-
Germany declared war on the US on December, 11, 1941, four days after Pearl Harbor. The US announced victory in Europe on May 8, 1945. That's one thousand, two hundred and forty-four days.
We've been in Iraq one thousand, two hundred and forty-seven days---and still the Administration has no exit strategy, no plan for victory and no clue what it is doing. In case you'd forgotten, George W. Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" aboard an aircraft carrier over three years ago.
"In the battle of Iraq," Bush said, "The United States and our allies have prevailed."
Perhaps that pronouncement was a little premature. Twelve hundred and four days later, our troops are still paying the price with no end in sight.
Heckuva job, Bush, heckuva job, Cheney.
-
While I was not in favor of going into Iraq I quickly became supportive of the mission once it began.
For whatever reason it was decided we needed a presence in the middle east (maybe to surround Iran?) and Iraq was considered a good gamble. A people somewhat used to secular government given the oportunity for freedom, sounded like it might work.
I have a lot of patience with this administration. They are bringing the fight to the enemy. Our homeland and our embassies have been kept safe by the military under the direction of this administration.
Under the Dems we were constantly attacked, WTC attack 1, our embassies, the Cole and culminating in WTC attack 2 9mos into Bush 43's first term. All handled as a law enforcement issue under Clinton. Utter failure to recognize the danger Islamofascism is to us and the free world in general. Saddam was close to being let out of his box. Our "allies" were dealing behind our back and pressure was mounting to drop the sanctions. Another failure of the leftist politicos.
Your vapid cliche attacks on Bush show your ignorance of the real world situation. We have few friends and many enemies. Diplomacy was used to lull us into a leftist stuper while Iran, North Korea and Islamo fascists were being used by Russia and China in a proxy war against us.
Boots on the ground in Iraq with part of the poulation as allies is better than an unfettered Saddam.
-
The short answer is WW2 really started in the late thirties when Japan began its attacks on its neighbors.
This is not an enemy that can be as easily defeated. there is no one to surrender because there is no one head of this snake. Many snake heads will need to be chopped off before this war is over.
I have said it before, not here, but other forums, that I would not be surprised to see this conflict last multiple decades. Radical Islam is just not going to be that easy to defeat. And that is what it will take.
I think we may well be in the easy part of the war now.
I dread the possibility of an idiot peacenik like most of the national dems being elected. It would be a long term military disaster of immense proportions to just give up and go home when victory in the current battles are in sight. But, do not be deceived, Afghanistan and Iraq are just the first battles. There may well be many more to come.
-
One could also argue that WWII was merely a continuation of WWI and the second phase started at the signing of the Armistice that "ended" WWI.
-
Uhm, last time I looked, we're still occupying territory in both Japan and Germany.
You want to compare apples to apples there snuffy, better give Iraq II about 70 years.
-
GoRon wrote:
For whatever reason it was decided we needed a presence in the middle east (maybe to surround Iran?)
You're really not sure, are you.
I have a lot of patience with this administration.
I ran out of patience with this administration in the wake of 9-11 when it came out that the fedgov totally dropped the ball in the run-up to 9-11.
They are bringing the fight to the enemy.
Sounds just like the stuff that Baghdad Bob used to fling.
THE WAS IN IRAQ HAS INCREASED WIDESPREAD HATRED OF THE US WITHIN THE MUSLIM WORLD, THUS FUELING AL QAEDA
Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq until we invaded: now they have carved out a niche for themselves as the most intractably violent of the various insurgent factions. According to the CIA, "Iraq [since the invasion] has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of 'professionalized' terrorists."
"I wasn't in the room with the president and Mr. Tenet. But I can tell that you that the people who were working against Osama bin Laden were assured from the first day that much of the work we had done in the last decade would be undone by that war." ---Former CIA officer Michael Scheuer, 22-year veteran who led the agency's Osama Bin Laden taskforce. Hardball with Chris Matthews, November 16 2004.
BUSH HAD OSAMA BIN LADEN SURROUNDED AT TORA BORA AND LET HIM GO
Former CIA officer Gary Berntsen, who led the CIA team in Afghanistan that was tasked with locating Osama bin Laden, claims in his 2005 book Jawbreaker that he and his team had pinpointed the location of Osama bin Laden. Also according to Bernsten, a number of al-Qaeda detainees later confirmed that bin Laden had escaped Tora Bora into Pakistan via an easternly route through snow covered mountains in the area of Parachinar, Pakistan. He also claims that bin Laden could have been captured if United States Central Command had committed the troops that Berntsen had requested. Former CIA office Gary Schroen concurs with this view. Pentagon documents seem to confirm this account.
Pat Buchanan has turned against the war. As has Bob Novak, William F. Buckley, Francis Fukuyama, John Derbyshire, John Mearsheimer, Andrew Bacevich, Charley Reese, Paul Craig Roberts, James Webb, George Will, etc.
Now let's see you smear them all as "leftists." Character assassination is the stock-in-trade of neocons.
All handled as a law enforcement issue under Clinton.
George Will might disagree with you there. See his The Triumph of Unrealism.
The London plot against civil aviation confirmed a theme of an illuminating new book, Lawrence Wright's "The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11." The theme is that better law enforcement, which probably could have prevented Sept. 11, is central to combating terrorism. F-16s are not useful tools against terrorism that issues from places such as Hamburg (where Mohamed Atta lived before dying in the North Tower of the World Trade Center) and High Wycombe, England.
-
mfree wrote:
Uhm, last time I looked, we're still occupying territory in both Japan and Germany. You want to compare apples to apples there snuffy, better give Iraq II about 70 years.
You might want to read up on the US occupation and reconstruction of Germany and Japan. There was no insurgency in Germany or Japan. As soon as their belligerent governments surrended, the Germans and the Japanese cooperated with the reconstruction of their countries.
-
GoRon wrote:
For whatever reason it was decided we needed a presence in the middle east (maybe to surround Iran?)
You're really not sure, are you.
I don't have that type of security clearance. I do agree with the sentiments of Thomas Friedman though:
In January 2004,Thomas Friedman wrote: "The real reason for this war which was never stated was to burst what I would call the 'terrorism bubble,' which had built up during the 1990s.
"This bubble was a dangerous fantasy, believed by way too many people in the Middle East. This bubble said that it was OK to plow airplanes into the World Trade Center, commit suicide in Israeli pizza parlors, praise people who do these things as 'martyrs' and donate money to them through religious charities.
"This bubble had to be burst, and the only way to do it was to go right into the heart of the Arab world and smash something -- to let everyone know that we, too, are ready to fight and die to preserve our open society. Yes, I know, it's not very diplomatic it's not in the rule book but everyone in the neighborhood got the message: Henceforth, you will be held accountable.
"Why Iraq, not Saudi Arabia or Pakistan? Because we could period."
Once that country was free from Saddam and given self determination the populace became accountable for the actions of the government. I want them all to be free to join the free world or align with the fascists. Lebonon is a good example. Hard to feel sorry for folks who vote Hezbollah into their government.
We have had two choices, the Republicans or the Democrats.
If you think Al Gore or John Kerry would have done a better job I think you are deluded.
If you are a third party guy you are kidding yourself. We have a two party system, wake up and deal with reality.
-
Oh, yes, that's right, I forgot. The enemy in Japan and Germany were arguably "civilized". In Iraq, now that the regular army is defeated all that's left to fight are disgusting animals.
So... we should leave Iraq full of disgusting animals, let the Iraqis deal with them instead? What a nice thing to do on our part. Kick the ant's nest with people tied to the top and not have the decency to spray some insecticide.
And that little "run up to 9-11" thing, let's see... GW was officially in office for what, a bit under a year? 54'th inaugural swearing in was Jan 20, 2001. I'm sure it took a wee bit longer than eight months to get that whole mess together, flight schools and what not.
So, *which* administration dropped the ball?
(edited for typos, stiff fingers today. Joints shouldn't make noises like that...)
-
Don't feed the troll.
Same old lefty talking points, blah,blah,blah.
You forgot "Bush missed a dental appointment in the Guard!"
-
Yes, al Qaeda would be rushing to our aid and offering humanitarian assistance in Iraq against Saddam Hussein if we hadnt invaded.
I find this argument especially repulsive because it is so stupid.
al Qaeda is a quasi-governmental entity whose primary mission is the defeat of the U.S. and the end of Western influence in the world. Secondarily they want to wage war to convert the whole world to their particular screwy brand of Islam. They are in Iraq because we are. If we invaded N.Korea they would be in N.Korea.
We havent strengthened al Qaeda by invading Iraq, we have weakened them. We have degraded their ability to move, to fund operations, to supply, to command and control. We have killed or imprisoned most of their leaders and the rest are in hiding or running for their lives.
The US history of small wars is that we lose only when the American public demands an "end strategy" and cuts and runs. We win when we sustain the effort.
-
You might want to read up on the US occupation and reconstruction of Germany and Japan. There was no insurgency in Germany or Japan. As soon as their belligerent governments surrended, the Germans and the Japanese cooperated with the reconstruction of their countries.
So what your saying is that we had better enemies in WWII? I heartily agree.
-
So what your saying is that we had better enemies in WWII? I heartily agree.
That really wasn't my point. mfree made an ahistorical comparison of the current US occupation/counterinsurgency war in Iraq to the US occupation of Germany and Japan. I simply recommeded that he read some history. Were he to read, for example, the U.S. Army's official history, The U.S. Army in the Occupation of Germany 1944-1946, he would discover that not only was there no Nazi insurgency against the Allies, but that fraternization between former enemies was considered a bigger problem. As the distinguished German historian Golo Mann summed it up in The History of Germany Since 1789, "The [Germans'] readiness to work with the victors, to carry out their orders, to accept their advice and their help was genuine; of the resistance which the Allies had expected in the way of 'werewolf' units and nocturnal guerrilla activities, there was no sign. &"
His foolish claim that Japan and Germany are to this day under US "occupation" is foolish and absurd, and shows that he doesn't grasp the meaning of the word "occupy."
So... we should leave Iraq...?
The Iraqis want us out.
The Bush administration and its supporters have long claimed that there is a silent majority of Iraqis who regard coalition forces as liberators, want those forces to stay for a prolonged period, oppose insurgent attacks on coalition troops, and are enthusiastic about creating a Western-style democracy for their country. According to a 2004 Gallup survey of Iraqi public opinion, that just isn't true.
57 percent wanted US-UK troops to leave "immediately." In the *expletive deleted*it areas, the sentiment is 61 percent and in the Sunni areas it is 65 percent. (And in Baghdad it is a stunning 75 percent). 51 percent supported attacks against coalition forces.
At least the Kurds like us. They probably ought to just split Iraq into Kurdistan, Shiastan, and Sunnistan, declare victory, and then leave. But is the alternative? "Stay the course" as American soldiers continue to get killed and wounded with no end in sight? Some 20 K American casualties to date. That's a lot dead soldiers, grieving families, soldiers with missing limbs, scars, etc. We've poured more than $308 billion down that rat hole. When's it going to stop?
Report: CIA Shutters Unit Leading Hunt for bin Laden
Same old lefty talking points, blah,blah,blah.
Ah yes, by lefties such as Buckley, Will, Buchanan, Novak. Anyone who criticizes the president must be a "leftist."
I'm a gun-owning Texan capitalist who has benefited from Bush's tax cuts. No one in my family will ever have to work at Walmart, join the military or go without. I don't have a leftwing bone in my body. But I sure do recognize a majorleague f*ckup when I see one.
Yes, al Qaeda would be rushing to our aid and offering humanitarian assistance in Iraq against Saddam Hussein if we hadnt invaded. I find this argument especially repulsive because it is so stupid.
What an active imagination you have there, Rabbi. No one makes such argument.
And that little "run up to 9-11" thing, let's see... GW was officially in office for what, a bit under a year?
How terribly unfair of us to expect Bush to do his job competently. All that work, and all those meetings, having to read those complicated government reports and stuff..... we ought to give the guy a break. /hankie
Joe Conason has calculated that up until Sept. 11, 2001, Bush had spent 54 days at the ranch, 38 days at Camp David, and four days at the Bush compound in Kennebunkporta total of 96 days, or about 40 percent of his presidency, outside of Washington.
Hey Bush, ever hear of that crazy little thing called "the work ethic"?
In December 2005 Bush justified warrantless wiretaps by invoking the case of two 9/11 hijackers whom the feds failed to trace before the attacks. Bush declared, "Two of the terrorist hijackers who flew a jet into the Pentagon, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, communicated while they were in the United States to other members of al Qaeda who were overseas. But we didn't know they were here, until it was too late."
Bush neglected to mention that the two culprits were renting rooms in the house of an FBI informant prior to the hijacking.
These two known Al-Qaeda operatives were at a summit of terrorist plotters in Malaysia in 2000. The CIA knew that the two already possessed visas permitting them to travel to the United States. Yet the CIA failed to place their names on the "terrorist watch list," which would have alerted other federal agencies to the danger and blocked them from entering the United States. Sen. Richard Shelby observed in late 2002 that the CIAs negligence "allowed at least two such terrorists the opportunity to live, move, and prepare for the attacks without hindrance from the very federal officials whose job it is to find them."
On August 23, 2001 the CIA finally placed the names of al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi on the terrorist watch list and notified the FBI that the two men were likely somewhere in the United States.
Once the CIA notified the FBI of the presence in the United States of two suspected terrorists, the FBI could have quickly run a few Internet searches to snare the San Diego residential address of al-Mihdhar. They were in the country operating under their own names, had bank accounts, etc. But this step was not taken until after the 9/11 attacks.
Perhaps Bush considered these facts and drew the natural Washington conclusion: the more federal agencies screw up, the more entitled Bush becomes to absolute power.
Yes, Clinton screwed up also. So what? At least he didn't get us bogged down in a Middle East quagmire.
-
That really wasn't my point.
Do you intend on making one?
-
Al Kidya was a CIA invention; they were even involved in the campaign by the heroin cartel strongarm popularly known as the "Kosovo Liberation Army" against the Serbs.
If Al Kidya was actually as claimed by the Bush administration, and actually desired the "fall" of the United States, they could have accomplished that in less than three months - without any exotic weaponry, biological or otherwise.
As noted by FreedomCommando, the "for" and "against" of this phoney "war" have been nicely pigeonholed as the "right" and "left". Nothing could be further from the truth, and many names in the government, military, academic and general professional world could be added to his list of actual conservatives who see through the facade. Like Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst under Ronald Reagan.
The grand prize in this mad campaign is the Caspian basin and surrounding region - at the expense of our blood and money.
-------------------------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
-
I don't think of it as feeding the troll, I consider it my compassionate duty to speak facts to ignorance and truth to fabrications.
I am reminded of a relative of mine who works with special ed kids. She can spend months with a child, just geting the child to hold a pencil. In a similar way, I hope my efforts will let a fact slip in through the tightly clamped sphincter of ignorance.
THE WAS IN IRAQ HAS INCREASED WIDESPREAD HATRED OF THE US WITHIN THE MUSLIM WORLD, THUS FUELING AL QAEDA
Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq until we invaded: now they have carved out a niche for themselves as the most intractably violent of the various insurgent factions. According to the CIA, "Iraq [since the invasion] has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of 'professionalized' terrorists."
Muslims have hated us* since the seventh century after Christ. They will go on hating us until there is a major change in Islam or there are no muslims. This is going to be a long war.
* "us" defined as "non-muslims"
So what your saying is that we had better enemies in WWII? I heartily agree.
That really wasn't my point. mfree made an ahistorical comparison of the current US occupation/counterinsurgency war in Iraq to the US occupation of Germany and Japan. I simply recommeded that he read some history. Were he to read, for example, the U.S. Army's official history, The U.S. Army in the Occupation of Germany 1944-1946, he would discover that not only was there no Nazi insurgency against the Allies, but that fraternization between former enemies was considered a bigger problem. As the distinguished German historian Golo Mann summed it up in The History of Germany Since 1789, "The [Germans'] readiness to work with the victors, to carry out their orders, to accept their advice and their help was genuine; of the resistance which the Allies had expected in the way of 'werewolf' units and nocturnal guerrilla activities, there was no sign. &"
His foolish claim that Japan and Germany are to this day under US "occupation" is foolish and absurd, and shows that he doesn't grasp the meaning of the word "occupy."
Werewolf: The Story of the Nazi Resistance Movement 1944-1945
http://www.discovermilitaryhistory.com/dmh8/0850525136AMUS253017.shtml
Werwolf!: The History of the National Socialist Guerrilla Movement, 1944-1946
http://pages.prodigy.net/aesir/wer.htm
Yes, do read some history.
-
Al Kidya was a CIA invention; they were even involved in the campaign by the heroin cartel strongarm popularly known as the "Kosovo Liberation Army" against the Serbs.
If Al Kidya was actually as claimed by the Bush administration, and actually desired the "fall" of the United States, they could have accomplished that in less than three months - without any exotic weaponry, biological or otherwise.
As noted by FreedomCommando, the "for" and "against" of this phoney "war" have been nicely pigeonholed as the "right" and "left". Nothing could be further from the truth, and many names in the government, military, academic and general professional world could be added to his list of actual conservatives who see through the facade. Like Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst under Ronald Reagan.
The grand prize in this mad campaign is the Caspian basin and surrounding region - at the expense of our blood and money.
-------------------------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.orghttp://ssunitedstates.org
-
Guy regeistered yesterday. I think I smell something...what could it be??? Oh yeah, A TROLL!!!
Greg
-
No one in my family will ever have to work at Walmart, join the military or go without.
Seems like that adds a bit of prejudice to your thesis. JMO.
-
I don't think he is a troll, just passionate about his beliefs.
-
This Tracinski guy has a reasonably good take on what's happening in all this mideast stuff:
http://www.tiadaily.com
It's a bit long, but I think it's worth the read. In part,
"Iran's theocracy has chosen, as the nation's
new president, a religious fanatic who believes in the impending, apocalyptic
triumph of Islam over the infidels. He openly proclaims his desire to create an
Iranian-led Axis that will unite the Middle East in the battle against America,
and he proclaims his desire to "wipe Israel off the map,"
telling an
audience of Muslim leaders that "the main solution" to the conflict in Lebanon
is "the elimination of the Zionist regime." (Perhaps this would be better
translated as Ahmadinejad's "final solution"to the problem of Israel.)"
Note that this position is not at all different from what ensued after the Ayatollah Khomeini came to power in Iran in 1979. And the US was "The Great Satan" during Carter's presidency (not that Carter had anything to do with Khomeini's view).
I don't want to live under Sharia, myownself--and that's the only way to stop this renewal of the "Advance of Islam" as proposed by the Jihadists. Convert or die--now or later.
As far as 9/11? it would have happened with Gore as president. After all, 9/11 was actually WTC-2; WTC-1 was in 1993.
Face it: Our fundamental system lends itself to a WW II-style effort, which was of no particularly different style in Desert Storm or in the invasion of Iraq. It does not have much in the way of protection against such as Al Qaida and/or IEDs.
Art
-
This may be slightly off-topic, but I'm gonna ask it here anyway.
Had Saddam not been defeated, does anyone else think he would have been firing (or at least threatening to fire) scud missiles into Tel Aviv during the recent war between Israel and Hezbollah? Am I the only one to think that Iraq II just saved a boatload of Israeli lives, and generally helped keep the Mid-East stable during the recent war in Lebanon?
-
This may be slightly off-topic, but I'm gonna ask it here anyway.
Had Saddam not been defeated, does anyone else think he would have been firing (or at least threatening to fire) scud missiles into Tel Aviv during the recent war between Israel and Hezbollah? Am I the only one to think that Iraq II just saved a boatload of Israeli lives, and generally helped keep the Mid-East stable during the recent war in Lebanon?
Saddam had a 20 year history of supporting terrorism, including al Qaeda, as the Czech connection proved. He was technically an enemy of Hezbolla since they are an Iranian creation but if they were fighting Israelis that was good enough for him.
-
Did even bother to read this book? or even the review?
"Charles Whiting has written some great books on world war two. This reviewer did not find Werewolf one of his best. It describes the establishment of nazi underground saboteurs working behind enemy lines in late 1944 thru 1945. Although non fiction, the author chooses a novelesque approach dealing with the five men and one woman who successfully murdered Franz Oppenoff, the first German mayor of Aachen under American control. But there is little else of substance in the book. Perhaps this reviewer expected too much. It is accepted that Werewolf never really got off the ground as the Reich collapsed, so maybe there is not too much to tell."
There simply is not much to tell.
Again, aside from the assassination of the mayor of Aachen, the "Werewolves" amounted to nothing besides occasional anti-occupation leaflets and graffiti, and a few isolated acts of sabotage. As Antony Beevor observes in The Fall of Berlin 1945,
In the west, the Allies found that Werwolf was a fiasco. Bunkers prepared for Werwolf operations had supplies "for 10-15 days only" and the fanaticism of the Hitler Youth members they captured had entirely disappeared. They were "no more than frightened, unhappy youths." Few resorted to the suicide pills which they had been given "to escape the strain of interrogation and, above all, the inducement to commit treason." Many, when sent off by their controllers to prepare terrorist acts, had sneaked home.
According to America's Role in Nation-Building: From Germany to Iraq, a study by former Ambassador James Dobbins, who had a lead role in the Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo reconstruction efforts, and a team of RAND Corporation researchers, the total number of post-conflict American combat casualties in Germanyand Japan, Haiti, and the two Balkan caseswas zero.
There was no insurgency in Germany against Allied occupation. There is no American "occupation" of Germany or Japan in any meaningful sense of the word. American soldiers do not man roadblocks, shoot up cars that get "too close" to American convoys, torture the locals, rape teenage women and murder the parents, or routinely shoot up a houses of innocent local civilians. See Officer Called Haditha Routine, Marine Said Deaths Didn't Merit Inquiry.
Iraq isn't anything like post-WWII occupation of Germany, Japan or Italy. It's a stupid comparison made by people either ignorant of history, or by those who know better but set out to deceive (such as Rumsfeld).
Saddam had a 20 year history of supporting terrorism, including al Qaeda, as the Czech connection proved.
Merely repeating Cheney's lies doesn't prove a damn thing, Rabbi. The intelligence community (CIA, NSA, DIA, etc) view, confirmed by the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission Report and the Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq, is that there was not a cooperative effort between the two and that Saddam did not support the 9/11 attacks.
After the allegation surfaced that 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta was seen in Prague in 2001 meeting with an Iraqi diplomat, a number of investigations looked into the possibility that this had occurred. All of them concluded that all known evidence suggested that such a meeting was unlikely at best. The January 2003 CIA report Iraqi Support for Terrorism noted that "the most reliable reporting to date casts doubt on this possibility" that such a meeting occurred.
Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet released "the most complete public assessment by the agency on the issue" in a statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee in July 2004, stating that the CIA was "increasingly skeptical" any such meeting took place. John McLaughlin, who at the time was the Deputy Director of the CIA, described the extent of the Agency's investigation into the claim: "Well, on something like the Atta meeting in Prague, we went over that every which way from Sunday. We looked at it from every conceivable angle. We peeled open the source, examined the chain of acquisition. We looked at photographs. We looked at timetables. We looked at who was where and when. It is wrong to say that we didn't look at it. In fact, we looked at it with extraordinary care and intensity and fidelity."
A New York Times investigation involving "extensive interviews with leading Czech figures" reported that Czech officials had backed off the claim. Both the FBI and the Czech police chief investigated the issue and came to similar conclusions; FBI director Robert S. Mueller III noted that the FBI's investigation "ran down literally hundreds of thousands of leads and checked every record we could get our hands on, from flight reservations to car rentals to bank accounts." The 9/11 Commission investigation, which looked over both the FBI and Czech intelligence investigations, concluded that "[n]o evidence has been found that Atta was in the Czech Republic in April 2001." The Commission still could not "absolutely rule out the possibility" that Atta was in Prague on 9 April traveling under an alias, but the Commission concluded that "There was no reason for such a meeting, especially considering the risk it would pose to the operation. By April 2001, all four pilots had completed most of their training, and the muscle hijackers were about to begin entering the United States. The available evidence does not support the original Czech report of an Atta-Ani meeting." (p. 229)
Guy regeistered yesterday. I think I smell something...what could it be??? Oh yeah, A TROLL!!!
I've been reading the board since it opened. I've been on THR for years. I strongly opposed Clinton when he was president. Hell, just today I attended a GOP fundraiser for a local congressman.
I don't think he is a troll, just pasionate about his beliefs.
GoRon, thank you.
Seems like that adds a bit of prejudice to your thesis. JMO.
My father served in the Navy in WWI. My grandfather served in the Army in WWI and WWII. And you call me "prejudiced"? None of my progeny will have to serve in the military in order to get to college. If they do, it is because they will want to.
Muslims have hated us* since the seventh century after Christ. They will go on hating us until there is a major change in Islam or there are no muslims. This is going to be a long war.
Some do and some don't. US foreign policy under the neocons serves only to strengthen those who do.
Do you intend on making one?
You can lead a horse to water....
-
And you call me "prejudiced"?
No, I said your statement prejudiced your thesis. Two entirely different things. You added "to pay for college" later. Your original statement made it sound like you equated the military with Walmart, as if to say it's something people do if they can't do anything else. If that's how you actually felt about the military, it would prejudice your argument re: a military solution to Iraq.
-
Another guy with an agenda. Oy.
-
This is all why you should Vote For Anyone But A Republican. Approved candidates include Gore, Kerry, and Hillary.
-
This is all why you should Vote For Anyone But A Republican. Approved candidates include Gore, Kerry, and Hillary.
Heh. Joe Lieberman is NOT on the approved list this time.
What a world...
-
It ain't a Cheneylie that Saddam was paying $25,000--or offering to--to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. It ain't a Cheneylie that he did worse genocide than Milosevic. It ain't a Cheneylie that the Washington Establishment--both parties' leadership--kept talking about Saddam's WMDs and how they should be taken out.
Damfino. I guess we oughta just roll over and imitate scared pups, learn Arabic and take up Sharia...
Art
-
Hehehe, I love it that the poster compared Iraq II and WWII, and then argued with me, because I compared Iraq II and WWII.
-
No, I said your statement prejudiced your thesis.
Oh OK, I understand you now. (Still disagree.)
Your original statement made it sound like you equated the military with Walmart, as if to say it's something people do if they can't do anything else.
For many, it is. Many recruits join because their options are quite limited.
Hehehe, I love it that the poster compared Iraq II and WWII, and then argued with me, because I compared Iraq II and WWII.
Let's look at what you actually wrote.
Uhm, last time I looked, we're still occupying territory in both Japan and Germany.
No, we're not still "occupying" Japan and Germany. It's foolish to compare the peaceful presence of US troops in those two countries to the counterinsurgency war we're fighting in Iraq.
It ain't a Cheneylie that Saddam was paying $25,000--or offering to--to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.
So, US troops had to die to solve Israel's problem? Interesting.
It ain't a Cheneylie that he did worse genocide than Milosevic.
Let's see, that would have been during 1980s when Rumsfeld was meeting with him, Reagan's state department was taking Iraq OFF the list of countries that sponsor terrorism, the intelligence agencies were sharing classified intel with Saddam, the West was supplying Baghdad with military hardware and other support to keep his violence rolling EVEN AS he was gassing Kurds and Iranians. Consistent with the pattern throughout the Iran-Iraq war and after, the use of these internationally outlawed weapons was not considered important enough by Rumsfeld and his political superiors to halt Washington's blossoming love affair with Hussein.
Boy oh boy, we in the West really have the moral highground here, don't we, Art. Yeah, we were really concerned about Saddam's terrible human rights record. All that terrible torture and executions that took place at Saddam's notorious prison Abu Ghraib. Glad we went in there and stopped all that violence. Excellent work.
It ain't a Cheneylie that the Washington Establishment--both parties' leadership--kept talking about Saddam's
essentially NONEXISTENT after 1991
WMDs and how they should be taken out.
The US helped Iraq develop its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. Douglas Frantz and Murray Waas published it in the February 23, 1992, Los Angeles Times. Headlined, "Bush secret effort helped Iraq build its war machine", the article reported that "classified documents obtained by the LA Times show ... a long-secret pattern of personal efforts by [George Bush senior]--both as president and vice president--to support and placate the Iraqi dictator."
See Mark Phythian's 1997 book Arming Iraq: How the US and Britain Secretly Built Saddam's War Machine (Northeastern University Press).
If the Ba'athists all disappeared and Al Qaeda disappeared from the face of the planet, the US would quickly go out in search of new enemies. WHo knows? Might even be some country with which we have currently have friendly relations.
And the neocon amen corner in this coiuntry will close ranks, forget history, pretend that cynical men in D.C. are idealists oh-so-concerned about human rights and democracy
Repeat after me: "Eurasia is the enemy. Eurasia has always been the enemy."
======
The broad mass of the nation ... will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one. Adolf Hitler, in his 1925 book Mein Kampf.
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels.
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country. Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Göring during the Nuremberg Trials.
-
"The US helped Iraq develop its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. Douglas Frantz and Murray Waas published it in the February 23, 1992, Los Angeles Times. Headlined, "Bush secret effort helped Iraq build its war machine", the article reported that "classified documents obtained by the LA Times show ... a long-secret pattern of personal efforts by [George Bush senior]--both as president and vice president--to support and placate the Iraqi dictator."
So?
Do you know so little of international politics and diplomacy that you don't realize that yesterday's friends are tomorrow's enemies?
That's the way it's always been, and that's the way it always will be.
Yes, the United States helped Iraq build up its weapons stockpiles, mainly because they were a viable counter to the power of the Iranians.
At the time it was recognized that Saddam wasn't a very nice guy, but he seemed to be happy being in our diplomatic camp, and we were happy to have him.
That all changed in 1990, though. Saddam's military invaded one of our allies, and was seriously threatening yet another, more important ally.
Sounds a lot like what happened between the United States and Japan, or the United States and Germany, in the years leding up to Pearl Harbor.
-
[The Rabbi]"You left out the scheming by Zionist elements and Israel's Amen Corner in Congress."
... Instead of heckling with a popular sidetrack; why don't you refute specifically that which I have stated instead?
Or would you rather talk about Zionists and the "amen corner" in Washington DC?
----------------------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
-
Or would you rather talk about Zionists and the "amen corner" in Washington DC?
I would rather pursue this subject and let you express your views. Nothing will discredit your arguments better than that.
-
I think that the real issue here is muslim property rights, and their freedom to exercise them.
-
I think that the real issue here is muslim property rights, and their freedom to exercise them.
Could you expand on that a little?
-
THE WAS IN IRAQ HAS INCREASED WIDESPREAD HATRED OF THE US WITHIN THE MUSLIM WORLD, THUS FUELING AL QAEDA
That's very funny stuff, really. Thank you for the amusement.
-
THE WAS IN IRAQ HAS INCREASED WIDESPREAD HATRED OF THE US WITHIN THE MUSLIM WORLD, THUS FUELING AL QAEDA
That's very funny stuff, really. Thank you for the amusement.
Sigh...
One of the simplest ways of pegging someone as either liberal or conservative is to look at who they blame for a savage's savage behavior. The conservative blames the savage, the lib blames everyone and everything except the savage.
Crime?
Conservative: blame the criminal.
Liberal: blame the gun, blame society, blame budget cuts, blame the victim
Poverty?
Conservative: blame the poor person for his irresponsibility and/or laziness.
Liberal: blame the rich, blame Republicans, blame caucasians, blame capitalists and entrepreneurs.
Terrorism?
Conservative: blame the terrorists.
Liberal: blame the West, blame Bush, blame Israel, blame our successful American way of life
At some point, if the Libs wanna start winning elections again, they're gonna have to re-evaluate their answers to the question of who to blame. Most Americans have the sense to know that it's the Muslim savages' fault whenever they behave like savages and try to murder and burn and destroy us. The current crop of libs apparently cannot figure this concept out.
-
Hey, if Hussein, wants to kill thousands of his own people, who are we to argue? They were his people. If they wanted to rape thousands of women, hey... muslim property.
Actually used that argument at lunch one day. Had a cow-orker who had a Kerry sticker agreeing up until the last bit, and then I turned around and asked... er... no... TOLD her to go get me a glass of water.
And if they wanna get technical, the war's been over for quite a while... This is reconstruction... Heck, my dear dad got shot at after the war was over... German black marketeers...
-
You might want to read up on the US occupation and reconstruction of Germany and Japan. There was no insurgency in Germany or Japan. As soon as their belligerent governments surrended, the Germans and the Japanese cooperated with the reconstruction of their countries.
THAT is pure, unmitigated horsepucky. That piece of angle iron sticking up from the bumper of jeeps in post-war photos? Thats an "anti-decapitation device". Guess who was stringing wire across the roads at neck height, on routes they knew the military used, and also knowing the grunts were ordered to keep the windshields down...
-
( Art Eatman) "It ain't a Cheneylie that the Washington Establishment--both parties' leadership--kept talking about Saddam's WMDs and how they should be taken out."
(FreedomCommando) "essentially NONEXISTENT after 1991"
I believe you are wrong.
http://www.flashbunny.org/content/misled.html
-
You might want to read up on the US occupation and reconstruction of Germany and Japan. There was no insurgency in Germany or Japan. As soon as their belligerent governments surrended, the Germans and the Japanese cooperated with the reconstruction of their countries.
THAT is pure, unmitigated horsepucky. That piece of angle iron sticking up from the bumper of jeeps in post-war photos? Thats an "anti-decapitation device". Guess who was stringing wire across the roads at neck height, on routes they knew the military used, and also knowing the grunts were ordered to keep the windshields down...
* History, plural, since a particular revised history becomes inconvenient as priorities change and history must be revised yet again. This leads to juggling multiple revised histories, some of which are mutualy exclusive.
-
So what your saying is that we had better enemies in WWII? I heartily agree.
Joe Conason has calculated that up until Sept. 11, 2001, Bush had spent 54 days at the ranch, 38 days at Camp David, and four days at the Bush compound in Kennebunkporta total of 96 days, or about 40 percent of his presidency, outside of Washington.
Hey Bush, ever hear of that crazy little thing called "the work ethic"?
Case in point: the Camp David facility used by numerous President's is considered, in this context, to be an extension of the White House. Counting GWB's time at Camp David as time "off the job" would be disingenuous.
-
Does it matter where he is? Can the President of the United States really escape his job?
-
Does it matter where he is? Can the President of the United States really escape his job?
+1. I am sure the president works as much when he is "on vacation" as many people do when they are "at work." It is a non-issue, something I would have expected to see in a Michael Moore film.
-
Does it matter where he is?
Sure it matters. It doesn't count as work unless you're AT work. I thought that was common knowledge. And yes, that was sarcasm.
-
Does it matter where he is?
Sure it matters. It doesn't count as work unless you're AT work. I thought that was common knowledge. And yes, that was sarcasm.
-
Iraq War II surpasses World War II
How? Solely on the basis of how long we've had soldiers in country?
Even with only a fraction of the casualties?
Have any cities been fire-bombed or atom-bombed?
Wasn't poison gas used in WWII? Has it been used in this war?
How many nations have been taken over, annexed or invaded by either side?
Are any Americans out there collecting srap metal? Are we rationing rubber?
-
It ain't a Cheneylie that the Washington Establishment--both parties' leadership--kept talking about Saddam's WMDs and how they should be taken out.
I've been listening to some Henry Rollins (ex frontman for Black Flag, current Rollins Band head, actor, etc) "spoken word" albums lately, all recorded between 1996 and 2000. In one, he spent several minutes talking about dealing with the crazies in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East, even mentioning Saddam's bio and chem weapons. He even made comments about how it was a matter of time before "they" hit us big. Kinda sad hearing something like this that so clearly showed how even liberal entertainers recognized the threat back then.
Chris
-
http://www.flashbunny.org/content/misled.html asks the question "So were they misleading America?"
Earth to Flashbunny: politicians lie routinely. Clinton lies every time he opens his mouth. Bush probably does not lie as much only because he's too damn stupid to really have an appreciation of the truth.
I believe you are wrong.
Bush and Cheney made specific claims about Iraq's "reconstituted nuclear weapons program." No such nulear program was found. They made specific claims about Iraq's alleged "mobile bio-weapons labs." Nonexistent BS dreamed up by an alcoholic named Curveball. The CIA has already discounted the claims, but Cheney and Bush still went arund making rediculous claims. There's a word for the act of making false claims with knowledge of their falsity or with wreckless disregard for the truth thereof. It's called lying.
Garrot-fairies, since the post-war German resistance never existed (in the fevered revisionist histories* of some).
Argue with the official historians of the US Army who tell us that there was essentially no resistance to US occupation aside from a few incidents here and there. According to former Ambassador James Dobbins and a team of RAND Corporation researchers, the total number of post-conflict American combat casualties in Germanyand Japan, Haiti, and the two Balkan caseswas ZERO. As in ZIP, NADA, NONE, not a single case.
If there are any documented cases of American soldiers in Germany getting killed by Germans after the surrender, then you may provide evidence at this time. Otherwise such bogus claims occupy the same Planet Neocon with Iraqi WMD, Saddam's support for Al Aqeda, Atta's meeting in prague, Saddam's purchase of Nigerian uranium, and any number of other inventions of the rich fantasy life of collective neocon imagination. SS "Werewolven" are teh stuff of schlocky teen comic books.
Headless Thompson Gunner wrote:
One of the simplest ways of pegging someone as either liberal or conservative is to look at who they blame for a savage's savage behavior.
1. There's is nothing particularly "conservative" about the Bush Administration.
2. Taking Terror Seriously
At the time it was recognized that Saddam wasn't a very nice guy, but he seemed to be happy being in our diplomatic camp, and we were happy to have him.
Aawww.....happiness abounds. You can just feel the love.....
Saddam's crimes in the 1980s were ignored by the same people who 20 years cite such crimes as a causus belli.
-
just passionate about his beliefs.
So are the poeple who wear the SemTex suits.
Brad
-
Iraq War II surpasses World War II
How? Solely on the basis of how long we've had soldiers in country?
Even with only a fraction of the casualties?
Have any cities been fire-bombed or atom-bombed?
Wasn't poison gas used in WWII? Has it been used in this war?
How many nations have been taken over, annexed or invaded by either side?
Are any Americans out there collecting srap metal? Are we rationing rubber?
-
I've been listening to some Henry Rollins (ex frontman for Black Flag, current Rollins Band head, actor, etc) "spoken word" albums
Wow, I'm not alone. Black Coffee Blues is a good one.
-
I've been listening to some Henry Rollins (ex frontman for Black Flag, current Rollins Band head, actor, etc) "spoken word" albums
Wow, I'm not alone. Black Coffee Blues is a good one.
Back to our regularly scheduled Bush-bashing...
Chris
-
[The Rabbi]"I would rather pursue this subject and let you express your views. Nothing will discredit your arguments better than that."
Interesting switch on your part.
I addressed some points raised in the subject matter - it was you who came up with "Zionists" and "the Amen Corner in Congress".
You - not I.
--------------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
-
[The Rabbi]"I would rather pursue this subject and let you express your views. Nothing will discredit your arguments better than that."
Interesting switch on your part.
I addressed some points raised in the subject matter - it was you who came up with "Zionists" and "the Amen Corner in Congress".
You - not I.
actually it was the Keyboard--oops, Freedom Commando who first introduced this little nugget.
-
LAK wrote:
I addressed some points raised in the subject matter - it was you who came up with "Zionists" and "the Amen Corner in Congress". You - not I.
The Rabbi responded:
actually it was the Keyboard--oops, Freedom Commando who first introduced this little nugget.
Flat wrong. FreedomCommando made no mention of "Zionist" anything.
Rabbi, why do you falsify something which can so easily be checked out? Go read your own post #17 in this thread posted 2006-08-20 04:08:39.
You left out the scheming by Zionist elements and Israel's Amen Corner in Congress.
That was the first use of the term "Zionist" or "Israel's Amen Corner" in this thread.
-
LAK wrote:
Flat wrong. FreedomCommando made no mention of "Zionist" anything.
Rabbi, why do you falsify something which can so easily be checked out? Go read your own post #17 in this thread posted 2006-08-20 04:08:39.
And the neocon amen corner in this coiuntry will close ranks, forget history, pretend that cynical men in D.C. are idealists oh-so-concerned about human rights and democracy
Eveyone knows that "neo-com amen corner" is code for Jews/Zionists.
-
We spent 12 years in the Philippines (1898-1910) and 13 in Panama (1901-1914). Small wars take time.
And blood, too. See Philippine-American War.
"The shift to guerrilla warfare, however, only angered the Americans into acting more ruthlessly than before. They began taking no prisoners, burning whole villages, and routinely shooting surrendering Filipinos. Much worse were the concentration camps that civilians were forced into, after being suspected of being guerrilla sympathizers. Thousands of civilians died in these camps. In nearly all cases, the civilians suffered much worse than the actual Filipino guerrillas."
No doubt the future leaders of the SS were taking notes on the American way to deal with the local "terrorists."
Those ungrateful natives, of course, failed to understand our awesomely noble intentions. Philippine military deaths are estimated at 20,000 with 16,000 actually counted, while civilian deaths numbered between 250,000 and 1,000,000 Filipinos. Many American officers and soldiers called war a "*let's not go there* killing business."
Mutatis mutandis, now US officers and soldiers routintely refer to the Iraqis as "hajis" and "ragheads."
Eveyone knows that "neo-com amen corner" is code for Jews/Zionists.
That's absurd. Re-read my post in which used the term and you will see it had not connection to Zionist or Jewish anything. And in any event, you will notice that you mentioned Israel before I mentioned the "neocon Amen corner."
Some neocons - Bill and Irving Kristol, John Podhoretz - are Jewish while other neocons - e.g., Michael Novak, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Frank Gaffney, and Max Boot - are not.
Perhaps, Rabbi, you should read the May 12, 2004 issue of The New Yorker magazine in which appeared an article by Seymour Hersh about the "neocon takeover of the Pentagon," which he blames for manipulating evidence "regarding Iraqs possible possession of weapons of mass destruction and connection with Al Qaeda" as a justification for invading Iraq.
"They call themselves, self-mockingly, the Cabala small cluster of policy advisers and analysts now based in the Pentagons Office of Special Plans," Hersh wrote. He claims that "their operation, which was conceived by Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, has brought about a crucial change in direction in the American intelligence community" and that they "have helped to shape public opinion and American policy toward Iraq."
Is Hersh an anti-Semite? Or is he a self-hating Jew?
Your words remind me of the observation made by Matt Barganier when he had a few minutes to kill and decided to read "something non-work-related, something wonderfully distant from the carnage in the Middle East or the police state at home. Maybe something about art, or sports, or science. For instance, today I read a piece at Salon.com about male circumcision, arguments for and against."
Anyway, at the end of the piece, Slates editors posted a few of the most insightful comments from readers. And at the conclusion of the third comment, in reference to an upcoming anti-circumcision conference in Seattle, one of Slates all-star commenters writes,
"Symposia such as the one in Seattle have more than a whiff of hysteria about them. I wouldnt dare to suggest that there might be a small hint of anti-semitism as well."
Which, stripped of sophomoric coyness, means, The anti-circumcision movement is driven by hatred of Jews.
Ah, anti-Semitism: the one topic no discussion in this country is ever allowed to omit. Posterity will have a field day with us.
-
So your argument is that the war in the Philippines made Americans act like proto-Nazis and therefore we need to avoid all guerrila wars or we will end up acting like Nazis?
And because some people iidentified as "Neo Cons" are not Jewish and Jewish people have used the term then therefore it is not a term of anti-semitism.
Bosch.
The term came in an infamous essay by Pat Buchanan wherein he accused "the neo-cons and their amen corner in Washington", meaning AIPAC and those who support them of fomenting the war in Iraq to serve Israeli interests. He continues that good American boys with names like Washington and Smith will die while boys with names like Schwartz and Stein won't. I am quoting from memory here. I could look up the essay but I am about to eat dinner and it is too nauseating, even years later.
Every time I see "neo-cons and their Amen corner in Washington" the radar goes on. No one uses this term without its original meaning.
-
So your argument is that the war in the Philippines made Americans act like proto-Nazis and therefore we need to avoid all guerrila wars or we will end up acting like Nazis?
No, that's not my argument.
To the extent that you act like a Nazi, then yes, you are a Nazi regardless of whether you speak English, German, or ....some other language.
The US invasion and occupation of The Phillipines was about as noble as the German invasion of Poland. Wars of choice, fought for conquest, intended to extend the empire.
Here is a video about neocons and the danger that they pose. We as a nation will be paying the price for a long time.
And because some people iidentified as "Neo Cons" are not Jewish and Jewish people have used the term then therefore it is not a term of anti-semitism.
Yes, that is what I am saying. Do you know that neocons frequently apply the term to themselves? See Irving Kristol, Neo-Conservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea or The Neocon Reader by Irwin Stelzer.
Look, even the word "Jew" can be a term of anti-Semitism depending on context. So what?
The term came in an infamous essay by Pat Buchanan wherein he accused "the neo-cons and their amen corner in Washington", ...
The term has been around for 85 years although its meaning has shifted over time. David Brooks claims that there is no such thing as a neoconservative. I guess someone should tell Kristol and Stelzer that.
Every time I see "neo-cons and their Amen corner in Washington" the radar goes on. No one uses this term without its original meaning.
Nonsense. Do a google search and you will see the term "amen corner" thrown around without any connection to Jews, Israel, Zionists, etc.
You see anti-Semitism where it doesn't exist.
-
Then I dont know what your argument is. I doubt you do, other than to express some discontent with Bush and the administration.
-
FC doesn't have a conventional argument. He has substituted spleen-venting for argumentation and focus-changing when presented with inconvenient facts.
Oh, and the Pat Buchanan "IDF and their amen corner" bit came out in ~1996. It was explicitly anti-Israel* and could definitely be construed as anti-semitic to those sensitive to such**. To use such a constrction in conversation with Jewish hints ("neocon" being a pretty good hint) is evidence of one of three things:
1. Ignorance. The person has no knowledge of that construction's use by Pat Buchanan...or never really understood it
2. Anti-semitism. The author knew what he was writing.
3. Goat-Getting. The author knew what he wa swriting and did so to get a rise out of the Hebrews.
I'll give FC the benefit of hte doubt and assume ignorance on his part.
* Pat would say, "anti-pro-Israel American foreign policy." Yeah, that was my position, too...when Ehud Barak pulled out of southern Lebanon & treated with Yassir Arafat (may his mottled turkey waddle rot in hades). "Land for Peace" Feh. They got "Land for Strife."
** I am not so worried about Pat. He has marginalized himself since breaking bread with the commie Lenora Fulani in his Reform Party run for POTUS. Also, even if one were to grant he is an anti-semite, he is mild, small taters compared the anti-semites who run around the USA today & get air time. The local "moderate" muslim leaders in my neck of the woods sometimes seem like swarthy Klansmen without the sheets. They say the most outrageous sh!t, some of it blatantly anti-semetic, and nobdy in the media calls them on it.
-
"Then I dont know what your argument is. I doubt you do, other than to express some discontent with Bush and the administration."
"We've been in Iraq one thousand, two hundred and forty-seven days---and still the Administration has no exit strategy, no plan for victory and no clue what it is doing."
I'd say that sums it up pretty well actually. Can't say I disagree...nor do some of our Generals from what I've read.
I'd bet that D.D. Eisenhower is spinning rapidly in his grave about now.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/de34.html
-
"We've been in Iraq one thousand, two hundred and forty-seven days---and still the Administration has no exit strategy, no plan for victory and no clue what it is doing."
I'd say that sums it up pretty well actually. Can't say I disagree...nor do some of our Generals from what I've read.
I'd bet that D.D. Eisenhower is spinning rapidly in his grave about now.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/de34.html
What would "victory" look like?
If you answer those two questions you will have U.S. strategy. To make an arbitrary deadline in that kind of situation is to declare defeat.
-
Do a google search and you will see the term "amen corner" thrown around without any connection to Jews, Israel, Zionists, etc.
Well, duh. Rabbi wasn't talking about that term by itself.
-
Well, duh. Rabbi wasn't talking about that term by itself.
The National Review blog used the term "amen corner." ("The Vatican's Amen corner.")
It isn't anti-Semitic to refer to an "amen corner," even a "neocon amen corner."
That's just your active imagination.
Last poll I checked, most Jews oppose Iraq War II. Usually I'd give you the cite, but it's kinda late here, and I'm tired. (If someone can prove me wrong here, go ahead.) My point is that I don't think that Iraq War I or Iraq War II were "wars for Israel" or the result of some kind of Jewish plot. For cryin' out loud, I shouldn't even have to say this. I'm am kinda tired of anti-Semitism being used as a club to shut down criticism of US foreign policy, especially in the Middle East. Wait, does that make me an "anti-Semite"? (I oppose foreign aid to Ireland. Guess I'm anti-Catholic, except that I oppose foreign aid to any and everyone. Guess I just hate everyone.)
========
Did you hear the one about the rabbi who walks into a psychiatrist's office? The doc administers a Rorschach inkblot test.
Doc: "What do you see in this one?"
Rabbi: "That's a picture of an anti-Semite."
Doc: "OK, let's go on to the next one. What do you see in this one?"
Rabbi: "That's a picture of a Jew being mistreated by an anti-Semite."
Doc: "What about this one?"
Rabbi: "That's a picture of Pat Buchanan going on about Jews."
Doc: "You seem kinda fixated on anti-Semitism."
Rabbi: "Me fixated? You're the one with all these anti-Semitic pictures!"
====
Then I dont know what your argument is.
Yours is apparently something like "kill as many Arabs as you have to until they submit." They're all just "vermin," "cockroaches" and and "two-legged beasts," right? Just need to go in there and clean out those "nests of terrorists." Buncha [uel=http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0521-08.htm]"hajis,"[/url] "ragheads," and sand niggers," right? Those are the terms commonly used by US soldiers and officers stationed in Iraq to dehumanize the "enemy." Once you believe that the people you are stomping are only Untermenschen, then you can more easily slaughter them and rape their 14-year old daughters.
Here's an argument for you: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice are war criminals who practice deceit every time they open their mouths. How's that? Clear enough for you?
President William McKinley explained to the ladies of Methodist Missionary Society how he decided that the United States should conquer the Philippines in 1900.
"I went down on my knees and prayed Almighty God...and one night late it came to me this way...there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all...and Christianize them." 100 years ago we claimed to be spreading "Christianity" as we extended our empire; today we claim to be spreading "democracy" and "freedom" as we extend our empire. The US is building a dozen permanent bases in Iraq. It doesn't matter how the elections go in 2006 or 2008; the US fgedgov has no intention of leaving Iraq. Ever.
What was our exit strategy in Germany post 1945?
Last I checked, we never exited.
What was our exit strategy in any small war we've ever fought?
Mostly we don't exit. We plant the flag and stay. Even if our troops leave, our spies and diplomats stay behind to ensure continued US hegemony. Every once in a while the US or its puppet regime is forced out by the locals (Iran, Nicaragua), or US political leadership calculates that the costs of staying supercede the benefit of continued war (Vietnam). Very rare, but it has happened.
The US prefers to rule behind the scenes, but wont flinch at sponsoring a bloodbath if policy demands it. They'll send out press releases, and the war mongers on FOX will stand up and applaud.
What would "victory" look like?
Before the invasion, the National Intelligence Council "predicted that an American-led invasion of Iraq would increase support for political Islam and would result in a deeply divided Iraqi society prone to violent internal conflict." A CIA report of May 2005 confirmed that "Iraq has become a magnet for Islamic militants similar to Soviet-occupied Afghanistan two decades ago and Bosnia in the 1990s." The CIA concluded that "Iraq may prove to be an even more effective training ground for Islamic extremists than Afghanistan was in Al Qaeda's early days, because it is serving as a real-world laboratory for urban combat."
There is little doubt that the US invasion of Iraq had the effect of "greatly strengthening the popular appeal of anti-democratic radicals such as those Al Qaeda and other jihadi salafis" throughout the Muslim world. Take a look at Indonesia. In 2, 75 percent of Indonesians viewed Americans favorabl. Thsi number fell to 61 percent by 2002 and 15 percent after the invasion of Iraq, with 80 percent saying that they feared an attack by the United States. These sentiments correlate with greater readiness for Islam to play a broader role in public life, and tolerance of and cooperation with Islamic radicals.
Heckuva job, Bush.
-
Rabbi- We went to Germany because Hitler was bent on conquering the world. We went to Iraq to eliminate a tyrant who supposedly had nukes, chem-bio weapons, and was hated by his people, who we were told wanted to be free of his terrorism. Apparently we were wrong on all three counts. I don't remember any talk back then of molding the world to our liking with the blood and gold of our childrens children.
I wasn't opposed to what Bush did initially...and I still think it has value...but there comes a time when a person (or a nation) has to realize that they really screwed up, and develope an alternate plan.
-
Rabbi- We went to Germany because Hitler was bent on conquering the world. We went to Iraq to eliminate a tyrant who supposedly had nukes, chem-bio weapons, and was hated by his people, who we were told wanted to be free of his terrorism. Apparently we were wrong on all three counts. I don't remember any talk back then of molding the world to our liking with the blood and gold of our childrens children.
I wasn't opposed to what Bush did initially...and I still think it has value...but there comes a time when a person (or a nation) has to realize that they really screwed up, and develope an alternate plan.
Alright, so let's say Bush screwed up and we need an alternate plan. What would that alternate plan be?
What if it was YOU inthe oval office? What would you do differently as President? What's you're alternate plan, President Lee?
(Incidentally, the folks I know who have lived in Iraq, both soldiers and civillians, tell me that you're wrong about the Iraqi people. They DID hate Saddam, they ARE glad he's been removed, and they DO prefer the current situation over the former tyrrany. FWIW.)
-
[The Rabbi]Eveyone knows that "neo-com amen corner" is code for Jews/Zionists.
.... I think what the Rabbi is actually referring to is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee or "AIPAC" - and the antics of people like Steve Rosen, Keith Weissman etc - and spies like Douglas Feith going back to others like Rafael Eitan, Ben-Menashe, Jonathan Pollard etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
-
Argue with the official historians of the US Army who tell us that there was essentially no resistance to US occupation aside from a few incidents here and there. According to former Ambassador James Dobbins and a team of RAND Corporation researchers, the total number of post-conflict American combat casualties in Germanyand Japan, Haiti, and the two Balkan caseswas ZERO. As in ZIP, NADA, NONE, not a single case.
Your OWN WORDS:"Earth to Flashbunny: politicians lie routinely." Either Dobbins is lying, or an idiot
If there are any documented cases of American soldiers in Germany getting killed by Germans after the surrender, then you may provide evidence at this time.
So if an attack doesn't kill someone, just blows a leg or an arm off, it somehow doesn't count? OK - we'll play it YOUR way - ask and ye shall receive:
"..there were four major attacks by Werwolf troops in the Western zones of occupation. The new anti-Nazi Lord "Mayor of Aachen was assassinated...several weeks before the Nazi surrender, on Himmlers direct orders. Field Marshal Montgomerys liaison officer and the Soviet commandant of Berlin were both killed in ambushes; the first was hushed up and the latter was only discovered to be an attack because the Soviet counterclaims were marred by glaring inconsistencies. A bombing of a police station claimed 44 victims. ...A Pentagon report listed 42 American soldiers "killed as a result of enemy action" between June and December 1945. In 1946, there were three. ...individual operations were reported as late as 1947"
From an article by Alexander Rubin in the Canadian Free Press.
And from an article on Minutemen of the Third Reich.(history of the Nazi Werewolf guerilla movement)
"The Werewolves specialised in ambushes and sniping, and took the lives of many Allied and Soviet soldiers and officers -- perhaps even that of the first Soviet commandant of Berlin, General N.E. Berzarin, who was rumoured to have been waylaid in Charlottenburg during an incident in June 1945. Buildings housing Allied and Soviet staffs were favourite targets for Werewolf bombings; an explosion in the Bremen police headquarters, also in June 1945, killed five Americans and thirty-nine Germans. Techniques for harassing the occupiers were given widespread publicity through Werewolf leaflets and radio propaganda, and long after May 1945 the sabotage methods promoted by the Werewolves were still being used against the occupying powers."
Otherwise such bogus claims occupy the same Planet Neocon with Iraqi WMD, Saddam's support for Al Aqeda, Atta's meeting in prague, Saddam's purchase of Nigerian uranium, and any number of other inventions of the rich fantasy life of collective neocon imagination. SS "Werewolven" are teh stuff of schlocky teen comic books.
How's that foot taste? Next time, you might do some RESEARCH, BEFORE you decide to share your wisdom, or lack thereof, with everyone.
-
Here's an argument for you: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice are war criminals who practice deceit every time they open their mouths. How's that? Clear enough for you?
What was our exit strategy in any small war we've ever fought?
Mostly we don't exit. We plant the flag and stay. Even if our troops leave, our spies and diplomats stay behind to ensure continued US hegemony. Every once in a while the US or its puppet regime is forced out by the locals (Iran, Nicaragua), or US political leadership calculates that the costs of staying supercede the benefit of continued war (Vietnam). Very rare, but it has happened.
-
We went to Iraq to eliminate a tyrant who supposedly had nukes, chem-bio weapons, and was hated by his people, who we were told wanted to be free of his terrorism. Apparently we were wrong on all three counts. I don't remember any talk back then of molding the world to our liking with the blood and gold of our childrens children.
What makes you think that the Iraqis, in general, preferred Saddam Hussein's rule? Even if they prefer it to American occupation, that doesn't mean they didn't hate Saddam.
"Molding the world to our liking"? Who's talking about that? Molding the world to eliminate the threat of terrorism, perhaps.
-
A Pentagon report listed 42 American soldiers "killed as a result of enemy action" between June and December 1945. In 1946, there were three.
Which report would that be?
General N.E. Berzarin, who was rumoured to have been waylaid in Charlottenburg during an incident in June 1945.
Repeating rumors does not constitute scholarship. Who wrote Minutemen of the Third Reich?
Steve Rosen, Keith Weissman etc - and spies like Douglas Feith going back to others like Rafael Eitan, Ben-Menashe, Jonathan Pollard etc.
In the more egregious cases - e.g., Jonathan Pollard - there really is no question where his loyalty lies. Dual loyalties? Not with Pollard, nor - I suspect - with his supporters at the JDL. AIPAC should register as a foreign agent. Bunch of Fifth Columnists as far as I am concerned.
Rafael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israel Defense Forces during the first Israeli invasion of Lebanon.
"When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle." (New York Times, 14 April 1983.)
"We declare openly that the Arabs have no right to settle on even one centimeter of Eretz Israel... Force is all they do or ever will understand. We shall use the ultimate force until the Palestinians come crawling to us on all fours." (Gad Becker, Yediot Ahronot 13 April 1983; New York Times 14 April 1983.)
-
In the more egregious cases - e.g.,
Jonathan Pollard - there really is no question where his loyalty lies. Dual loyalties? Not with Pollard, nor - I suspect - with his supporters at the
JDL.
AIPAC should register as a foreign agent. Bunch of Fifth Columnists as far as I am concerned.
-
A Pentagon report listed 42 American soldiers "killed as a result of enemy action" between June and December 1945. In 1946, there were three.
Which report would that be?
General N.E. Berzarin, who was rumoured to have been waylaid in Charlottenburg during an incident in June 1945.
Repeating rumors does not constitute scholarship.
Who wrote Minutemen of the Third Reich?
What - your "google" broke? Perry Biddiscombe.
-
"What if it was YOU inthe oval office? What would you do differently as President? What's you're alternate plan, President Lee?"
I would set a deadline for withdrawal...perhaps two years. I don't think it would have a great practical effect on the strategic planning of the bad guys...but it would have a profound effect on the hearts, minds, and actions of those left to deal with THEIR problem. Additionally it would take the steam out of the widely held belief that we have moved in to take the oil rich, holy land for ourselves....which I'm beginning to wonder about myself (not really...but they do). The rest of the key western countries would be forced to consider the future of the area and contribute far more than they currently are. Embarrassing for the US...an admission of failure? Yeah I guess. Most people admire people who admit they tried their best, but were wrong, and want to make it right.
As I said earlier, I thought we were right initially...but I think it's become pretty bizarre that me might end up killing more Iraqis than Saddam did, while making Iran the strongest state in the Arab world.
I'm a simple guy and have to look at things simply. What if we were in their shoes? Regardless of how corrupt or brutal our leadership might be, would we want Pakistani troops (for example) destoying our army, bombing our capitol, patrolling our steets with tanks and helicoptors, kicking in out doors to confiscate our weapons, ets, etc, for years -especially as a civil war looms anyway?
Regardless of what we do, much of the middle east and Iraq in particular, are going to be bloody, brutal places until the end. For G*ds sake- the Sunnis and Shia kill each other over thousand year old arguments over Ali's bloodline. Do you think we can fix that with MTV and Mickey D's?
130,000 troops would be of much better use HERE, on the borders, in the airports and ports. Hell...have them round up the million or so potenital terrorists living right here and boot heir butts back to Nirvana in the desert.
As Lee the President, I would establish the biggest base in the world in the newly formed and US backed state of Kurdistan, and let the rest of the Iraq sort out theie own problems...even if it kills half of them. It'll happen anyway.
-
Rosen, Weissman, Feith, Eitan, Ben-Menashe and Pollard are all Jews? Or rather are they simply citizens or agents of the State or Israel?
--------------------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
-
Rosen, Weissman, Feith, Eitan, Ben-Menashe and Pollard are all Jews? Or rather are they simply citizens or agents of the State or Israel?
Eitan and Ben Menashe are Jews and citizens of Israel. Feith is a US citizen. Pollard is a US citizen but I dont remember whether he has Israeli citizenship as well. He was a secret agent for Israel while working for the U.S. and is now sitting in jail.
But you knew all that, so why ask?
-
Actually, no I didn't. That is why I asked.
------------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
-
A survey of records by the U.S. Army Center of Military History shows that at least 39 combat deaths occurred in the first few months of the occupation of Germany.
And which report would that be?
What - your "google" broke? Perry Biddiscombe.
Yeah, never heard of him. Who the hell is he?
Yeah. Them Jews be trying to overthrow the gov't and establish the Zionist World Conspiracy.
That is not at all what I wrote. Insinuating that I am an anti-Semite is a lame attempt to avoid the issue.
A few months ago I found myself debating Holocaust deniers on a different board, and I was of course wiping the floor with them. You know how a Holocaust denier inevitably deals with facts and arguments? "He's a Jew! He's a Jew!" And so I got banned.
Neo-Nazis aren't the only ones willing to smear their critics. AIPAC similarly smears ctitics of Israel. And so does The Rabbi.
Check out this link to a discussion of the Israel Lobby.
-
I think BayouBlogger is one of them Jews. Ban him now!
-
I have Jewish ancestors and I "look Jewish." Sometimes in college when I would walk across campus, guys in the local Jewish groups who were out recruiting for their groups would often accost me. "Are you Jewish?" Always kinda tickled me.
-
And look how we fought WW2
We commited damn near our entire industrial capacity to the war effort. The European theater had how many troops on the ground and how many in the air? And we fought a total no holds bared type of warfair. We invaded and took it over completly and totaly and before that we bombed their cities to the ground. Specific targets? Sure sometimes those targets were just the city in general.
If we fought the war identical to how we fought WW2 we probably would have broken the spirit of the Muslims and had them submit by now.
Now I for one wouldn't mind leveling half of the middle east and fighting the war in a way that would have it over in no time, but then some have called me a cold heartless bastard. IMO thats about the only way to really end a war for good without future "flare ups". But there are a lot of people that would mind and I don't want to go explaining and defending the political fallout.
-
What lupinus saud.
Nothing says "Hey, we lost!" quite like a city bombed to rubble and most the young males rotting along the major avenues of assault.
-
I didn't realize we declared war on Iraq...I thought we were there to depose an evil dictator and free the people so that they could enjoy democracy. Is that you Rummy?
-
A survey of records by the U.S. Army Center of Military History shows that at least 39 combat deaths occurred in the first few months of the occupation of Germany.
And which report would that be?
I presume that will be the end of your questioning of the veracity of what I report?
-
I didn't realize we declared war on Iraq...I thought we were there to depose an evil dictator and free the people so that they could enjoy democracy. Is that you Rummy?
We also went in to boot the Germans out of France but that didn't stop us from bombing things that needed to be bombed. Caution yes, restraint no. Now we did however demolish Germany and not France so how bout this.
A lot of what we are fighting is coming out of Iran and select parts of Iraq. So how bout we just level those select parts of Iraq that we need to and we turn Iran into a something that looks like the surface of the moon.
-
"A lot of what we are fighting is coming out of Iran and select parts of Iraq. So how bout we just level those select parts of Iraq that we need to and we turn Iran into a something that looks like the surface of the moon."
Are you kidding? Have you ever been around young Iranian women. They don't call them Purrrrrsians for nothing. It would be a real waste of natural beauty.
Seriously though...we weren't fighting Frenchmen in the streets of Paris two years after their Liberation. I would guess that Paris (and likely Berlin) had electric power and water restored within 3 years of the liberation as well.
-
No, we weren't but how many Frenchmen were Nazi's? A lot more Iraqis are terrorists then French were Nazis. If the Nazis wanted to fight a war the same way the terrorists do we could very well have fought them for just as long.
As to the electricity there are several factors. One, they had a grid before the war. The infastructure in Iraq was a total wreck and they are at levels above what they had before the war. Also, the things weren't constantly being blown up by opposition.
-
"If the Nazis wanted to fight a war the same way the terrorists do we could very well have fought them for just as long."
That statement itself begs us to ask WHY the Iraqi "terrorists" are doing what they are doing. There were numerous Nazi collaborators in France. They didn't have time to fight us, they were too busy trying to stay alive after the liberation.
I've read numerous interviews with the so called Iraqi terrorists, and they all say they simply want us out of their country. There is no ranting and raving about Allah, Jihad or any other BS. Most say they like Americans but hate the Bush administration's decision to stay there. They may hate some of their own countrymen more than us, and probably for good reason (Saddam collaborators), but that's their business. I hope the latest estimate for substantial withdrawal is accurate. Hopefully, we will be out of that hell hole in two years.
-
They didn't because there were not enough hard core Nazis left alive. They were either killed in the conventional war, captured and sent to a military prison (and no one even complained cause they still had common sense), or relized rather fast that we were pissed off and weren't going to take any nonsense cause we wanted to go home and we were more then willing ready and able to kick ass and take names on a large brutal scale to do it. We haven't killed or captured enough of them because there really was no conventonal war to speak off. Sure there was some conventunal resistance but for the most part they skipped it in favor of a different style of warfare. Plus, we haven't demonstrated the willingness to do what it takes to break their will and kill the bastards and we haven't done so since WW2.
How many wars since WW2 have been decisivly won? Since then how many wars have been fought with a style of total no holds barred warfare? Answer, very very few. Korea, Nam, and Iraq. The first was a stalemate that we still have troops involved on the border to keep them from getting ideas, the second was a waste of time effort and lives that we were unwilling to go all the way with, and the third while we won the first time we didn't want to finish the job and it came back several years later to bite us in the ass with this mess. We now expect the military to be a big bad scary looking dog in the hopes no one will mess with it but when it comes time for it to attack we expect it to do so while we hold the leash tight and keeping it from doing all that it is capable of. And as a result that dog can be as big and mean as it wants to look but eventually the other dogs on the block are going to know their owners wont hold them back.
-
"We haven't killed or captured enough of them because there really was no conventonal war to speak off. Sure there was some conventunal resistance but for the most part they skipped it in favor of a different style of warfare."
I'm not sure who "they" are. I suppose "they" are the Sunni's, who we are protecting from the Shiites with American lives and billions of our dollars. There are just far too many ironies in this clusterf8ck.
-
The President said yesterday -
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,211506,00.html
In Utah, the president said despite reports in the media, Iraq is not descending into civil war and will not.
The Pentagon say's today -
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,211709,00.html
Iraq Security Report Warns Civil War Possible
Friday, September 01, 2006
STORIES
WASHINGTON A surge in Iraqi sectarian violence and insurgent attacks fueled by Syria and Iran has combined to make the security situation in the country the most complex since the U.S.-led invasion more than three years ago, according to a Pentagon report released Friday.
The report warned that conditions exist that could lead to civil war, and that there is an increasing concern about that among the Iraqi people.
Life has taught me that if the pentagon says to expect light rain -prepare for a hurricane.