherent foreign policy. Perhaps this is why most of the Arab states are still locked in a feudal society. There is a lesson to be learned here, I wonder if anyone in the current or future administrations will learn it.
}:)>
Post by: K Frame on December 30, 2006, 07:35:46 AM
Only 650,000 deaths?
Wow, to hear some people tell it so far the United States has lost 900,000 troops and the toll is rising expodentially.
We won't have to worry much longer, though, as according to the same people the Arab race is down to its last few hundred patriots.
Not even the Iraqis agree that 650,000 people have been killed.
"When alliance can flip-flop in a moment of malice, its hard to develop any coherent foreign policy."
Uhm...
Just about ANY alliance can do that.
Post by: Paddy on December 30, 2006, 07:49:41 AM
Quote
Not even the Iraqis agree that 650,000 people have been killed
Here's a cite, Mike, FWIW : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_mortality_before_and_after_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq
Post by: ilbob on December 30, 2006, 08:03:36 AM
After reading LAK's post, I don't know which should make me feel more guilt - that we "support" some dictators or that we "impose democracy" on others.
Better that we impose on them than that they impose on us.
Post by: K Frame on December 30, 2006, 08:06:24 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3962969.stm (old, but it discusses the Lancet's modeling).
http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2006&m=October&x=20061013155818MVyelwarC0.1061212
http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2006&m=October&x=20061011145732ndyblehs0.7045252
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html
Post by: Bogie on December 30, 2006, 10:38:13 AM
1) Hussein ordered genocide of a large number of noncombatants and civilians, including women and children, on more than one occasion, at times using chemical warfare methods.
2) Hussein just got stretched.
1 --> 2 seems a logical progression to me.
Post by: Ezekiel on December 30, 2006, 12:36:09 PM
Quote
1) Hussein ordered genocide of a large number of noncombatants and civilians, including women and children, on more than one occasion, at times using chemical warfare methods.
2) Hussein just got stretched.
1 --> 2 seems a logical progression to me.
2) Hussein just got stretched.
1 --> 2 seems a logical progression to me.
One dimensional argument. Given direct credence to such theories, I'd like someone to dig up Andrew Jackson, as I need a someplace to urinate. Recall, the U.S. didn't seem to care about any "crimes" committed under Saddam's regime until he no longer suited our purposes.
This doesn't mean he was a great guy -- far from it -- or did not get what his subjects believe he deserved. But, if our current war/farce is because Saddam was a menace and/or raped his people, we are to be held accountable for having supported him, knowing such was ongoing.
If the war is about oil, WMD's, Imperialism or anything else...
...oh, nevermind.
"Saddam is dead and hasn't been a major player since 1991."
Post by: Bogie on December 30, 2006, 01:27:52 PM
Post by: AmbulanceDriver on December 30, 2006, 05:33:25 PM
Post by: gunsmith on December 30, 2006, 05:45:09 PM
He was certainly asking for it.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 30, 2006, 06:33:16 PM
Quote
A lesser nation, or a lesser President, would never have achieved this remarkable accomplishment.
Yeah, and what a bargain, too. It only took 3 years, nine months, 650,000+ deaths (not to mention thousands of amputations and other mutilations) and hundreds of billions of $$. Yep, this President is a real strategerist. Believe whatever you will, I care not. I will continue to believe that George W Bush and the United States did the world one hell of a favor by unseating and executing Hussein.
Post by: Bogie on December 30, 2006, 06:43:51 PM
Or thugs who end up committing suicide by cop, CCW holder, or an armed citizen during a home invasion?
Every one of those "poor dead souls" ends up getting counted as an "innocent victim of evil firearms" when Brady counts the bodies...
Their victims go uncounted.
Post by: Ezekiel on December 31, 2006, 06:29:37 AM
I will continue to believe that this ongoing "war," is a bad idea, poorly executed.
We did nobody a favour by throwing the Middle East into power vacuum chaos, committing ourselves to a land war in Asia, offering American dead (more, now, than were killed on 9/11) in exchange for zero impact -- they were never in Iraq -- on those who directly committed terrorist acts against us, and verifying that our indicated reason for invasion (WMD's) did not exist.
If the reasoning is that this is some form of humanitarian effort, those who support such blatently self-serving (and Imperialist) government actions would do well to reevaluate their position and for whom they vote. Recall: there are plenty of "bad dudes" in the world that we leave alone and we had no interest -- besides arming him -- in this one until it suited our needs.
El Presidente Jorge Shrub, and the United States, screwed the pooch on this one. A minority continue to buy his propoganda, as the Kool Aid has lost its appeal. (Thankfully.)
I will continue to believe that George W Bush and the United States did the world one hell of a favor by unseating and executing Hussein.
Post by: Paddy on December 31, 2006, 07:11:55 AM
Quote
I will continue to believe that George W Bush and the United States did the world one hell of a favor by unseating and executing Hussein.
Of course Saddam deserved execution, as do a number of other murderous tyrants around the world. Unfortunately, their countries can't produce enough oil to threaten the standard of living of:1) the House of Saud (and their virtual monopoly on the world supply) and/or
2) the U.S. (by trading oil in Euros rather than petrodollars)
Post by: Ezekiel on December 31, 2006, 07:14:21 AM
In general, a similar theory to mine: but distilled much more effectively.
Quote
I will continue to believe that George W Bush and the United States did the world one hell of a favor by unseating and executing Hussein.
Of course Saddam deserved execution, as do a number of other murderous tyrants around the world. Unfortunately, their countries can't produce enough oil to threaten the standard of living of:1) the House of Saud (and their virtual monopoly on the world supply) and/or
2) the U.S. (by trading oil in Euros rather than petrodollars)
Post by: LAK on December 31, 2006, 10:10:18 PM
Quote
Yep, foresight is certainly 10/20, and you, I, and everyone else knows RIGHT NOW exactly what the political composition of the world, its various national governments, their leaders, etc., will be every day for the next 100 years.
Can't say that I know anyone personally, regardless of their view of this administration, the last one, or any before that who actually believe the notion that all involved in the decision process at the highest level - i.e. the president - have not known good and well what was and has been taking place under their various client state "leaders" over last three decades or more.So it only boils down to whether some injustices were committed in the course of maintaining the status quo that these decision makers required. So let's not play some game of trying making it all to appear as some recent revelation - nor create or further the illusion that some kind of "justice" has been served in this case. It's nothing new to me or anyone I know.
----------------------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: The Rabbi on January 01, 2007, 07:35:19 AM
Quote
I will continue to believe that George W Bush and the United States did the world one hell of a favor by unseating and executing Hussein.
Of course Saddam deserved execution, as do a number of other murderous tyrants around the world. Unfortunately, their countries can't produce enough oil to threaten the standard of living of:1) the House of Saud (and their virtual monopoly on the world supply) and/or
Post by: Ezekiel on January 01, 2007, 02:31:19 PM
So let's not play some game of trying making it all to appear as some recent revelation - nor create or further the illusion that some kind of "justice" has been served in this case. It's nothing new to me or anyone I know.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 01, 2007, 02:32:54 PM
LAK, Zeke, let me offer an opinion that holds true regardless of your view on Iraq. The two of you, on this matter, display a narrow and simplistic view of foreign policy.
We didn't bust Saddam merely for being the Butcher of Baghdad.
We didn't invade merely because he had WMD, or even because he wouldn't let the UN investigate whether he did or no.
We didn't invade merely because he had broken several UN resolutions.
We didn't invade merely because he had supported Islamic and Palestinian terrorism and was eager to do more along those lines.
We didn't invade merely because he broke the terms of his surrender after the first Gulf War. Or because he fired on American planes afterward. Or because he attempted to assassinate GHW Bush.
We didn't invade merely because Iraq is a good place, geographically, to base forces in the Mid-East.
We didn't invade merely to show the Muslim world that we were interested in their freedom and well-being.
We didn't invade merely to clean up the swamp that is the Middle East.
We didn't invade simply because of the umpteen other good reasons I am forgetting about, don't know about, or don't have the clearance to know about.
We invaded for all of these reasons together. It is childish to pick apart every reason, and say, "Pakistan has WMD, too, why don't you invade them?" or, "The Saudis support terrorism, too, why don't we take them out?" Iraq is Iraq. No other country is just like Iraq. If it was, we might invade it, too, and you still wouldn't agree with it. It is naive to think that we lost the "right" to take out Saddam by not taking him out earlier. Now is Now. No other time is just like Now. By that same token, "supporting" bin Laden or Hussein in one conflict doesn't make us hypocrites when oppose one of them in another conflict.
Post by: grampster on January 01, 2007, 04:23:11 PM
But then patience, and willingness to grasp reality never were virtues held by self righteous bystanders.
Someone once said that "...if the Arabs ever laid down their arms there would be peace in the Middle East. If Israel laid down their arms, Israel would cease to exist." Further it has been said that two democracies have gone to war against each other...well, never.
The other thing that is getting tiresome are the comments made by keyboard commandos that Iraq had no connection to worldwide terror, nor harbored terrorists or that the tyrant Hussein had no WMD's or interest in them. Every time I see these comments I am reminded of the the three monkeys and the woeful state of the leftist educational system. Sigh......
Post by: LAK on January 02, 2007, 12:21:38 AM
Quote
We didn't bust Saddam merely for being the Butcher of Baghdad.
Right, and this underscores my main point.
Quote
We didn't invade merely because he had WMD, or even because he wouldn't let the UN investigate whether he did or no.
This is a bone of contention as far as I am concerned. There were no proven WMD, and had I been Hussein - I would have told the "U.N." to get stuffed as well.
Quote
We didn't invade merely because he had broken several UN resolutions.
As above.
Quote
We didn't invade merely because he had supported Islamic and Palestinian terrorism and was eager to do more along those lines.
I don't buy this for a second. Hussein was fairly educated, starting in the late 70s began to start a major industrial program. Iraqis per capita enjoyed among the highest levels of education and liberty in the entire middle east - argueably bar none. A million Catholics openly practicing along with Muslims of various denominations - a far cry from Saudi Arabia and a good number of other proximate nations.
Even if Hussein had been involved in some questionable activities, getting involved with Islamic loonies (the very ones that were a threat to civilized Iraq and his government to begin with) and "terrorists" would be literal suicide - national and personal. He and all around him would have known this without a shadow of a doubt.
Quote
We didn't invade merely because he broke the terms of his surrender after the first Gulf War. Or because he fired on American planes afterward. Or because he attempted to assassinate GHW Bush.
The so-called Gulf War was wrong to begin with (see above). The second two points are questionable as facts to begin with. The fact is, the last two administrations had been gunning for a feud with Iraq and an excuse to go. Bush Sr's performing lady before Congress, the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador, about "Saddam throwing babies out of incubators" etc proved that very well. Liars lie, and you really can't trust what these people say, presented by their commie news network or in any other non-challengeable form.
Quote
We didn't invade merely because Iraq is a good place, geographically, to base forces in the Mid-East.
Maybe, maybe not. The big prize, the Caspian sea area lies just beyond. The area we just happen to be building bases and military ties with other states.
Quote
We didn't invade merely to show the Muslim world that we were interested in their freedom and well-being.
Got that right.
Quote
We didn't invade merely to clean up the swamp that is the Middle East
Clean it up, no. Continue a regional corporate-gov geo-political agenda - yes. It certainly was one of the reasons.
Quote
We invaded for all of these reasons together. It is childish to pick apart every reason, and say, "Pakistan has WMD, too, why don't you invade them?" or, "The Saudis support terrorism, too, why don't we take them out?" Iraq is Iraq. No other country is just like Iraq. If it was, we might invade it, too, and you still wouldn't agree with it. It is naive to think that we lost the "right" to take out Saddam by not taking him out earlier. Now is Now. No other time is just like Now. By that same token, "supporting" bin Laden or Hussein in one conflict doesn't make us hypocrites when oppose one of them in another conflict.
You can not compartmentalize this kind of thing - or any aspect of it - morally or legally.An enormous injustice has been done to a great number of people there, not the least of them our own soldiers who have suffered or died in the name of this horrendous fraud.
-------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: Ezekiel on January 02, 2007, 02:58:47 AM
In all seriousness, I wouldn't have minded his "less conciliatory" response. My skin is not one of which anyone should be worried.
Quote from: LAK
An enormous injustice has been done to a great number of people there, not the least of them our own soldiers who have suffered or died in the name of this horrendous fraud.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 02, 2007, 07:22:34 AM
In all seriousness, I wouldn't have minded his "less conciliatory" response. My skin is not one of which anyone should be worried.
Actually, I withdrew my comments because they didn't further discussion; they were merely dismissive. In those comments, I accused you and LAK of playing childish games with foreign policy. I don't begrudge anyone their honest and informed opinion that the Iraq war was a bad move. I could even be persuaded to agree with such people. My opinion on the war is not set either way and I'm not trying to persuade anyone in either direction. I just see a lot of overnight foreign policy experts using poor arguments against the war. It is clear you are out of your depth in these matters, and are guided merely by a knee-jerk reflex to distrust government or just the US govt., I'm not sure which. This isn't just a personal irritant, it is a world-wide idiocy that has turned a minor and moderately successful war into a foreign policy liability. The occupation of Iraq (no, I'm not embarassed by "occupation") was difficult enough without broadcasting to the Islamic world that we are war-mongers or oil-mongers. I thank you and your brethren world-wide and especially in the press.
Rather than seriously consider foreign policy, you would rather play Gotcha about the lack of WMD. You don't understand that the mere risk of Saddam's having WMD was a good reason to invade, considering the other circumstances. Neither do you know whether WMD was smuggled out of the country before the invasion. In addition, you are probably one of those misled into the notion that nations must provide proof of some injury before they attack another nation. This just doesn't reflect the real world or any knowledge of history or foreign policy on your part.
You would rather exult in appearing to think for yourself, by opposing the "rush to war," than think seriously about the reasons for the war or the consequences of impugning the efforts we are now committed to. This is made clear by your inability to let an Iraq thread go by without letting us all know that you don't support the war. I could almost post your comments for you - "The Iraq war was a failure from the start. If you support the war, you're an imperialist stooge." Could you possibly consider that Imperialism requires more than one small war? Might you consider that carping is now worse than useless, in fact dangerous, and resolving the situation is all that matters?
LAK, some of my comments to Ezekiel may apply to you, some may not. I don't know if your uninformed or out of your depth, but I do find you applying the same simplistic analysis to the Iraq situation and playing the same childish games.
Post by: richyoung on January 02, 2007, 11:51:27 AM
Fistfull
Right, and this underscores my main point.
Quote
We didn't bust Saddam merely for being the Butcher of Baghdad.
Right, and this underscores my main point.
...so, because it wasn't the SOLE reason, we get no credit for it???
Quote
Quote
We didn't invade merely because he had WMD, or even because he wouldn't let the UN investigate whether he did or no.
This is a bone of contention as far as I am concerned. There were no proven WMD,
Nizar Nayuf (Nayyouf-Nayyuf), a Syrian journalist who recently defected from Syria to Western Europe and is known for bravely challenging the Syrian regime, said in a letter Monday, January 5, to Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf, that he knows the three sites where Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) are kept.
Doctor Gary Samore of the International Institute for Strategic Studies noted that during the 2003 invasion, there was "chatter" among Iraqi forces that was interpreted to mean that a chemical weapons attack was ordered.
On 3 February 2004, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw announced an independent inquiry, to be chaired by Lord Butler of Brockwell, to examine the reliability of British intelligence relating to alleged weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.[72]
The Butler Review was published 14 July 2004.
One notable excerpt:
"We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government's dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that 'The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa' was well-founded."
On May 2, 2004 a shell containing mustard gas, was found in the middle of street west of Baghdad.
On May 16, 2004 a 152mm artillery shell was used as an improvised bomb.(Iraq's Chemical Warfare Program Annex F. Retrieved on 2005-06-29.) The shell exploded and two U.S. soldiers were treated for minor exposure to a nerve agent (nausea and dilated pupils). On May 18 it was reported by U.S. Department of Defense intelligence officials that tests showed the two-chambered shell contained the chemical agent sarin, the shell being "likely" to have contained three to four liters of the substance.
After he was captured by U.S. forces in Baghdad in 2003, Dr. Mahdi Obeidi, who ran Saddam's nuclear centrifuge program until 1997, handed over blueprints for a nuclear centrifuge along with some actual centrifuge components, stored at his home buried in the front yard awaiting orders from Baghdad to proceed.
October 3, 2003 - David Kay's Iraq Survey Group report that finds no stockpiles of WMD in Iraq, although it states the government intended to develop more weapons with additional capabilities. Weapons inspectors in Iraq do find some "biological laboratories" and a collection of "reference strains", including a strain of botulinum bacteria, "ought to have been declared to the UN." Kay testifies that Iraq had not fully complied with UN inspections. In some cases, equipment and materials subject to UN monitoring had been kept hidden from UN inspectors. "So there was a WMD program. It was going ahead. It was rudimentary in many areas," Kay would say in a later interview. In other cases, Iraq had simply lied to the UN in its weapons programs.
According to Kay, Iraq worked on WMDs right under the noses of UNMOVIC. Kay said that Iraq had tried to weaponize ricin "right up until" Operation Iraqi Freedom.
FROM David Kay's statement on the interim report of the ISG[97]:
"We have not yet found stocks of weapons, but we are not yet at the point where we can say definitively either that such weapon stocks do not exist or that they existed before the war and our only task is to find where they have gone. We are actively engaged in searching for such weapons based on information being supplied to us by Iraqis."
"With regard to delivery systems, the ISG team has discovered sufficient evidence to date to conclude that the Iraqi regime was committed to delivery system improvements that would have, if OIF had not occurred, dramatically breached UN restrictions placed on Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War."
"ISG has gathered testimony from missile designers at Al Kindi State Company that Iraq has reinitiated work on converting SA-2 Surface-to-Air Missiles into ballistic missiles with a range goal of about 250km. Engineering work was reportedly underway in early 2003, despite the presence of UNMOVIC. This program was not declared to the UN."
"ISG has developed multiple sources of testimony, which is corroborated in part by a captured document, that Iraq undertook a program aimed at increasing the HY-2's range and permitting its use as a land-attack missile. These efforts extended the HY-2's range from its original 100km to 150-180km. Ten modified missiles were delivered to the military prior to OIF and two of these were fired from Umm Qasr during OIF -- one was shot down and one hit Kuwait."
Another notable statement is the following:
"We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002."
HOW MUCH PROOF DO YOU NEED???
Quote
and had I been Hussein - I would have told the "U.N." to get stuffed as well.
Actions have consequences.
Quote
Quote
We didn't invade merely because he had supported Islamic and Palestinian terrorism and was eager to do more along those lines.
I don't buy this for a second.
In a January 26, 2004 interview with Tom Brokaw of NBC news, Mr. Kay described Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs as being in a "rudimentary" stage. He also stated that "What we did find, and as others are investigating it, we found a lot of terrorist groups and individuals that passed through Iraq."[98] In responding to a question by Mr. Brokaw as to whether Iraq was a "gathering threat" as President Bush had asserted before the invasion, Mr. Kay answered:
Tom, an imminent threat is a political judgment. Its not a technical judgment. I think Baghdad was actually becoming more dangerous in the last two years than even we realized. Saddam was not controlling the society any longer. In the marketplace of terrorism and of WMD, Iraq well could have been that supplier if the war had not intervened.
Quote
Hussein was fairly educated, starting in the late 70s began to start a major industrial program.
...which included the Osirik nuclear reactor. Why does a country with that much oil need a nuclear reactor? For bonus points, describe the god Osiris for whom the reactor complex was named, and list key events in the race for the Islamic Bomb.
Quote
Even if Hussein had been involved in some questionable activities, getting involved with Islamic loonies (the very ones that were a threat to civilized Iraq and his government to begin with) and "terrorists" would be literal suicide - national and personal. He and all around him would have known this without a shadow of a doubt.
Former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein provided bases, training camps, and other support to terrorist groups fighting the governments of neighboring Turkey and Iran, as well as to Palestinian terror groups. Iraq has helped the Iranian dissident group Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, the Kurdistan Workers' Party, a separatist organization fighting the Turkish government, and several far-left Palestinian splinter groups that oppose peace with Israel. Iraq also hosted the mercenary Abu Nidal Organization, whose leader was found dead in Baghdad in August 2002. Saddam was a secular dictator, and his regime generally tended to support secular terrorist groups rather than Islamists such as al-Qaeda, experts say. But Iraq also supported some Islamist Palestinian groups opposed to Israel. In violation of international law, Iraq has also sheltered specific terrorists wanted by other countries, reportedly including:
- Abu Nidal, who, until he was found dead in Baghdad in August 2002, led an organization responsible for attacks that killed some 300 people.
- Palestine Liberation Front leader Abu Abbas, who was responsible for the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Laurocruise ship in the Mediterranean. Abbas was captured by U.S. forces April 15.
- Two Saudis who hijacked a Saudi Arabian Airlines flight to Baghdad in 2000.
Abdul Rahman Yasin, who is on the FBI's "most wanted terrorists" list for his alleged role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
Iraq has also provided financial support for Palestinian terror groups, including Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Palestine Liberation Front, and the Arab Liberation Front, and it channeled money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. In April 2002, Iraq increased the amount of such payments from $10,000 to $25,000. Experts say that by promoting Israeli-Palestinian violence, Saddam may have hoped to make it harder for the United States to win Arab support for a campaign against Iraq.
]
Post by: The Rabbi on January 02, 2007, 12:24:13 PM
Post by: richyoung on January 02, 2007, 12:28:25 PM
RichYoung, that might be the best post I have seen from you. Factual, accurate, making great points. Too bad it won't do any good.
I know we have had, and continue to have differences of opinion, but the war against Islamo-Fascism is a war for the very survival of western civilization, and we only get once chance to loose... everything post 9/11 is different, and right now, Israel is on the front lines of this fight.
Post by: LAK on January 03, 2007, 12:30:18 AM
Quote
and are guided merely by a knee-jerk reflex to distrust government or just the US govt
This is very far from the truth. Which is what this is basically all about; truths vs falsehoods. In this case, as in many other cases I could refer to - a big, bloody and costly fraud.
Running up to the great gulf fraud George Herbert Walker Bush repeated the outright lies in public speeches, as did Dan Quayle, conjured up by George H W's former Chief of Staff, Craig Fuller and his PR firm for $10m and performed by budding, weeping actress Nayirah.
The teary eyed fifteen year old was a real academy award candidate. Before members of our Congress she testified that she had seen Hussein's storm troopers "throwing babies out of incubators" in Kuwait - but claimed she could not give her name for "fear of reprisals".
When the truth came out, not only was Nayirah not in Kuwait for any of this alleged atrocity, she just happened to be the daughter of Sheik yo'money Saud Nasir al-Sabah - Kuwait's Ambassador to the United States. Even Amnesty International was dignified enough to issue a retraction. Not George H W Bush; he had won over a sceptical Congress and a good slice of the gullible public with "Saddam is murdering babies". Which had been obligingly drummed coast to coast by the "liberal-left-we-hate-Bush-media" - and were not as fervent in spreading the news of the truth later on.
You see, you just can not trust people who lie, or people that suppport them whether it is before, during or after the fact. Liars lie.
--------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: LAK on January 03, 2007, 02:49:03 AM
RE: "We didn't bust Saddam merely for being the Butcher of Baghdad."
LAK wrote: "Right, and this underscores my main point."
Quote
...so, because it wasn't the SOLE reason, we get no credit for it???
There were a number of purported reasons; among them that he was some kind of "butcher". I have already stated why we are in Iraq, and none of the reasons warrant any "credit" for the murder of an untold number of Iraqi people, the murder of a great many civilized and educated people, to rile up a huge number who are not - who in turn have had years of free reign in the vast areas of Iraq that we do not have control - to murder a great many more.. And to sacrifice our soldiers in the process, and drain our resources. LAK: "This is a bone of contention as far as I am concerned. There were no proven WMD"
Quote
Nizar Nayuf (Nayyouf-Nayyuf), a Syrian journalist who recently defected from Syria to Western Europe and is known for bravely challenging the Syrian regime, said in a letter Monday, January 5, to Dutch newspaper “De Telegraaf,” that he knows the three sites where Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) are kept.
Really? And who exactly is Nizar Nayuf - another British intel recruit? Another crook like Mr. Chalabi? Who vetted this guy? If he has been "bravely challenging the Syrian regime" - why has he waited so long to suddenly tell a Royal Dutch Shell news rag "he knows"?As in the case of G H W Bush's starring actress, I am sure that they will not have much trouble cobbling together some "evidence" with gullible eye appeal and bury it in the desert somewhere and send in a team of more gullibles to "discover" it.
Quote
Doctor Gary Samore of the International Institute for Strategic Studies noted that during the 2003 invasion, there was "chatter" among Iraqi forces that was interpreted to mean that a chemical weapons attack was ordered.
"Chatter"? This buzzword has been bandied around since 9/11, and so long it is pitiful; as if calculated educated people engaged in a war, or have a plan to hit one or more targets for a particular reason, must get all worked up about it - and "chatter" beforehand using means that even a high school punk would know could be intercepted and traced.
Quote
On 3 February 2004, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw announced an independent inquiry, to be chaired by Lord Butler of Brockwell, to examine the reliability of British intelligence relating to alleged weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.[72]
Jack Straw? A familiar name in british politics to me, as I lived there for a decade and a half. Jack is global socialist, like his boss comrade Blair.
Quote
"We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government's dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that 'The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa' was well-founded."
An "independent" report issued by Baron Von Butler? Butler has been a permanent fixture in high level british gov regardless of party since Harold Wilson. His springboard was largely his position at the Bank of England; one of the wonderful leaders in fleecing serf's of their wealth. Post invasion Iraqis, now "liberated" from their awful civilized, educated and cultured "oppression" can look forward to a similar economic enslavement. Those that have survived that is.
There is as good a chance that the Niger deal was a british intel concoction.
Quote
On May 2, 2004 a shell containing mustard gas, was found in the middle of street west of Baghdad.
Wouldn't surprize me. I'd bet that there is not a country in the middle east that if enough people looked hard and long enough, more of the same or similar items could be found. Reminds me of the bazooka shells, grenades and other fascinating artifacts that turn up in urban dumpsters here from time to time, make the news, and get people all excited.
Quote
On May 16, 2004 a 152mm artillery shell was used as an improvised bomb.(Iraq's Chemical Warfare Program Annex F. Retrieved on 2005-06-29.) The shell exploded and two U.S. soldiers were treated for minor exposure to a nerve agent (nausea and dilated pupils). On May 18 it was reported by U.S. Department of Defense intelligence officials that tests showed the two-chambered shell contained the chemical agent sarin, the shell being "likely" to have contained three to four liters of the substance.
"Sarin" made or imported by who? Improvised bomb by who? Fired by who? Saddam Hussein?
What "intelligence officials"? Does not our department of defense have a head? A named party who would make a public statement positively affirming such if it were in fact true? If not - why not? But look up sarin anyway; see what "three or four liters" of sarin would have been certain to do - if it had in fact been sarin, and burst in the vacinity of two people.
Quote
After he was captured by U.S. forces in Baghdad in 2003, Dr. Mahdi Obeidi, who ran Saddam's nuclear centrifuge program until 1997, handed over blueprints for a nuclear centrifuge along with some actual centrifuge components, stored at his home — buried in the front yard — awaiting orders from Baghdad to proceed.
Really? And what public official publicly stated this as fact for the record?Why, after an invasion would such "blueprints" not be cast onto a hasty fire? Unless the conscience stricken Obeidi had kept them to sink his leaders after the invasion. Are we to believe that he was some kind of "captive" dissident Iraqi scientist all these years?
Quote
October 3, 2003 - David Kay's Iraq Survey Group report that finds no stockpiles of WMD in Iraq, although it states the government intended to develop more weapons with additional capabilities. Weapons inspectors in Iraq do find some "biological laboratories" and a collection of "reference strains", including a strain of botulinum bacteria, "ought to have been declared to the UN." Kay testifies that Iraq had not fully complied with UN inspections. In some cases, equipment and materials subject to UN monitoring had been kept hidden from UN inspectors. "So there was a WMD program. It was going ahead. It was rudimentary in many areas," Kay would say in a later interview. In other cases, Iraq had simply lied to the UN in its weapons programs. ... [ETC]
How did Mr Kay establish this evidence of "intent". He a mind reader or do they have documents that were presented to our gov, analysed and proven geniune and archived for inspection?
Quote
"We have not yet found stocks of weapons, but we are not yet at the point where we can say definitively either that such weapon stocks do not exist or that they existed before the war and our only task is to find where they have gone. We are actively engaged in searching for such weapons based on information being supplied to us by Iraqis."
Not only is this inconclusive, merely speculative - it is post invasion. This is like burning down a house, murdering part of a family who resist - and then hunting for "evidence" to support what you have done after the fact.
Quote
"With regard to delivery systems, the ISG team has discovered sufficient evidence to date to conclude that the Iraqi regime was committed to delivery system improvements that would have, if OIF had not occurred, dramatically breached UN restrictions placed on Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War."
Well, you know what I think of the great gulf fraud, and why. The "U.N." is an international criminal cartel with a global socialist agenda. Their crimes in aggregate since WW2 make any transgressions by Saddam Hussein appear rather small.
Quote
"We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002."
And finally, let's consider that Iraq was a sovereign nation, and would have been expected as such to pursue the means to defend itself from anyone else in the region.
LAK: and had I been Hussein - I would have told the "U.N." to get stuffed as well.
Quote
Actions have consequences.
They sure do; you can't dance with the devil and walk away. But then the oligarchs who front people like George Bush have no intention of walking away from their international criminal cartel cronies.
Quote: We didn't invade merely because he had supported Islamic and Palestinian terrorism and was eager to do more along those lines.
LAK: I don't buy this for a second.
Quote
In a January 26, 2004 interview with Tom Brokaw of NBC news, Mr. Kay described Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs as being in a "rudimentary" stage. He also stated that "What we did find, and as others are investigating it, we found a lot of terrorist groups and individuals that passed through Iraq."[98]
"Passing through"? If I had the time, I would post a list of the countless publicized incidents of people in and around our gov, elected and appointed officials that have more then passing connections to some very interesting people and organizations over the last several decades.
Let's revisit the reluctant FBI's stonewalling over the release of the identities of one hundred or so foreigners - Saudis - who flew or were flown out of this country immediately after 9/11 while every one else was grounded.
Who were they? While we are at it, who were the lucky investors who placed large and significant put options on American Airlines and United Airlines stock right before - within days - of 9/11? Where are the indictments? Who is protecting them?
Quote
In responding to a question by Mr. Brokaw as to whether Iraq was a "gathering threat" as President Bush had asserted before the invasion, Mr. Kay answered:
Tom, an imminent threat is a political judgment. It’s not a technical judgment. I think Baghdad was actually becoming more dangerous in the last two years than even we realized. Saddam was not controlling the society any longer. In the marketplace of terrorism and of WMD, Iraq well could have been that supplier if the war had not intervened.
Tom, an imminent threat is a political judgment. It’s not a technical judgment. I think Baghdad was actually becoming more dangerous in the last two years than even we realized. Saddam was not controlling the society any longer. In the marketplace of terrorism and of WMD, Iraq well could have been that supplier if the war had not intervened.
This is avoiding the fact that pre-invasion disruptions were largely a result of UN sanctions; food and other shortages. I have a BBC(UK)/NHK(Japan) film documentary series made in 1979 that includes Iraq; there is a sharp contrast between what has been thrown around about life in general in that country and what was apparent then.
LAK: Hussein was fairly educated, starting in the late 70s began to start a major industrial program.
Quote
...which included the Osirik nuclear reactor. Why does a country with that much oil need a nuclear reactor? For bonus points, describe the god Osiris for whom the reactor complex was named, and list key events in the race for the Islamic Bomb.
We have plenty of oil - why do we need them?
Osiris? Was that on a plaque at the gate? Or from elsewhere?
If Saddam Hussein was such an islam-o-looney; why was he protecting one million Chaldean catholics all these years from them? Why is it that a million catholics lived and practiced with complete freedom in Iraq under Saddam Hussein, whereas almost everywhere else in the middle east they can not?
LAK:Even if Hussein had been involved in some questionable activities, getting involved with Islamic loonies (the very ones that were a threat to civilized Iraq and his government to begin with) and "terrorists" would be literal suicide - national and personal. He and all around him would have known this without a shadow of a doubt.
Quote
Former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein provided bases, training camps, and other support to terrorist groups fighting the governments of neighboring Turkey and Iran
Really? I thought it was Iran that was now a bigger islamo-bogieman than Iraq. Which is it going to be? But this is a ridiculous inclusion; we supplied all kinds of stuff to the Hussein gov to fight Iran for a long time. Turkey has had it's own agenda with the border region of Iraq for a long time. Who cares? Turkey has a wonderful reputation of it's own.
Quote
as well as to Palestinian terror groups. Iraq has helped the Iranian dissident group Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, the Kurdistan Workers' Party, a separatist organization fighting the Turkish government, and several far-left Palestinian splinter groups that oppose peace with Israel.
Which palestinian terror groups? Helped in what way? The state of Israel was funding Hamas at one time - so what?
Funny, the Hussein gov was fighting Kurds as well. Perhaps the Turks have committed more alleged atrocities against Kurds than Iraq. But the red kurds are getting alot of attention in "liberated" Iraq. What if they "democratically" obtain a significant part in postwar Iraq? Who are they murdering in Iraq now in all the vast areas we do not control?
Quote
Iraq also hosted the mercenary Abu Nidal Organization, whose leader was found dead in Baghdad in August 2002.
"Hosted" meaning precisely who, what, where and how?
Quote
Saddam was a secular dictator, and his regime generally tended to support secular terrorist groups rather than Islamists such as al-Qaeda, experts say.
This reads like part of a CNN transcript.
Quote
But Iraq also supported some Islamist Palestinian groups opposed to Israel.
There are plenty of christians in Palestine who could not give a rat's tail about the state of Israel either.
Quote
and In violation of international law, Iraq has also sheltered specific terrorists wanted by other countries, reportedly including:
Abu Nidal, who, until he was found dead in Baghdad in August 2002, led an organization responsible for attacks that killed some 300 people.
- Palestine Liberation Front leader Abu Abbas, who was responsible for the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Laurocruise ship in the Mediterranean. Abbas was captured by U.S. forces April 15.
Abu Nidal, who, until he was found dead in Baghdad in August 2002, led an organization responsible for attacks that killed some 300 people.
- Palestine Liberation Front leader Abu Abbas, who was responsible for the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Laurocruise ship in the Mediterranean. Abbas was captured by U.S. forces April 15.
You mean like Chechen rebel leader Aslan Maskhadov's spokesman's Akhmed Zakayev given asylum by Comrade Blair's gov wanted by Russian authorities? And Ilyas Akhmadov given asylum under George Bush?
"It is strange that a country that has suffered from terror and is waging an armed struggle against in jointly with Russia has granted political asylum to Ilyas Akhmadov, who is on the international wanted list .... " - Mikhail Margelov, Federation Council (international relations committee) 08/06/04
Very strange indeed.
Quote
- Two Saudis who hijacked a Saudi Arabian Airlines flight to Baghdad in 2000.
Abdul Rahman Yasin, who is on the FBI's "most wanted terrorists" list for his alleged role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
Abdul Rahman Yasin, who is on the FBI's "most wanted terrorists" list for his alleged role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
Maybe Hussein is protecting the identities of the appointed or elected officials who stonewalled our FBI agents who were hot on the trail of the 9/11 suspects.
Quote
Iraq has also provided financial support for Palestinian terror groups, including Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Palestine Liberation Front, and the Arab Liberation Front, and it channeled money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.
So has the state of Israel. In addition to getting caught funding Hamas, the state of Israel has also staged terror attacks of it's own - going back to Operation Suzannah.Quote
In April 2002, Iraq increased the amount of such payments from $10,000 to $25,000. Experts say that by promoting Israeli-Palestinian violence, Saddam may have hoped to make it harder for the United States to win Arab support for a campaign against Iraq.
Funny, the "experts" writing the 9/11 report couldn't tell us anything about the funding of that operation, or who and how someone(s) knew exactly when to dump a pile of United Airlines and American Airlines stock in the last week of august 2001 and the first week of september 2001 - but they can tell us all about what Saddam Hussein has been doing.
----------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 03, 2007, 02:56:55 AM
The knee-jerk comment is one of those that applies to Ezekiel, and not to you. Other than that, blah, blah, blah. I'm trying to figure out why it would matter, to our decision to invade Iraq, whether one of his atrocities was the fabrication of some, uh, whoever you said he was. Is it your contention that every story of Baathist outrages in Iraq was trumped up? If not, what is the point? That Bush I was taken in by someone twenty years ago?
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 03, 2007, 03:05:17 AM
Quote
I have already stated why we are in Iraq, and none of the reasons warrant any "credit" for the murder of an untold number of Iraqi people, the murder of a great many civilized and educated people, to rile up a huge number who are not - who in turn have had years of free reign in the vast areas of Iraq that we do not have control - to murder a great many more.
Read carefully, LAK. You cannot state why we are in Iraq, so don't claim to. You have proven that you cannot possibly comprehend why we are there. Not for lack of intelligence or because you don't want to read the details of these matters. But because you refuse to evaluate these things honestly and consistently. I hope you do not live in my country; if you do, GET OUT! How dare you blame the US for the fact that Middle Easterners are benighted by hatred. It is not our fault that they refuse to live under anything but utter tyranny or bitter tribalism. We liberated them. That is an irreducible fact. If they can't live up to it, we are not to blame. How dare you?
Post by: 280plus on January 03, 2007, 03:45:50 AM
"Just a swingin'... "
Post by: Iain on January 03, 2007, 04:32:10 AM
http://www.cfr.org/publication/7702/
Post by: 280plus on January 03, 2007, 07:41:04 AM
Post by: mountainclmbr on January 03, 2007, 01:37:08 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on January 03, 2007, 08:35:29 PM
It is Wednesday and he is still dead.
Not only is he still dead, but the world is still a better place because of it.This discussion reminds me of the opening scenes of the recent James Bond movie. Bond catches a terrorist bomb-maker, but he gets caught. Right before making his grand escape, Bond kills the terrorist. The murder is caught on tape and proves to be a huge scandal for Britain and the intelligence service. Bond's boss rips him a new one for failing to exercise good judgment. Bond responds "I did exercise good judgment. I judged that one less terrorist bomb-maker in the world would be a good thing."
Post by: LAK on January 04, 2007, 12:32:28 AM
I certainly can state why we are in iraq; there is no mystery to this as it goes back not only a couple of decades, but back to the first decade of the 20th century. The only fools in this arguement are those that have a mental block when it comes to geo-political history and live in attention span modules of a decade or less - and seem to think that somehow every time some criminal in the WH or any other significant department of our government is given a free pass everything starts with a clean slate.
If you think the removal of Hussein and his hanging was something to rejoice about - dance away. But don't try and tell me that what has been wrought upon an enormous number of innocent people there was somehow worth the price.
I was born here, served here - and was prepared to die doing so if necessary - to defend it. This is my country - not yours to tell me where to go or not.
[end]
--------------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 04, 2007, 03:00:41 AM
Post by: 280plus on January 04, 2007, 04:34:22 AM
Post by: LAK on January 05, 2007, 12:26:22 AM
And we do need to put the brakes on this insane, murderous and perverse geo-politcal agenda of theirs, and detach ourselves except perhaps in some very limited and controlled trade with those countries whose governments are riding ideologies contrary or hostile to our own. That includes that body of international criminals which calls itself the "United Nations".
In the interests of security we need to get control of - as far as possible - secure our national borders, and get those people in this country that don't belong here OUT and keep them out. This is what the WH should have set to immediately on September 12th, 2001, and been in full swing within a couple of weeks of that event. We had the troop strength, and a declared state of national emergency would have covered the legal bases and been more than justified. The fact that they did not do so indicates that their "war on terrorism" (which is the erroneous use of language) is a fraud, and a vehicle and means for something else.
Just as there is of course no such thing as a "war on terrorism", there is no such thing as a "solution to terrorism". A nation can only secure it's borders as far as possible, ensure that those who should not be there are not allowed to do so, and thoroughly vet anyone that wants to come in, and promote a stable culture.
I would limit visas for third world nations to student only - whereby they must have a special endorsement of their true identity by their home gov, are allowed to attend schools and universities here only for the duration of their course - then return back to their country of origin and put it to good use. Anyone who outstays their visa is sought out and deported for good.
It is simply undeniable that the actions and inactions of the Bush administration have left us wide open and significantly contributed toward our destruction as a distinct nation. His geo-political agenda with his cronies north and south are going to finish the job, now to be taken up by the "other party".
Is George W Bush really that stupid? No, I don't buy it for a second. He knows exactly what he has been doing in regards to our security. He's a fraud, as are his cronies in crime. It's more than disgusting that our military is being used as a tool in this, as it was in the case of serbia under another perverted thug - William Clinton.
----------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: The Rabbi on January 05, 2007, 02:36:10 AM
The solution? Iraq was not a problem to begin with. There was never any solution needed to Iraq - at least nothing that warranted a military invasion and the destruction of it's infrastructure, and the death of thousands of Iraqis, and many more thousands set up for it through a lack of control and order. While Iraq has been made to appear to be our problem, the outright lies, contradictions and inconsistancies betray those who have engineered this facade.
I would like some of what you've been taking.
Iraq had a long history of supporting terrorists (the mastermind of the Achille Lauro was found in Baghdad when we invaded), supporting terror (Saddam paid $15,000 to the family of every suicide bomber in Israel), terrorizing other states (Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia by threat anyway), and terrorizing his own people. There was additionally prima facie evidence that he was mainaining weapons in violation of previously signed accords. There is actual evidence that he had development programs for WMD and was planning to start them after sanctions were lifted. Further, he subverted sanctions through bribery of UN officials and others. He also plotted actively to assasinate the president. Moreover he was in violation of numerous UN resolutions, some of which explicitly promised military action if he failed to comply. The UN proved itself spineless in not backing up its threats (as they continue to do with Iran). The US simply made good on those threats.
These facts are well-known and incontrovertible. A president considering the intelligence picture, the history and the known facts would be grossly negligent of his duties if he failed to act decisively. Fortunately this one did. It was a tough decision and things havent always gone the way we'd like. But it is too easy to sit back now and pretend that there was never any threat, now that the threat has been removed.
Post by: 280plus on January 05, 2007, 03:30:50 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 05, 2007, 07:34:21 AM
In the big picture, the Iraq war has at least drawn the terrorists away from the soft targets here at home. I am beginning to think this was a major reason for the Iraq war, but one Bush couldn't announce beforehand and probably wouldn't admit now. How would it look for Bush to say, as many have said, that "at least they're over there and not here"? It wouldn't take long for the press, the terrorists, anti-American interests in Iraq and elsewhere to realize a possible implication of this statement; that Americans don't care if Iraq is terrorized, so long as we are not. That would be a fine thing for the President to imply, wouldn't it?
But it IS better for the terrorists to attack in Iraq than here. The 9/11 attacks were a major humiliation for America and the whole western world, and a huge boost to Islamist ambitions. Why? Because two to three thousand Americans died? Because our economy suffered a temporary setback? Because a major military nerve center was physically damaged and took casualties? No. The decisive victory was in the demonstration that America is at the mercy of bin Laden's whim. That the mighty super-power can be struck in its very heart. That no American is safe, anywhere, from the hand of Allah's faithful. And so on.
But what happens when terrorists strike in Iraq? First of all, they tend to get offed by American military and sometimes by the soldiers of the alleged puppet government. Secondly, they kill far more Iraqis than Americans. Thirdly, their terrorist intentions are often taken for sectarian infighting. In the big picture, we have put the terrorists where we want them, while Americans sit comfortably in their high rise buildings and attend the Superbowl without incident. And Osama can only respond by making scary tapes. Saddam Hussein, symbol of defiance to America, hides in a hole in the ground, throws fits before judges, and then gets unceremoniously hanged.
Unfortunately, the media has been so insistently negative on Iraq on and America's intentions there, that the Iraq war has been just as bad for American prestige as another severe terrorist attack on American soil would have been.
Post by: LAK on January 08, 2007, 12:32:53 AM
Quote
I would like some of what you've been taking
Nothing. I flushed all the pills, capsules and shots containing emotional bias and influence triggered by decades of "education" and carefully crafted propaganda in various forms, and historical amnesia, compartmentalization, and distractive entertainments.
Quote
A president considering the intelligence picture, the history and the known facts would be grossly negligent of his duties if he failed to act decisively. Fortunately this one did.
"This one" is a big, criminal, fraud. Were he not, he would have shut our own border down in the first days or weeks following September 11th 2001. His compliance with the geo-political agenda in the middle east has nothing to do with our security.
Our immediate security problem is within our government; people with no solid allegience to this country or any other, foreign - hostile to the United States - ideologies, and spies. And a few significant nations like China.
There is no country in the middle east that has the brains or means to be a threat to the United States, if the government of the United States does what it used to do many decades ago, and is supposed to have been doing all along. Ceases to deal with any government of any nation in the middle east except in regards to very limited trade, and stop meddling in their affairs.
There is nothing we need from the middle east that can not be found all over or under our own landmasses and continental shelf.
---------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: LAK on January 08, 2007, 01:03:24 AM
Quote
There's an old saying, "The best defense is a good offense." in this "war on Terror' that you call a fraud it is better put, "The ONLY defense is a good offense." So don't talk about sitting back and strengthening our defenses while our enemy builds his offense against us, tell us about YOUR offense. [etc]
See my post to the Rabbi above.
We do need to go on the offensive; against the elements I have cited above. And get those people out of this country who do not belong here and send them home. All of them.
We need to cut off the feeding tube to that monster known as China before it becomes big enough to swallow us whole. The day is not far off. Russia is not nearly as weak as it has been made to appear. That is another problem.
If the global socialists in europe want to support and perpetuate global socialism in the middle east and central asia, bring it under economic slavery and plunder the resources - them them do it with their blood and money. Not ours.
-----------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: 280plus on January 08, 2007, 02:05:54 AM
Quote
And get those people out of this country who do not belong here and send them home. All of them.
Unfortunately that idea, while it has merit, is logistically impossible. Let's just use that 11 million figure. How are you going to RELIABLY FIND, round up and deport 11 million people? It would take a terrific amount of manpower and money. I don't agree that the Iraq war is all a big gov conspiracy, I believe it was a good logical step toward winning the global war on terrorism and I still support it. Least ways, we've been making it a bit harder for these people to gather and train to wage war against us. Plus, up to this point, it's been showing the rest of the world that we are NOT paper tigers and that we will commit and stand by our commitment. Besides, and this is the part I love. Before ANY of this BS over WMD and the like Saddam had renegged on his GW1 agreement to let inspectors in to assure there WERE no WMD being produced. When he started denying them access there was nothing else to do but assume it was because he had some agenda in the way of WMD. That would be a logical conclusion. If he has nothing to hide, why restrict the inspectors? That fact ALONE was enough, in my mind, for us to invade and put a stop to whatever he might be doing and, quite honestly, I was one who was wondering what took us so long to get in there. But then, we know Bill was too busy with getting little Willy wet at the time. The very first time he gave the inspectors trouble, we should have been knocking on his palace door.
Post by: The Rabbi on January 08, 2007, 03:25:01 AM
The Rabbi
Nothing. I flushed all the pills, capsules and shots containing emotional bias and influence triggered by decades of "education" and carefully crafted propaganda in various forms, and historical amnesia, compartmentalization, and distractive entertainments.
Nothing. I flushed all the pills, capsules and shots containing emotional bias and influence triggered by decades of "education" and carefully crafted propaganda in various forms, and historical amnesia, compartmentalization, and distractive entertainments.
"This one" is a big, criminal, fraud. Were he not, he would have shut our own border down in the first days or weeks following September 11th 2001. His compliance with the geo-political agenda in the middle east has nothing to do with our security.
Nah, no emotional bias here. Just plain facts speaking.....
Post by: LAK on January 09, 2007, 12:30:15 AM
Quote
Unfortunately that idea, while it has merit, is logistically impossible. Let's just use that 11 million figure. How are you going to RELIABLY FIND, round up and deport 11 million people?
Certainly more feasible and effective than chasing Al Kidya and a thousand other groups, and who knows how many millions all over the globe.
Allowing an enormous number of question marks to remain roaming our own territory is insanity. The Bush administration's insistance on doing this either proves theirs, or that there is another agenda underneath. The former is ridiculous, and contrary to what is a popular view, George Bush is not that stupid, or insane. He knows exactly what he is doing.
You can believe whatever nonsense you choose to believe. The "war on terror" is a sideshow; it is never going to end, and is simply an instigated means to an end.
------------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: LAK on January 09, 2007, 12:32:24 AM
Quote
"This one" is a big, criminal, fraud. Were he not, he would have shut our own border down in the first days or weeks following September 11th 2001. His compliance with the geo-political agenda in the middle east has nothing to do with our security.
That's a fact. We are wide open, right here.
----------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: 280plus on January 09, 2007, 01:52:18 AM
Why don't you describe exactly what this "geopolitical agenda in the middle east" is. What IS GWB's TRUE agenda there that most of the rest of us can't see? What are his goals?
Post by: The Rabbi on January 09, 2007, 02:19:33 AM
Facts, Rabbi?
That's a fact. We are wide open, right here.
----------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Quote
"This one" is a big, criminal, fraud. Were he not, he would have shut our own border down in the first days or weeks following September 11th 2001. His compliance with the geo-political agenda in the middle east has nothing to do with our security.
That's a fact. We are wide open, right here.
----------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
It is a fact that Pres Bush is a "big, criminal fraud"?? What court has convicted him? What charges has he faced?
As for "shutting down the border" do you have any idea how much cross-border traffic there is, on both the Canadian and Mexican side? Do you know how much disruption would have occurred doing that, even if it were feasible?
No, you have no idea. You don't care either. You are only interested in declaring Pres Bush a "big criminal fraud" because that description soothes you and confirms your general world view. That the view has nothing to substantiate it is immaterial. Because you care nothing for facts or argumentation. ALmost every post of yours is filled with left-wing rhetoric of no substance at all. It is laughable.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 09, 2007, 03:12:50 AM
Quote
Certainly more feasible and effective than chasing Al Kidya and a thousand other groups, and who knows how many millions all over the globe.
Which is why we're engaging them in Iraq. The more we talk about this, the more I'm convinced that the Iraq invasion was mainly for that purpose. It didn't have to be Iraq, but we had to be somewhere, killing Islamic militant fruitcakes. As soon as we halt our "imperialistic war-mongering," they will have the initiative again, and they will use it.
Post by: 280plus on January 09, 2007, 08:50:06 AM
Quote
who knows how many millions all over the globe.
We may not know how many but we DO know it's less than there were a few years ago.Post by: LAK on January 10, 2007, 12:09:16 AM
Quote
It is a fact that Pres Bush is a "big, criminal fraud"?? What court has convicted him? What charges has he faced?
As for "shutting down the border" do you have any idea how much cross-border traffic there is, on both the Canadian and Mexican side? Do you know how much disruption would have occurred doing that, even if it were feasible?
No, you have no idea. You don't care either. You are only interested in declaring Pres Bush a "big criminal fraud" because that description soothes you and confirms your general world view. That the view has nothing to substantiate it is immaterial. Because you care nothing for facts or argumentation. ALmost every post of yours is filled with left-wing rhetoric of no substance at all. It is laughable.
George W Bush is a fraud in his presentation of himself as a political figure and his active role in the current agenda along with people like his fellow comrade Tony Blair. He is no conservative, he is a global socialist. I have covered all this indepth on this forum, and where applicable on THR and also TFL.As for "shutting down the border" do you have any idea how much cross-border traffic there is, on both the Canadian and Mexican side? Do you know how much disruption would have occurred doing that, even if it were feasible?
No, you have no idea. You don't care either. You are only interested in declaring Pres Bush a "big criminal fraud" because that description soothes you and confirms your general world view. That the view has nothing to substantiate it is immaterial. Because you care nothing for facts or argumentation. ALmost every post of yours is filled with left-wing rhetoric of no substance at all. It is laughable.
George is not from Texas, he was born into the northeastern oligarchy like his fraternal brother and relative John Kerry. If the issues involved were not so serious and critical I would find your ignorance, or pretense of ignorance - whichever one it is - absolutely hilarious.
If you want to play dumb go right ahead, but I am not going to repeaat what has already been thoroughly covered in a great many threads spanning dozens of specific issues around him and all his cronies.
Me "leftwing"? You are suffering amnesia again. And his partner in crime Tony Blair is as socialist as it gets. If we can not secure our own borders and nation there is not a snowball's chance of "winning" a so-called "war on terror" in a hundred foreign countries.
------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: LAK on January 10, 2007, 12:23:57 AM
The islamic fruitcakes are spread all over europe in great numbers, in south america, africa, china, the philipines, indonesia, burma, india, pakistan and every other 'stan on the map. Going into Iraq on the pretense of having any significant effect on these people is like jumping all over one nest of fire ants, in one yard, in one neighborhood.
Take a trip to and spend a couple of weeks in Birmingham or London in the UK these days as just a couple of examples.
If we want to rid ourselves of these people they need to be all driven out of europe and north america. One, twos, dozens, hundreds, thousands at a time.
-------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: The Rabbi on January 10, 2007, 02:26:30 AM
Quote
It is a fact that Pres Bush is a "big, criminal fraud"?? What court has convicted him? What charges has he faced?
As for "shutting down the border" do you have any idea how much cross-border traffic there is, on both the Canadian and Mexican side? Do you know how much disruption would have occurred doing that, even if it were feasible?
No, you have no idea. You don't care either. You are only interested in declaring Pres Bush a "big criminal fraud" because that description soothes you and confirms your general world view. That the view has nothing to substantiate it is immaterial. Because you care nothing for facts or argumentation. ALmost every post of yours is filled with left-wing rhetoric of no substance at all. It is laughable.
George W Bush is a fraud in his presentation of himself as a political figure and his active role in the current agenda along with people like his fellow comrade Tony Blair. He is no conservative, he is a global socialist. I have covered all this indepth on this forum, and where applicable on THR and also TFL.As for "shutting down the border" do you have any idea how much cross-border traffic there is, on both the Canadian and Mexican side? Do you know how much disruption would have occurred doing that, even if it were feasible?
No, you have no idea. You don't care either. You are only interested in declaring Pres Bush a "big criminal fraud" because that description soothes you and confirms your general world view. That the view has nothing to substantiate it is immaterial. Because you care nothing for facts or argumentation. ALmost every post of yours is filled with left-wing rhetoric of no substance at all. It is laughable.
George is not from Texas, he was born into the northeastern oligarchy like his fraternal brother and relative John Kerry. If the issues involved were not so serious and critical I would find your ignorance, or pretense of ignorance - whichever one it is - absolutely hilarious.
If you want to play dumb go right ahead, but I am not going to repeaat what has already been thoroughly covered in a great many threads spanning dozens of specific issues around him and all his cronies.
Me "leftwing"? You are suffering amnesia again. And his partner in crime Tony Blair is as socialist as it gets. If we can not secure our own borders and nation there is not a snowball's chance of "winning" a so-called "war on terror" in a hundred foreign countries.
------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
So Pres Bush's "criminal fraud" consists of passing himself off as being from Texas when in fact he was born in the North east? You'll have to do better than that to pass the laugh test. The rest of the post is equally well considered.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 10, 2007, 03:13:56 AM
Quote
Going into Iraq on the pretense of having any significant effect on these people is like jumping all over one nest of fire ants, in one yard, in one neighborhood.
What do you not understand about taking the initiative, setting the timetable, and so on? Quote
He is no conservative, he is a global socialist.
Just so I understand, you're saying that Bush is a liar or a fraud because his conservatism is not as pronounced as yours, mine, or John Q. RepublicanBase? That does not compute.
Post by: LAK on January 10, 2007, 10:54:15 PM
George Bush has literally sold this country out in so many ways it is pitful, and shameful. If you want to play dumb continue to do so.
Fistful
Quote
What do you not understand about taking the initiative, setting the timetable, and so on?
Initiative, timetable? On dealing with a literally innumerable number of dangerous lunatics spread all over the earth in perhaps forty or fifty or more foreign countries? Get real.Let's start with timetable. Just what is the timetable for this venture? Ten years per country? A hundred per continent? Who is going to foot the bill for this "war" that never ends? Are we going to start cloning soldiers to fill the ranks worldwide?
Quote
Just so I understand, you're saying that Bush is a liar or a fraud because his conservatism is not as pronounced as yours, mine, or John Q. RepublicanBase? That does not compute.
Not as pronounced? Good grief man. If you do not really know, do a search on TFL, THR and this forum using my user name, and keywords Bush conservative global etc. Then come back and tell me this is a matter "not as prounounced as [mine]".
--------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: The Rabbi on January 11, 2007, 02:33:55 AM
Rabbi,
George Bush has literally sold this country out in so many ways it is pitful, and shameful. If you want to play dumb continue to do so.
George Bush has literally sold this country out in so many ways it is pitful, and shameful. If you want to play dumb continue to do so.
He literally sold this country? To whom did he sell it? Did he take seller's terms? Where is the bill of sale? What was the consideration?
LAK, you say you are giving facts. If you cannot recognize the difference between facts and gaseous rhetoric then you have no business posting here. So far all you have exhibited is gaseous rhetoric of a particularly empty kind.
You haven't provided a single fact (other than George Bush was not born in Texas). You have sloshed out left-wing swill (or is it right-wing swill? I'm not sure there's a difference) and countered every question or argument with more of the same. This just won't do.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 11, 2007, 03:10:46 AM
Post by: Ezekiel on January 11, 2007, 03:15:24 AM
--------------------------------------
BUSH WORKS TO SELL TROOP BUILDUP PLAN
By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer 15 minutes ago
The Bush administration worked Thursday to persuade a skeptical Congress and American public to accept President Bush's troop buildup plan as the last best chance for reversing Iraq's slide. "We cannot afford to fail," said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
The plan that Bush unveiled the night before in a prime-time address to the nation headed straight into a political gale in Congress, with Democrats, some Republicans and an organized anti-war movement lined up against it.
Bush's new strategy increases U.S. forces in Iraq by 21,500 and demands greater cooperation from the Iraqi government.
Lawmakers were quick to pounce as Rice, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and other administration officials headed to Capitol Hill and Bush planned to visit Fort Benning, Ga. to sell the plan.
Before her testimony at a congressional hearing, Rice defended the buildup on morning television news shows. "The most important message is ... the enormous stakes we have in Iraq, that in fact we cannot afford to fail," she told CBS' "The Early Show."
She said that Bush considered many options "but believes that this is the best. First, we have to give it the best chance to work and we need the support of Congress, of the American people," Rice said.
Democratic opponents also made the rounds of morning shows. "We're not going to baby sit a civil war," Sen. Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record), D-Ill., told NBC's "Today" Show. He said the Democratic-controlled Congress would not undercut troops already in Iraq but would explore ways to restrict the president from expanding the mission.
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., told CBS that since the new Democratic-led Congress convened last week, "questions are now being asked of this administration that haven't been asked for almost four years."
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 11, 2007, 03:24:30 AM
Or, he could let our troops be more agressive in hitting the bad guys. Then, even if Iraq suddenly became a green and peaceful vacation spot, we'd hear the moaning of Ezekiel and friends that we're "no better than the enemy," and "forcing our way of life on the Iraqis." Blah, blah, blah.
Post by: Ezekiel on January 11, 2007, 04:10:35 AM
"It is difficult to imagine how Iraq can end as a success -- as an enterprise in which the benefits exceed the costs." -- George Will
I look forward to Sen. Biden's hearings on Iraq, beginning this week.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 11, 2007, 04:24:46 AM
Post by: Ezekiel on January 11, 2007, 04:40:08 AM
Hope you enjoy watching your heros run off at the mouth at how they would have done a better job in Iraq.
(sigh) Not even close.
It will merely be nice to perceive that some actual thought has gone into the matter, as opposed to the ill-conceived and poorly-executed quagmire we're now in.
As for every detail being shreddred, such only occurs when details deserve to be done so. Besides, we're not telling the "enemy" anything that they didn't know first: our planning and execution has been a raging cluster from Day One. (No big secrets there.)
When America fades, it will not be due to people who query, it will be due to those who blindly follow.
"Thanks."
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 11, 2007, 05:09:53 AM
Quote
As for every detail being shreddred, such only occurs when details deserve to be done so.
Huh? So you accuse the Bush administration of one huge blunder after another, but you expect another bunch of politicians to exercise perfect judgement? Politicians who need to score points with their base by beating up the President? Politicians from the party that has no guts and no brains for foreign policy?Quote
Besides, we're not telling the "enemy" anything that they didn't know first: our planning and execution has been a raging cluster from Day One. (No big secrets there.)
And that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about our Commander-in-Chief being flogged by our own Congress in the middle of a life-and-death war with terrorists. Do you remember what bin Laden said about the strong horse and the weak horse? What kind of horse does this make us look like? They don't have to do this. They can question the President's policies. They can strongly suggest alternative strategies. They can do all kinds of things without arranging a circus to publish to the world that American foriegn policy is a bumbling failure or an oil scam. Quote
When America fades, it will not be due to people who query, it will be due to those who blindly follow.
Query? When will you start to query? You are doing a perfect job of parroting the major media outlets. When will you begin to think for yourself about this matter?
Post by: The Rabbi on January 11, 2007, 05:14:13 AM
But it is easy to sit back and criticize (which is why Dem politicos do it). It is harder to offer substantive alternatives (which is why they haven't).
Cutting and running is not an alternative. So what is the Democratic plan? Our Rep Jim Cooper said on the radio this morning, "there is no Democratic plan." At least he was honest. I think the Democratic plan is to criticize and hobble any efforts by the Admininstration and then use the resulting failures to gain power in 2008.
Zeke, you need to stop masturbating your intellect and let it mate with something stronger.
Post by: 280plus on January 11, 2007, 09:54:05 AM
Quote
I think the Democratic plan is to criticize and hobble any efforts by the Admininstration and then use the resulting failures to gain power in 2008
Thank you... And to what end, I mean, besides gaining power? I just wanna bang my head.
Post by: Ezekiel on January 11, 2007, 05:20:12 PM
Quite simple, actually.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 11, 2007, 07:17:39 PM
Post by: Ron on January 11, 2007, 07:30:28 PM
Quote
I believe the answer is "to cease our ongoing involvement in the greatest foreign policy blunder since Vietnam."
It isn't a blunder and to be honest with you neither was Vietnam.Poorly run military/police actions, open to debate.
Blunders, nope, both worthwhile demonstrations of our Military superiority and domination of those who choose to engage us.
Sometimes it is worth showing your opponent that even if we don't win neither will they. Even when we "lose" so do our opponents. I know it is verboten for us to speak about death counts. It still remains that to fight the US to a standstill requires an unbelievable amount of casualties.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 11, 2007, 07:33:23 PM
RE: Bush's conservatism or lack thereof.
Maybe it would help if I acknowledged that Bush is a flaming moderate. I've said that before. Seems kind of obvious to me. Does that mean he's lying when he presents himself as a conservative? No. He probably thinks of himself that way.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 11, 2007, 07:40:01 PM
Ezekiel will not change his mind until Mr. Media tells him to. The greatest foreign policy blunder since Vietnam? How about failing to nab bin Laden during the nineties, or failing to stop the build-up of terrorism, generally? Huge blunder - much bigger than some "pointless quagmire." I'm sure we could think of more.
Heck, didn't we "create" Hussein and Osama bin Laden since Vietnam? At least the war detractors always tell us so. How about the WMD that we allegedly gave Hussein? (I don't know if we did or not - makes little difference.)
Post by: LAK on January 11, 2007, 10:20:31 PM
Great. Whenever you're ready. I am happy to debate someone who at least does not play dumb.
---------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 12, 2007, 02:55:18 AM
Post by: LAK on January 13, 2007, 05:10:46 AM
Naaah, I would have to say far worse than a moderate. This country is no less socialist than when he took office.
First term around, the excuse coming from everyone on his behalf was "He is biding his time, he is being savvy and doesn't want to ruin his chance of a second term", or "if he were to [pick one] do that he would not stand a chance of re-election". Etc.
My opinion of what he is and stands for is unchanged from before he was elected. Now that he is halfway through his second and last term, there are no more excuses. The "republican" majority in Congress is gone - and proved pretty meaningless in any case.
To say, "well, if the democrats had held the WH and Congress just think what [such and such] might have been the case" etc is equally lame. It is as if the republican party, it's leadership, and frontline in office simply exist to "save us by not doing what the democrats would have done" and nothing else. And in reality nothing is what they did.
If Bush had been a consevative there is much he had a duty to do. As a "moderate" he might have been expected to soften the edges on some things alittle; but again, he has not even made a scratch on the socialist elements in the Federal gov. All the departments are still there, all the programs that I know of, the institutional racketeers are still fleecing us.
No, moderate is not really even close.
------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 13, 2007, 05:57:17 AM
You think moderate means he would try to change the status quo? Why? Moderate means he's really not intending to do anything impressive. So far, I'm not sure he has. His response to 9/11 hasn't exactly been a sweeping change in current policy. Unfortunately. His education bill, immigration "reform," drug benefit policies, have been less-than-conservative, but less-than-fully-leftist. He DID cut taxes, appoint some decent judges, and even made a feint at pushing Social Security reform.
Why would I say he's a moderate? Compared to the Republicans in the Senate, he's Pat freaking Buchanan.
Post by: LAK on January 14, 2007, 11:25:36 PM
Quote
You think moderate means he would try to change the status quo? Why? Moderate means he's really not intending to do anything impressive. So far, I'm not sure he has. His response to 9/11 hasn't exactly been a sweeping change in current policy. Unfortunately. His education bill, immigration "reform," drug benefit policies, have been less-than-conservative, but less-than-fully-leftist. He DID cut taxes, appoint some decent judges, and even made a feint at pushing Social Security reform
George Bush has never had any intention of changing the status quo, because the status quo has a global socialist agenda, and George, like his father and others before them are key players to this end. It is of an ideology that is hostile to to our constitutionally based system of government, and a national leader can not be indifferent to this and claim to be acting in our interests at the same time.
No, his actions since 9/11 have certainly not been any sweeping change of policy; William Clinton previously attacked and effectively overthrew a sovereign country without a declaration of a state of war by Congress. George has spent much more in terms of our blood and money, but otherwise nothing new there. He has been a key figure in an expansion of our interference in the middle east and now into central asia.
George has taken this path on the other issues as a part of his role in the changing of the perception of what these things represent to many people. That somehow one can embrace socialism by degree - and yet not be a socialist. There is no middle path with socialism; it is an immoral and destructive ideology. You are either for it or against it. Like robbery and a number of other crimes against persons on a national scale.
The latter is not new either, as many so-called conservatives have embraced this idiocy and wittingly or unwittingly driven this progression leftward and much of it's acceptence.
-----------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: 280plus on January 15, 2007, 02:40:47 AM
"For Karl Marx, who helped establish and define the modern socialist movement, socialism implied the abolition of money, markets, capital, and labor as a commodity."
I'm just not seeing all this happening LAK.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 15, 2007, 04:09:38 AM
Quote
The latter is not new either, as many so-called conservatives have embraced this idiocy and wittingly or unwittingly driven this progression leftward and much of it's acceptence.
Which idiocy, precisely? Do you consider yourself a "conservative," in any sense?
Post by: LAK on January 16, 2007, 01:07:30 AM
Quote
That's right. It really doesn't matter what Bush does. If he brings the troops home without accomplishing the mission, he will never hear the end of how he wasted our time, talent, troops and treasure in Iraq. If he decides to send in a few more soldiers, he's "escalating the conflict" and/or "expanding the mission." What nonsense.
Many of us, based on some very basic history and what for the sake of arguement I will refer to as general knowledge - along with some people with excellent credentials - warned that this would not work either way when the invasion was to take place. Since then there have been some excuses rendered up as to say that there were some "mistakes" etc.
I do not buy this. Even if George Bush alone had planned this whole fiasco from the start, I do not believe he could have been that naive and or careless. We have been committed to a folly knowing full well later on we can not rightly just pull out and leave some millions of people to more catastrophy - and that a longterm occupation was the only logical outcome.
Quote
There's no need to get hung up on semantics. "Socialism" may be a little over-used, just like "fascism" has come to mean dictatorship. We can call it statism, collectivism, totalitarianism, etc. The growth in American govt. interference may not be "socialism," exactly, but it's close enough. At least we're not calling it communism.
Very true. Global socialism is perhaps the most accurate term for the overt system. One must only read the U.N. Charter and U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, and give cursory examination to the plethora of programs and NGOs affiliated to this cartel to summize that global socialism is the vehicle being used. There are some elements of fascism and communism in the mix though too.
Quote
LAK: The latter is not new either, as many so-called conservatives have embraced this idiocy and wittingly or unwittingly driven this progression leftward and much of it's acceptence. [end]
Which idiocy, precisely?
Which idiocy, precisely?
I recall hearing the speech George gave after the "democrats" took back the majority which sums it up rather well, during which he explicitly stated his appeal to "put away partisanism and address the problems that face the nation".
As I said on another post here - or maybe it was THR - it is partisan issues that separate what is destroying this country one chunk at a time from what is required to put us back on course. For Bush to utter this idiocy would be incredible to me if I were not expecting it from him already.
Precisely? Every socialist program and bureaucracy currently administered by the federal government, and on a larger scale in the form of overseas aid. No greater single example of the latter is there than our funding and participation with the United Nations.
Quote
Do you consider yourself a "conservative," in any sense?
How about a rollback of the Federal government to about 1850. I do not think that you can get much more conservative than that.
How about you? Do you consider yourself a conservative?
--------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: The Rabbi on January 16, 2007, 02:33:26 AM
They were wrong.
Post by: 280plus on January 16, 2007, 03:08:14 AM
Quote
How about a rollback of the Federal government to about 1850. I do not think that you can get much more conservative than that.
You mean way back when the streets were quagmires of mud and manure? I'll pass... Post by: The Rabbi on January 16, 2007, 04:01:22 AM
Quote
How about a rollback of the Federal government to about 1850. I do not think that you can get much more conservative than that.
You mean way back when the streets were quagmires of mud and manure? I'll pass... It would work if we could roll back society to 1850. That also won't happen. Nor would I really want to see quack medicines hawked everywhere or appalling conditions in the food industry.
That said, of course there are many areas where the Federal gov't would serve the consumer best by getting out of the way. I would name the mortgage industry as a great place to start. Get rid of FhA, cut the implied support to Fannie and Freddie, eliminate the mortgage deduction, and treat a personal residence like any other investment.
Post by: LAK on January 17, 2007, 12:29:18 AM
Quote
There were people who said an invasion of Afghanistan would not work either and would quickly become a "quagmire." They had solid historical evidence of the Brits and Russians.
They were wrong.
They were wrong.
Are you trying to say that we are getting control in Afghanistan? Pray tell, when are they pulling our troops out of there - I hadn't heard that George had set the date already. You must have been smoking some of the stuff the big cartel is moving out of there.
280plus,
Read the UN Charter and the UN Declaration of Human Rights. There is global socialism in a structured nutshell for you.
Quagmire and mud? Quack medicine? I read almost daily of quack medicine peddled by some company, rubberstamped by some ex-company FDA official, that has killed a bunch of people. And an innumerable number of "syndromes" which can not be pathologically defined by the all-knowing all-seeing and all-wealthy federal government.
You can believe what history you like, but popular history is not a reflection of the life in general in the 1800s - nor for that matter has it been the federal government that has brought the few real and defineable improvements since then. Nor are paved roads and sanitation some sort of modern federal invention.
It is private expertize that has given us some modern comforts. Not the loving bureaucrats in Washington DC.
Society is not the same as in 1850 because a good number of poeple have been brainwashed into believing much nonsense, and being drawn into a state of psychologcal dependence on our glorious central government.
-------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: 280plus on January 17, 2007, 02:16:50 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on January 17, 2007, 02:30:55 AM
The Rabbi
Are you trying to say that we are getting control in Afghanistan? Pray tell, when are they pulling our troops out of there - I hadn't heard that George had set the date already. You must have been smoking some of the stuff the big cartel is moving out of there.
Quote
There were people who said an invasion of Afghanistan would not work either and would quickly become a "quagmire." They had solid historical evidence of the Brits and Russians.
They were wrong.
They were wrong.
Are you trying to say that we are getting control in Afghanistan? Pray tell, when are they pulling our troops out of there - I hadn't heard that George had set the date already. You must have been smoking some of the stuff the big cartel is moving out of there.
You're right. It was a total failure. The US was wiped out when the war turned into a quagmire, with large casualties. The Taliban remain in control of the whole country, providing al Qaeda with terrorist training bases. bin Laden roams freely at will, unmolested and unafraid.
The US maintained troops in China for about 100 years. I dont recall anyone saying the mission was a failure because we hadnt left. The US maintained troops in Europe for 50 years (and still do). I guess we lost WW2 as well.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 17, 2007, 02:53:47 AM
Post by: 280plus on January 17, 2007, 02:58:51 AM
Post by: Ezekiel on January 17, 2007, 03:35:11 AM
Go Team America!, I guess...
Let's stop thinking that we will, or should, totally withdraw from Afghanistan or Iraq anytime sooner than two or three decades from now.
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 17, 2007, 07:00:04 PM
There are a dozen reasons why Iraq had to be invaded, and I would submit to you that getting rid of Saddam or grabbing some expired chemical weapons were among the least. But you cannot go in front of the American public, benighted as it is with entertainment and softcore internationalist socialism, and tell them that hard times are ahead and tough decisions need to be made.
So the people in charge decided to scare everybody with WMD to garner the support to do what needed to be done. Does this make GWB a liar? I don't know, and in the big scheme of things that makes little practical difference. What does make a difference is that Saddam was taken out before he undermined our economy by switching to petroeuros. What does make a difference is that there is still a small chance for things in Iraq to work out for the better, in establishing a limited democracy with chronic but controlled security problems. What does make a difference is that invading and holding Iraq is by far the least bloody practical solution of the situation in the entire region.
What also should make a difference to anyone with half a brain that is at least half awake is that the leftist media and most of the Dems since Day One have been breaking their arms, tongues, and legs to do absolutely everything they can to sabotage the war effort. There was and is nothing loyal about the "loyal opposition". In fact, any reasonable person would consider them traitors in times of war. It is a sad comment about our society and the power of corrupt leftist media that these traitors won the elections in November, instead of losing even worse than before.
This latest instalment about "opposing escalation", while they vehemently thump their chests about "supporting the troops" is yet another example of a bizarre, grotesque dance.
I don't care about the bonesmen, conspiracies, liberal lies, etc. I trust neutral facts and the immutable laws of the flawed human psyche. If you want to make a difference, have kids and educate them to love freedom and think for themselves. If there is hope for retaking this country from all sorts of crappers, it lies in grounds-up changes, rather than playing betting games with a failing political system.
Post by: LAK on January 18, 2007, 12:30:48 AM
How many troops did we have in China all those years doing exactly what on how many square miles of ground?
We had troops, armor and aircraft in europa for a specific and tangible purpose for fifty-odd years. Before that happened, even at Normandy, there were troops and personnel that followed the invasion force earmarked to replace the outed gov's where applicable, perform administrative functions, maintain order, prevent looting, rape and murder. They were not assigned to combat units or used for anything else, and were not an afterthought years later. They were in sufficient numbers to maintain order over the entire country later known as west germany, and all the others until the respective civil governments took over.
This is in stark contrast to what took place in the invasion of Iraq. We - to include the new Iraqi police forces - are actually in control of a fraction of Iraq all these years later. The new Iraqi police are not even in control of themselves with more than alittle activity been atributed directly to some of them. And we are in control of no more than a fraction of afghanistan with ongoing engagements.
This is certainly not the fault of our military. Our military does what it is supposed to do as it is told to do it. General Shinseki was not the only one who stated the obvious at the beginning of this fiasco, and it was no small number of average people who predicted the obvious that would come later on.
So this is all no surprize, and no bad reflection on our military. The rest lies squarely at the feet of those who were and or are running the WH, and their cronies in London and elsewhere that have engineered this folly.
fistful,
And just how many other countries are we going to occupy for the next twenty, forty, fifty years? With whose army? At what cost in blood and resources? To what tangible end?
----------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: 280plus on January 18, 2007, 02:19:25 AM
Quote
To what tangible end?
Obliteration avoidance would be my guess. I've known since 911 that this country was going to have to militarize and like it to survive. Is it really what I want? No, but I personally believe we have no choice.I've read a few of the first articles of the UN Charter. So far I'm not seeing the big conspiracy. Have I missed anything or does it get better?
Post by: 280plus on January 18, 2007, 04:30:11 AM
"The term enemy state as used in paragraph 1 of this Article applies to any state which during the Second World War has been an enemy of any signatory of the present Charter.[/quote]
Then Japan, Germany and Italy are defined as enemy states?
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 18, 2007, 08:10:51 AM
Quote from: 280plus
Obliteration avoidance would be my guess. I've known since 911 that this country was going to have to militarize and like it to survive. Is it really what I want? No, but I personally believe we have no choice.
There are more efficient and possibly longterm-better choices, which I support, but most Americans do not have the stomach for them. And that is why we will likely decline and fail as a nation, while a nationless world order emerges to match the global economy.
Post by: 280plus on January 18, 2007, 09:28:21 AM
Quote
There are more efficient and possibly longterm-better choices,
Such as...
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 18, 2007, 09:43:11 AM
If you thought this thread was off-topic already, look out! 
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 18, 2007, 10:25:31 AM
Quote from: 280
Quote
There are more efficient and possibly longterm-better choices,
Such as...Method 1
We are being forced to spend like an empire but disallowed from earning like an empire. Iraq is only the beginning. Every scatological two-bit turd-world country that gets "radicalized" will need to be invaded and put on "democratic track" to prevent terrorists from coming to the homeland. That will surely bankrupt us in the next 20 years tops, regardless of the outcomes in the particular countries.
So, I support a radicalization of our own. If we are forced to be an empire to defend ourselves, then we should act like one. Go where we need, take what we want, kill whom we must. Start with Saudi Arabia and go down the list. Any opposition is brutally crushed, like the Brits did in India and Africa. Countries that want to pull us into a quagmire or bleed us by conventional warfare (Iran), will be nuked beyond recognition. If we control most of the world oil in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Quweit, and Iran, nobody will day say zilch, or it will be WE who turn off the spiggot on THEM.
Method 2
An armed neutrality. We pull back to our borders, militarize them, racially profile any visitors. We refuse to get involved with regional conflicts, leave Israel to their own devices, let Africans and Arabs slaughter themselves and each other. Let Europe and Japan defend themselves with weapons we sell them. Prohibit the development of strategic weapons by scatological countries on pain of utter obliteration by "clean" fusion bombs, chemical, and biological weapons. We become the North American giant equivalent of Switzerland. We invest heavily in alternative energy sources while we make maximal use of our own supplies, a patriotic propaganda campaign on conservation, emission and mileage legislation, etc. We welcome only the best and brightest of the outside world, subject to scatological screenings to prevent infiltration. We get rid of leftist liberal pinkworld blissninny nonsense by education based on facts, not wishful thinking. Etc. etc.
What we are doing right now is bankrupting ourselves to fix a scatological world and we get blasted and shot at for our troubles. One might call us marxist-internationalists...
Post by: 280plus on January 18, 2007, 10:49:30 AM
Wrong question, 280. If you thought this thread was off-topic already, look out!
Did ya hear Saddam got hanged? If you thought this thread was off-topic already, look out! So we should stop pussyfooting around trying to fight a "nice" war and get down to business. Be the annihilator instead of the annihilatee. Pre-emptive annihilation. Interesting approach, I must admit.
Oh wait, that's just a rehash of "Kill them all and let God sort them out". It is a bit tough to get the average America on board with that particular idea.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on January 18, 2007, 02:39:12 PM
Wrong question, 280. If you thought this thread was off-topic already, look out!
Did ya hear Saddam got hanged? If you thought this thread was off-topic already, look out! So we should stop pussyfooting around trying to fight a "nice" war and get down to business. Be the annihilator instead of the annihilatee. Pre-emptive annihilation. Interesting approach, I must admit.
Oh wait, that's just a rehash of "Kill them all and let God sort them out". It is a bit tough to get the average America on board with that particular idea.
Not if we preempt a lot of dissension by selectively killing some media elites. Without competent opposition leadership, the mass of the proletariat (average American) is usable by whoever wants to wield it.
Think of the recent premiere of "Rome" this season. The mob is always there, it's all about swaying them to your side and eliminating or rendering ineffective those who can/would counter-sway.
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 18, 2007, 03:38:44 PM
Quote from: carebear
Not if we preempt a lot of dissension by selectively killing some media elites. Without competent opposition leadership, the mass of the proletariat (average American) is usable by whoever wants to wield it.
Think of the recent premiere of "Rome" this season. The mob is always there, it's all about swaying them to your side and eliminating or rendering ineffective those who can/would counter-sway.
Think of the recent premiere of "Rome" this season. The mob is always there, it's all about swaying them to your side and eliminating or rendering ineffective those who can/would counter-sway.
That is a practical solution, which alas will prove to be a Pyrrhic victory. The Roman crowd promoted tyrants as much as tyrants promoted the power of the crowd. They catalyzed one another. If we promote a similar solution, we will end up with a similar result. Besides, there would be no guarantees that the leftists would purge conservative movers significantly less than conservatives purging leftist movers. (Note that in 1920s Germany, commie assasins were about as murderous and effectual as stormtrooper assassins.)
The true win over liberal media would be to counteract their influence by convincing one person at a time, and ultimately by outbreeding the liberals. When fewer and fewer people listen to NPR, read New York Times, or watch CNN/BBC, those voices will be marginalized into insignificance.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on January 18, 2007, 03:48:11 PM
I'm just hoping that in the end my low opinion of the common sense of the average American will be proven wrong.
Post by: LAK on January 18, 2007, 11:21:17 PM
Quote
Obliteration avoidance would be my guess. I've known since 911 that this country was going to have to militarize and like it to survive. Is it really what I want? No, but I personally believe we have no choice.
"Militarize"? What does that mean?
How many troops will it take to invade and occupy between thirty and fifty countries on the scale we have in iraq and afghanistan combined indefinately? When you have answered that question - tell us all where you are going to find them all?
Quote
I've read a few of the first articles of the UN Charter. So far I'm not seeing the big conspiracy. Have I missed anything or does it get better?
The subject was global socialism. Funny you have such a hard time recognizing what the United Nations is all about, and recognizing what socialist ideology it represents. However, if it takes you this long to read a couple of articles of the U.N. Charter you are in for a long course. Perhaps next month you'll be able to read their wonderful articles of "Human Rights".
---------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: 280plus on January 19, 2007, 01:45:57 AM
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=ADBS%2CADBS%3A2006-42%2CADBS%3Aen&q=militarize&btnG=Search
Sorry my schedule doesn't afford me sitting here and reading this Charter all in one shot. I'll read it like I read everything else, a bit at a time when I can. If you're telling me I should be recognizing some big global socialism conspiracy in what I've read so far, I don't see what your talking about. Unless you want to call peace and equality among all people global socialism. Which you have yet to define in any certain terms. Capitalism seems alive and well to me and that's the only thing my mind associates as being the oppsite of socialism right now.
How are we going to meet the troop needs to do all that we may need to do? That goes back to the part about militarization. Maybe a word, maybe not, but I believe you get my meaning. More and more people are going to have to step up and help defend this country. Last I heard, and who know's if it's BS or not, the Generals and Admirals are not in favor of a draft. Right now, all they've got is people who believe in what they're doing and want to be there to help and they feel that's all they need. These Demorats force us to ease up the pressure on those other rat bastards that want to kill us all and we are in big trouble my friend. Global socialism will be the least of your worries.
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 19, 2007, 03:03:55 PM
Post by: 280plus on January 20, 2007, 01:35:19 AM
Post by: LAK on January 20, 2007, 08:34:10 AM
Quote
but did Rome , Byzantine etc militarize and foray out into the world to DEFEND themselves or add to their empires?
It is not referred to as the Roman Empire for nothing.
Quote
What does militarize mean? Apparently the dictionary is saying it's not a word, however...
If we accept it's current popular common use, it implies a sort of general and open-ended military build up. It can also be applied in the cultural sense - still also somewhat undefined, as in open-ended.
Korea has a very militant political culture. Is that good? Yes, and no. If the invasion of your country is imminent it is probably a good thing. However, once in such a state of borderline frenzy, things might change considerably if the leadership suffers a great fall, and the bogeyman of focus is re-directed.
Let's say you just want to raise an army large enough to conquer and hold, stabilize and "rebuild" central asia. How many troops is it going to take, with what support and resources, for how long - and what are you going to use to pay for it? How is a nation that is already many trillions of dollars in debt going to pay for it?
Quote
If you're telling me I should be recognizing some big global socialism conspiracy in what I've read so far, I don't see what your talking about. Unless you want to call peace and equality among all people global socialism. Which you have yet to define in any certain terms. Capitalism seems alive and well to me and that's the only thing my mind associates as being the oppsite of socialism right now.
You keep mentioning this word "conspiracy" as if it has some bearing on this subject. Perhaps you know something we don't and can elaborate.
Peace and equality are tangible within the realm of a nation state that has sufficient resources and the unified or stable civilized culture as the foundation - for perhaps a limited amount of time. This is an oversimplification and does not include but two important elements. And there are others. Attempting to bring this about over the entire globe is pure fantasy. Thus when one sees this at the forefront of a geo-political agenda involving governments of over a hundred nations one must immediately assume one of two things: these people are insane - literally - or they have something else in mind. You be the judge.
Global socialism is simply the political front vehicle, socialism applied in a somewhat homogenous form - globally by a central governing body. In this case "the United Nations".
Capitalism has always been alive and well and is hardly in reality any antithesis of socialism - except on the surface. Capitalism never died in the former soviet union, nor in communist china. Political front systems do not change the way money is made, nor do they eliminate private ownership and wealth. It merely changes the surface of things. There is an element of redistribution in socialist systems, but the very rich - get richer. Underneath it is still very, very wealthy people who control the most wealth, and run the show. Just because the state owns something on paper does not mean it is somehow out of the control of and does not profit those who control it.
Quote
How are we going to meet the troop needs to do all that we may need to do? That goes back to the part about militarization. Maybe a word, maybe not, but I believe you get my meaning. More and more people are going to have to step up and help defend this country. Last I heard, and who know's if it's BS or not, the Generals and Admirals are not in favor of a draft. Right now, all they've got is people who believe in what they're doing and want to be there to help and they feel that's all they need. These Demorats force us to ease up the pressure on those other rat bastards that want to kill us all and we are in big trouble my friend. Global socialism will be the least of your worries.
Two problems; first and less - no, not subjective at all - is money. Who is going to pay for this, with what?. Secondly, and argueably subjective is compliance. A draft would certainly be necessary for even the invasion and occupation of iran. To conduct such a wide campaign into a dozen or more countries would take a draft of millions. I am certain, personally, that there will be mass non-compliance to such a thing.
And thus the reason most of the brass are smart enough to not want any draft, which would fill the ranks with a great number of very reluctant, if not outright defiant, people. Definately bad news on any battlefront of any kind. Not to mention cut the political division in this country even deeper. It is a recipe for more bad news at home. Add a "militarized" culture and you have a potentially explosive environment right here on home soil.
The "democrats" are going to carry on with the same geo-political agenda as the "republicans". Just as William Clinton did in Yugoslavia. This idea that "the democrats" - their leadership at party level - are against this is a media illusion. A big show. You might recall that the "republicans" all fell down at William Clinton's feet in the end when it came to the attack and invasion of serbia.
There are in fact a great number of conservatives that oppose the geo-political agenda in the middle east, and would likewise oppose any expansion of this insanity into central asia. Regardless of the next bogeyman erected for the purpose.
-----------------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: 280plus on January 20, 2007, 09:10:43 AM
Quote
You keep mentioning this word "conspiracy" as if it has some bearing on this subject. Perhaps you know something we don't and can elaborate.
I'm assuming YOU are inferring that the UN, Bush and others are somehow conspiring to bring about this "global socialism". So then, there is no conspiracy to bring it about, it's just happening all by itself? I also recognize that without the blessing and cooperation of the general population of any country we go into to "flush the toilet" the efforts would be fruitless.
And what of the picture the media is painting of the situation in Iraq? I hear again and again from informed sources, meaning people who have been there, that things aren't nearly as bad as the media would have you believe. What is the MEDIA'S agenda? That's what you should be asking.
Who's going to pay for it and with what? I'd say it's a global concern. All peace loving nations should ante up. If we fail, it won't be pretty for anybody, anywhere.
Why should we be concerned with being the world's toilet flusher? I think that's a great analogy. I used to work as a maintenance man at a nursing home, maybe 150 double occpancy rooms. You know what I would come to work to every Monday mornig? At least 5 toilets packed to the top with paper and human waste. You know why? Because those toilets stopped flushing and didn't get flushed all weekend and a toilet that doesn't get flushed collects more and more crap until it pretty much overflows. That's what happens in the various global toilets. That's why there are pirates off the coast of Somalia and terrorist gatherings within. All the crap is collecting there because nobody's flushing the toilet and it'll overflow sooner or later and we darn well might get some on us. This is what you want?
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 20, 2007, 09:55:56 AM
Possibly, but did Rome , Byzantine etc militarize and foray out into the world to DEFEND themselves or add to their empires?
Funny that you should mention that. It was a long-standing tradition with the Romans to wait for a good pretext, or provoke one, so that they appear the wronged party. Then they invade the particular location and establish Roman rule and society to cultivate the barbarians and thus stop the attacks. In many cases, invasions (such as ones in Gaul earlier and Germany later) were "reprisals" operations against barbarians that attacked Roman provinces. Curiously, the Byzantines and especially the British adopted the same practices. In some cases, all three would wait for a proper escalation before responding, so that they have more apparent justification to do so and rile up their own political camp.
The problem with all three empires was that eventually historical and ecological changes, economic and political decay, and the sheer costs of militarization rotted their structures to such extent that collapse was inevitable. In addition, in the later stages of their existence, they first switched to professional indigenous troops, and later, to foreign mercenaries. In fact, the Turks that utlimately wasted Byzantine were initially paid and invited to come by a Byzantine emperor who needed them as mercenary troops against enemies foreign and domestic...
There are remarkable parallels among the above and what we seem to be doing right now. We waste our own money to militarize to put boots on the ground of foreign lands to cultivate them to be more like us, so they do not grow barbarians/terrorists to come and attack us in our own provinces. We have a crippling liberal/multicultural rot that spreads across our society and civilization. We spend far more than we make. We get dragged in other people's problems (e.g. Israel). We already are at the stage of professional armies while the citizenry is being turned into a scared, dumb mob that would follow anyone. We even have started recruiting foreign and domestic mercenaries, e.g. security companies and foreign troops we pay for. Instead of the Coliseum, we have Hollywood and American Idol. Instead of opium pipes, we have natural and synthetic drugs. In many respects, we are even worse and more decadent than Rome itself. At least the Romans, Byzantines, and British did not teach their children to hate and despise their civilization, race, history, and culture in favor of barbarian races and cultures.
I see no reason why history would not repeat itself and therefore urge we hit the brakes on imperial world-policeman ambitions while there is still time. The added challenge is that now we have even stronger political and economic forces that NEED a world policeman, just like a mafia boss needs an enforcer. Free capital cannot awash the world if political instabilities can wreck or rogue states can confiscate properties at whim.
Post by: LAK on January 22, 2007, 03:06:20 AM
Quote
I'm assuming YOU are inferring that the UN, Bush and others are somehow conspiring to bring about this "global socialism". So then, there is no conspiracy to bring it about, it's just happening all by itself?
Why are you assuming that?
Why not instead simply say .... "They are bringing it about"? I do not see them trying to hide what they are doing. Do you?
Of course it happens all by itself. Like the progression of socialism in this country - it just happened all by itself
Quote
I also recognize that without the blessing and cooperation of the general population of any country we go into to "flush the toilet" the efforts would be fruitless.
This makes sense. So what makes you think that the general populations of the countries of central asia have the slightest blessings or intend to co-operate with us flushing their toilets with thousands of them likely to get "flushed" along those bogeymen and "terrorists" - based on their observations of our "efforts" in say yugoslavia and iraq?
Quote
And what of the picture the media is painting of the situation in Iraq? I hear again and again from informed sources, meaning people who have been there, that things aren't nearly as bad as the media would have you believe. What is the MEDIA'S agenda? That's what you should be asking.
I do not need to be asked. The media is there to obligingly report and present the picture required on the day concerned. Like when Mr crook Chalabi's hired thugs were made to appear to fill Baghdad square when Saddam's statue was pulled down. And that half of Baghdad was thronging through the streets welcoming their "liberators". How so very co-operative of the we-hate-bush-liberal-left-oppose-the-war-media.
How many iraqi civilians in total have been murdered, maimed, tortured, raped, robbed, displaced, had their homes destroyed - or have had friends and or family that have experienced the same fate - from day one to present? What exactly is life like for the average iraqi - christian, sunni or other - in the areas not controlled by our military now?. Why are CNN reporters not randomly conducting live unedited interviews with iraqis on the streets all over iraq asking them what the story is? Many iraqis speak english, and even those who do not could be subtitled, with the original audio intact and unedited for those who can to verify the entire translations? Not such a rosey overall picture I suspect.
Do you think you're the only person who knows people who have been or are in iraq?
Quote
Who's going to pay for it and with what? I'd say it's a global concern. All peace loving nations should ante up. If we fail, it won't be pretty for anybody, anywhere.
You did not answer my question. Who is paying now? Who is going to pay for the conquest of central asia? Not who "should"; who is going to pay, and with what?
Quote
Why should we be concerned with being the world's toilet flusher? I think that's a great analogy. I used to work as a maintenance man at a nursing home, maybe 150 double occpancy rooms. You know what I would come to work to every Monday mornig? At least 5 toilets packed to the top with paper and human waste. You know why? Because those toilets stopped flushing and didn't get flushed all weekend and a toilet that doesn't get flushed collects more and more crap until it pretty much overflows. That's what happens in the various global toilets. That's why there are pirates off the coast of Somalia and terrorist gatherings within. All the crap is collecting there because nobody's flushing the toilet and it'll overflow sooner or later and we darn well might get some on us. This is what you want?
One man unclogging five toilets in a nursing home is not quite the same as conquering, occupying and rebuilding a major portion of planet earth with no army and no money.
Do you know, or do you think for a second that he combined brains of the entire U.S. gov know, what the militant populations of all the middle eastern and central asian "problem" nations of the world are? How many people who are not so now, but will be - when their first son, daughter, father or mother is murdered, raped, or has their homes flattened?
What would you do if a foreign military force ran roughshod over your state, town, or neighborhood - and killed half your family "in the chaos of war"?
Or occupied the state capitol, leaving your town wide open - and in a racial feud over the local areas, rival thugs raped, tortured and murdered their way through your household? Would you just shrug it off and say, "I know guys, you meant well - it was terrorists who did this to my family. You guys have my full support."
You have not thought this out very well.
-----------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: Ezekiel on January 22, 2007, 03:11:28 AM
Good stuff, CAnnoneer.
Post by: 280plus on January 22, 2007, 04:07:47 AM
Quote
One man unclogging five toilets in a nursing home is not quite the same as conquering, occupying and rebuilding a major portion of planet earth with no army and no money
You miss my point. The point is if it doesn't get done it only gets worse. I understand all of what you say but simply believe that while yes, these are all very unfortunate things you are talking about, it is all necessary for our long term survival. Would I have liked to seen a better outcome thus far? Of course. I never wanted to go in there to begin with but now that we are there I recognize that it is very important to finish what we started. Whatever it takes. To say I haven't thought it all out is a pretty good sized assumption on your part too.
Quote
"Damn." (From the thread that will not die.)
I agree. I have neither the time nor inclination to continue so I'll leave off here. Post by: LAK on January 23, 2007, 11:33:03 PM
---------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: 280plus on January 24, 2007, 02:31:28 AM
Post by: LAK on January 30, 2007, 05:05:04 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on January 30, 2007, 05:15:34 AM
Post by: K Frame on January 30, 2007, 05:15:50 AM
In order for a discussion to be objective, for some kind of conclusive end, the specifics of contention must be tabled, then addressed and resolved. If they are not, the discussion is indeed pointless.
I arrived at that conclusion at the bottom of page 2.
Post by: K Frame on January 30, 2007, 05:16:21 AM
Possibly, but did Rome , Byzantine etc militarize and foray out into the world to DEFEND themselves or add to their empires?
BOTH.
Post by: 280plus on January 30, 2007, 05:26:27 AM
I've answered enough of LAK's points to feel like I made a decent effort to explain my position. I simply don't have the time or feel the neccessity to go through these posts point by point trying to refute them one by one, it accomplishes nothing. I agree war and all it entails is a horrible thing but, sadly, sometimes it's necessary. I was a peace loving hippie pre 911, so don't think all this doesn't tear me apart inside.
Post by: K Frame on January 30, 2007, 05:42:47 AM
Honestly?
I don't really care one way or the other.
Post by: LAK on January 31, 2007, 07:15:15 AM
Pardon my english. In a debate, in english, "tabled" does not mean "put off". It is when a matter is brought up for discussion.
Of course all political jargon is not necessarily the same
Post by: LAK on January 31, 2007, 07:31:22 AM
Quote
I agree war and all it entails is a horrible thing but, sadly, sometimes it's necessary. I was a peace loving hippie pre 911, so don't think all this doesn't tear me apart inside.
Justifying necessity is only one side to this. You have not even touched the arguements regarding it's feasability - even it's possibility.
Murder is murder, theft is theft, and lies are lies. A campaign of war is either feasible, possible, or it is not. The occupation and control of any given number of square miles of a nation, region or continent can be acheived, or it can not. I've never been a peace-loving hippie, and these are not emotional issues. They require resolving objectively, conclusively, based on history and known fact. Not verbal fencing.
------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: 280plus on January 31, 2007, 04:34:29 PM
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 31, 2007, 07:00:08 PM
Quote from: LAK
Murder is murder, theft is theft, and lies are lies.
Nope. All three categories are subjective, and therefore they are not absolute.
You kill somebody. Some might call it murder. Some - self-defensive killing. Some - an accident. The objective observation is that you were involved in somebody's demise. Further interpretation is generally subjective. Same with theft and lies.
Finally, as 280plus pointed out, you basically consider our enemies and bystanders to be of equal value or rights as we are. That attitude has never had a good ending in human history. The reality is that looking out for Number One is generally a far more prudent strategy. We should toss out the silly globalist/multiculturalist/kumbaya attitude and get into the business of ensuring the survival of our civilization and way of life. But my guess is we won't, because the liberal rot has taken too deep and strong a hold on our societies. The difference in reactions to Pearl Harbor and 9/11 is ample proof of that sad realization. Only a much larger blood-letting may snap us off the road to oblivion.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 01, 2007, 06:36:16 AM
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 01, 2007, 07:10:40 AM
Quote from: fistful
Hey now. Terrorists have rights.
Nope, they don't. Any convenience, civility, or mercy extended to them is something we do for ourselves, rather than something they are entitled to. That train left a long time ago, when they decided uniforms and conventional warfare are things of the past. A rabid dog garners more sympathy than a terrorist, for it is not the dog's fault it is rabid.
Post by: LAK on February 07, 2007, 11:36:46 PM
Quote
Nope. All three categories are subjective, and therefore they are not absolute.
You kill somebody. Some might call it murder. Some - self-defensive killing. Some - an accident. The objective observation is that you were involved in somebody's demise. Further interpretation is generally subjective. Same with theft and lies.
You kill somebody. Some might call it murder. Some - self-defensive killing. Some - an accident. The objective observation is that you were involved in somebody's demise. Further interpretation is generally subjective. Same with theft and lies.
Very sound philosophical base for civilization. Down that path, should last another ten years. At least.
Very happy to report that despite some lunatics, perverts, and other dangerous types, they still have a long way to go before they become a majority.
Quote
Finally, as 280plus pointed out, you basically consider our enemies and bystanders to be of equal value or rights as we are. That attitude has never had a good ending in human history. The reality is that looking out for Number One is generally a far more prudent strategy. We should toss out the silly globalist/multiculturalist/kumbaya attitude and get into the business of ensuring the survival of our civilization and way of life. But my guess is we won't, because the liberal rot has taken too deep and strong a hold on our societies. The difference in reactions to Pearl Harbor and 9/11 is ample proof of that sad realization. Only a much larger blood-letting may snap us off the road to oblivion.
Yes, a good many germans - but thankfully not that many - were lulled into tossing out that troublesome old fashioned morality and justice. And decided, at the urging of some very skilled talkers, that some people did not share the same status as they did - and therefore were quite happy to pass off any scrutiny of the official process as a hindrance.
Of course germans have not been the only ones to have been steered this way at one time or another.
fistful,
It is not just a matter of terrorists having rights - it is a matter of defining "terrorist" - and being absolutely certain that your target is actually a terrorist and engaged or about to engage in some deadly or sverely injurous act before simply deciding to snuff them out.
Every man woman and child in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen and a dozen or two other countries could be termed "suspects" - just by their geographical locations. Right here at home "terrorist" and "terrorism" are terms have been and are being inserted into a number of more than questionable legislative acts.
---------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: LAK on February 08, 2007, 01:16:43 AM
Quote
Well, you see, I believe it is both feasible and possible, but only if we act in concert towards the common goal of this nation surviving through the whole mess that now exists. When people become naysayers and fight the process every inch of the way as the Dems have these last 5 or so years we are up the creek. They have undermined all the actions of the current administration continously, at a time when ALL the people should be rallying behind it because if we don't the terroists win.
Really? You mean like Chalabi's hired thugs' performance in Baghdad, and CNN's co-operative film editing? The "liberal-we-hate-bush-and-the-war-left-media"?
It is very clear that you have not really any idea what it takes in manpower and resources to occupy and control an area the size of central asia - from the middle east clear across to China. From southern Russia right down to central Africa and Indonesia. And stamp out the resistance of what would inevitably amount to the sustantial portion of something like 1.2 billion people.
Your reasoning is as far out as the so-called "dems" you say are stalling the great conquest. The fact is, the "dems" are as behind this insanity as the "republicans" - as was the case visa versa in Serbia and elsewhere.
Tony Blair and his government are "dem" - leftist. As far "leftist" in western politics as you can get. Are you really so naive as to think that somehow the errors and perversions of liberal and socialistic ideology and thinking uniquely affect those in american politics - and not the UK and elsewhere?
---------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 09, 2007, 04:05:07 PM
Quote from: LAK
Very sound philosophical base for civilization. Down that path, should last another ten years. At least.
Are you really that naive or are you pulling our leg?
All civilizations survived predominantly upon the efforts of a minority of tough unsqueamish men that were willing to do the expedient. Whenever for whatever reason they were not around, things went downhill for the majority made of blissfully ignorant "nice people" who only benefited from the minority's efforts.
Quote
Yes, a good many germans
Hehe. The usual reference to nazis, whenever anybody suggests anything other than hotels, candy, restaurant food, and free qu'rans for hardcore murderers. Now that is the basis of civilization's longevity! You make me laugh, Turkleton!
Quote
Right here at home "terrorist" and "terrorism" are terms have been and are being inserted into a number of more than questionable legislative acts.
There is no reason why we cannot fight homegrown fascists, homegrown liberals, and foreign terrorists at the same time. And we don't even need to become anarchists to do it.
Post by: LAK on February 10, 2007, 03:36:05 PM
Quote
Are you really that naive or are you pulling our leg?
All civilizations survived predominantly upon the efforts of a minority of tough unsqueamish men that were willing to do the expedient. Whenever for whatever reason they were not around, things went downhill for the majority made of blissfully ignorant "nice people" who only benefited from the minority's efforts.
All civilizations survived predominantly upon the efforts of a minority of tough unsqueamish men that were willing to do the expedient. Whenever for whatever reason they were not around, things went downhill for the majority made of blissfully ignorant "nice people" who only benefited from the minority's efforts.
Being tough and unsqueamish about killing in the course of an actual war, in self defense, or making morally underpinned choices between the death of a few to save many is one thing; murder is something else. The idea that it is "necessary" - and therefore "justifiable" to murder to protect a nation is to effectively commit suicide. It may take a few years, but suicide it is.
In wars, the "unsqeamish and tough" people who violate their own natural law and conscience this way usually - not always, but usually - become the first and worst psychological casualties. Much the same as people that kill in the spirit of vengeance or some perverse enjoyment.
Quote
Hehe. The usual reference to nazis, whenever anybody suggests anything other than hotels, candy, restaurant food, and free qu'rans for hardcore murderers. Now that is the basis of civilization's longevity! You make me laugh, Turkleton!
The parallel here is rather too close. Germany and it's people were as civilized, sophisticated and educated as any of their other european brothers. The way by which they were led down the path to their ultimate end as a nation was not some fluke or stroke of magic.
Quote
There is no reason why we cannot fight homegrown fascists, homegrown liberals, and foreign terrorists at the same time. And we don't even need to become anarchists to do it.
Correct - but we do not need to fight them - we need to ship them out to their homelands. This is an ideological "war", a cultural "war" - not a "war" against "terrorism".
"Terrorism" is simply a calculated act. It does not actually exist - except in the mind - until the act is commited, and therefore it is impossible to "stop it" or prevent it. Such acts occur in prisons daily in this country, and will go on occurring infinitum.
What we can do is deal with political ideologies which are hostile to ours, and foster and maintain a stable culture and language. These things define a nation. Chasing one or another group of a dozen, hundreds or thousands here or outside our borders is not going to do anything except drain us as a nation.
------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 10, 2007, 05:23:45 PM
Quote from: LAK
In wars, the "unsqeamish and tough" people who violate their own natural law and conscience this way usually - not always, but usually - become the first and worst psychological casualties.
Occasional collateral damage. The host society generally does not know and moves on.
Quote
The parallel here is rather too close. Germany and it's people were as civilized, sophisticated and educated as any of their other european brothers.
Then you need a crash course in British colonial methods.
Quote
The way by which they were led down the path to their ultimate end as a nation was not some fluke or stroke of magic.
Many tens of thousands of T-34s, Shermans, B-17s, B-29s, Il-2s, etc. seem to me to have played a far more influential role in Third Reich's demise than any degradation in culture.
Quote
we need to ship them out to their homelands.
And how do you propose to do that without resorting to the methods you abhor?
Quote
Chasing one or another group of a dozen, hundreds or thousands here or outside our borders is not going to do anything except drain us as a nation.
Unfortunately, they proved multiple times in the 1990s and in 2001 that they would not "live and let live".
Post by: LAK on February 12, 2007, 01:51:56 AM
Quote
Occasional collateral damage. The host society generally does not know and moves on.
The term collateral damage may be rightly applied to material and property damage etc associated with war - it is a tad sterile a term when referring to human beings, the civil population at large as mere collateral assets. Men, women and children alike.
Quote
Then you need a crash course in British colonial methods.
British colonial methods? What has the conquest and preservation of the british empire have to do with our values and culture, political ideology, defending our borders and independence as a nation?
Quote
Many tens of thousands of T-34s, Shermans, B-17s, B-29s, Il-2s, etc. seem to me to have played a far more influential role in Third Reich's demise than any degradation in culture.
The defeat of germany at war at a later time has nothing to do with the engineered slide I referred to, which started early in the 1930s and is all too well recorded. No fluke, no magic. Just basic political psychological manipulation. Old hat political science in action.
Quote
And how do you propose to do that without resorting to the methods you abhor?
Now you misunderstand. Or at least I will give you the benefit of the doubt. It is not necessary to murder people to deport them. Nor to torture people in order to inform them that the appointed officials operating under the erroneous authority of nameable elected officials - in deliberate contempt of our Constitution, law and ideology - that granted them a visa, even citizenship, did so wittingly or unwittingly in error.
Nor to impeach, indict and prosecute those elected and appointed officials still living who have steered our nation down this subverted path since the end of WW2. In all three branches.
Nor to put our military on our northern and southern borders, put a near absolute stop to the uncontrolled border traffic of various kinds, and deport every single illegal immigrant to their homelands as they are identified.
Quote
Unfortunately, they proved multiple times in the 1990s and in 2001 that they would not "live and let live".
Who? Al Kidya? Who let them in? Who stonewalled the investigations into their activities and arrests? Who were these people, whom the FBI are try so hard not to name, flown out right after 9/11 while all of us were grounded?
Who are these nameless and faceless individual officials and others, protected by the Bush administration, and Clinton's before him - before, during and after the fact? Who were the "lucky" guys who dumped all that American and United Airlines stock in the days prior to 9/11? Who kept them out of the "Independent 9/11 Commission Report"? Who saw to it that the financing of the 9/11 attack was significantly absent from the publicized proceedings of the "Commission", and took up a whole half page or so of a report as thick as a phone book?
Who are these people protecting the Sandy Bergers and Douglas Feiths who seem to be cropping up with regularity every now and then - the ones that actually have been caught and made public - from thorough investigation and strongest criminal indictments?
Get them out - deport them. Impeach and indict as applicable. No murder or torture needed. No "collateral damage" necessary. No multi-trillion dollar perpetual war for perpetual peace all over central asia, south america and indonesia.
It is these people that are the enemies of the United States. It is these people that have engineered out current state and vulnerability. It is these people that need dealing with. No sacrifice of american blood and resources for a corporate government geo-political agenda. Let these people sacrifice their blood and resources in the mid east and asia.
------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 12, 2007, 09:49:02 AM
Quote from: LAK
it is a tad sterile a term when referring to human beings
Sterile or not, it is perfectly valid. Personnel is another form of resource.
Quote
British colonial methods? What has the conquest and preservation of the british empire have to do with our values and culture, political ideology, defending our borders and independence as a nation?
I think one of your points is that a society would be culturally doomed by its adopted "questionable" methodology. I brought up the Brits because their colonial history is brimful of violence by a few tough unsqueamish men upon whose efforts the empire was built and maintained, yet the culture of the Metropoly flourished for centuries instead of waning "within 10 years". That's a direct historical counterexample of your original assertions.
Quote
The defeat of germany at war at a later time has nothing to do with the engineered slide I referred to, which started early in the 1930s and is all too well recorded.
So, what is your argument then? We will not be defeated but will turn into a fascist state if we allow ourselves to slap terrorists around etc?
Quote
Now you misunderstand.
Please explain how you will get rid of liberals, fascists, and terrorists by means you do not abhor. Your response covered illegal aliens, which is a trivial issue in comparison.
Quote
Unfortunately, they proved multiple times in the 1990s and in 2001 that they would not "live and let live".
Your response to my question above is still non-responsive. No matter what internal problems we have, the fact remains a bunch of crazyass zealots hijacked several planes and drove them into buildings, causing billions in damage and killing over 3,000 Americans in one day. Nothing in your response gives any defense against the same thing happening again.
You have to understand that no matter how much you despise/hate our gov, globalists, the Iraq invasion, etc., the reality is that there are people out there that want to kill us because of who we are and what we cause by our mere existence. Therefore they will not be satisfied until we either drastically change our way of life to make it more palatable to THEIR medieval retarded views, or we cease to exist altogether. On 9/11 they proved they can get to us, and so we cannot ignore them as before.
Post by: LAK on February 19, 2007, 01:06:46 AM
Even the colonial brits were very careful in these regards. The recorded attrocities and abuses commited by a few rogues and mavericks are to be expected in the course of the long haul of averages - no government has ever been free of such things. But the colonial brits were generally very strict in the morality of their administration and conduct of war.
"Slapping terrorists around"? Slapping is one thing, murder something else completely. And what for? To what tangible end? Even if we could morally justify torture, torture is historically proven to be counterproductive in every way. It yields bad or unreliable information, and it enrages what might be otherwise neutral or restrained populations of the country concerned. You reap what you sow; if we can not live by the natural law, our moral code, we will with certainly self destruct. Call it a fascist state, or any other name you wish to apply.
I stated quite clearly how to deal with the enemies of the United States - the liberals etc who have systematically engineered out current state. You apparently did not read my post or understand it. Illegals are not trivial when the financial burden on the public purse - national and local - are considered. They are also not a trivial issue when it is considered that what any mexican can do, any "terrorist" can do also. Learning spanish is not that difficult, and anyone from one of a number of "rogue" states dressed in a straw hat, plaid shirt, ropers, and jeans with a Corona beer belt buckle could pass as "mexican".
It is not a matter of "hating" or "despising our government" (that one is always a silly injection), globalists or the invasion of iraq. The people that want to kill us have been deliberately facilitated and protected by people who have held or hold elected public office or appointment within our government and institutions. These same people continue to to do so. If we do not deal with these, wild goose chases all over the globe are not going to yield any measureable level of security. We are not going to "win" in a fragmented series of engagements against the militant faction of well over a billion muslims overseas. That is a simple fact, and it is insanity to consider the idea as even remotely possible. It is as absurd as someone stomping on ant hills claiming that they are going to keep them out of their yard.
------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 19, 2007, 06:29:28 PM
You continue being non-responsive on several key questions. Also, if you seriously believe that the British hardknuckled colonial policies were a few mavericks going crazy, then you really must reread the history books.
Post by: LAK on February 20, 2007, 05:04:55 AM
My knowledge and comphrehension of british colonial history is just fine thank you.
Cheerio.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 20, 2007, 05:56:04 AM
Quote from: LAK
I clearly and explicitly stated what I would do about certain groups of people and stated specifically what the real threats are to this country, it's security and why.
Offer a workable solution. Turning this country into a police-state fortress after dealing with alleged traitors is not one. Individual terrorists will always be able to sneak in, especially considering the resources at their disposal. The portability of explosives (not even WMDs) makes a "security" solution a fantasy. If you do not believe so, please explain how you are going to prevent half a dozen trained terrorists from blowing up a chemical plant with C4 or some other conventional explosive, even home-made. We are SITTING on WMDs...
Quote
I also explained exactly why the "war" as presented is a futile venture. You are either not reading my posts or you do not understand english. One or the other.
9/11 changed the world. Without "draining the swamp", we would turn into another Israel whether we like it or not. That is unless you do not mind home-made Claymores exploding at your local Starbucks. Up to 9/11, we could simply ignore a lot, because it was too far away. Now these guys have realized they can hit us at home, while their financiers can make millions playing the stock market before every attack. Homeland defense alone will not be enough, no matter how much freedom security-moms are willing to sacrifice.
Quote
My knowledge and comphrehension of british colonial history is just fine thank you.
You are not arguing with me. You are arguing with a long line of political and military leaders, including such figures as Kitchener and Churchill.
Post by: De Selby on February 20, 2007, 09:02:00 AM
I think you need to record yourself chanting "They Hate Our Freedom! They hate our Freedom!" over and over. Do a 20 minute voice track, and then just post that every time someone disputes your fanatical views on Arabs, Muslims, and terrorism.
The idea that this conflict is about some Arabs being angry over dancing girls on Television is beyond absurd. It requires believing that if the USA suddenly became a fascist state and outlawed all porno and dating, Bin Laden would drop his arms and praise it.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 20, 2007, 12:31:06 PM
Quote from: shootinstudent
I think you need to record yourself chanting "They Hate Our Freedom! They hate our Freedom!" over and over. Do a 20 minute voice track, and then just post that every time someone disputes your fanatical views on Arabs, Muslims, and terrorism.
If you do not see that this is a cultural conflict as much as it is a political one, you must not have been paying attention. No matter what you believe, the American-Arabs that you rub shoulders with at your school's Starbucks are not representative of their cultures any more than Mel Gibson is Australian.
Post by: De Selby on February 20, 2007, 12:50:43 PM
You can repeat "they hate our freedom!" all you want, but that won't make it true either.
Most people who claim to be "just paying attention to what they say" are either taking "jihadwatch" as the sole representative of Arab public opinion, or they are not actually reading what "they" are saying. Terrorists give their gripes and "justifications" for their murders in almost every speech...and they are not saying "kill them because they have magazines with swmsuits."
This is a pretty standard international conflict: There are groups that want control over pieces of land and resources, and we're allied with the people they would have to fight to get it. That's why they aren't hitting Mexico or Singapore, and are hitting states that have ties to the various middle east dictatorships, to the various middle east wars, and to the Israeli government.
They do not care, even a little bit, how we are living in America. If we passed a law requiring all women to wear burqas and still supported the House of Saud and Israel, they'd still attack us.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 20, 2007, 06:22:28 PM
Quote
This is a pretty standard international conflict: There are groups that want control over pieces of land and resources, and we're allied with the people they would have to fight to get it.
That pretty much sums up your naivety on the subject. You seriously believe that if we stop supporting Israel, it will all magically just go away. Here is a hint - OBL does not give a crap about Israel and neither do those who finance him.
Post by: De Selby on February 20, 2007, 06:24:31 PM
Well, if you think OBL doesn't care about support for Israel or Saudi Arabia or Egypt or Jordan....you must be a mind reader, because you can't get that he doesn't care from his words.
Maybe you're a psychic and OBL has never said anything that actually belies his true intentions; that's the only possible way you could be right about this.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 21, 2007, 06:16:24 AM
Quote
Well, if you think OBL doesn't care about support for Israel or Saudi Arabia or Egypt or Jordan....you must be a mind reader, because you can't get that he doesn't care from his words.Maybe you're a psychic and OBL has never said anything that actually belies his true intentions; that's the only possible way you could be right about this.
Fine, you want a walkthrough. Lazy bum.
Is OBL an idiot or not? I think not. For many many years he has been taking astute political decisions and investing a ton of money relentlessly trying to make himself more famous and influential in the arab and islamic worlds. So, if he is not an idiot, why is he doing what he is doing?
Does OBL seriously believe that even a 9/11 would make US policy less pro-Israel? If anything, it would make it MORE pro-Israel. So is it to his advantage to attack the US if he wants to hurt Israel? Of course not! So why did he attack then? Well, he wants fame and influence, but that is not all of it. He could have had that remaining the rich scion in Saudi Arabia and have quite a bit of both. What he wants is political changes in the region. If the region were of western model, he could run for president, but it is not, so he cannot. His real hatred is for the royals that prevent people like him from making any political progress for themselves. He probably fancies himself a Lawrence of Arabia, stirring the tribes to greatness by offering them a big juicy target to concentrate their anger and hatred on - the big white shaytan. That's why he attacked the US - to provoke us in entering the region and making the political changes for him by ourselves at our own expense. It has worked masterfully.
In terms of financing, he and others get funded by islamic charities and imams that think they promote islam that way; by people that (wrongly) believe he is a fundamentalist and thus a stabilizing factor for their political power; and by people who need the generated political instabilities to make tons of money through oil price and stock market fluctuations. For all of these, but especially for the last group, terrorism is a huge business, and that is why they will be certain to perpetuate it no matter what happens to Israel.
In terms of rhetoric, he is just another politician, which means he lies a lot. Where's the surprise? He riles up the rabble by pressing their hot buttons (Israel, islam), he maintains excitement (tapes), he deceives (give us Israel and we'll be good). He says what he needs to say to keep his followers and keep prodding the US to do his dirty work for him. And he knows that we will, because he knows us quite well.
Post by: De Selby on February 21, 2007, 09:31:49 AM
Wait a second....you start alleging that this is an ideological "clash of civilizations."
Then you go and outline an entirely worldly strategic interest of bin laden's, namely, to take down governments in the middle east. The piece of your analysis here:
Quote
That's why he attacked the US - to provoke us in entering the region and making the political changes for him by ourselves at our own expense. It has worked masterfully
Is along the same lines as mine, except that it's factually incorrect. We were already in the region before 9/11, and the dictatorships bin laden has a beef with exist solely by virtue of their alliance with America. Without American support and funding, there's no imaginable way that Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Bahrain could have the governments they do.
Any Bin Ladenite regime that replaces those governments will immediately be subject to attack by Israel, so yes...Israel fits into his designs for violent overthrow of the governments in the middle east.
I have to say though, major points for totally abandoning your original claim without batting an eyelid. If you want to discuss strategic and political concerns, I'd say you're talking sense about what the terrorists are doing...if you want to talk about sports illustrated swimsuit editions as the cause of 9/11, well, I think your obvious reversal shows that even you agree that it makes no sense.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 21, 2007, 07:04:02 PM
You really need to try to think before hitting the keyboard; otherwise you leave a decidedly infantile impression. Instead of gushing silly accusations at me, take the time and see the complex situation for what it is. Then you will see that there are no contradictions in my position.
What the peons think at the bottom and what the generals think at the top are two very different things. OBL is a strategist and plays his game well. That in no way changes the fact that the ignorant idiots at the bottom get riled up on cultural differences and religious fervor. There is also no reason why the OBL's of the world as well as their financial backers cannot exploit the very real clash of civilizations that we observe. In fact they are certain to, as it has been done numerous times in history.
If you do not see this, ask yourself if OBL & co. would have any wind in their sails at all if there wasn't a clash of civilizations and the prols were not willing to listen to the message and perceive the world in the pre-packaged fundamentalist perspective.
All the countries that you listed at best might need us to keep them from attacking one another or perhaps saving them from bullies like Iran and Iraq-of-the-past. Their govs certainly do not need us to crush internal opposition. They are pretty good at it, and that's why OBL is not leading a fundamentalist revolution in SA, but instead is hiding somewhere while we "drain the swamp" for him. To assert that SA or Kuweit need our financial support is just silly. What is next, food stamps for Bill Gates?
Now before I offer any further instruction, be a good boy and take back all the trash. Otherwise, good luck to you.
Post by: De Selby on February 21, 2007, 07:14:26 PM
Quote
You really need to try to think before hitting the keyboard; otherwise you leave a decidedly infantile impression. Instead of gushing silly accusations at me, take the time and see the complex situation for what it is. Then you will see that there are no contradictions in my position.
Which position are you referring to? Your position that this is a "cultural conflict" that came about because Bin Laden can't stand American TV? Or your second position, that Bin Laden has political and strategic goals that drive his criminal activities?
You haven't really offered anything to support the first. When I challenged it, you went straight to position two...which is basically what I was saying in the first place.
Quote
OBL is a strategist and plays his game well. That in no way changes the fact that the ignorant idiots at the bottom get riled up on cultural differences and religious fervor.
Sure, but so do we. Does that mean that it would be accurate to say that the US fights terrorism because "we hate Arabs" in the same way that "they hate our freedom"?
Judging an organized campaign of violence based on what the dumbest possible actor in the organization might possibly think is ridiculous, if you ask me.
Quote
There is also no reason why the OBL's of the world as well as their financial backers cannot exploit the very real clash of civilizations that we observe. In fact they are certain to, as it has been done numerous times in history.
The cause of the "exploitation" here is the conflict in the first place. I'm not sure I see your point...yes, when two agents engage in warfare, they will try to manufacture consensus by propaganda that includes highlighting the bad points of the enemy. That is tangent to the actual conflict, which would already have to be a problem in order for the propaganda machine to have a reason to get rolling.
Quote
If you do not see this, ask yourself if OBL & co. would have any wind in their sails at all if there wasn't a clash of civilizations and the prols were not willing to listen to the message and perceive the world in the pre-packaged fundamentalist perspective.
This is an easy one: yes, yes, yes they would have wind in their sails. They get plenty of justification to carry out attacks on people who don't live like us at all, as evidenced by their repeated attempts to topple the House of Saud.
The "prols" are not so stupid that they don't realize that the governments they suffer under in those countries exist primarily because of US support. Your claim here is facially absurd; people live under brutal, criminal, and completely disorganized dictatorships that everyone knows are propped up by US backing....but the real reason they're mad is that they think we let women walk around naked.
Yeah right.
Edit to address the edit:
Quote
They are pretty good at it, and that's why OBL is not leading a fundamentalist revolution in SA, but instead is hiding somewhere while we "drain the swamp" for him.
He is leading a fundamentalist revolution in Saudi Arabia. They have an extensive network of torturers and secret police to fight it, and only barely are they able to protect key facilities.
Quote
To assert that SA or Kuweit need our financial support is just silly. What is next, food stamps for Bill Gates?
They don't make anything, so yes, their money has to come from somewhere. And militarily, there's no question that they need our support...both their "intelligence" services are almost entirely American created (like Jordan's), and you need only think back to 1991 to imagine what it would be like for these incompetent regimes without unwaivering US military commitment.
Governments that are isolated from foreign aid have a lot harder time maintaining control through brute force. Iran is a good example of that...no, it's not great, but compared to the US backed states, it's a liberal democracy.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 21, 2007, 07:45:07 PM
Quote
You haven't really offered anything to support the first.
Bah, who are you kidding? What do all the imams say all the time? That we are nice people that they like but for us supporting Israel? I seem to remember us being the Big Devil. Imams say that and people believe it. I also seem to remember televized celebrations of 9/11 by women and children on the streets. I need to offer this as evidence to you??
Quote
Judging an organized campaign of violence based on what the dumbest possible actor in the organization might possibly think is ridiculous, if you ask me.
You might want to care about what they think, taking into account they will be the ones to kill you, not OBL hooked to his dialysis machine in some private sanatorium. If they did not want to kill you, OBL would be a nobody.
Quote
The cause of the "exploitation" here is the conflict in the first place.
The cause of exploitation is sheikhs and imams wanting to keep their power, NO MATTER WHAT.
Quote
They get plenty of justification to carry out attacks on people who don't live like us at all, as evidenced by their repeated attempts to topple the House of Saud.
One is not exclusive of the other. They are part of the same problem. We are the external agent that is being manipulated by both sides.
Quote
The "prols" are not so stupid that they don't realize that the governments they suffer under in those countries exist primarily because of US support. Your claim here is facially absurd; people live under brutal, criminal, and completely disorganized dictatorships that everyone knows are propped up by US backing....but the real reason they're mad is that they think we let women walk around naked.
Please provide evidence as to how we are the ones that keep those govs in power. Are we providing them with Gestapo services? Do we hunt, torture, or dismember dissidents for them? How is it we keep them there?
What keeps them in power is their own money, their imams, and their brutal internal security. And that is why most of this is their own internal problems, which find a programmed vent in hatred against us. The royalists need us as an attention shift, the OBLs need us to do the job for them so they rile the rabble against us, the imams find us a fertile ground for moral condemnation, and the rabble listen and hate us because of what they are being told and because they envy what we have. They are like a bunch of crabs in a barrel, and they have managed to pull us in as well.
Post by: De Selby on February 21, 2007, 07:58:15 PM
Quote
Bah, who are you kidding? What do all the imams say all the time?
Okay, here's what you using the term "all the Imams" is like:
If someone commenting on American politics said "Just look at what all the Constables are saying!", you'd wonder if he were really talking about American politicians (governors, mayors, congressmen, etc etc)...or if he didn't really have any clue, as betrayed by his use of terms that don't really fit.
Quote
Imams say that and people believe it. I also seem to remember televized celebrations of 9/11 by women and children on the streets. I need to offer this as evidence to you??
"I seem to remember." Whenever I read that, I know I'm going to see a really solid argument
Quote
The cause of exploitation is sheikhs and imams wanting to keep their power, NO MATTER WHAT.
Except that the Sheikhs and Imams who are in power cooperate with the United States. That's the problem with your theory--the ruling classes in all of those countries are US backed. There is no way around that.
Quote
One is not exclusive of the other. They are part of the same problem. We are the external agent that is being manipulated by both sides.
Yeah, the US diplomatic, military, and intelligence services are just a bunch of unsophisticates..they've got nothing on a bunch of playboy Saudi royals when it comes to maneuvering.
Or is it maybe more plausible to think that the US has a significant role in government there? Hmm....
Quote
Please provide evidence as to how we are the ones that keep those govs in power.
Sure
Quote
Are we providing them with Gestapo services? Do we hunt, torture, or dismember dissidents for them? How is it we keep them there?
Yes. We do train their intelligence services, and we regularly hand over enemies of their regimes to be tortured and/or killed. We also station troops nearby, and whenever their completely disorganized and demoralized armies face a military challenge (like from Saddam, for example, or Iran), we defend them.
The model for the Shah was exactly the same. The difference is that Iranian resistance to the Shah organized much more efficiently than the groups that oppose the Arab client states.
Quote
What keeps them in power is their own money, their imams, and their brutal internal security
Again, noting the curious use of the word "imams", I question your familiarity with the place. Their money and brutal internal security is guarded by US military equipment, US intelligence, and US training. Without US backing, they would not stand a year against their own people, and they would not stand five minutes against even a third rate army like Syria's, Iran's, or the former Saddam's.
Quote
The royalists need us as an attention shift
This could not be further from the truth. US activity in the gulf is generally silenced or downplayed in Arab states; where we are criticized, it is part of the thin veil of independence that client states try to maintain.
Quote
They are like a bunch of crabs in a barrel, and they have managed to pull us in as well.
Right, because they're so sophistocated that they just play generations of American presidents like a harmonica. America, a little boy wandering the world and taking candy from strangers.
Like I said...yeah right.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 22, 2007, 07:00:56 AM
Cut down on the emotional carping and offer logic and data instead. You keep forgetting this forum is not a highschool debating team and you only score negative points by silly demagogy. Behave yourself or you will be ignored until you grow up.
You can repeat that we prop their governments all you like. If buying their oil, selling them weapons, and training their personnel is "propping", then most of the industrial world is equally responsible. Notice they do not refer to Europe or China as the big devil.
The imams have the greatest responsibility of all, because they are the ones that teach the madrasas and a very fundamentalist outlook on life. They are the breeding grounds for precisely the type of brainwashed youth that is the recruiting pool for the terrorist handlers like OBL and his lieutenants. Further, it is the imams that organize islamic charities that are one of the major funding sources for terrorism. Finally, it is imams that support the royal family politically and also use religion to interfere in politics, Sadr being the perfect example for the latter. All of this should be obvious to you if indeed you know as much as you claim you do.
Again, we are not the ones doing internal security for the govs, and that is what keeps them in power. Instead of becoming terrorists to kill Israeli and Americans, why not organize their own revolutions and depose the govs? Because hijacking planes and decapitating reporters is far easier - they don't fight back. And because to attack the royals is also to attack the imams that support them and ultimately attack islam. And that is the trick. They cannot get rid of the royals until they get rid of islam and vice versa. Iran only happened because the royals there became too secular and too westernized, something the saudis are smart not to do.
Finally, please explain a bit more about why it is such a horrible thing that we protect countries from external aggression. Do your sympathies lie with the fundamentalist bullies that want a caliphate from India to Italy? In your book, is it preferable to have Iran overrun the region and govern the Middle and Near East by an ayatolah in Tehran? Where do your loyalties lie?
Post by: De Selby on February 22, 2007, 10:00:04 AM
Quote
You can repeat that we prop their governments all you like. If buying their oil, selling them weapons, and training their personnel is "propping", then most of the industrial world is equally responsible. Notice they do not refer to Europe or China as the big devil.
Okay, how many Swedish troops are stationed on the Arabian peninsula?
How many Arab intelligence services have been trained by Germany?
And that's on top of the dollar value disparity in aid...I think your problem is that you're totally unaware of the numbers, and are relying on vague assumptions instead of actual knowledge.
Here's an article about Egypt with some numbers you might want to see:http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0412/p07s01-wome.html
Quote
The imams have the greatest responsibility of all, because they are the ones that teach the madrasas and a very fundamentalist outlook on life.
Apparently you did not look up the word "Imam" after it was pointed out to you that you were using it incorrectly. The problem with your claims here is twofold:
1. Imams do not teach anything.
2. The Madrassas are generally places for rote memorization of text, not places where sermons are given.
So your treatment of both as the source of the problem says to me that you haven't bothered to learn what is going on, but instead are relying on maybe things you heard at the water cooler for your understanding.
Quote
Finally, it is imams that support the royal family politically and also use religion to interfere in politics, Sadr being the perfect example for the latter. All of this should be obvious to you if indeed you know as much as you claim you do.
Sadr is not an Imam. Now seriously...if someone comes to you claiming things about the United States, and then goes on to demonstrat that he doesn't understand the difference between a Governor, a Senator, or the President...would you take that person seriously?
Again, we are not the ones doing internal security for the govs, and that is what keeps them in power.
Well, you might be surprised to see this then:
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/030602/2terror.b.htm
Quote
Jordan's role won't be a surprise to U.S. intelligence veterans. The CIA helped set up the Mukhabarat, and the elder King Hussein was on the agency's payroll. For at least 20 years, the late king received as much as $1 million a year--money he said was funneled to his security and intelligence agencies.
Quote
Instead of becoming terrorists to kill Israeli and Americans, why not organize their own revolutions and depose the govs? Because hijacking planes and decapitating reporters is far easier - they don't fight back. And because to attack the royals is also to attack the imams that support them and ultimately attack islam. And that is the trick. T
They do organize revolutions. That's why the ME states have to have such extensive secret police networks-to torture and kill all the people who are trying to topple their governments. And where do the money and expertise and the combat troops to fall back on come from?
Our side of the world.
Quote
Finally, please explain a bit more about why it is such a horrible thing that we protect countries from external aggression. Do your sympathies lie with the fundamentalist bullies that want a caliphate from India to Italy? In your book, is it preferable to have Iran overrun the region and govern the Middle and Near East by an ayatolah in Tehran? Where do your loyalties lie?
Who said anything about wrong? The point was that those countries exist because of US protection, and the people who live there know it. So when they get tortured, beaten, arrested, robbed, etc by their governments...they also know that if the US money and arms pipeline dries up, they'll have a lot easier time getting rid of the crooks.
My sympathies lie with people who want peace. I'm not aware of any group, violent or peaceful, that wants a "caliphate from India to Italy" (not even Al Qaeda), and I definitely wouldn't like to see Iran overrun the region. But I don't think we'd be in this position if, like Iran, the Arab states had not been governed by US-backed, incompetent dictators. If the Arabs were able to develop democratic systems even as much as Iran, they'd be a lot stronger...but then they wouldn't be subordinate to US strategic interests.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 22, 2007, 12:55:53 PM
Quote
Here's an article about Egypt with some numbers you might want to see
We do not use the troops in the region to kill people that are not our enemies. OBL & co could go by their revolution without attacking us, albeit by a more difficult route. So long as they do not close the spiggot on us or attack us, I seriously doubt the West cares too much what they do with themselves.
The numbers you linked are interesting but unconvincing. So, this or that country gets a $1b tip per year to like us (or at least not hate us too much). How does the aid compare to their GNP?
Quote
Apparently you did not look up the word "Imam" after it was pointed out to you that you were using it incorrectly.
I am not going to play a semantics game. Imam, dervish, preacher, cleric, holy man, whatever. They all amount to the same functionality - a religious zealot who could keep his faith to himself, but instead uses it to influence people politically and rile up the ignorant rabble. I got no problem with the village priest who tends his parish and stays out of politics, but I got a big problem with the likes of Sadr, no matter what he chooses to call himself today. Strictly speaking, OBL has no official right to declare jihad either, but has that stopped him?? Do not obscure the functionalities by semantics details.
Quote
Jordan's role won't be a surprise to U.S. intelligence veterans. The CIA helped set up the Mukhabarat, and the elder King Hussein was on the agency's payroll. For at least 20 years, the late king received as much as $1 million a year--money he said was funneled to his security and intelligence agencies.
So, Jordan used a million bucks on their internal security. Wow, I know people whose houses are worth triple that. How does this compare to their own security budget?
Quote
They do organize revolutions. That's why the ME states have to have such extensive secret police networks-to torture and kill all the people who are trying to topple their governments. And where do the money and expertise and the combat troops to fall back on come from?
Frankly, after 9/11 and the WMD affair, and with OBL still on the loose, I have little respect for the abilities of CIA. Please provide a link or at least something circumstantial to show that without CIA, the local security agencies would be overwhelmed. Even if CIA were more than marginally useful, these revolutions still remain the internal affairs of these countries and should be handled as such by the revolutionaries. Attacking America directly buys them nothing but more support for their "oppressors". It is a stupid strategy, unless the real desire is more involvement of America in "draining the swamp" for them.
Our side of the world.
Quote
...they also know that if the US money and arms pipeline dries up, they'll have a lot easier time getting rid of the crooks.
Then they are just stupid. If it is not US arms, it will be German, French, Russian, or Chinese ones. What difference will it make??
Quote
My sympathies lie with people who want peace.
That contradicts your negative attitude towards US keeping the peace there. You cannot have it both ways. Decide what you want - peace or a complete redrawing of the map by Iran and other local bullies.
Quote
But I don't think we'd be in this position if, like Iran, the Arab states had not been governed by US-backed, incompetent dictators. If the Arabs were able to develop democratic systems even as much as Iran, they'd be a lot stronger...but then they wouldn't be subordinate to US strategic interests.
Does the above mean you do not believe Iran is governed by incompetent dictators? What difference does it make if they are US-backed or not? Iran is in an even worse economic crisis than Egypt, while sitting on significantly more oil. Instead of improving the conditions inside their country, they spend money on rearmament and nuclear weapons, to thumb their noses at us and satisfy a huge inferiority complex. That's very enlightened.
If anything, Iran proves that even if left to their own devices, these countries do not get their act together. On the contrary, a fundamentalist revolution ultimately produces a dictatorship. The major difference is it is a theocratic one instead of a secular one. Should we see that as an improvement?
Post by: De Selby on February 22, 2007, 01:56:33 PM
Quote
We do not use the troops in the region to kill people that are not our enemies. OBL & co could go by their revolution without attacking us, albeit by a more difficult route. So long as they do not close the spiggot on us or attack us, I seriously doubt the West cares too much what they do with themselves.
You already cited the main reason (the spigot) why reliable, incompetent, dependent dictators are in charge of those countries. Now, as long as they guarantee an open spigot and a minimum of demands, do you think the US is ever going to let a revolution topple them?
Right....now you see why they are focusing on us. Because as long as their backwards leaders have our support, they won't be easily removed.
Quote
The numbers you linked are interesting but unconvincing. So, this or that country gets a $1b tip per year to like us (or at least not hate us too much). How does the aid compare to their GNP?
If it weren't significant, they'd save themselves the disgrace at home and not take it.
Quote
am not going to play a semantics game. Imam, dervish, preacher, cleric, holy man, whatever.
Pointing out that you are fundamentally unfamiliar with the titles of people involved is not semantics. Imagine if someone bashing the US said "Eh, president, mayor, sheriff, bailiff, whatever....they're all the same."
The point with this is that you obviously do not know what you're talking about with respect to the religious authorities in the middle east. If you have so little exposure that you don't even understand the titles of the people you claim to have watched and understood, how can you stand there and expect people to believe that you know anything at all about the level of authority they command from their people?
Quote
So, Jordan used a million bucks on their internal security. Wow, I know people whose houses are worth triple that. How does this compare to their own security budget?
The dollar amount isn't all; we also trained the spies.
Quote
Attacking America directly buys them nothing but more support for their "oppressors". It is a stupid strategy, unless the real desire is more involvement of America in "draining the swamp" for them.
Maybe it is, but that doesn't mean it's motivated by the fact that people watch naked women in movies in America.
Quote
Then they are just stupid. If it is not US arms, it will be German, French, Russian, or Chinese ones. What difference will it make??
Well, there are obvious examples of the difference it makes. Take a look at Syria and Iran...both are forced to tolerate much, much more dissent than the Saudis would ever tolerate, and are forced to have more inclusive political systems because of it. Superpower backing gives lots and lots of discretion to dictators.
Quote
That contradicts your negative attitude towards US keeping the peace there. You cannot have it both ways. Decide what you want - peace or a complete redrawing of the map by Iran and other local bullies.
Haha, as opposed to a complete redrawing of the map by the US or the Saudis? Oh yes...Saudi Arabia and Egypt will "keep the peace."
Quote
Does the above mean you do not believe Iran is governed by incompetent dictators? What difference does it make if they are US-backed or not? Iran is in an even worse economic crisis than Egypt, while sitting on significantly more oil. Instead of improving the conditions inside their country, they spend money on rearmament and nuclear weapons, to thumb their noses at us and satisfy a huge inferiority complex. That's very enlightened.
Iran's government is so far more advanced and competent than Mubarak's that it might as well be the difference between an African bush-tribe's council and the Board of Microsoft. Iran is certainly a backwards and undemocratic place compared to America...but it's much better off, politically, than Egypt or Saudi Arabia. They actually vote for candidates and have something resembling local, regional, and national government beyond "Whoever is friends with the Dictator gets a post."
Quote
If anything, Iran proves that even if left to their own devices, these countries do not get their act together. On the contrary, a fundamentalist revolution ultimately produces a dictatorship. The major difference is it is a theocratic one instead of a secular one. Should we see that as an improvement?
Iran is not a dictatorship.
And yes, it is a big improvement on Saudi Arabia. You get to vote, and you get a degree of religious freedom there...you can have a Church and a Synagogue in Iran. Try that in Saudi Arabia.
Post by: LAK on February 24, 2007, 09:31:30 PM
Quote
Offer a workable solution.
This is an amusing response to some observations concerning how blatantly foolish, futile, bloody (etc) a campaign this is. G W Bush has been dumb enough - or rather figures enough of his listeners are dumb enough - to use it as some kind of big stick in at least one of his more recent speeches.
When making observations concerning an exposed fraud and folly one is not required to "offer a workable solution". However, firstly, there is no "solution" - only a process of minimization and consolidation. I have mentioned some key points that will steer us that way, and take care of other things as well. One can not objectively dissect this in isolation of other overlapping subjects, and they must all be attacked at the same time.
As far as conventional - what some perhaps would see as "workable solutions", there are the usual controlled "alternatives" presented. I see the same barely subsurface resistance to what needs to be done, as opposed to what is now a familiar pattern of what will be done in order to protect and maintain a certain status quo, a certain global geo-political agenda - steadfastly driven forward by both "parties" once again. Anything that endangers that path and moves us towards consolidated and actual independence and tangible self protection is not entertained in discussion.
Although shootingstudent and I often have opposing ideological views, we have collided favorably sometimes when it comes to other things. He notes the comparison of life in iran with egypt and saudi arabia, and it is interesting to note that there seems to be a very fierce propaganda campaign painting iran as something it is not.
------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 24, 2007, 10:45:33 PM
Quote
Now, as long as they guarantee an open spigot and a minimum of demands, do you think the US is ever going to let a revolution topple them?
US didn't invade Iran when the fundies toppled the king. Oh, sorry, I need to call him shah, cause otherwise I might be construed as ignorant... You have to offer more than a conjecture if you expect us to believe the US will intervene militarily in an internal Saudi conflict.
Quote
Because as long as their backwards leaders have our support, they won't be easily removed.
You keep repeating that offering no evidence, other than training (which could have been provided by anybody) and pocket money.
Quote
If it weren't significant, they'd save themselves the disgrace at home and not take it.
Again, an unprovable statement. If A already hates B and C offers money to B, there is no reason why B would refuse the gift.
Quote
Imagine if someone bashing the US said "Eh, president, mayor, sheriff, bailiff, whatever....they're all the same."
Nice try. The analogy you can at best establish is "minister, pastor, padre, vicar, preacher, father, seminary professor, reverend, bishop, etc." As I pointed out before, if someby like OBL can announce a jihad and be taken seriously by muslim fundies, all the tiny distinctions you get so wound about are already meaningless. Besides, it is an established fact that muslim clergy is deeply involved in the indoctrination and financing, if not in the actual terrorist training and handling, and that was my general point. But, if you would like, please go forth arguing about what color panties Marie Antoinette wore to the guillotine, and how my lack of knowledge in that area disqualifies me from holding a creditable opinion on the French Revolution.
Quote
The dollar amount isn't all; we also trained the spies.
And if we didn't, the Germans or French would have. Many of the nutcases were educated in the West; should the Saudis blow up the respective universities to reciprocate?
Quote
Maybe it is, but that doesn't mean it's motivated by the fact that people watch naked women in movies in America.
A causes B does not refute C causes B.
Quote
Take a look at Syria and Iran...both are forced to tolerate much, much more dissent than the Saudis would ever tolerate, and are forced to have more inclusive political systems because of it.
They are "forced"? By what? Our lack of support for them?
Quote
Haha, as opposed to a complete redrawing of the map by the US or the Saudis? Oh yes...Saudi Arabia and Egypt will "keep the peace."
I have not seen any map-redrawing by the Saudis or Egypt yet. Care to substantiate?
Quote
Iran is not a dictatorship. And yes, it is a big improvement on Saudi Arabia. You get to vote, and you get a degree of religious freedom there...you can have a Church and a Synagogue in Iran. Try that in Saudi Arabia.
The Soviets had elections as well. Elections are only a show if they cannot result in dramatic changes to the government. Then the difference between the Saudis and Iran is just choreographic details.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 24, 2007, 10:53:31 PM
Post by: De Selby on February 26, 2007, 07:52:19 PM
Quote
US didn't invade Iran when the fundies toppled the king. Oh, sorry, I need to call him shah, cause otherwise I might be construed as ignorant... You have to offer more than a conjecture if you expect us to believe the US will intervene militarily in an internal Saudi conflict.
The US didn't invade with its own troops, but instead had its client, Saddam Hussein, do the invading. With US support and arms, Hussein killed about a million people...that was certainly a punishing invasion, and given the warm and friendly relations with the shah, it's pretty obvious why.
Your dig about the terms is off base. At least with King and Shah you are using roughly equivalent terms-the difference between "Imam" and the other leadership roles in Islam is more akin to the difference between "city councilman" and "Holy Roman Emporer". When you look at how grossly misused the term is in that light, it's not such a trivial point.
Quote
You keep repeating that offering no evidence, other than training (which could have been provided by anybody) and pocket money.
This point makes absolutely zero sense. Revolutionary movements and hostiles in a war don't decide not to attack supporters of their enemies because "anyone could do it." The point is that not anyone does do it: The US does it. If someone else was doing it, they'd be the target and not us.
This is a very simple point to see. Just find me one country that's been hit by Al Qaeda that doesn't have a connection to the war in Iraq, or a military support role for Israel, or intelligence/military links to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, or Jordan. Just one.
Quote
Nice try. The analogy you can at best establish is "minister, pastor, padre, vicar, preacher, father, seminary professor, reverend, bishop, etc."
All this time, and it's still obvious that you didn't look up the difference. No, it's more like the difference between "Apostle" and "altar boy." It's that big. So yeah, people are going to raise their eyebrows when you get it that far off.
Quote
They are "forced"? By what? Our lack of support for them?
Yes. International isolation makes it harder to govern by force alone. There's no international pipeline to get money and weapons to destroy your opponents in those countries. They have to deal with opposition more seriously because of it.
Quote
I have not seen any map-redrawing by the Saudis or Egypt yet. Care to substantiate?
There isn't any map redrawing by Iran either. You just posited that Iran being the shot-caller would somehow be worse than Saudi Arabia or Egypt being in charge of the region. They did, btw, fight a bloody proxy war over the map of the middle east in Yemen.
Quote
The Soviets had elections as well. Elections are only a show if they cannot result in dramatic changes to the government. Then the difference between the Saudis and Iran is just choreographic details.
Great, so because the soviets didn't have real elections, therefore, Iran doesn't either? And you were doing the whole "a causes b" thing above?
Iran is not a fully democratic country. It does not promote individual rights. But it has elections...real ones. A range of candidates run with a range of views, and the ones who get the votes actually get the offices. That puts Iran a few lightyears ahead of our friends in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. And they also, importantly, do have a basic principle of religious freedom that is missing from those gulf states.
Post by: 280plus on February 27, 2007, 03:29:42 AM
Quote
This is a very simple point to see. Just find me one country that's been hit by Al Qaeda that doesn't have a connection to the war in Iraq, or a military support role for Israel, or intelligence/military links to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, or Jordan. Just one.
So you're saying if we suddenly become non-participants you believe our enemies will back off? IIRC a guy named Hitler used similar strategy at the outset of his war and I believe it worked, for a while anyways. It sure did cost us a lot of lives and money because we let it go so far before we stepped in. If England had fallen before we'd gotten off our asses we'd ALL be saluting a swastika today, provided we were here to do so. No actually probably half of us would be saluting a swastika while the other half saluted a rising sun. Let me try this again, although I know I'm banging my head on a wall.
There are people out there who want to lure your children into their theatre of operation and kill as many as they can. They also want to do everything they can to drain our treasury and wreak havoc on our infrastructure. Once they have accomplished those goals they want to come here and kill you and take over what's left of your country for themselves, providing you ARE, in fact, "living in America". Nothing, I repeat, NOTHING is going to change that until they are all dead. To them, we are nothing more than "infidels" that should be tortured to death and see it as their "divine mission" to do so. That's the reality of it, sorry. Thankfully, not ALL Muslims think this way, not even the majority, but there certainly are those who do. Once they have accomplished all the above goals they'll get around to the ones that sat back and watched, thinking all the time they were safe because they didn't get involved. And no, I'm STILL not going to get into any point by point argument here.
Our survival is at stake, the difference between an Iman and a Cleric are, like so many other points brought into this discussion, moot.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 27, 2007, 06:36:49 AM
Quote
The US didn't invade with its own troops, but instead had its client, Saddam Hussein, do the invading. With US support and arms, Hussein killed about a million people.
We supported Saddam, the Soviets supported Iran. What's your point? The fact remains US troops did not invade.
Quote
At least with King and Shah you are using roughly equivalent terms-the difference between "Imam" and the other leadership roles in Islam is more akin to the difference between "city councilman" and "Holy Roman Emporer".
When you look at how grossly misused the term is in that light, it's not such a trivial point.
When you look at how grossly misused the term is in that light, it's not such a trivial point.
Webster:
imam
One entry found for imam.
Main Entry: imam
Pronunciation: i-'mäm, E-', -'mam
Function: noun
Usage: often capitalized
Etymology: Arabic imAm
1 : the prayer leader of a mosque
2 : a Muslim leader of the line of Ali held by Shiites to be the divinely appointed, sinless, infallible successors of Muhammad
3 : any of various rulers that claim descent from Muhammad and exercise spiritual and temporal leadership over a Muslim region
Now go sit in a corner and think about what an ass you made out of yourself.
Quote
Just find me one country that's been hit by Al Qaeda that doesn't have a connection to the war in Iraq, or a military support role for Israel, or intelligence/military links to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, or Jordan.
I'll reverse that for you and ask you to find one developed country that has absolutely no connections to any of that.
Quote
No, it's more like the difference between "Apostle" and "altar boy." It's that big. So yeah, people are going to raise their eyebrows when you get it that far off.
See above.
Quote
International isolation makes it harder to govern by force alone. There's no international pipeline to get money and weapons to destroy your opponents in those countries. They have to deal with opposition more seriously because of it.
Can you be that naive? If it is not us, it will be somebody else. If you have money, everyone is willing to supply you with weapons and training. And that is simply business. If for your friends to succeed, they need the country to be completely cordoned from the outside world, they are complete losers in the first place. No revolution in the world has ever operated under such ideal conditions. To demand them is insane. To try to impose them by terrorism is equally insane.
Quote
There isn't any map redrawing by Iran either.
They are a major destabilizing factor in the region as well as offer singificant support to insurgents that kill Americans in Iraq. Right now they do not redraw maps by their military, but they will if we back out. We should not shoot ourselves in the knee-cap just to prove you wrong.
Quote
Iran is not a fully democratic country. It does not promote individual rights. But it has elections...real ones. A range of candidates run with a range of views, and the ones who get the votes actually get the offices.
Iran is governed by a theocratic council. The president is largely a figurehead that functions at their pleasure. The elections are limited to candidates that are not already against the regime, because if they were, they would be dragged out of their beds in the dead of night and disappear without trace. The common Iranian has no power and no rights and exists miserably by practicing a lot of STFU and SIUB. Therefore Iran is a dictatorship, albeit a theatrical one. So, in terms of elections, they are essentially similar to the Soviets.
But, it is very cute when leftists and islamic sympathizers try to pull the wool over our eyes about their favorite dictatorships - about as cute as neo-cons trying to convince us how enlightened and westernized the Saudis are.
Frankly, the entire region is one big toilet, and your argument boils down to us letting them crap in peace, so they do not fling their feces at us, only at one another. There are two problems with this strategy - 1) there is something in the toilet that we desperately need; 2) when the feces start flying, so do any guarantees.
Post by: cordex on February 27, 2007, 06:52:39 AM
Quote from: shootinstudent
Your dig about the terms is off base. At least with King and Shah you are using roughly equivalent terms-the difference between "Imam" and the other leadership roles in Islam is more akin to the difference between "city councilman" and "Holy Roman Emporer". When you look at how grossly misused the term is in that light, it's not such a trivial point.
Quote from: shootinstudent
All this time, and it's still obvious that you didn't look up the difference. No, it's more like the difference between "Apostle" and "altar boy." It's that big. So yeah, people are going to raise their eyebrows when you get it that far off.
Well now, that depends on whether you're talking about the Shi'a or Sunni faith, doesn't it?As I always understood it, "imam" is Arabic for "leader" with usages differing based on the flavor of Islam you're talking about. Think führer in German. It was used to refer to The Leader - Hitler, as well as leaders within the military (i.e. ubersturmbahnführer) and State. Claiming that "imam" has only one useful meaning within the context of Islam is uninformed.
Post by: De Selby on February 27, 2007, 09:16:34 AM
Even assuming Al Qaeda cares what life is like in America, here's the problem:
Quote
Once they have accomplished those goals they want to come here and kill you and take over what's left of your country for themselves, providing you ARE, in fact, "living in America".
My question to you is: Are they going to row over with their million man army in canoes, or will they just all buy plane tickets at the same time without anyone noticing?
Hitler had the most technologically advanced and powerful army in the world. The idea that Bin Laden could conquer all of Europe and America is about as realistic as believing that Mugabe and his Zimbabwean forces could conceivably charge to Paris in a day.
Post by: De Selby on February 27, 2007, 09:31:04 AM
Quote
We supported Saddam, the Soviets supported Iran. What's your point? The fact remains US troops did not invade.
Fact remains, they were a part of the battle. And no country that isn't a part of these battles has been hit by Al Qaeda. That includes countries that are as liberal socially as America, or more so.
Quote
Now go sit in a corner and think about what an ass you made out of yourself
This gets more hilarious at every turn. The prayer leader recites verses of the Qu'ran like a singer, he does not give sermons. It's bizarre; at every turn you seem to make an assertion that actually makes you appear to know less than you did when you made the previous assertion.
The Shia version is the other side of the word, and the difference between that and the roles you implicated is as obvious as the difference between Jesus and an altar boy.
Quote
I'll reverse that for you and ask you to find one developed country that has absolutely no connections to any of that.
Sweden, Norway, Finland, Japan, Singapore, the list goes on...no terror threats in those places either. The only small timer nations to ever face an Al Qaeda threat were those that participated in GW's "coalition of the willing" in Iraq.
Quote
If you have money, everyone is willing to supply you with weapons and training. And that is simply business.
Fine, maybe you see it this way...but I'm sure you also understand very well that suppliers for people you're at war with become a target. This is true for Western as well as Eastern wars.
Quote
No revolution in the world has ever operated under such ideal conditions. To demand them is insane.
So what on earth do you think happened to the Afrikaans republic of South Africa?
Quote
Therefore Iran is a dictatorship, albeit a theatrical one. So, in terms of elections, they are essentially similar to the Soviets.
Your understanding of Iran's government appears to be as superficial and limited as your understanding of the various leadership roles in Islam.
The elections have moderates, reformers, and hardliners. Yes, they are limited by a council, but there is actually a measure of choice...and the Iranians' votes count in that regard. Compare that to any other regime in the region.
Quote
Frankly, the entire region is one big toilet, and your argument boils down to us letting them crap in peace, so they do not fling their feces at us, only at one another. There are two problems with this strategy - 1) there is something in the toilet that we desperately need; 2) when the feces start flying, so do any guarantees.
No, that's not my argument. I don't think the region is a toilet-in fact I think its people have admirable qualities and cultural values that we would do well to learn from. What I do support is democracy...and I think supporting democracy means we can be involved without playing the role of aggressor.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 27, 2007, 10:30:30 AM
Quote
And no country that isn't a part of these battles has been hit by Al Qaeda.
And who decides what constitutes part of the conflict? A bunch of terrorists that do not play by any rules but their own. You want to hang your hat on predicting their behavior? It is your choice. Thankfully, you are not the one making the decisions for the rest of us.
Quote
The prayer leader recites verses of the Qu'ran like a singer, he does not give sermons
You are the one that said the difference was as big as between "an apostle and a choir boy", which is consistent with your interpretation that "imam" means Webster #2 and/or Webster #3. Somehow, you forgot the far more common meaning of Webster #1. I do not speak arabic and cannot vouch for whatever connotations the word might have in arabic, and frankly, I do not give a crap - I stopped on 9/11. We speak English and so follow its conventions, ergo Webster. Otherwise, we can play Alice-in-Wonderland games making words mean things ad infinitum. And as 280plus pointed out, the difference between imam and cleric is moot.
Quote
Sweden, Norway, Finland, Japan, Singapore, the list goes on...no terror threats in those places either.
Nice try. I asked what developed nations are not involved, not what developed nations have not been threatened yet. But, in your mind, the two are already identical, aren't they?
Quote
I'm sure you also understand very well that suppliers for people you're at war with become a target. This is true for Western as well as Eastern wars.
As business individuals, probably. As countries, no, at least they should not. What you must understand is that the terrorists do not play by any rules. Therefore, they have forfeited any rules with regards to themselves. If they target us as a country, they deserve their countries targeted in exactly the same way.
Quote
So what on earth do you think happened to the Afrikaans republic of South Africa?
Please educate us on that successful revolution that enjoyed no external interference WHATSOEVER, even down to a single bullet or a single dollar.
Quote
Yes, they are limited by a council, but there is actually a measure of choice...
Does that "measure of choice" include kicking the theocrats out? Your understanding of "choice" reminds me of the old "banga" joke.
Quote
in fact I think its people have admirable qualities and cultural values that we would do well to learn from.
Throw us a bone here - tell us what we need to learn from them.
Post by: 280plus on February 27, 2007, 11:22:44 AM
Quote
My question to you is: Are they going to row over with their million man army in canoes, or will they just all buy plane tickets at the same time without anyone noticing?
Well, if they fight a true guerilla war they will use OUR ships to get here. Bear in mind, I'm not saying this will happen tomorrow, these are long term plans. Like over the next few GENERATIONS. We are not capapble of settling for a battle that long, given our propensity for instant gratification. That's is what makes them so dangerous. They are patiently waiting their chance. We are already showing our inability to stay in it for the long run. We are falling right into their hands. Post by: De Selby on February 27, 2007, 12:27:10 PM
Quote
And who decides what constitutes part of the conflict? A bunch of terrorists that do not play by any rules but their own. You want to hang your hat on predicting their behavior? It is your choice.
This whole discussion is about what their behavior indicates. You claim that their behavior indicates that they want to attack anyone who's not like them; yet you haven't come up with a single example of someone being attacked who wasn't involved in backing their enemies.
Quote
ou are the one that said the difference was as big as between "an apostle and a choir boy", which is consistent
The problem isn't the definition. The problem is that you do not know what an Islamic prayer works like. The Prayer leader doesn't give comments on the text and then say "Oh Jesus help us with x y and z"; he sings rote-memorized verses of the text. That's all he does.
If you weren't totally in the dark (something you seem to admit later that doesn't matter because of 9/11), you would see why the definition you posted is exactly what I was talking about.
Quote
Nice try. I asked what developed nations are not involved, not what developed nations have not been threatened yet. But, in your mind, the two are already identical, aren't they?
Those are nations that aren't involved, and my point is that they also haven't been threatened. If you can find a similarly situated nation that is threatened by terrorism from Al Qaeda, let's see it.
Quote
As business individuals, probably. As countries, no, at least they should not. What you must understand is that the terrorists do not play by any rules. Therefore, they have forfeited any rules with regards to themselves. If they target us as a country, they deserve their countries targeted in exactly the same way.
This is perhaps the most bizarre piece of reasoning I've ever seen from you.
"Nah, it doesn't make sense to target countries that support our enemies. But of course, if our enemies do something that doesn't make sense by targeting the supporters of their enemies, then we should do that same thing that doesn't make sense."
Your claim here seems to depend entirely on "what they deserve", and has absolutely nothing to do with "what motivates them." Maybe you don't care, but that's what is on the table here. I think you need to try to separate your own ideas of what "all dem arabs be deservin'" from "what are the factual causes of the problem of terrorism".
Quote
Please educate us on that successful revolution that enjoyed no external interference WHATSOEVER, even down to a single bullet or a single dollar.
That's an absurd standard for the discussion. Isolation generally helps revolutions, and there are plenty of examples of that. You don't have to find an example of an island that got not a single ship to understand the point.
Quote
Does that "measure of choice" include kicking the theocrats out? Your understanding of "choice" reminds me of the old "banga" joke.
No, it doesn't, but so what? The fact that it isn't as free as America doesn't mean it's the same thing as Saudi Arabia. If you're incapable of seeing degrees of democratization, well...that would explain a lot of your positions. But the problem there is with you and your ability to understand, not the facts of the situation.
Quote
Throw us a bone here - tell us what we need to learn from them.
Sure: We can learn about family values from them, about alternatives to consumption-based materialism, and about integrating religious values with scientific advancement. Those are all areas where Islamic societies have done very well, and secular European societies have fared poorly.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 27, 2007, 01:48:08 PM
Quote
Sure: We can learn about family values from them, about alternatives to consumption-based materialism, and about integrating religious values with scientific advancement. Those are all areas where Islamic societies have done very well, and secular European societies have fared poorly.
That pretty much sums up your insanity. Any further discussion with you is pointless. We are left to wonder how you managed to convince yourself in the above.
Post by: cordex on February 27, 2007, 06:46:28 PM
Quote
Sure: We can learn about family values from them, about alternatives to consumption-based materialism, and about integrating religious values with scientific advancement. Those are all areas where Islamic societies have done very well, and secular European societies have fared poorly.
1. You'd learn Islamic family values, which contain aspects that could be beneficial as well as aspects that are entirely incompatible with Western standards of equality.
2. Alternatives to consumption-based materialism? What region are you talking about again? As anywhere else - people with money love to buy stuff and people who don't have money wish they had money to buy stuff and try to get by as best they can. It isn't a lesson to be learned, it is the natural state of society.
3. Integrating religious values with scientific advancement? Dead on here ... except you're about six hundred years late on that accolade. Or are you referencing Ahmadinejad's claim that nuclear energy is a gift from Allah?
Post by: RocketMan on February 27, 2007, 06:57:21 PM
Post by: De Selby on February 27, 2007, 07:29:57 PM
These sorts of things are always up for debate. But yeah, I do think there's something to learn on all three points.
1. I don't see anything that is totally incompatible with western values, unless you think "western" means "the role of a man cannot be even in theory any different from the role of the woman in a family."
2. I don't agree that the "more money" motivation is true for the whole world. Muslims and Jews in particular have a high percentage of people who would not foresake their values for any dollar amount, and who are not generally swayed by economic efficiency. I think it's respectable and to be learned from.
3. No, I mean generally in that the rise of scientific knowledge has never been a problem for faithful Muslims (and Jews) like it was for many Christians. If you are Muslim or Jewish, there is not now and never has been a trend towards abandoning religion because of the advances of science. Both of those traditions rightly recognize that religion isn't about magic, and that's something Christianity still grapples with in a significant way (even though not all individual Christians do, obviously.)
Post by: LAK on February 27, 2007, 11:38:22 PM
Once again, you are starting to read like an automated teletyper; I addressed your comments, including those concerning a so-called "workable solution". I have stated several times, explicitly what needs to be done.
Terms like "Bush bashing" and "fortress America" simply indicate that you are quite happy with Mr Bush and an America entwined in the big global community. Don't inflate yourself - they do not give you any sort of intellectual high ground.
Post by: 280plus on February 28, 2007, 03:37:08 AM
Thread link: http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=6156.0
We over here read a lot about the student demonstrations and the parades against our government policy here in Vietnam. It is disgusting to us who are professional soldiers but it is particularly tough on the draftees and the first hitch men who are with us. We know what we are doing is right and as far as the U.S. soldier committing crimes against the local population that is absolute rubbish. Our GIs give up their own medicine and often their own gear to help the unfortunate local civilians who are caught in the middle of this miserable mess. As often as not the aid given these unfortunates end up in the hands of the V.C. and being used against us. Only in a country where we have men such as these over here, who are willing to fight and die for the privileges of freedom of speech, freedom of thought and freedom to express your political views as you see fit; could parades and demonstrations such as have been taking place in the U.S. occur. These young folks are either stupid to not see these obvious truths or we have a stronger communist movement in the U.S. then we suspected.
Death is not something I fear nor do I fear this for my men. What I do fear is wasted death for a young American who doesnt appreciate the wonderful land they live in. If we teach our sons nothing in their life times but the real value of being born and raised in a country where they have the opportunity to better themselves and the live as they see fit then we will have succeeded far better than the parents of many of our young people today.
I wonder whatever became of the patriotism and honor of the American youth of yesterday. It is time for the true picture to be shown and for the majority of young people to make their voices heard. I know in my heart that most American youth believe in their good fortune to be Americans but they do not demonstrate nor are they loud and obvious in their gratitude. They do not counter the impression of unrest and dissatisfaction shown by the small minority of fanatics. I am not in a position to judge the youth of America today, but if I were, I would find both the fanatic and the quiet wanting. It is just as great a sin to sit by and do nothing as it is to join in whole heartedly on the wrong side.
Those who create this picture of unrest are extending the length of the war in this country. By allowing civil unrest in the U.S. we are receiving unfavorable publicity in foreign presses and the communist are gaining more strength in the organizations which support this program in the U.S.
I hope none of my sons ever have to fight a war but if they must to preserve the freedom and way of life of our people, I hope they fight with every ounce of their strength, fearlessly and willingly. It is not necessary to be blind not to see nor deaf not to hear.
Here is the link to the site:
http://www.xav8er.com/
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 28, 2007, 04:30:39 AM
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 28, 2007, 05:44:58 AM
Quote
Once again, you are starting to read like an automated teletyper; I addressed your comments, including those concerning a so-called "workable solution". I have stated several times, explicitly what needs to be done.
What you stated is unworkable. Retreat to our borders will not be in our long-term national interests, even if I do agree that the current global force projection is idiotic. You cannot stop anybody that is well-funded and truly determined to get into the country (e.g. a terrorist) even if you do away with all our freedoms. Premature retreat from Iraq in particular will have disastrous consequences for the region and our supply of oil in the long run.
I have not claimed that you have not offered solutions; my claim is that your solutions are unworkable. And thus, I encourage you yet again to offer some that do work.
Quote
Terms like "Bush bashing" and "fortress America" simply indicate that you are quite happy with Mr Bush and an America entwined in the big global community.
The administration mishandled Iraq in many ways, not because they went too far, but because they did not have the guts and managerial skill and sheer leadership ability to go far enough. Also, IMHO, Clinton crippled our military by budgetary cuts, which meant that a large portion of our officer corps survived them by being save-ass brown-noses, something that gets soldiers killed in the field and accomplishes zilch. So, I am no Bush-lover, and all you need to do is do some searches on old threads on THR way back.
However, I am also a grownup, and know that in the real world, no amount of bitching and moaning will ever get you anything, except for maybe a couple bucks on a street corner or a Democratic congressman position. And that is a common issue with leftists, dems, and Bush-haters. Even if they get to crucify him, they still don't get that they will be in the same serious situation that requires workable wise solutions. They keep repeating "Pull out and then we'll see", which is the most ridiculous and outright stupid and irresponsible way to manage a war. They got no plans, no political solutions, no strategy - just a lot of quit.
As far as globalization goes, you are not going to stop it by losing wars and losing your supply of oil. Cutting and running will make us more dependent on Latin American oil, while that is exactly the region that threatens to swallow us demographically in the next few decades and also the region that the globalists you hate salivate the most over.
Quote
Don't inflate yourself - they do not give you any sort of intellectual high ground.
Which region of the intellectual topology do you think comments like that relegate you to?
Post by: mfree on February 28, 2007, 05:55:21 AM
Maybe it's time to bridge out into new threads?
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 28, 2007, 07:49:50 AM
Post by: LAK on February 28, 2007, 11:27:24 PM
Quote
What you stated is unworkable. Retreat to our borders will not be in our long-term national interests, even if I do agree that the current global force projection is idiotic. You cannot stop anybody that is well-funded and truly determined to get into the country (e.g. a terrorist) even if you do away with all our freedoms. Premature retreat from Iraq in particular will have disastrous consequences for the region and our supply of oil in the long run.
Idiotic. Remember you stated that - not I.
Right, it is impossible to stop someone who is well funded and determined to get into the country. But it could be cut by 99.999%. The 0.001% could then be the focus of our police and federal agencies who are otherwise currently tied up controlling us along with upward of 20 million unknowns already in the country and roaming freely.
Quote
I have not claimed that you have not offered solutions; my claim is that your solutions are unworkable. And thus, I encourage you yet again to offer some that do work.
They are only unworkable if one worships at the feet of a global community and so-called "free trade". Which is not free trade in any case, and simply a vehicle to level the playing field at our expense.
Quote
However, I am also a grownup, and know that in the real world, no amount of bitching and moaning will ever get you anything, except for maybe a couple bucks on a street corner or a Democratic congressman position. And that is a common issue with leftists, dems, and Bush-haters. Even if they get to crucify him, they still don't get that they will be in the same serious situation that requires workable wise solutions. They keep repeating "Pull out and then we'll see", which is the most ridiculous and outright stupid and irresponsible way to manage a war. They got no plans, no political solutions, no strategy - just a lot of quit.
Bush is a puppet, so to make him an object of hate is alittle absurd. I look upon him, and frontmen like him as gutless and pathetic. I certainly don't like him, but I do not get wrapped up in political personalities when discussing national policies and issues.
Of course we can not just pull out of iraq now. But the damage is done, and iraq has been simply another in a series of ongoing geo-political ventures. It is becoming predictable now that every ten year cycle we have someone in the WH that just has to use our military to invade and occupy yet another part of the globe. Each time with some new excuse.
Quote
As far as globalization goes, you are not going to stop it by losing wars and losing your supply of oil. Cutting and running will make us more dependent on Latin American oil, while that is exactly the region that threatens to swallow us demographically in the next few decades and also the region that the globalists you hate salivate the most over.
Globalization is dependent on these wars to bring those into line who would not otherwise participate. If you study the economic and trade issues surrounding these countries you will see that these are the reasons they are getting hammered militarily, not the other contrived excuses being used.
Quote
Which region of the intellectual topology do you think comments like that relegate you to?
When someone starts throwing that bs at me that is the appropriate response. If you do not like the response, don't start throwing the bs around in the first place.
--------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: CAnnoneer on March 01, 2007, 07:17:12 AM
Quote
Right, it is impossible to stop someone who is well funded and determined to get into the country. But it could be cut by 99.999%.
Your math makes no sense. Stop equating Pancho and Esmeralda crossing from Mexico on foot with a bottle of water and 5 bucks in their pockets to Ahmed Al'Crazyass that has access to millions $ and can enter in a thousand different ways. It is relatively easy to stop 99% of the 2 million Panchos of the world. Stopping 99 out of 100 Ahmeds is a whole different story. Please explain how you will find 100 Ahmeds in a nation of 300 million sprawled over half a continent. Look at FBI and local police trying to track down fugitives, whose names and faces are all over America's Most Wanted and who have no training, no money, and no million-dollar backers. For many it takes months and years to track down, if ever. Now try to do that with 100 Ahmeds. It is an essentially impossible security problem. It is a fantasy to believe it is even remotely solvable unless we have biometrics at every corner for everyone, and even then there will be ways around the system.
Quote
They are only unworkable if one worships at the feet of a global community and so-called "free trade". Which is not free trade in any case, and simply a vehicle to level the playing field at our expense.
So you do admit that your offered solutions are unworkable under the current political system and realities. It took you some time.
Quote
Globalization is dependent on these wars to bring those into line who would not otherwise participate. If you study the economic and trade issues surrounding these countries you will see that these are the reasons they are getting hammered militarily, not the other contrived excuses being used.
Of course there are. There have always been multiple reasons to wage wars and elites have always had their own economic and political agendas. What was offered to the public was not the main reason and does not need to be, because our public has lost its ability to stomach the stark realities of the world we live in.
They would not have offered support for the war, if Bush had got out and said "We need to invade to secure our access to oil for the next 50 years and to intimidate the local toilets from switching to petroeuros thereby devaluing our dollar." Both in my eyes are very legitimate and important reasons from the viewpoint of national interests. But the schmuck leftist blissninny doves out there would viciously fight it, although they partake every day in its benefits.
Post by: LAK on March 01, 2007, 11:55:59 PM
Quote
Your math makes no sense [etc]
.It is your reasoning that makes no sense. It is a percentage of the 100 or so well-funded Ahmeds that will get through regardless. With the 20-odd million others out of the way - decisively - the FBI and other agencies can concentrate all their efforts on the few truly dangerous individuals that get through. But in a nation where 20 millon plus unknowns roam with impunity, the hundred or so truly dangerous are not going to stand out to be spotted very easily.
Quote
So you do admit that your offered solutions are unworkable under the current political system and realities. It took you some time.
It is not that they are unworkable, it is that they are steadfastly excluded as options by a media that very co-operatively fuels the popular "left" and "right" arguements, and excludes those other options, whether they are from conservatives or not, from the debates. You won't see CNN or FOX give any airtime to Ron Paul - or Col. Craig Roberts - and ask what their opinions are as far as what is workable and what is not. So there is an agenda here, and that agenda demands that the current vulnerable state of our country remains, our balkanization continues from the south, and our invasion and occupation of countries like yugoslavia and iraq continue. It is these people who are our most dangerous enemies, and it is imperative they be taken down.
Quote
Of course there are. There have always been multiple reasons to wage wars and elites have always had their own economic and political agendas. What was offered to the public was not the main reason and does not need to be, because our public has lost its ability to stomach the stark realities of the world we live in.
More accurately the public at large is being manipulated into believing that there are only a couple of options; all of which ensure the continuation of the current staus quo, the subjugation of peoples living in the client states of the mid east, and our increasing being politically absorbed into the "global community", and decreasing status as an independent and unique country with a distinct ideology and culture.
Quote
They would not have offered support for the war, if Bush had got out and said "We need to invade to secure our access to oil for the next 50 years and to intimidate the local toilets from switching to petroeuros thereby devaluing our dollar." Both in my eyes are very legitimate and important reasons from the viewpoint of national interests. But the schmuck leftist blissninny doves out there would viciously fight it, although they partake every day in its benefits.
We were not buying oil from iraq, so it was not our oil supplies, or the dollar at stake. In addition to iraq and iran there are other nations running to the euro. But it is china that sits on 22 percent of the world currency reserves. It is china that is the major threat to the stability of the dollar.
-----------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org