Reuters is reporting that Saddam Hussein has been hanged.

[CAnnoneer]

  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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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? 

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.

[CAnnoneer]

LAK, I am still waiting for you to propose a workable solution. Bush-bashing, Fortress America, and complaints about globalist conspiracy theories do not qualify. Also, please try to be more organized, concise, clear, and direct; your posts are a pain to decipher, summarize, and piece together.

[De Selby]

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. 

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

[280plus]

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. 

[CAnnoneer]

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.

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. 

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.

 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.

  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.

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.

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.

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.

[cordex]

student,

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.

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.

[De Selby]

280plus,

Even assuming Al Qaeda cares what life is like in America, here's the problem:

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.

[De Selby]

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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?

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.

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. 

[CAnnoneer]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

  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.

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.

[280plus]

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.

[De Selby]

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.

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. 

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.

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".

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.

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.

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. 

[CAnnoneer]

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.

[cordex]

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?

[RocketMan]

Saddam's dead.  This thread won't die, though...

[De Selby]

cordex,

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.)

[LAK]

CAnnoneer,

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.

[280plus]

This needs to go here too you can find the whole story as soon as I post the link to the other thread. This guy says it much more eloquently than I ever could:

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/

[Perd Hapley]

Reuters is reporting that this thread simply refuses to die.

[CAnnoneer]

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.

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.

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?

[mfree]

Saddam was hanged *last year*.

Maybe it's time to bridge out into new threads?

[Perd Hapley]

So the pollution can spread?   

[LAK]

CAnnoneer

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[CAnnoneer]

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.

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.

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.

[LAK]

CAnnoneer

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.

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.

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.

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