Discussion:
OT: "Our Strange War": Hanson just about sums it up.
(too old to reply)
Joe
2005-06-03 19:31:46 UTC
Permalink
With little else to do here as we twiddle our thumbs waiting for BOB2,
Falcon4 Allied Force or even the "Big Patch" for Pacific Fighters here is
about the best summation of "The War on Terrorism" I have read in a while.

http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/hanson/hanson200506030807.asp

===============================================================================================
Victor Davis Hanson
June 03, 2005, 8:07 a.m.
Our Strange War
Looking ahead, our options.

The three-year-plus war that began on September 11 is the strangest conflict
in our history. It is not just that the first day saw the worst attack on
American soil since our creation, or that we are publicly pledged to
fighting a method - "terror" - rather than the concrete enemy of Islamic
fascism that employs it.

Our dilemma is that we have not sought to defeat and humiliate the enemy as
much as wean a people from the thrall of Islamic autocracy. That is our
challenge, and explains our exasperating strategy of half-measures and
apologies - and the inability to articulate exactly whom we are fighting and
why.

Imagine that a weak Hitler in the mid-1930s never planned conventional war
with the democracies. Instead, he stealthily would fund and train thousands
of SS fanatics on neutral ground to permeate European society, convinced of
its decadence and the need to return to a mythical time when a purer Aryan
Volk reigned supreme. Such terrorists would bomb, assassinate, promulgate
fascistic hatred in the media, and whine about Versailles, hoping
insidiously to gain concessions from wearied liberal societies that would
make ever more excuses as they looked inward and blamed themselves for the
presence of such inexplicable evil. All the while, Nazi Germany would deny
any connections to these "indigenous movements" and "deplore" such
"terrorism," even as the German people got a certain buzz from seeing the
victors of World War I squirm in their discomfort. A triangulating Mussolini
or Franco would use their good graces to "bridge the gap," and seek a
"peaceful resolution," while we sought to "liberate" rather than defeat the
German nation.

So to recap: The real enemy is an Islamic fascist ideology that is
promulgated by a few thousand. They wear no uniforms and are deeply embedded
within and protected by Muslim society.

Beyond the terrorists, a larger percentage of Middle Easterners, if it cost
them little, gain psychological satisfaction when fellow defiant Muslims
(terrorists or not) "stand up" to Westerners, who enjoy power, status, and
wealth undreamed of in the Middle East.

Even if they would hate living under Taliban-like theocrats, millions at
least see the jihadists as about the only way of "getting back" at the
Western world that has left them so far behind. This passive-aggressive
sense of inferiority explains why millions of Muslims flock to Europe to
enjoy its freedom and prosperity, even as they recreate there an Islamist
identity to reconcile their longing and desire for what they profess to
hate.

Still, most in the Middle East wish simply to embrace the human desire for
prosperity, freedom, and security within the umbrella of traditional Muslim
society - and will support American efforts if (a) these initiatives seem to
be successful, and (b) are not seen as American.

Consequently, the United States has not been able to bring its full arsenal
of military assets to the fray. It is nearly impossible to extract the
killers from the midst of civilian society. Too much force causes collateral
damage and incites religious and nationalist anti-American fervor. Too
little power emboldens the fascists and suggests America (e.g., Nixon's
"pitiful, helpless giant") cannot or will not win the war.

Like a parent with a naughty child, a maddening forbearance is the order of
the day: They burn American flags, behead, murder, and promise death and
ruin to Americans; we ignore it and instead find new ways of displaying our
sensitivity to Islam.

Although the enemy is weak militarily and its nihilist ideology appeals to
few, it still has powerful ways to meet our own overwhelming military power
and economic strength.

First is the doctrine of the deniability of culpability. In the legalistic
world of the United Nations and international courts, Islamists depend on
their patrons' not being held responsible beyond a reasonable doubt for the
shelter and cash they provide to those who kill Westerners. Elites in Syria
or Iran deny that they offer aid to terrorists. Or if caught, they retreat
to a fallback position of something like, "Do you really want to go to war
over our help for a few ragtag insurrectionists?"

A second advantage is oil. A third to half the world's reserves is under
Saudi Arabia, the other Gulf States, Iraq, and Iran. None until recently
were democratic; most at one time or another have given bribe money to
terrorists, sponsored anti-Americanism, or survived by blaming us for their
own failures.

These otherwise backward societies - that neither developed nor can maintain
their natural wealth - rake in billions, as oil that costs $2-5 to pump is
sold for $50. Some of that money in nefarious ways arms terrorists. Should
an exasperated United States finally strike back at their patrons, we risk
ruining the world economy - or at least so it will be perceived by paranoid
and petroleum-dependent Japan, Europe, and China. Without an energy policy
of independence, this war will be hard to win, since Saudi Arabia will never
feel any pressure to purge its royal family of terrorist sympathizers or to
cease its subsidies for Wahhabist hatred.

A third edge for the terrorists lies in the West itself. After 40 years of
multiculturalism and moral equivalence - the wages of wealth and freedom
unmatched in the history of civilization - many in the United States believe
that they have evolved beyond the use of force. Education, money, dialogue,
conflict resolution theory - all this and more can achieve far more than
crude Abrams tanks and F-16s.

A bin Laden or Saddam is rare in the West. In our arrogance, we think such
folk are more or less like ourselves and live in a similar world of reason
and tolerance. The long antennae of the canny terrorists pick up on that
self-doubt. Most of the rhetoric in bin Laden's infomercials came right out
of the Western media.

As September 11 fades in the memory, too many Americans feel that it is time
to let bygones be bygones. Some now consider Islamic fascism and its method
of terror a "nuisance" that will go away if we just come home. We are a
society where many of our elite believe the killer bin Laden is less of a
threat than the elected George Bush. Al Qaeda keeps promising to kill us
all; meanwhile Ralph Nader wants the wartime president impeached for misuse
of failed intelligence.

Fourth, in an asymmetrical war the cult of the underdog is a valuable tool.
Europeans march with posters showing scenes from Abu Ghraib, not of the
beheading of Daniel Pearl or the murder of Margaret Hassan. They do not
wish, much less expect, al Qaeda to win, but they still find psychic
satisfaction in seeing the world's sole superpower tied down, as if it were
the glory days of the Vietnam protests all over again. How else can we
explain why Amnesty International claims that Guantanamo - specialized
ethnic foods, available Korans, and international observers - is comparable
to a Soviet Gulag where millions once perished? So there is a deep, deep
sickness in the West.

In response, we have embarked on the only strategy that offers a lasting
victory: Kill the Islamic fascists; remove the worst autocracies that
sponsored terrorists; and jump-start democratic governments in the Middle
East.

Our two chief worries - terrorists and weapons of mass destruction - wane
when constitutional societies replace autocracies. Currently few democratic
states harbor and employ terrorists or threaten their neighbors with
biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons, even if they have ample stockpiles
of each.

Where will it all end? Our choices are threefold.

We can wind down - essentially the position of the mainstream Left - and
return to a pre-September 11 situation, treating Islamism as a criminal
justice matter or deserving of an occasional cruise missile. This, in my
view, would be a disaster and guarantee another mass attack.

Or we can continue to pacify Iraq. We then wait and see whether the ripples
from the January elections - without further overt American military action
into other countries - bring democracy to Lebanon, Egypt, the Gulf States,
and eventually the entire Middle East. This is the apparent present policy
of the administration: talking up democracy, not provoking any who might
disagree. It may well work, though such patience requires constant
articulation to the American people that we are really in a deadly war when
it doesn't seem to everyone that we are.

Or we can press on. We apprise Syria to cease all sanctuary for al Qaedists
and Iran to give up its nuclear program - or face surgical and punitive
American air strikes. Such escalation is embraced by few, although many
acknowledge that we may soon have few choices other than just that. But for
now we can sum up the American plans as hoping that democracy spreads faster
than Islamism, and thus responsible government will appear to ensure
terrorists and WMD disappear.

The above, of course, is what we plan, but gives no consideration to the
intent of the enemy. As we speak, he desperately searches for new strategies
to ward off defeat as jihad seems more likely to lead to ruin than the
return of the caliphate.

For now Islamic fascist strategy is to make such horrific news in Iraq that
America throws up its hands and sighs, "These crazy people simply aren't
worth it," goes home, snoozes - and thus becomes ripe for another September
11.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Victor Davis Hanson is a military historian and a senior fellow at the
Hoover Institution at Stanford University. His website is victorhanson.com.

http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200506030807.asp
S***@yahoo.com
2005-06-04 02:25:25 UTC
Permalink
This is morer like the long story rather than summin it up.
There is a lot of insight to this but gives no practical solution.
We are in a war like no other in history- that much is understood and a
"given". I have previously offered a solution that is abhorant to
Western civilized thinking.
When we are at war (not of our choosing and not understood by us), the
only way to win against the fanatics we face is to KILL them.
Discussion is not the answer- negotiation is out, compromise is out. We
have an enemy who has stated a purpose of destroying us and has
demonstrated a will to do it. They give no quarter, have no rules of
engagement, use deceit, lies, and determination incl. suicide. They do
not abide by Geneva conv., and NEITHER SHOULD WE.
There are a lot of them- is that a reason for us to give up and let
them kill us? While we kill them a few at a time, they do the same to
us. While we spend big billions on technology against them we kill them
by the handfull. We take prisoners and then RELEASE them so they can
continue the war against us. Of course they must first sign a piece of
paper that they will stop fighting us- What MORON in our government
thought that one up?
There is a strategy that can win.
We must put a blanket on all news coverage.
We must commend our troups for killing the enemy instead of trying to
prosecute them.
We must stop taking prisoners and kill them all instead.
These things are harsh, uncivilized, unconscionable to us- but that is
the enemy we face and only way to win against them.
You can call me what you will but in the end the only way out of this.
We need a president willing to do what is necessary instead of
appologising for our dead troups with worthless words.
James Calivar
2005-06-04 04:46:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by S***@yahoo.com
This is morer like the long story rather than summin it up.
There is a lot of insight to this but gives no practical solution.
We are in a war like no other in history- that much is understood and a
"given". I have previously offered a solution that is abhorant to
Western civilized thinking.
When we are at war (not of our choosing and not understood by us), the
only way to win against the fanatics we face is to KILL them.
Discussion is not the answer- negotiation is out, compromise is out. We
have an enemy who has stated a purpose of destroying us and has
demonstrated a will to do it. They give no quarter, have no rules of
engagement, use deceit, lies, and determination incl. suicide. They do
not abide by Geneva conv., and NEITHER SHOULD WE.
There are a lot of them- is that a reason for us to give up and let
them kill us? While we kill them a few at a time, they do the same to
us. While we spend big billions on technology against them we kill them
by the handfull. We take prisoners and then RELEASE them so they can
continue the war against us. Of course they must first sign a piece of
paper that they will stop fighting us- What MORON in our government
thought that one up?
There is a strategy that can win.
We must put a blanket on all news coverage.
We must commend our troups for killing the enemy instead of trying to
prosecute them.
We must stop taking prisoners and kill them all instead.
These things are harsh, uncivilized, unconscionable to us- but that is
the enemy we face and only way to win against them.
You can call me what you will but in the end the only way out of this.
We need a president willing to do what is necessary instead of
appologising for our dead troups with worthless words.
Good points, but if we kill them won't that make the ACLU mad? And won't
the Europeans start to not like Americans? I don't think we're ready to pay
that dear a price yet my friend.
S***@yahoo.com
2005-06-04 05:37:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Calivar
Post by S***@yahoo.com
This is morer like the long story rather than summin it up.
There is a lot of insight to this but gives no practical solution.
We are in a war like no other in history- that much is understood and a
"given". I have previously offered a solution that is abhorant to
Western civilized thinking.
When we are at war (not of our choosing and not understood by us), the
only way to win against the fanatics we face is to KILL them.
Discussion is not the answer- negotiation is out, compromise is out. We
have an enemy who has stated a purpose of destroying us and has
demonstrated a will to do it. They give no quarter, have no rules of
engagement, use deceit, lies, and determination incl. suicide. They do
not abide by Geneva conv., and NEITHER SHOULD WE.
There are a lot of them- is that a reason for us to give up and let
them kill us? While we kill them a few at a time, they do the same to
us. While we spend big billions on technology against them we kill them
by the handfull. We take prisoners and then RELEASE them so they can
continue the war against us. Of course they must first sign a piece of
paper that they will stop fighting us- What MORON in our government
thought that one up?
There is a strategy that can win.
We must put a blanket on all news coverage.
We must commend our troups for killing the enemy instead of trying to
prosecute them.
We must stop taking prisoners and kill them all instead.
These things are harsh, uncivilized, unconscionable to us- but that is
the enemy we face and only way to win against them.
You can call me what you will but in the end the only way out of this.
We need a president willing to do what is necessary instead of
appologising for our dead troups with worthless words.
Good points, but if we kill them won't that make the ACLU mad?
I don't know if you are serious about that or just making a joke about
it?
SCREW THE ACLU- we are in a war and we must kill the enemy. We must use
our technology to do it- by the 100s of thousands until the last
fanatic is d-e-a-d.

And won't
Post by James Calivar
the Europeans start to not like Americans? I don't think we're ready to pay
that dear a price yet my friend.
No matter what we do they will not like us. We really have very few
friends. Even in our own country many people do not like ourselves.
FREEDOM IS NOT FREE- War is not pretty. Better our enemies die than us.
It is long overdue that WE get mad at our enemies- and figuratively
wade into them and rip their guts out- actually also. Are we so ready
to live in fear from the terrorists that are under every rock?
leadfoot
2005-06-05 20:51:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Calivar
Good points, but if we kill them won't that make the ACLU mad? And won't
the Europeans start to not like Americans? I don't think we're ready to
pay that dear a price yet my friend.
The ACLU and the Europeans are the least of your worries when your policy is
"kill them all and let god sort them out".
S***@yahoo.com
2005-06-06 04:04:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by leadfoot
Post by James Calivar
Good points, but if we kill them won't that make the ACLU mad? And won't
the Europeans start to not like Americans? I don't think we're ready to
pay that dear a price yet my friend.
The ACLU and the Europeans are the least of your worries when your policy is
"kill them all and let god sort them out".
You are oversimplifying what I said and meant.
I intended my meaning to be kill all of our enemies and take no
prisoners alive.
I said nothing about God sorting anything out- God works alone with no
explainations to us.
Your post is ambivalent, nebulous, unclear, and seems to have a point
only you are aware of- it certainly escapes me.
My policy is stated to win a war- what is your policy? Anything?
leadfoot
2005-06-06 08:01:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by S***@yahoo.com
Post by leadfoot
Post by James Calivar
Good points, but if we kill them won't that make the ACLU mad? And won't
the Europeans start to not like Americans? I don't think we're ready to
pay that dear a price yet my friend.
The ACLU and the Europeans are the least of your worries when your policy is
"kill them all and let god sort them out".
You are oversimplifying what I said and meant.
I intended my meaning to be kill all of our enemies and take no
prisoners alive
Which ultimately becomes "kill them all and let god sort them out".

.
Post by S***@yahoo.com
I said nothing about God sorting anything out- God works alone with no
explainations to us.
Actually there is no god, it's a fairy tale used to enable man to control
his fellow man. Something Muslims, Christians and Jews do with equal zeal,
Post by S***@yahoo.com
Your post is ambivalent, nebulous, unclear, and seems to have a point
only you are aware of- it certainly escapes me.
A lot escapes you Stocky, after all aren't you one of the sheep who voted
for Bush?
Post by S***@yahoo.com
My policy is stated to win a war- what is your policy? Anything?
Kill those who need killing. Keep it to a minimum. And work twice as hard
to make my enemy my friend.
S***@yahoo.com
2005-06-06 14:25:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by leadfoot
Post by S***@yahoo.com
Post by leadfoot
Post by James Calivar
Good points, but if we kill them won't that make the ACLU mad? And won't
the Europeans start to not like Americans? I don't think we're ready to
pay that dear a price yet my friend.
The ACLU and the Europeans are the least of your worries when your policy is
"kill them all and let god sort them out".
You are oversimplifying what I said and meant.
I intended my meaning to be kill all of our enemies and take no
prisoners alive
Which ultimately becomes "kill them all and let god sort them out".
.
Post by S***@yahoo.com
I said nothing about God sorting anything out- God works alone with no
explainations to us.
Actually there is no god, it's a fairy tale used to enable man to control
his fellow man. Something Muslims, Christians and Jews do with equal zeal,
What makes you so certain of that? Out of nothingness matter was
"created" and life was put on it. An entity was necessary to do it and
we call it God. Whether God still exists is unknown but everything else
about it is made up by people. While Muslims have their
Jihad, Christians have their crusades, Jews do not kill people in the
name of God.
Do a search for "bacteria found in meteorites". There is an article
about the "Murcheson" meteorite that dates it to 4.5 Billion years old
with fossilized bacteria found on it. It is theorized that the universe
is that old and life created shortly thereafter- by who? There was no
bible attached to say who.
Post by leadfoot
Post by S***@yahoo.com
Your post is ambivalent, nebulous, unclear, and seems to have a point
only you are aware of- it certainly escapes me.
A lot escapes you Stocky, after all aren't you one of the sheep who voted
for Bush?
And you also. I actually voted for the other guy (forgot his name) at
the last second. I had a strong distaste for them both. My decision is
reinforced about Bush even up to today. I hold him directly responsible
for the slaughter of American troops in foreign lands by the no end, no
win policies he condones.
While a lot does escape me I admit, I am not a sheep, have an open mind
(not that open that things fall out), and freely admit I do not know
all and make mistakes sometimes.
Post by leadfoot
Post by S***@yahoo.com
My policy is stated to win a war- what is your policy? Anything?
Kill those who need killing. Keep it to a minimum. And work twice as hard
to make my enemy my friend.
They all "need" killing. I would do it to the maximum (to the last
Bastard). You can work 1000x as hard to make the enemy your friend but
it will still be to no avail. They want to kill us and will never be a
friend. You can not reason with a murdering fanatic who will kill
himself (herself) rather than let you live. Your attitude about it is
what many other people have and delays winning this war. But I asked
and you answered.
gaffo
2005-06-07 02:18:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by S***@yahoo.com
Post by leadfoot
Post by S***@yahoo.com
Post by leadfoot
Post by James Calivar
Good points, but if we kill them won't that make the ACLU mad? And won't
the Europeans start to not like Americans? I don't think we're ready to
pay that dear a price yet my friend.
The ACLU and the Europeans are the least of your worries when your policy is
"kill them all and let god sort them out".
You are oversimplifying what I said and meant.
I intended my meaning to be kill all of our enemies and take no
prisoners alive
Which ultimately becomes "kill them all and let god sort them out".
.
Post by S***@yahoo.com
I said nothing about God sorting anything out- God works alone with no
explainations to us.
Actually there is no god, it's a fairy tale used to enable man to control
his fellow man. Something Muslims, Christians and Jews do with equal zeal,
What makes you so certain of that? Out of nothingness matter was
"created" and life was put on it. An entity was necessary to do it and
we call it God. Whether God still exists is unknown but everything else
about it is made up by people. While Muslims have their
Jihad, Christians have their crusades,
Jews do not kill people in the
name of God.
HAHA!! - you've obviously never read the Old Testament.
Post by S***@yahoo.com
Do a search for "bacteria found in meteorites". There is an article
about the "Murcheson" meteorite that dates it to 4.5 Billion years old
with fossilized bacteria found on it. It is theorized that the universe
is that old and life created shortly thereafter- by who? There was no
bible attached to say who.
Post by leadfoot
Post by S***@yahoo.com
Your post is ambivalent, nebulous, unclear, and seems to have a point
only you are aware of- it certainly escapes me.
A lot escapes you Stocky, after all aren't you one of the sheep who voted
for Bush?
And you also. I actually voted for the other guy (forgot his name) at
the last second. I had a strong distaste for them both. My decision is
reinforced about Bush even up to today. I hold him directly responsible
for the slaughter of American troops in foreign lands by the no end, no
win policies he condones.
While a lot does escape me I admit, I am not a sheep, have an open mind
(not that open that things fall out), and freely admit I do not know
all and make mistakes sometimes.
commendable trait................also called Humility. An Extinct virtue
these days.


Too many forget Pride is one of the Seven sins.


Good to see an example of the opposite. I commend you.
Post by S***@yahoo.com
Post by leadfoot
Post by S***@yahoo.com
My policy is stated to win a war- what is your policy? Anything?
Kill those who need killing. Keep it to a minimum. And work twice as hard
to make my enemy my friend.
They all "need" killing. I would do it to the maximum (to the last
Bastard). You can work 1000x as hard to make the enemy your friend but
it will still be to no avail. They want to kill us and will never be a
friend.
B&W thinking is not commpatabel with the Real World.

BTW WTF is "they"?

You sound like a McCarthyite.......Reds reds under my bed DUCK AND
COVER!! Sky is falling........holy shit - the Russkies are just ove that
hill!!

.........Where is Stanly Kubrick when we need him!! (AGAIN)??
Post by S***@yahoo.com
You can not reason with a murdering fanatic who will kill
himself (herself) rather than let you live.
funny - and yet somehow the Japs did end up surrendering instead of
fighting to th elast man.


who would have thunk?????????


again B&W thinking is not part of Reality.



as long as you have a mind to think - there are alternatives to "kill
them all"......blah blah blah.





Your attitude about it is
Post by S***@yahoo.com
what many other people have and delays winning this war.
Which War?

1.One against Terror?

2.Iraq War?


the later is not winable.



But I asked
Post by S***@yahoo.com
and you answered.
gaffo
2005-06-04 15:34:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by S***@yahoo.com
This is morer like the long story rather than summin it up.
There is a lot of insight to this but gives no practical solution.
We are in a war like no other in history- that much is understood and a
"given". I have previously offered a solution that is abhorant to
Western civilized thinking.
When we are at war (not of our choosing and not understood by us), the
only way to win against the fanatics we face is to KILL them.
Discussion is not the answer- negotiation is out, compromise is out. We
have an enemy who has stated a purpose of destroying us and has
demonstrated a will to do it. They give no quarter, have no rules of
engagement, use deceit, lies, and determination incl. suicide. They do
not abide by Geneva conv., and NEITHER SHOULD WE.
There are a lot of them- is that a reason for us to give up and let
them kill us? While we kill them a few at a time, they do the same to
us. While we spend big billions on technology against them we kill them
by the handfull. We take prisoners and then RELEASE them so they can
continue the war against us. Of course they must first sign a piece of
paper that they will stop fighting us- What MORON in our government
thought that one up?
There is a strategy that can win.
We must put a blanket on all news coverage.
We must commend our troups for killing the enemy instead of trying to
prosecute them.
We must stop taking prisoners and kill them all instead.
These things are harsh, uncivilized, unconscionable to us- but that is
the enemy we face and only way to win against them.
You can call me what you will but in the end the only way out of this.
We need a president willing to do what is necessary instead of
appologising for our dead troups with worthless words.
total bullshit.
gaffo
2005-06-04 14:31:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe
With little else to do here as we twiddle our thumbs waiting for BOB2,
Falcon4 Allied Force or even the "Big Patch" for Pacific Fighters here is
about the best summation of "The War on Terrorism" I have read in a while.
http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/hanson/hanson200506030807.asp
===============================================================================================
Victor Davis Hanson
June 03, 2005, 8:07 a.m.
Our Strange War
Looking ahead, our options.
Imagine that a weak Hitler in the mid-1930s never planned conventional war
with the democracies. Instead, he stealthily would fund and train thousands
of SS fanatics on neutral ground to permeate European society, convinced of
its decadence and the need to return to a mythical time when a purer Aryan
Volk reigned supreme. Such terrorists would bomb, assassinate, promulgate
fascistic hatred in the media, and whine about Versailles, hoping
insidiously to gain concessions from wearied liberal societies that would
make ever more excuses as they looked inward and blamed themselves for the
presence of such inexplicable evil. All the while, Nazi Germany would deny
any connections to these "indigenous movements" and "deplore" such
"terrorism,"
Which, if this author knew anything about history, would know Germany
did just this in Austria. And probably a couple of other Nations in that
area.

Self appointed ignorant "journalists" expaining foreign policy cracks me up.

Try Foreign Policy Magazine next time.
S***@yahoo.com
2005-06-04 15:35:12 UTC
Permalink
I don't know who you are referring to but I know some history, tho not
an expert on it. I can't imagine Germany harming Hitler's own country
of birth. But, Germany did a good job of killing people- no, a great
job of it. The problem was they killed the good guys and came within a
few months of actually winning the war. It is believed that if they
could have killed Hitler they also could have won the war because of
the bad decisions he was making.
If you are referring to Hanson as a self appointed ignorant journalist,
then after reading the article I would disagree about "ignorant". He
seems to have a pretty good grasp of the situation. Our problem right
now is that it is not a Foreign policy problem- they are killing us
right in our homeland making it a domestic problem.
gaffo
2005-06-06 04:33:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by S***@yahoo.com
If you are referring to Hanson as a self appointed ignorant journalist,
then after reading the article I would disagree about "ignorant".
yes that is who I was refering to.
Post by S***@yahoo.com
He
seems to have a pretty good grasp of the situation.
we must dissagree then.
Post by S***@yahoo.com
Our problem right
now is that it is not a Foreign policy problem-
that is our oly problem - Iraq. a big irrelivant war and total fuck up
men, material, and money.
Post by S***@yahoo.com
they are killing us
right in our homeland making it a domestic problem.
???? - no attacks here in 4 yrs........in spite of our Fubar in Iraq.
gaffo
2005-06-04 15:33:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe
Like a parent with a naughty child, a maddening forbearance is the order of
bullshit.

We have not behaved in any restrained manner. Anyone familiar with the
re-taking of Fallujah would know this.

We are not losing due to fighting with one hand behind our backs - we
are losing because short of genocide this silly irrelivant war in Iraq
is unwinnable.
Post by Joe
They burn American flags, behead, murder, and promise death and
ruin to Americans; we ignore it and instead find new ways of displaying our
sensitivity to Islam.
we "ignore it" - what utter bulshit. We aer occupying Iraq!! you call
that "ignoring"???

idiot!

oh BTW WTF does the irrelivant, constitutionally illegal and illadvised
Iraq War have to do with the War Against Terror?


nothing.........
Post by Joe
Although the enemy is weak militarily and its nihilist ideology appeals to
few, it still has powerful ways to meet our own overwhelming military power
and economic strength.
Ya thunk? - maybe a little more historical knowledge and a few veiwings
of the Taking of Algeria would have aided in your dissbelief, naive one.
Post by Joe
First is the doctrine of the deniability of culpability. In the legalistic
world of the United Nations and international courts, Islamists depend on
their patrons' not being held responsible beyond a reasonable doubt for the
shelter and cash they provide to those who kill Westerners.
only one who as never made a mistake and take any responsibility in the
last 6 yrs is the Chimp in chief. He even refuses to take responsibilty
for the violation of Article6 of our Constitution. an act of treason.
Post by Joe
Elites in Syria
or Iran deny that they offer aid to terrorists. Or if caught, they retreat
to a fallback position of something like, "Do you really want to go to war
over our help for a few ragtag insurrectionists?"
and do we?
Post by Joe
A second advantage is oil.
indeed - why we are in Iraq in the first place.
Post by Joe
A third to half the world's reserves is under
Saudi Arabia, the other Gulf States, Iraq, and Iran. None until recently
were democratic; most at one time or another have given bribe money to
terrorists, sponsored anti-Americanism, or survived by blaming us for their
own failures.
and? so? none of our business what form of government and society they have.

they sell oil we buy it. - period. simple and effective - no?
Post by Joe
These otherwise backward societies - that neither developed nor can maintain
their natural wealth - rake in billions, as oil that costs $2-5 to pump is
sold for $50.
yep - and who is buying chump? Togo?
Post by Joe
Some of that money
our money Bubba. Pretty good argument for finding alternative fuels and
conservation.
Post by Joe
in nefarious ways arms terrorists.
thanks to ourselves........oh forgot, the New America don't take
responsility for shit of her own doing. Just like the Chimp.
Post by Joe
Should
an exasperated United States finally strike back at their patrons, we risk
ruining the world economy - or at least so it will be perceived by paranoid
and petroleum-dependent Japan, Europe, and China. Without an energy policy
of independence, this war will be hard to win, since Saudi Arabia will never
feel any pressure to purge its royal family of terrorist sympathizers or to
cease its subsidies for Wahhabist hatred.
now you are starting to see the picture.
conservation - that means no more SUVs for starters.
Post by Joe
A third edge for the terrorists lies in the West itself. After 40 years of
multiculturalism and moral equivalence - the wages of wealth and freedom
unmatched in the history of civilization - many in the United States believe
that they have evolved beyond the use of force. Education, money, dialogue,
conflict resolution theory - all this and more can achieve far more than
crude Abrams tanks and F-16s.
yes. And I take it you loathe and negate the importance of educaton,
money, dialogue and conflict resolution.


always better to just go in blazing with guns and start unnecessary wars
of choice when peace might be possible though conflict resolution.

reich Herr Himmler?
Post by Joe
A bin Laden or Saddam is rare in the West. In our arrogance, we think such
folk are more or less like ourselves and live in a similar world of reason
and tolerance.
no. we just know that there are very very few of them living here in the
"West". Maybe 100 or so..................out of 300 million.

of those 100 maybe 2 or 3 have the will and means to put moeny where
there mouth is.


So 3 are a threat.

I think the FBI can handle this - you can keep your F-16 M-I and all
that other crap used in Wars.
Post by Joe
The long antennae of the canny terrorists pick up on that
self-doubt. Most of the rhetoric in bin Laden's infomercials came right out
of the Western media.
As September 11 fades in the memory, too many Americans feel that it is time
to let bygones be bygones. Some now consider Islamic fascism and its method
of terror a "nuisance" that will go away if we just come home.
the Iraq part (which is now 98-percent of all of it) will go away.


People don't like to be occupied by a foreign power - fool. Some tend to
shoot back at times.
Post by Joe
We are a
society where many of our elite believe the killer bin Laden is less of a
threat than the elected George Bush.
He is.

And I'm not an "Elite" (whatever the fuck that is: Mr Neo-con) Just a
Joe Average smuck with Libertarian tendencies who is not gullible and
does not beleive in big government protecting me from the buggyman.

You want big Government move to China! You can keep your Police State.
Post by Joe
Al Qaeda keeps promising to kill us
all;
promises promises......................blah blah.

alot of folks promise things. Few carry them out.
Post by Joe
meanwhile Ralph Nader wants the wartime president impeached for misuse
of failed intelligence.
As do I - and millions of other Patriots who value our Constituton more
than our President.
Post by Joe
Fourth, in an asymmetrical war the cult of the underdog is a valuable tool.
Europeans march with posters showing scenes from Abu Ghraib, not of the
beheading of Daniel Pearl or the murder of Margaret Hassan.
ideed - because the Ira invastion and occupation remains illegal and
unconstituton - under US and International Law.


no amount of historical revisionism will make the illegal legal.
Post by Joe
They do not
wish, much less expect, al Qaeda to win, but they still find psychic
satisfaction in seeing the world's sole superpower tied down,
of course.

we all like to see a Bully get the bloody nose.

we are a bully to our own Constitution!!

We deserve nothing better than a humbling of our haughty arrogance via a
few more years of car bombs for oil in Iraq.
Post by Joe
as if it were
the glory days of the Vietnam protests all over again.
Vietnam was a Humbling experience and America was made a better Nation
because of it. Wiser and more skepical of those in positions of power.
In other words we grew up.



Now since them we have become little children again - due to all the
easy wars since then. In our arrogance and ignorace we now can no longer
see a legal and legitimate war (Gulf War) from an illegal and
illegitimate War of Occupation for Empire and Oil.

Time to take the Nam pill all over again.

It will taste bad, put we will be once again wiser and humbler than we
are today.

and that can only be a good thing.
Post by Joe
How else can we
explain why Amnesty International claims that Guantanamo - specialized
ethnic foods, available Korans, and international observers - is comparable
to a Soviet Gulag where millions once perished? So there is a deep, deep
sickness in the West.
did they equate the two - or are you just spouting more bullshit to make
you flawed argument???

You take the Imhofe defense - "well we ain't as bad as Saddam - so whats
the big deal!!"


Yes - making Saddam the moral standard is on par with the rest of your
piece.
Post by Joe
In response, we have embarked on the only strategy that offers a lasting
victory: Kill the Islamic fascists; remove the worst autocracies that
sponsored terrorists; and jump-start democratic governments in the Middle
East.
foolish and unwinnable.


Iraq will end n failure - and I could'nt care less.
Post by Joe
Our two chief worries - terrorists and weapons of mass destruction
So why are we in Iraq? - which have neither?





- wane
Post by Joe
when constitutional societies replace autocracies. Currently few democratic
states harbor and employ terrorists or threaten their neighbors with
biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons, even if they have ample stockpiles
of each.
your lack of mentioning Israel is noted.
Post by Joe
Where will it all end?
our defeat in Iraq....................and a declaired victory while in
retreat (just like in Nam).
Post by Joe
Our choices are threefold.
no - there are no choices. Bu$hler removed them two yrs ago.

we lose in Iraq now or we lose later.


Now lets talk about the relivant War - the one against Terror.

Iraq is a costly diversion from that war.
Post by Joe
We can wind down - essentially the position of the mainstream Left -
wind down in Iraq - which is not part of the War on Terror.


get your facts straight dipshit.
Post by Joe
and
return to a pre-September 11 situation, treating Islamism as a criminal
justice matter
correct. the only way to win this "War"........and to get the fuck out
of Iraq.
Post by Joe
or deserving of an occasional cruise missile.
No - that just gets innocents killed and is effective in only recruitment.
Post by Joe
This, in my
view, would be a disaster and guarantee another mass attack.
of course "in your view" - you are a war mongering NeoCon.

Probably an Israeli one as well. most NeoGoons are, or have dual
citizenship and possible dual loyalties.
Post by Joe
Or we can continue to pacify Iraq.
how do we do this Numbnutts? what the fuck do you think we've been
trying to do these past 2-1/2 yrs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Post by Joe
We then wait and see whether the ripples
from the January elections - without further overt American military action
into other countries - bring democracy to Lebanon,
Lebanon's independence has NOTHING to do with our actions in Iraq and
EVERYTHING to do with the murder of their former Prime Minister.


But to over inflate our actions as the prime mover and negate those if
non-americans is on par with the arrrogance of the NeoCons.

Here is another clue, Lebanon was OCCUPIED (like Iraq is now) they got
tired of being OCCUPIED and so rose up (as Iraqis will start doing more
and more).

So in a way Occupation is a great catalyst for starting Democracies.
when we get our arses kicked out of iraq in utter defeat, maybe Iraqis
will build their democracy (after the civil war they will have of course).
Post by Joe
Egypt, the Gulf States,
and eventually the entire Middle East.
so what.

I don't give a shit what form of government the rest of the Nations of
the Earth have, and neither should you. Its not important and none of
our business.
Post by Joe
This is the apparent present policy
of the administration: talking up democracy, not provoking any who might
disagree. It may well work, though such patience requires constant
articulation to the American people that we are really in a deadly war when
it doesn't seem to everyone that we are.
blah blah blah....................we have no "policy". We were suppose
to have invaded Iran and Syria by now - you know after the Iraqis have
of all those roses.


Thats what Wolfy/Rummy told us.................


now since reality is here (and the Chimp has problems with reality) we
are flying blind in the policy department.
Post by Joe
Or we can press on.
..................Onward Christian soldiers.......!!!!!!!!
Post by Joe
We apprise Syria to cease all sanctuary for al Qaedists
and Iran to give up its nuclear program - or face surgical and punitive
American air strikes.
"american" or Israeli?..............oh foolish of me - same thing these
days.
Post by Joe
Such escalation is embraced by few, although many
acknowledge that we may soon have few choices other than just that.
while we play footsy with North Korea..............
Post by Joe
But for
now we can sum up the American plans as hoping that democracy spreads faster
than Islamism,
You bias is showing NeoGoon. the above two are not mutually exclusive.
Ask Turkey.
Post by Joe
and thus responsible government will appear to ensure
terrorists and WMD disappear.
they will dissapear when the US foreign policy in that region changes -
not before.
Post by Joe
The above, of course, is what we plan, but gives no consideration to the
intent of the enemy.
more important question is what is our intent in the Middle East???


Black Gold of course.
Post by Joe
As we speak, he desperately searches for new strategies
to ward off defeat as jihad seems more likely to lead to ruin than the
return of the caliphate.
not if we spend ourselves into oblivion/exaustion (like the USSR did)
trying to swat flies with a sledge hammer first.
Post by Joe
For now Islamic fascist strategy is to make such horrific news in Iraq that
America throws up its hands and sighs, "These crazy people simply aren't
worth it,"
........more relivant question is "is Iraqi oil worth the life of your son"?
Post by Joe
goes home, snoozes - and thus becomes ripe for another September
11.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Victor Davis Hanson is a military historian and a senior fellow at the
Hoover Institution at Stanford University. His website is victorhanson.com.
http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200506030807.asp
he is also an idiot.
Mitch_A
2005-06-04 16:00:20 UTC
Permalink
Yea we should have just taken the European attitude of appeasement. This
was working very well, just ask the victims of 911 or Kenya or Spain
or...................

So, youre saying Saddam is winning this war? Typical nonsense form the far
left nutjobs... Youre so fucking brainwashed its really sad.

Irrelevant? You must be talking about Europe in general...

By the way WTF do you know about Fallujah except what you see on TV...
NOTHING! Because you dont have a clue about anything. FN loser
ideologues...

You all are the same bunch of shithead losers that let Hitler nearly take
Europe and nearly the World.

Back in your fucking hole....
Post by gaffo
We have not behaved in any restrained manner. Anyone familiar with the
re-taking of Fallujah would know this.
We are not losing due to fighting with one hand behind our backs - we are
losing because short of genocide this silly irrelivant war in Iraq is
unwinnable.
gaffo
2005-06-06 04:46:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitch_A
Yea we should have just taken the European attitude of appeasement. This
was working very well, just ask the victims of 911 or Kenya or Spain
or...................
So, youre saying Saddam is winning this war? Typical nonsense form the far
left nutjobs... Youre so fucking brainwashed its really sad.
Irrelevant? You must be talking about Europe in general...
By the way WTF do you know about Fallujah except what you see on TV...
NOTHING! Because you dont have a clue about anything. FN loser
ideologues...
You all are the same bunch of shithead losers that let Hitler nearly take
Europe and nearly the World.
Back in your fucking hole....
Post by gaffo
We have not behaved in any restrained manner. Anyone familiar with the
re-taking of Fallujah would know this.
We are not losing due to fighting with one hand behind our backs - we are
losing because short of genocide this silly irrelivant war in Iraq is
unwinnable.
you have anything wise to say?

or just brevado and bullshit.

niether will win your little war of Occupation Bubba.
S***@yahoo.com
2005-06-04 16:36:44 UTC
Permalink
Too much to reply to without writing a book to do it.
You are the self appointed judge who uses name calling to make his
point.
You are the self appointed historian who does not know history.
You are the decider that Israel is somehow responsible tor what is
happening to us.
You have your reply screwed up by implying that the author of this post
is Hanson himself.
While I disagree with our stated purposes of bringing democracy to the
Iraqi people, I do believe that our war is necessary in light of the
believed threat of WMD from Saddam.
While you profess to be a self appointed lawyer about the legality of
our actions, we had ample reason to conduct the war against Iraq. We
stated the case for it and did what was necessary after multiple
warnings we were going to do it if conditions were not complyed with.
They had 10 years to comply and refused final warnings.
All of your name calling and armchair criticism does not make any point
valid in disproving Hansons article.
Only an idiot like you would still promote the idea that our actions
are guided by oil. It is not oil that is shed in Iraq and Afgh.- it is
American blood that flows over there. While we are not indifferent to
the stability of oil, we stated that any oil money would go to the
Iraqis and it has.
If Hanson is an idiot you must be a genius- or maybe it is the other
way around?
gaffo
2005-06-06 05:15:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by S***@yahoo.com
Too much to reply to without writing a book to do it.
You are the self appointed judge who uses name calling to make his
point.
"name calling"? - who's - the President?

that offends you?

scary.

Have you no respect for Liberty of Speech?
Post by S***@yahoo.com
You are the self appointed historian who does not know history.
I know it well enough to tell you Iraq will end like Nam.

you don't need to know much histroy to see the obvious.

That you don't like it is irrelivant to the facts.
Post by S***@yahoo.com
You are the decider that Israel is somehow responsible tor what is
happening to us.
Well.............if you knew anything about the NeoCons you know who
Perle/Libby/Feith/wolfowitz and Abrams are. what positions of power thay
have and how they pressed for War agaisnt Iraq.

You'd know what PNAC was and how much influence they have on foreign policy.


and you'd know that the above men have dual citizenship and are in
positions of ower where National Security secrets are known.

did they have dual loyalites as well?


...........would you welcome an Iranian or North Korean American with
dual citizenship on the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board?


no? - then why do you accept an Israeli one? (Perle/Wolfy/Feith)

It doesn't trouble you that Perle has money invested in Defense
Contractors who are suppying stuff to our boys in Iraq - and that he was
second only to Wollfowitz to press for the UnConstitutional war
agasint Iraq?


nope - guess not.
Post by S***@yahoo.com
You have your reply screwed up by implying that the author of this post
is Hanson himself.
not my intent. I appologise for any confusion on this matter.
Post by S***@yahoo.com
While I disagree with our stated purposes of bringing democracy to the
Iraqi people, I do believe that our war is necessary in light of the
believed threat of WMD from Saddam.
WMD was a ruse to make the illegal war palatable to the American People.
War was based upon lies from day one.

Nobody in positions of power really beleived there was a credible WMD
arsenal.

Bush decided to go to war and then justified it later.
Post by S***@yahoo.com
While you profess to be a self appointed lawyer about the legality of
our actions,
I've read up on the issue.

you have not?
Post by S***@yahoo.com
we had ample reason to conduct the war against Iraq.
being?

WMDs non existant.

no terrorists there (BEFORE our illegal invasion/occupation)

no link to Osama


...................................
Post by S***@yahoo.com
We
stated the case for it and did what was necessary after multiple
warnings we were going to do it if conditions were not complyed with.
We did not have the authirty. We publically stated that we would go in
to uphold the UN resolutions (like we stated in the Gulf War).

Unlike the Gulf War, the UN DID NOT convene a Securty Council meeting to
authorise the US's use of force to enforce the UN resolution.


US actions were thus illegal.............both under International Law
and US Constitutional Law (Article 6 Parapragh 2)...............see
Holland vs Missouri


We have a binding Treaty with the UN (i.e. the UN Charter). Our
unilateral invasion of Iraq in the Name of UN's Resolutions without the
UN permission is a direct violation of said Charter and thus Article 6
paragraph 2.

Bush commited an act of treason - knowingly or unknowingly. He violated
his oath to uphold the United States Constitution (that includes
Article6 which he shat upon).
Post by S***@yahoo.com
They had 10 years to comply and refused final warnings.
no - there was a cease fire agreement signed in 91. the bullshit
arguemnt that the Gulf War never ended is just that.


- nonetheless the above UN resolutions are worded in a way that makes
clear that the use of force by any party must be preceeded by a Security
Council vote to authorize it!!!


US did not allow such a meeting (they cancelled it in fact) when it
become clear that Chile and Mexico were not going to vote with the US.
Post by S***@yahoo.com
All of your name calling and armchair criticism does not make any point
valid in disproving Hansons article.
Hanson is a chest thumping NeoCon. He's no different than
Kristal/Gaffney/Krauthammer.........and all the other brickheads.


they think in terms of Force rather than the Rule of Law and
Mulitlateral cooperation.
Post by S***@yahoo.com
Only an idiot like you would still promote the idea that our actions
are guided by oil.
how old are you?? 12?

grow up.
Post by S***@yahoo.com
It is not oil that is shed in Iraq and Afgh.- it is
American blood that flows over there.
actually 99-pecent of it is Iraq blood.

don't look know you bias is showing

here is a clue - we weren't invited.
Post by S***@yahoo.com
While we are not indifferent to
the stability of oil, we stated that any oil money would go to the
Iraqis and it has.
sure sure...........and I've got this bridge in AZ.
Post by S***@yahoo.com
If Hanson is an idiot you must be a genius-
I'm not a genius - a assure you.

He is an idiot however.


or maybe it is the other
Post by S***@yahoo.com
way around?
no. hanson is not a genius - maybe we are both idiots however.
AM
2005-06-06 12:33:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by gaffo
I know it well enough to tell you Iraq will end like Nam.
Well when the Iraqi's eventually have their own govt, and
self determination, you will admit that you are wrong here
right ?
Post by gaffo
you don't need to know much histroy to see the obvious.
The obvious ?? Really ??
You mean the left wing media that you listen to and love ?



How many soldiers do you know over in Iraq right now ?
How many people that you have met have been there
recently ?

I've talked to quite a few, and what the say about Iraq
is far different that what the liberal media wants you to
believe. (and definitely different from what you write !!!)

The Iraqi people do love what the coalition has done, and
are very happy to be able to start getting back to some
kind of normalcy in their lives. Average Iraqi's are happy
to have coalition forces there to beat back the pro SH
and foreign terrorists. And more and more they are turning
in and against the foreign fighters and remnants of the Bath
regime. these same people are the one's joining the Iraqi
Army, and police forces, in spite of the insurgency bombing
recruiting stations repeatedly. Yet the people still show up,
and turn the insurgents in. In ever increasing numbers.
The stores and shops are open, power and utilities are
up and running, and the infrastructure is slowly getting
back together again. The people of Iraq are rebuilding
their country, and are grateful for the coalition making it
possible. The insurgency is specifically targeting Iraqi's
now, in hopes of making them afraid more of them than
anything else. Realizing that they have lost the battle
for the average Iraqi's *heart & mind* they resort to
bombing them into submission to keep them from
cooperating with coalition forces, and working for their
own freedom. (which the insurgency does NOT want)
Hence the reason that the leaders of the insurgency are
almost exclusively foreign nationals, with ex Bath leadership.
Notice that they do NOT have the support of the average Iraqi.

You also haven't seen the personal pictures, and heard the stories
of soldiers who have made friends with average Iraqi people
and the stories they have to tell.
The average Iraqi is VERY happy with what the coalition
has done !!!!!!!!!!
And without exception (!!) Everyone I have talked to
(several dozen) who have come back from Iraq have
all said the same thing.

How many people have you talked to that have spent
time over in Iraq ? Care to enlighten us please ?



The mainstream media is NOT reporting what is really going
on in Iraq right now !

But I bet it is exactly what you want to hear..................
























Allan
--
Only A Gentleman Can Insult Me And A True Gentleman Never Will
leadfoot
2005-06-06 23:09:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by AM
Post by gaffo
I know it well enough to tell you Iraq will end like Nam.
Well when the Iraqi's eventually have their own govt, and
self determination, you will admit that you are wrong here
right ?
After we leave and the iraqi gov't is either overthrown or transforms itself
into into an anti-US Shiite theocracy, you will admit that you are wrong
here, right?
AM
2005-06-07 00:01:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by leadfoot
After we leave and the iraqi gov't is either overthrown or transforms
itself into into an anti-US Shiite theocracy, you will admit that you are
wrong here, right?
If I am wrong I will admit it right away.

But about Iraq, I don't think so. The basic people there
want freedom very badly, like ALL human beings do.
We are helping them with the mechanism to do this,
and the average Iraqi is VERY happy about it !!

The average standard of living in Iraq was one of the highest
in the ME before 1991. But the people lived in fear.......
Now they see that the fear is manageable, and that there is a
very real chance for personal advancement, and economic
prosperity. Afghanistan is an example to them, self
determination is possible, and they have an opportunity to
once again, become an advanced prosperous country.
They will go for it as long as we stand behind them, and help
manage the terrorists that don't want this to happen.

No matter how many bombs the terrorists have set at police
stations, people still keep showing up to apply there.
Notice how the terrorists have been going after Iraqi's
more than coalition troops ? They are more afraid of the
average Iraqi citizen choosing his own destiny than the coalition.

Remember, we were in Germany and Japan for more than 10
years afterward helping rebuild, and get the infrastructure going
again. We have only been in Iraq less than 1/4 of that time now..
This kind of thing doesn't happen according to an internet
schedule...




Now can YOU show me any proof that the insurgency is
actually winning, or stopping the inevitable advance toward
freedom, and self determination in Iraq ?

Can you show proof that Iraq will not be able to govern itself
in the long term ?

Or show any proof that Iraq is becoming an anti US shite
led state ?











Allan
--
Only A Gentleman Can Insult Me And A True Gentleman Never Will
leadfoot
2005-06-07 11:03:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by AM
Post by leadfoot
After we leave and the iraqi gov't is either overthrown or transforms
itself into into an anti-US Shiite theocracy, you will admit that you are
wrong here, right?
If I am wrong I will admit it right away.
Give me an example.
Post by AM
But about Iraq, I don't think so. The basic people there
want freedom very badly, like ALL human beings do.
We are helping them with the mechanism to do this,
and the average Iraqi is VERY happy about it !!
They sure didn't do much about saddam themselves did they.
Post by AM
The average standard of living in Iraq was one of the highest
in the ME before 1991. But the people lived in fear.......
Now they see that the fear is manageable, and that there is a
very real chance for personal advancement, and economic
prosperity. Afghanistan is an example to them, self
determination is possible, and they have an opportunity to
once again, become an advanced prosperous country.
They will go for it as long as we stand behind them, and help
manage the terrorists that don't want this to happen.
No matter how many bombs the terrorists have set at police
stations, people still keep showing up to apply there.
Notice how the terrorists have been going after Iraqi's
more than coalition troops ? They are more afraid of the
average Iraqi citizen choosing his own destiny than the coalition.
Actually it easier to attack the civilians. As an example The palestineans
would much prefer to attack the israeli military personnel with suicide
bombers it's simply to hard to do so they attack buses and cafe.
Post by AM
Remember, we were in Germany and Japan for more than 10
years afterward helping rebuild, and get the infrastructure going
again. We have only been in Iraq less than 1/4 of that time now..
This kind of thing doesn't happen according to an internet
schedule...
There was no active resistance in either japan and germany on the scale we
are seeing today.
Post by AM
Now can YOU show me any proof that the insurgency is
actually winning, or stopping the inevitable advance toward
freedom, and self determination in Iraq ?
Can you show proof that Iraq will not be able to govern itself
in the long term ?
Or show any proof that Iraq is becoming an anti US shite
led state ?
Can you show proof of the opposite?
Post by AM
Allan
--
Only A Gentleman Can Insult Me And A True Gentleman Never Will
Mr. Sylvestre
2005-06-07 13:42:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by leadfoot
Post by AM
No matter how many bombs the terrorists have set at police
stations, people still keep showing up to apply there.
Notice how the terrorists have been going after Iraqi's
more than coalition troops ? They are more afraid of the
average Iraqi citizen choosing his own destiny than the coalition.
Actually it easier to attack the civilians. As an example The palestineans
would much prefer to attack the israeli military personnel with suicide
bombers it's simply to hard to do so they attack buses and cafe.
Yes, I also believe they simply go after the easy targets, which means
iraqis rather than the occupation forces.

The problem for the insurgents is that in the long term, this alienates
the population (most of the recent successes against the insurgents
apparently came from tip offs). Essentially giving up control of most of
the country except for a few strategic sites (green zone, energy,
airports,...), limiting patrols and letting the iraqis forces deal with
the insurgents is probably an efficient, though somewhat cynical,
strategy of the occupation forces.

The problem for the occupation forces is that, while they can limit
their exposure, they currently can't leave Iraq without letting it
plunge in civil war.

This is consistant with some pre-war predictions that Iraq would not be
another Vietnam, but rather another eightie's Lebanon or Northern
Ireland. In other words, do not expect the US troops to return home
anytime soon, assuming that the US is serious about its commitement there.

Regards,
Mr. S.
AM
2005-06-07 14:23:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr. Sylvestre
Post by leadfoot
Post by AM
No matter how many bombs the terrorists have set at police
stations, people still keep showing up to apply there.
Notice how the terrorists have been going after Iraqi's
more than coalition troops ? They are more afraid of the
average Iraqi citizen choosing his own destiny than the coalition.
Actually it easier to attack the civilians. As an example The
palestineans would much prefer to attack the israeli military personnel
with suicide bombers it's simply to hard to do so they attack buses and
cafe.
Yes, I also believe they simply go after the easy targets, which means
iraqis rather than the occupation forces.
The problem for the insurgents is that in the long term, this alienates
the population (most of the recent successes against the insurgents
apparently came from tip offs). Essentially giving up control of most of
the country except for a few strategic sites (green zone, energy,
airports,...), limiting patrols and letting the iraqis forces deal with
the insurgents is probably an efficient, though somewhat cynical, strategy
of the occupation forces.
They are smart enough to realize that attacking a population base
hurts them rather than helps.

That said, they are attacking their own people specifically to keep
them from forming a working govt, and moving forward.


















Allan
--
Only A Gentleman Can Insult Me And A True Gentleman Never Will
AM
2005-06-07 13:30:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by leadfoot
Post by AM
If I am wrong I will admit it right away.
Give me an example.
I already have admitted I've been wrong before here.
Look it up yourself sometime. Try early last year......
Post by leadfoot
They sure didn't do much about saddam themselves did they.
Kinda hard when they were goverened with an iron fist......
Interesting now that they are turning on the terrorists
themselves. VERY telling...........

And BTW...... they will be trying Saddam in their OWN court
system.
Post by leadfoot
Actually it easier to attack the civilians. As an example The palestineans
would much prefer to attack the israeli military personnel with suicide
bombers it's simply to hard to do so they attack buses and cafe.
The insurgants in Iraq are far better armed than the palastinians,
who also BTW recieve state sponsored support from Iran/Syria
and enjoy a much better logistics system. Also Hamas and groups
like it, have broad support within the general population, wheras in
Iraq, the local population IS the main target for their support for
the coalition, and a new govt. Hamas wants/will become part of
whatever govt. is created, the insurgants in Iraq, want no part of
a new govt at all.

It's all or nothing for them........
It has also been proven to them that attacking coalition troops
always costs them more in lives than they can afford, but more to
the point..... The population in Iraq IS cooperating with the coalition
on a country wide scale, the terrorists are DESPERATE to stop this !
Notice how in most of Iraq, there is little to NO terrorist attacks ?
Post by leadfoot
There was no active resistance in either japan and germany on the scale we
are seeing today.
And the infrastructure damage was far higher than in Iraq, and the people
were far more worn out by war...
If we had done to Iraq like we did to the axis powers in WW II, there would
be no resistance now there. But the population would have had to endure
a trememdous ammout of casualties to achieve this. We are trying
to avoid those kind of civillian casualties in this day and age.
Make no mitake about it , we destroyed the axis powers to wage war
almost completely. Production, infrastructure, power generation, oil
supplies, etc... We did not do this to Iraq.
Post by leadfoot
Post by AM
Or show any proof that Iraq is becoming an anti US shite
led state ?
Can you show proof of the opposite?
Yes....
The new govt is definitely pro western, or at the very least
perfectly willing to become part of the world at large economically.
To that end, being anti- US/Western will slow/stop that from
happening. And the Iraqi's want very much to become viable
economically again. Getting along with the world, particularly
the western half is very important to them. They have the resources
to become very well off, and know who has the $$$ to spend...



BTW, you never did answer how many people YOU have talked
to that have actually been to Iraq recently.

I have two dozen first hand accounts from people who have been
there, and talked to a few of these people extensively.

Have you actually even met anyone who has been there ????????




My younger son is heading over there sometime soon,
as an 11 Bravo, 1 - 25 SBCT {Stryker Brigade Combat Team}
so I have far more interest in Iraq now than ever before.
And I've obliviously spent the time searching out and talking
to people who have actually BEEN there.
























Allan
--
Only A Gentleman Can Insult Me And A True Gentleman Never Will
S***@yahoo.com
2005-06-06 15:36:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by gaffo
Post by S***@yahoo.com
Too much to reply to without writing a book to do it.
You are the self appointed judge who uses name calling to make his
point.
"name calling"? - who's - the President?
Is that a "who's on 1st base" question?
Post by gaffo
that offends you?
You get no "points" for name calling.
Post by gaffo
scary.
Take your meds and hold onto your blanket.
Post by gaffo
Have you no respect for Liberty of Speech?
"Liberty of Speech"? How about 1st amendment- Freedom of speech? Sure,
within its limits.
Post by gaffo
Post by S***@yahoo.com
You are the self appointed historian who does not know history.
I know it well enough to tell you Iraq will end like Nam.
That is a fortune telling statement- crystal ball or tea leaves?
Post by gaffo
you don't need to know much histroy to see the obvious.
That you don't like it is irrelivant to the facts.
This was your view, not mine. What facts?
Post by gaffo
Post by S***@yahoo.com
You are the decider that Israel is somehow responsible tor what is
happening to us.
Well.............if you knew anything about the NeoCons you know who
Perle/Libby/Feith/wolfowitz and Abrams are. what positions of power thay
have and how they pressed for War agaisnt Iraq.
I know that the positions of power are held by people in our 3 branches
of government with its checks and balances. Not by nebulous bogymen
that you bring up. I know that our president proposed it and our
congress voted on it.
I know that polls of the American people also approved it.
Post by gaffo
You'd know what PNAC was and how much influence they have on foreign policy.
I admit I do not know what PNAC was and influence alone does not
control anything. I know that an honest mistake about WMD does not
negate everything that came after it.
Post by gaffo
and you'd know that the above men have dual citizenship and are in
positions of ower where National Security secrets are known.
Have you known about "security clearances"? Since you know so much more
than me I am sure you can reveal just what wrongdoing any of them have
done.
Post by gaffo
did they have dual loyalites as well?
Waiting for the wrongdoing from them.
Post by gaffo
...........would you welcome an Iranian or North Korean American with
dual citizenship on the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board?
I also admit I have never heard of a pentagon "defense policy board". I
always believed that the pentagon was concerned with war strategy, not
defense policy. We have a newly created cabinet post of homeland
security to deal with that.
Post by gaffo
no? - then why do you accept an Israeli one? (Perle/Wolfy/Feith)
Why don't you just admit you are an antisemite instead of beattng
around the bush about it? They are American citizens and do not control
anything.
Post by gaffo
It doesn't trouble you that Perle has money invested in Defense
Contractors who are suppying stuff to our boys in Iraq - and that he was
second only to Wollfowitz to press for the UnConstitutional war
agasint Iraq?
"Press" is a dumb word with no meaning. Unconst. war is a statement
that only you believe. Our judicial branch has not made that ruling on
it.
Post by gaffo
nope - guess not.
No need for me to answer- you beat me to it.
Post by gaffo
Post by S***@yahoo.com
You have your reply screwed up by implying that the author of this post
is Hanson himself.
not my intent. I appologise for any confusion on this matter.
It appears to me that your response was mislead right down to the
bottom where you saw your error but had put too much into your reply to
correct it. Having done that myself in the past, I can forgive it.
Post by gaffo
Post by S***@yahoo.com
While I disagree with our stated purposes of bringing democracy to the
Iraqi people, I do believe that our war is necessary in light of the
believed threat of WMD from Saddam.
WMD was a ruse to make the illegal war palatable to the American People.
War was based upon lies from day one.
War is never palatable to Americans. Mistakes are always possible but
Iraq could have avoided war if they had allowed inspectors to do their
jobs. Even today I am not convinced that there was no wmd over there.
He had them, he used them, he would-did not account for them.
Post by gaffo
Nobody in positions of power really beleived there was a credible WMD
arsenal.
Here you go again with the "power" thing. Into "mind" reading? How do
you know what someone else is thinking?
Post by gaffo
Bush decided to go to war and then justified it later.
It takes a lot more than Bush alone to go to war- congress and the
American people have a big say in it.
Post by gaffo
Post by S***@yahoo.com
While you profess to be a self appointed lawyer about the legality of
our actions,
I've read up on the issue.
I went to school and have a lot of book larnin.
Post by gaffo
you have not?
Since you pose it as a question the answer is I have.
Post by gaffo
Post by S***@yahoo.com
we had ample reason to conduct the war against Iraq.
being?
They violated the cease fire agreement which they signed and refused
weapons inspectors access to their records and refused to account for
the stockpiles of them.
Post by gaffo
WMDs non existant.
Wrong. They used them on the Kurds to kill thousands of people. That is
1 of the charges filed against Saddam in the upcomming trial.
Post by gaffo
no terrorists there (BEFORE our illegal invasion/occupation)
no link to Osama
Post by S***@yahoo.com
We
stated the case for it and did what was necessary after multiple
warnings we were going to do it if conditions were not complyed with.
We did not have the authirty. We publically stated that we would go in
to uphold the UN resolutions (like we stated in the Gulf War).
Says you.
Post by gaffo
Unlike the Gulf War, the UN DID NOT convene a Securty Council meeting to
authorise the US's use of force to enforce the UN resolution.
The UN failed to enforce their own resolutions showing the weakness in
its authority- we were forced to do it for them.
Post by gaffo
US actions were thus illegal.............both under International Law
and US Constitutional Law (Article 6 Parapragh 2)...............see
Holland vs Missouri
With a flick of your magical wand, thus you condeme us to criminal
status.
Do we get a trial or just report directly to jail?
Post by gaffo
We have a binding Treaty with the UN (i.e. the UN Charter). Our
unilateral invasion of Iraq in the Name of UN's Resolutions without the
UN permission is a direct violation of said Charter and thus Article 6
paragraph 2.
I guess then that Australia, Brittain, Italy, Canada, etc. don't count
as the coalition forces also fighting with us over there?
Post by gaffo
Bush commited an act of treason - knowingly or unknowingly. He violated
his oath to uphold the United States Constitution (that includes
Article6 which he shat upon).
When is his trial?
Post by gaffo
Post by S***@yahoo.com
They had 10 years to comply and refused final warnings.
no - there was a cease fire agreement signed in 91. the bullshit
arguemnt that the Gulf War never ended is just that.
We had the right to inspection- the 1st sam fired at one of our planes
violated the cease fire and should have been enough to go back to war
against them.
Post by gaffo
- nonetheless the above UN resolutions are worded in a way that makes
clear that the use of force by any party must be preceeded by a Security
Council vote to authorize it!!!
Regardless, we have never given up the right to self defense and do not
need any other body to do it.
Post by gaffo
US did not allow such a meeting (they cancelled it in fact) when it
become clear that Chile and Mexico were not going to vote with the US.
Post by S***@yahoo.com
All of your name calling and armchair criticism does not make any point
valid in disproving Hansons article.
Hanson is a chest thumping NeoCon. He's no different than
Kristal/Gaffney/Krauthammer.........and all the other brickheads.
they think in terms of Force rather than the Rule of Law and
Mulitlateral cooperation.
Who's law? I think in terms of the good guys and the bad guys.
Post by gaffo
Post by S***@yahoo.com
Only an idiot like you would still promote the idea that our actions
are guided by oil.
how old are you?? 12?
I am a genius at 12.
Post by gaffo
grow up.
If I grow up any more I will start to ferment.
Post by gaffo
Post by S***@yahoo.com
It is not oil that is shed in Iraq and Afgh.- it is
American blood that flows over there.
actually 99-pecent of it is Iraq blood.
Can we get our cars to run on Iraq blood?
I guess that over 1600 American dead and many thousands of
American wounded don't count.
Post by gaffo
don't look know you bias is showing
Pervert. I carefully covered my bias.
Post by gaffo
here is a clue - we weren't invited.
We weren't invited in WW2 either.
But they sent us a strong calling card.
Post by gaffo
Post by S***@yahoo.com
While we are not indifferent to
the stability of oil, we stated that any oil money would go to the
Iraqis and it has.
sure sure...........and I've got this bridge in AZ.
How much? Can I trade for my bridge in Brooklyn?
Post by gaffo
Post by S***@yahoo.com
If Hanson is an idiot you must be a genius-
I'm not a genius - a assure you.
I already knew that- typing proglem also.
Post by gaffo
He is an idiot however.
Not from what I read from him.
Post by gaffo
or maybe it is the other
Post by S***@yahoo.com
way around?
no. hanson is not a genius - maybe we are both idiots however.
Then why am I bothering?
gaffo
2005-06-07 03:45:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by S***@yahoo.com
Post by gaffo
Well.............if you knew anything about the NeoCons you know who
Perle/Libby/Feith/wolfowitz and Abrams are. what positions of power thay
have and how they pressed for War agaisnt Iraq.
I know that the positions of power are held by people in our 3 branches
of government with its checks and balances.
not lately.

The Executive - and primarly the Pentagon has been running the show -
cuting out the State Department totally.

State Departmetn said no evidence of WMD - so Cheney just ignored it and
started up is own personal Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon run
by his associates "Scooter" Libby and Douglas Feith. Both NeoGoon and
both Israeli citizens.

Office of Special Plans "picked and choosed" only the intelligence
(mostly from the Iraqi American Criminal Chalabi) which justified going
to war - so they could "sell it" to Congress and the American Sheople.

........its all in the 911 Commision report.

common facts.
Post by S***@yahoo.com
Not by nebulous bogymen
that you bring up.
nebulous only to ignorant folks. millions of us have been keeping up
with these thug's actions.
Post by S***@yahoo.com
I know that our president proposed it
after Cheney justified it with the lies ("faulty intelligence" his
Office of Special Plans cooked up.
Post by S***@yahoo.com
and our
congress voted on it.
ibid.
Post by S***@yahoo.com
I know that polls of the American people also approved it.
ibid.........not by much however. 60/40.........now it is 50/50.
Post by S***@yahoo.com
Post by gaffo
You'd know what PNAC was and how much influence they have on foreign policy.
I admit I do not know what PNAC was
IS. Project for a New Amercan Century..................basically old
school Imperialism.


go to their website - read up............note who the members are!!!!


Cheney/Rummy/Wolfy/Libby/Feith/Jeb/Rice/Abrams/Bush
Sr/Perle...............all BIG NAMES - men of Power "Movers and Shakers"


These are the men running our Foreign policy.
Post by S***@yahoo.com
and influence alone does not
control anything.
They control everthing in matters of Foreign Policy.
Post by S***@yahoo.com
I know that an honest mistake about WMD does not
negate everything that came after it.
it was a lie - not a mistake.
Post by S***@yahoo.com
Post by gaffo
and you'd know that the above men have dual citizenship and are in
positions of ower where National Security secrets are known.
Have you known about "security clearances"? Since you know so much more
than me I am sure you can reveal just what wrongdoing any of them have
done.
Well - I guess you are ignorant of the ongoing FBI investigation into
the SPY employed by Israel in Douglas Feith's office.


And the investigation of Feith HIMSELF by the FBI for possible treason
(leaking of National Secrets to Israel).


get informed - shit is happening - illegal shit, treasonous
shit.............wake up.

try getting you news from other sources than Faux"News" for starters.
Post by S***@yahoo.com
Post by gaffo
did they have dual loyalites as well?
Waiting for the wrongdoing from them.
as am I. Hopfully the men in the FBI are Patriots and will hang the
treasonous son's of bitches if they are found guilty of treason.

throw them in Pollard's cell.
Post by S***@yahoo.com
Post by gaffo
...........would you welcome an Iranian or North Korean American with
dual citizenship on the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board?
I also admit I have never heard of a pentagon "defense policy board".
look it up. Chairman was Richerd Perle (aka "Prince of Darkness" by
those who love him).

try typing "Defense Policy Board" - and "Perle" in Google............sit
back and read read read.....................and read......
Post by S***@yahoo.com
I
always believed that the pentagon was concerned with war strategy, not
defense policy.
nope - not anymore. that was true yrs ago, but not since the Cold War.
Post by S***@yahoo.com
We have a newly created cabinet post of homeland
security to deal with that.
In theory Homeland Security is concerned only with DOMESTIC defense policy.


Not international policy............that WAS the domain of the State
Department - but the last 5 yrs that agancy has been castrated by the
Pentagon and her NeoCons (all the name i mentioned above) in the Defense
Policy Board.


In the real world both Homeland Security (which is underfunded) and
State Department have been sitting on theri hands for 5 yrs now.

Pentagon is running the show America. Bush says he's the "War
President"..............obviously when he allows the Generals to run
America he means it!
Post by S***@yahoo.com
Post by gaffo
no? - then why do you accept an Israeli one? (Perle/Wolfy/Feith)
Why don't you just admit you are an antisemite instead of beattng
around the bush about it? They are American citizens and do not control
anything.
Anit-semite red harring..................why am i not suprised.


Inform yourself Bubba. Liberty depends upon it.



I gave nothing against Jews nor Judaism (I'm an athiest so no reason
to). I have no love for the Police State known as Israel. Which these
last few years is behaving more like the Nazis they loathed.

Judaism is a faith

Israel is a Political construct.

they have nothing in common. It is easy to like the former and hate the
latter.
Post by S***@yahoo.com
Post by gaffo
It doesn't trouble you that Perle has money invested in Defense
Contractors who are suppying stuff to our boys in Iraq - and that he was
second only to Wollfowitz to press for the UnConstitutional war
agasint Iraq?
"Press" is a dumb word with no meaning. Unconst. war is a statement
that only you believe. Our judicial branch has not made that ruling on
it.
Chief Justice Holmes made a ruling upon it in 1921.

Article 6 Bubba.
Post by S***@yahoo.com
Post by gaffo
nope - guess not.
No need for me to answer- you beat me to it.
Post by gaffo
Post by S***@yahoo.com
You have your reply screwed up by implying that the author of this post
is Hanson himself.
not my intent. I appologise for any confusion on this matter.
It appears to me that your response was mislead right down to the
bottom where you saw your error but had put too much into your reply to
correct it. Having done that myself in the past, I can forgive it.
Post by gaffo
Post by S***@yahoo.com
While I disagree with our stated purposes of bringing democracy to the
Iraqi people, I do believe that our war is necessary in light of the
believed threat of WMD from Saddam.
WMD was a ruse to make the illegal war palatable to the American People.
War was based upon lies from day one.
War is never palatable to Americans. Mistakes are always possible but
Iraq could have avoided war if they had allowed inspectors to do their
jobs.
WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - Christ! what history books
have you been reading!!!!!!!!???????????



Clinton and them later Bush KICKED THEM OUT OF IRAQ!!!!!!!!! - not
Saddam!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Post by S***@yahoo.com
Even today I am not convinced that there was no wmd over there.
He had them, he used them, he would-did not account for them.
more likey he refused to account for them because the DIDN'T HAVE THEM!!
He had a few shells left over from the Iran war - nothing more however.


a bluff! - to keep us from attacking him.
Post by S***@yahoo.com
Post by gaffo
Nobody in positions of power really beleived there was a credible WMD
arsenal.
Here you go again with the "power" thing. Into "mind" reading? How do
you know what someone else is thinking?
common sense for those who have been able to dig out of self denial and
admit that things are not right in america.
Post by S***@yahoo.com
Post by gaffo
Bush decided to go to war and then justified it later.
It takes a lot more than Bush alone to go to war- congress and the
American people have a big say in it.
thats why we had the Office of Special Plans - to spin it.


spin can sell anything to Sheople who are unimform and gullible.
Post by S***@yahoo.com
Post by gaffo
Post by S***@yahoo.com
While you profess to be a self appointed lawyer about the legality of
our actions,
I've read up on the issue.
I went to school and have a lot of book larnin.
I think maybe you need to go back - since you've never heard of the
Feith treason investigation, Pentagon's Office of Special Plans nor
Project for a New American Century.



all common knowledge for those with in interest in being informed.


you must have gone to a Public School.
Post by S***@yahoo.com
Post by gaffo
you have not?
Since you pose it as a question the answer is I have.
Post by gaffo
Post by S***@yahoo.com
we had ample reason to conduct the war against Iraq.
being?
They violated the cease fire agreement which they signed and refused
weapons inspectors access to their records and refused to account for
the stockpiles of them.
that violation was never affirmed as such by the Security Council.


United States does not have the Legal Authority to rule against Iraq in
violations of UN Resolutions, let alone act upn those self determined
violations.

I await the ruling of the Security Council on this
matter...............and until they rule on the matter - the Iraq
invasion and occupation remains illegal.
Post by S***@yahoo.com
Post by gaffo
WMDs non existant.
Wrong. They used them on the Kurds to kill thousands of people.
25 yrs ago. irrelivant today.
Post by S***@yahoo.com
That is
1 of the charges filed against Saddam in the upcomming trial.
yes. irrelivant WRT to the legality/illegality of the Iraq
invasian/occupation.
Post by S***@yahoo.com
Post by gaffo
no terrorists there (BEFORE our illegal invasion/occupation)
no link to Osama
Post by S***@yahoo.com
We
stated the case for it and did what was necessary after multiple
warnings we were going to do it if conditions were not complyed with.
We did not have the authirty. We publically stated that we would go in
to uphold the UN resolutions (like we stated in the Gulf War).
Says you.
said Bush - from his own lips bubba.
Post by S***@yahoo.com
Post by gaffo
Unlike the Gulf War, the UN DID NOT convene a Securty Council meeting to
authorise the US's use of force to enforce the UN resolution.
The UN failed to enforce their own resolutions showing the weakness in
its authority- we were forced to do it for them.
what total arrogance! In otherwords, we could convene a Security Council
Meeting ONLY if they promised to enforce THEIR resolutions. Since they
didn't do as we told them how they show act upon THIER resolution - we
just ignored them and did it oursleves in THEIR NAME.


very Hitlerish attitude VERY.


FACTS ARE:


1.UN resolutions are products of the UN (not the US)
2. UN is not the US
3. ONLY the UN has the LEGAL AUTHORITY to rule upon it OWN RESOLUTIONS
(not the US)
4. US has no legal standing to rule or enforce UN Resolutions
unilaterally (i.e. without the UN's involvement and consent)
5. US thus violating her own Constitution when she arrogantly ignored
the Rule of Law and invaded Iraq in the name of UN resolutions.

willful violation of our Constitution is a Capital offence Mr President.

6. That the UN refuse to be the US lapdog and roll-over upon our haughty
demands...........is irrelivant to the illegality of teh Invasion. You
cannot use this lame excuse to justify the unjustifiable.



Hilter invaded Poland to protect himslef from that immenent Polish
offense that he averted in the nick of time.


You lame reasoning is nearing that mirky area of obfuscation for Empire.
Post by S***@yahoo.com
Post by gaffo
US actions were thus illegal.............both under International Law
and US Constitutional Law (Article 6 Parapragh 2)...............see
Holland vs Missouri
With a flick of your magical wand, thus you condeme us to criminal
status.
no SC rulling above does - as does our Constitution.


I merely am one of may messengers - the Word remains and always was our
Constitution.


you have only to read it.
Post by S***@yahoo.com
Do we get a trial or just report directly to jail?
Report to jail - Violation Article 6 is a Capital Offense.

He may not have taken an oath to defend the United States Constitution -
if you have not, and did not have a role in the illegal invasion there
is no need for you to go to Jail.


Bush did and should be locked up yesterday (along with all the goons I
mentioned above).
Post by S***@yahoo.com
Post by gaffo
We have a binding Treaty with the UN (i.e. the UN Charter). Our
unilateral invasion of Iraq in the Name of UN's Resolutions without the
UN permission is a direct violation of said Charter and thus Article 6
paragraph 2.
I guess then that Australia, Brittain, Italy, Canada, etc. don't count
as the coalition forces also fighting with us over there?
They probably don't have our Constutition Bubba - and the ones they have
may or may not have an equivalent Article 6.


If they do not have an equivalent Article 6 - they are not war criminals.
Their legality in no way makes our violation of Article 6 legal - we
remain War Criminals.
Post by S***@yahoo.com
Post by gaffo
Bush commited an act of treason - knowingly or unknowingly. He violated
his oath to uphold the United States Constitution (that includes
Article6 which he shat upon).
When is his trial?
the sooner the better!
Post by S***@yahoo.com
Post by gaffo
Post by S***@yahoo.com
They had 10 years to comply and refused final warnings.
no - there was a cease fire agreement signed in 91. the bullshit
arguemnt that the Gulf War never ended is just that.
We had the right to inspection-
we had them! bush called them BACK!!!!!!!
Post by S***@yahoo.com
the 1st sam fired at one of our planes
violated the cease fire and should have been enough to go back to war
against them.
nonesense.
Post by S***@yahoo.com
Post by gaffo
- nonetheless the above UN resolutions are worded in a way that makes
clear that the use of force by any party must be preceeded by a Security
Council vote to authorize it!!!
Regardless, we have never given up the right to self defense and do not
need any other body to do it.
You are correct - however Iraq was never a Credible National Threat -
thus the "self defense" arguement does not apply to Iraq War.


Thus the only remaining legal (Constitutional) avenue was via the UN
Resolution violations - which ONLY the UN has the authority to rule and
enforce!
Post by S***@yahoo.com
Post by gaffo
US did not allow such a meeting (they cancelled it in fact) when it
become clear that Chile and Mexico were not going to vote with the US.
Post by S***@yahoo.com
All of your name calling and armchair criticism does not make any point
valid in disproving Hansons article.
Hanson is a chest thumping NeoCon. He's no different than
Kristal/Gaffney/Krauthammer.........and all the other brickheads.
they think in terms of Force rather than the Rule of Law and
Mulitlateral cooperation.
Who's law?
United States Constitutional Law and International Law.
Post by S***@yahoo.com
I think in terms of the good guys and the bad guys.
B&W thinking is not reality.........grow up.

well - since we are violating Article Six - I guess that makes us the
bad guys and the bad guys.
Post by S***@yahoo.com
Post by gaffo
Post by S***@yahoo.com
Only an idiot like you would still promote the idea that our actions
are guided by oil.
how old are you?? 12?
I am a genius at 12.
Post by gaffo
grow up.
If I grow up any more I will start to ferment.
Post by gaffo
Post by S***@yahoo.com
It is not oil that is shed in Iraq and Afgh.- it is
American blood that flows over there.
actually 99-pecent of it is Iraq blood.
Can we get our cars to run on Iraq blood?
I bet Cheney wished we could reich about now.
Post by S***@yahoo.com
I guess that over 1600 American dead and many thousands of
American wounded don't count.
.............and 100,000 Iraqis...............


right?...................or does 100,000 of them equal to less than 1600
American Souls.

How much does an Iraqi Soul weigh - 1/100th that of the American soul?

God has a pair of scales - does his match yours or does yours have its
own numbers?
Post by S***@yahoo.com
Post by gaffo
don't look know you bias is showing
Pervert. I carefully covered my bias.
yes I should say you certainly did cover your bias.
Post by S***@yahoo.com
Post by gaffo
here is a clue - we weren't invited.
We weren't invited in WW2 either.
WW2 presented an "Immediate Threat" to our survival as a Free Nation.


Iraq was a third rate pissant nothing which was'nt even a threat to her
immediate neighbors, let alone the United States.
Post by S***@yahoo.com
But they sent us a strong calling card.
no shit Sherlock.


and what "Calling card" did Iraq send us bubba?


..............crickets.........................churp.........................churp.....................well?...............
......I'm waiting...............
Post by S***@yahoo.com
Post by gaffo
Post by S***@yahoo.com
While we are not indifferent to
the stability of oil, we stated that any oil money would go to the
Iraqis and it has.
sure sure...........and I've got this bridge in AZ.
How much? Can I trade for my bridge in Brooklyn?
Post by gaffo
Post by S***@yahoo.com
If Hanson is an idiot you must be a genius-
I'm not a genius - a assure you.
I already knew that- typing proglem also.
"proglem"??

LOL


last refuge of the scoudrel who knows he is ignorant of fundamental
issues of foreign policy.


kill the messenger and be a spelling Nazi.


you colors are showing Bubba.
Post by S***@yahoo.com
Post by gaffo
He is an idiot however.
Not from what I read from him.
Post by gaffo
or maybe it is the other
Post by S***@yahoo.com
way around?
no. hanson is not a genius - maybe we are both idiots however.
Then why am I bothering?
are you? I can't tell from here.
PAPADOC
2005-06-11 19:41:35 UTC
Permalink
Gaffo you are almost funny...
Post by gaffo
The Executive - and primarly the Pentagon has been running the show -
cuting out the State Department totally.
I know this will be a shock to you but the State Department isnt supposed to run
the show the Executive is...holy smokes someone alert the media. The Executive
has been doing exactly that and this has resulted in Libya giving up Nuclear
Weapons, Pakistan's Khan network being dismantled, Syria leaving Lebannon, Syria
feeling the pangs of democracy, Iraq having a vote, Iran shaking from within,
Egypt beginning the process of liberalization, Saudi Arabia possibly starting to
reverse course on Wahhabism, all in all a fair days work.

Your policies and that of the old State Department when they were following the
sage advice of both Bush Sr and Clinton was oppression and misery.
Post by gaffo
State Departmetn said no evidence of WMD - so Cheney just ignored it and
started up is own personal Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon run
by his associates "Scooter" Libby and Douglas Feith. Both NeoGoon and
both Israeli citizens.
Yup and guess what genius the jury is still out on WMD's. Plenty of dual use
chemicals were found, plenty of plans to restart full scale Weapons development
were found....
Post by gaffo
Office of Special Plans "picked and choosed" only the intelligence
(mostly from the Iraqi American Criminal Chalabi) which justified going
to war - so they could "sell it" to Congress and the American Sheople.
Sorry but what was it that Chalabi did wrong? Please be specific in your own
words. Don't send me to tedious articles, give me an executive summary, so that
I know that you have some idea of what he did.
Post by gaffo
........its all in the 911 Commision report.
And you have read this report?

PAPADOC
My Blog all about politics and the terror war.
www.papadoc.net/PinkFlamingoBar.html
gaffo
2005-06-17 23:17:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by PAPADOC
Gaffo you are almost funny...
Post by gaffo
The Executive - and primarly the Pentagon has been running the show -
cuting out the State Department totally.
I know this will be a shock to you but the State Department isnt supposed to run
the show the Executive is...holy smokes someone alert the media. The Executive
has been doing exactly that and this has resulted in Libya giving up Nuclear
Weapons, Pakistan's Khan network being dismantled, Syria leaving Lebannon, Syria
feeling the pangs of democracy, Iraq having a vote, Iran shaking from within,
Egypt beginning the process of liberalization, Saudi Arabia possibly starting to
reverse course on Wahhabism, all in all a fair days work.
Your policies and that of the old State Department when they were following the
sage advice of both Bush Sr and Clinton was oppression and misery.
Post by gaffo
State Departmetn said no evidence of WMD - so Cheney just ignored it and
started up is own personal Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon run
by his associates "Scooter" Libby and Douglas Feith. Both NeoGoon and
both Israeli citizens.
Yup and guess what genius the jury is still out on WMD's. Plenty of dual use
chemicals were found, plenty of plans to restart full scale Weapons development
were found....
Post by gaffo
Office of Special Plans "picked and choosed" only the intelligence
(mostly from the Iraqi American Criminal Chalabi) which justified going
to war - so they could "sell it" to Congress and the American Sheople.
Sorry but what was it that Chalabi did wrong?
Theft of millions - bank fraud. Tried and convicted in absentia years ago.


IF you were actually informed - I'd not have to educate you.
Post by PAPADOC
Please be specific in your own
words. Don't send me to tedious articles, give me an executive summary, so that
I know that you have some idea of what he did.
common knowledge that he is a crook who stole millions.

type in "crook chalabi" in google.

don't expect me to educate you - that is up to you Pappy.
Post by PAPADOC
Post by gaffo
........its all in the 911 Commision report.
And you have read this report?
no - My inclusion of the report in my defense of my post is hersay. I
admit as much.
Post by PAPADOC
PAPADOC
My Blog all about politics and the terror war.
www.papadoc.net/PinkFlamingoBar.html
--


Jurors should acquit, even against the judge's instruction...if
exercising their judgement with discretion and honesty they have a clear
conviction that the charge of the court is wrong.

Alexander Hamilton, 1804
PAPADOC
2005-06-18 16:20:14 UTC
Permalink
hehe...Gaffo regurgitating the nonsense of the left to me isnt amusing.
Post by gaffo
Post by PAPADOC
Post by gaffo
Office of Special Plans "picked and choosed" only the intelligence
(mostly from the Iraqi American Criminal Chalabi) which justified going
to war - so they could "sell it" to Congress and the American Sheople.
Sorry but what was it that Chalabi did wrong?
Theft of millions - bank fraud. Tried and convicted in absentia years ago.
Tried and convicted by whom Gaffo?
Post by gaffo
IF you were actually informed - I'd not have to educate you.
hehe...Yea thats it Gaffo. Educate me. Explain exactly who brought the charges
against him and explain exactly who tried him and then explain why I am supposed
to take that seriously.
Post by gaffo
Post by PAPADOC
Please be specific in your own
words. Don't send me to tedious articles, give me an executive summary, so that
I know that you have some idea of what he did.
Gaffo you are at sea in very deep water and its very apparent to those who know
that you havent a clue on how to swim.
Post by gaffo
common knowledge that he is a crook who stole millions.
type in "crook chalabi" in google.
don't expect me to educate you - that is up to you Pappy.
Ah ha so you don't have any idea of what you are saying...and you expect people
to take you seriously?
Post by gaffo
Post by PAPADOC
Post by gaffo
........its all in the 911 Commision report.
And you have read this report?
no - My inclusion of the report in my defense of my post is hersay. I
admit as much.
And if you had actually read the report you might have some idea that it doesnt
support your arguments.

Tag him and bag him...

PAPADOC
My Blog all about politics and the terror war.
www.papadoc.net/PinkFlamingoBar.html

Mr. Sylvestre
2005-06-07 10:01:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by S***@yahoo.com
(...)
I admit I do not know what PNAC was and influence alone does not
control anything. I know that an honest mistake about WMD does not
negate everything that came after it.
Huh ? Honest - mistake - about - WMD ? Thank you sir, you made my day.

BTW, the PNAC website can be found at http://www.newamericancentury.org/
Fascinating read, whether you support or oppose their ideology.
Post by S***@yahoo.com
I guess then that Australia, Brittain, Italy, Canada, etc. don't count
as the coalition forces also fighting with us over there?
FYI, Canada does not support the invasion of Iraq and is not a Coalition
member but has about 30 troops in the theatre as part of an exchange
program with the United States military. But feel free to replace Canada
with the Solomon islands in your list if you wish.

Regards,
Mr. S.
AM
2005-06-07 00:00:43 UTC
Permalink
no - there was a cease fire agreement signed in 91. the bullshit arguemnt
that the Gulf War never ended is just that.
Were you were as smart as you think you are, than you would
realize that a state of war still exists between the coalition and
Iraq. The *agreement* is technically nothing more than an
immediate cessation of hostilities
- nonetheless the above UN resolutions are worded in a way that makes
clear that the use of force by any party must be preceded by a Security
Council vote to authorize it!!!
??????? Now you must really not have read anything here ???
1441 specifically supports active military action against Iraq
for a number of reasons.
Firing on coalition A/C for one by itself is enough........

Better do some reading sir......... 1441 fully allows member
states to use force to enforce it. There was never ANY reference
there being a need for any other resolution and or vote !

The Coalition and the USA broke no laws, get over it already.....

And your blessed un, is the pillar of corruption in the western world.




Allan
--
Only A Gentleman Can Insult Me And A True Gentleman Never Will
gaffo
2005-06-07 03:47:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by AM
no - there was a cease fire agreement signed in 91. the bullshit arguemnt
that the Gulf War never ended is just that.
Were you were as smart as you think you are, than you would
realize that a state of war still exists between the coalition and
Iraq. The *agreement* is technically nothing more than an
immediate cessation of hostilities
- nonetheless the above UN resolutions are worded in a way that makes
clear that the use of force by any party must be preceded by a Security
Council vote to authorize it!!!
??????? Now you must really not have read anything here ???
1441 specifically supports active military action against Iraq
for a number of reasons.
Firing on coalition A/C for one by itself is enough........
Better do some reading sir......... 1441 fully allows member
states to use force to enforce it. There was never ANY reference
there being a need for any other resolution and or vote !
there is on the vote issue.


read it.
Post by AM
The Coalition and the USA broke no laws, get over it already.....
yes we did.

I'm a patriot - I will NOT "get over" violation of our Constitution by
our pResident.
Post by AM
And your blessed un, is the pillar of corruption in the western world.
then why did we use their Reslution in order to uphold it?


cake and eat it too?

figures.
AM
2005-06-07 13:32:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by gaffo
there is on the vote issue.
read it.
I've read 1441, and NO there isn't !!!

It is up to you to show/prove where it specifically says there
must be another vote, or resolution before military action
can be taken.

Well ? Were waiting............................


















Allan
--
Only A Gentleman Can Insult Me And A True Gentleman Never Will
gaffo
2005-06-08 01:58:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by AM
Post by gaffo
there is on the vote issue.
read it.
I've read 1441, and NO there isn't !!!
It is up to you to show/prove where it specifically says there
must be another vote, or resolution before military action
can be taken.
Well ? Were waiting............................
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Sept04/Jayne-Kramer0920.htm

http://brookings.edu/views/op-ed/ohanlon/20040926_feedback.htm

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=3237

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article6917.htm

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/lawindex.htm

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/The-UN-Security-Council-and-the-Iraq-war

http://www.uncommonthought.com/mtblog/archives/030604-blix_says_invasion_o.php



and a couple of hundred more....................

enjoy your reading.
AM
2005-06-08 12:16:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by gaffo
enjoy your reading.
Whew...
You were not kidding. I did a Lot of reading last night :)

Here ya go


From 1441 itself here

" Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses
to international peace and security,

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all
necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2
August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990)
and to restore international peace and security in the area, "



This is basically the third paragraph of 1441, which is the most relevant
part.




From resolution 678 which is mentioned above.


"Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter,
1. Demands that Iraq comply fully with resolution 660 (1990) and all
subsequent relevant resolutions, and decides, while maintaining all its
decisions, to allow Iraq one final opportunity, as a pause of goodwill, to
do so;

2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait,
unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in
paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary
means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent
relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the
area;

3. Requests all States to provide appropriate support for the actions
undertaken in pursuance of paragraph 2 of the present resolution;

4. Requests the States concerned to keep the Security Council regularly
informed on the progress of actions undertaken pursuant to paragraphs 2 and
3 of the present resolution;

5. Decides to remain seized of the matter. "



This is the referred to resolution from 1441 that authorizes force with
no further vote/resolution required.
Granted it is a fine line, but it is legal.........



And what did you write in another post ?
Post by gaffo
you are legally correct and morally lacking.
Seems to fit you perfectly here...................................








Allan
--
Only A Gentleman Can Insult Me And A True Gentleman Never Will









.
gaffo
2005-06-10 23:32:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by AM
Post by gaffo
enjoy your reading.
Whew...
You were not kidding. I did a Lot of reading last night :)
Here ya go
From 1441 itself here
" Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses
to international peace and security,
Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all
necessary means
yep - 1441 is saying that it is tied to 678. nothing more.


as for "necessary means" - that is covered in the UN Charter.
Post by AM
to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2
August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990)
and to restore international peace and security in the area, "
yep.. 1441 is tied to 678 - and?

so what.

SC never conviened on the means of enforcement of 678 (and since Bush
never even used 678 (instead he used 1441) - totally irrelvent).
Post by AM
This is basically the third paragraph of 1441, which is the most relevant
part.
From resolution 678 which is mentioned above.
"Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter,
1. Demands that Iraq comply fully with resolution 660 (1990) and all
subsequent relevant resolutions, and decides, while maintaining all its
decisions, to allow Iraq one final opportunity, as a pause of goodwill, to
do so;
2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait,
unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in
paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary
means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent
relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the
area;
3. Requests all States to provide appropriate support for the actions
undertaken in pursuance of paragraph 2 of the present resolution;
4. Requests the States concerned to keep the Security Council regularly
informed on the progress of actions undertaken pursuant to paragraphs 2 and
3 of the present resolution;
5. Decides to remain seized of the matter. "
This is the referred to resolution from 1441
and? - it also conforms with the UN Charter BTW.

big whoop. we agree. and?
Post by AM
that authorizes force with
no further vote/resolution required.
NO!!!!!! - the just made that up!! - all you have done is tie res-1441
to res-678

nothing more. Security Council has not voted!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


ALL RESOLUTIONS (AS THE UN CHARTER MANDATES!!!!!!!!!!!) must be basked
up with a SC vote.

US prevented the SC to vote on 1441.................(it is irrelavent
that 1441 is tied to 678 - for no SC vote on 678 was conviened
either!!!!!!!!).


stop being specious!!!!!!!!!

if you support the insane and stupid Iraq War - simple say so!!!!!!!! -
don't bother trying to legalize the illegal.


peace.
Post by AM
Granted it is a fine line, but it is legal.........
nope.


yes - it is Gray (the world is GRAY - not B&W)..............but this one
is clearly in the illegal catagory - regardless of how you wish it to be
otherwise. Several of my links provided world recognized folks who have
decades of education on legal matters - and 3/4 of them (or more) say
that the war was and REMAINS illegal.



If you cannot accept this - consult them - they know 100 times more
about the Law than either of us.
Post by AM
And what did you write in another post ?
Post by gaffo
you are legally correct and morally lacking.
nope. that was on the unrelated matter of the treatment of Compatants/POWS


you are comparing Apples to Oranges to try to legalize the illegal.
Post by AM
Seems to fit you perfectly here...................................
only to one who is either in denial of the LAw - or simply doesn't care
about the Rule of Law.


you fall into one or the other camps.
Post by AM
Allan
which camp is it?





If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power
of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as
given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence...If the jury feels that
the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent
circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason
which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to
acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision.

4th Circuit Court of Appeals, United States v. Moylan, 1969
AM
2005-06-11 00:08:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by gaffo
Post by AM
Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use
all necessary means
yep - 1441 is saying that it is tied to 678. nothing more.
All necessary means includes use of force. Exactly what is meant here.
Post by gaffo
as for "necessary means" - that is covered in the UN Charter.
See above...............................





















Allan
--
Only A Gentleman Can Insult Me And A True Gentleman Never Will
Blue
2005-06-06 05:42:57 UTC
Permalink
You got that right Gaffo. But you aren't preaching to the choir here!
These folks get their reality from the American military-industrial-media
complex. Their motivation is "different" from the common folk.
Post by gaffo
Post by Joe
Like a parent with a naughty child, a maddening forbearance is the order
bullshit.
We have not behaved in any restrained manner. Anyone familiar with the
re-taking of Fallujah would know this.
We are not losing due to fighting with one hand behind our backs - we are
losing because short of genocide this silly irrelivant war in Iraq is
unwinnable.
Post by Joe
They burn American flags, behead, murder, and promise death and ruin to
Americans; we ignore it and instead find new ways of displaying our
sensitivity to Islam.
we "ignore it" - what utter bulshit. We aer occupying Iraq!! you call that
"ignoring"???
idiot!
oh BTW WTF does the irrelivant, constitutionally illegal and illadvised
Iraq War have to do with the War Against Terror?
nothing.........
Post by Joe
Although the enemy is weak militarily and its nihilist ideology appeals
to few, it still has powerful ways to meet our own overwhelming military
power and economic strength.
Ya thunk? - maybe a little more historical knowledge and a few veiwings of
the Taking of Algeria would have aided in your dissbelief, naive one.
Post by Joe
First is the doctrine of the deniability of culpability. In the
legalistic world of the United Nations and international courts,
Islamists depend on their patrons' not being held responsible beyond a
reasonable doubt for the shelter and cash they provide to those who kill
Westerners.
only one who as never made a mistake and take any responsibility in the
last 6 yrs is the Chimp in chief. He even refuses to take responsibilty
for the violation of Article6 of our Constitution. an act of treason.
Post by Joe
Elites in Syria or Iran deny that they offer aid to terrorists. Or if
caught, they retreat to a fallback position of something like, "Do you
really want to go to war over our help for a few ragtag
insurrectionists?"
and do we?
Post by Joe
A second advantage is oil.
indeed - why we are in Iraq in the first place.
Post by Joe
A third to half the world's reserves is under Saudi Arabia, the other
Gulf States, Iraq, and Iran. None until recently were democratic; most at
one time or another have given bribe money to terrorists, sponsored
anti-Americanism, or survived by blaming us for their own failures.
and? so? none of our business what form of government and society they have.
they sell oil we buy it. - period. simple and effective - no?
Post by Joe
These otherwise backward societies - that neither developed nor can
maintain their natural wealth - rake in billions, as oil that costs $2-5
to pump is sold for $50.
yep - and who is buying chump? Togo?
Post by Joe
Some of that money
our money Bubba. Pretty good argument for finding alternative fuels and
conservation.
Post by Joe
in nefarious ways arms terrorists.
thanks to ourselves........oh forgot, the New America don't take
responsility for shit of her own doing. Just like the Chimp.
Post by Joe
Should an exasperated United States finally strike back at their patrons,
we risk ruining the world economy - or at least so it will be perceived
by paranoid and petroleum-dependent Japan, Europe, and China. Without an
energy policy of independence, this war will be hard to win, since Saudi
Arabia will never feel any pressure to purge its royal family of
terrorist sympathizers or to cease its subsidies for Wahhabist hatred.
now you are starting to see the picture.
conservation - that means no more SUVs for starters.
Post by Joe
A third edge for the terrorists lies in the West itself. After 40 years
of multiculturalism and moral equivalence - the wages of wealth and
freedom unmatched in the history of civilization - many in the United
States believe that they have evolved beyond the use of force. Education,
money, dialogue, conflict resolution theory - all this and more can
achieve far more than crude Abrams tanks and F-16s.
yes. And I take it you loathe and negate the importance of educaton,
money, dialogue and conflict resolution.
always better to just go in blazing with guns and start unnecessary wars
of choice when peace might be possible though conflict resolution.
reich Herr Himmler?
Post by Joe
A bin Laden or Saddam is rare in the West. In our arrogance, we think
such folk are more or less like ourselves and live in a similar world of
reason and tolerance.
no. we just know that there are very very few of them living here in the
"West". Maybe 100 or so..................out of 300 million.
of those 100 maybe 2 or 3 have the will and means to put moeny where there
mouth is.
So 3 are a threat.
I think the FBI can handle this - you can keep your F-16 M-I and all that
other crap used in Wars.
Post by Joe
The long antennae of the canny terrorists pick up on that self-doubt.
Most of the rhetoric in bin Laden's infomercials came right out of the
Western media.
As September 11 fades in the memory, too many Americans feel that it is
time to let bygones be bygones. Some now consider Islamic fascism and its
method of terror a "nuisance" that will go away if we just come home.
the Iraq part (which is now 98-percent of all of it) will go away.
People don't like to be occupied by a foreign power - fool. Some tend to
shoot back at times.
Post by Joe
We are a society where many of our elite believe the killer bin Laden is
less of a threat than the elected George Bush.
He is.
And I'm not an "Elite" (whatever the fuck that is: Mr Neo-con) Just a Joe
Average smuck with Libertarian tendencies who is not gullible and does not
beleive in big government protecting me from the buggyman.
You want big Government move to China! You can keep your Police State.
Post by Joe
Al Qaeda keeps promising to kill us all;
promises promises......................blah blah.
alot of folks promise things. Few carry them out.
Post by Joe
meanwhile Ralph Nader wants the wartime president impeached for misuse of
failed intelligence.
As do I - and millions of other Patriots who value our Constituton more
than our President.
Post by Joe
Fourth, in an asymmetrical war the cult of the underdog is a valuable
tool. Europeans march with posters showing scenes from Abu Ghraib, not of
the beheading of Daniel Pearl or the murder of Margaret Hassan.
ideed - because the Ira invastion and occupation remains illegal and
unconstituton - under US and International Law.
no amount of historical revisionism will make the illegal legal.
Post by Joe
They do not wish, much less expect, al Qaeda to win, but they still find
psychic satisfaction in seeing the world's sole superpower tied down,
of course.
we all like to see a Bully get the bloody nose.
we are a bully to our own Constitution!!
We deserve nothing better than a humbling of our haughty arrogance via a
few more years of car bombs for oil in Iraq.
Post by Joe
as if it were the glory days of the Vietnam protests all over again.
Vietnam was a Humbling experience and America was made a better Nation
because of it. Wiser and more skepical of those in positions of power. In
other words we grew up.
Now since them we have become little children again - due to all the easy
wars since then. In our arrogance and ignorace we now can no longer see a
legal and legitimate war (Gulf War) from an illegal and illegitimate War
of Occupation for Empire and Oil.
Time to take the Nam pill all over again.
It will taste bad, put we will be once again wiser and humbler than we are
today.
and that can only be a good thing.
Post by Joe
How else can we explain why Amnesty International claims that
Guantanamo - specialized ethnic foods, available Korans, and
international observers - is comparable to a Soviet Gulag where millions
once perished? So there is a deep, deep sickness in the West.
did they equate the two - or are you just spouting more bullshit to make
you flawed argument???
You take the Imhofe defense - "well we ain't as bad as Saddam - so whats
the big deal!!"
Yes - making Saddam the moral standard is on par with the rest of your
piece.
Post by Joe
In response, we have embarked on the only strategy that offers a lasting
victory: Kill the Islamic fascists; remove the worst autocracies that
sponsored terrorists; and jump-start democratic governments in the Middle
East.
foolish and unwinnable.
Iraq will end n failure - and I could'nt care less.
Post by Joe
Our two chief worries - terrorists and weapons of mass destruction
So why are we in Iraq? - which have neither?
- wane
Post by Joe
when constitutional societies replace autocracies. Currently few
democratic states harbor and employ terrorists or threaten their
neighbors with biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons, even if they
have ample stockpiles of each.
your lack of mentioning Israel is noted.
Post by Joe
Where will it all end?
our defeat in Iraq....................and a declaired victory while in
retreat (just like in Nam).
Post by Joe
Our choices are threefold.
no - there are no choices. Bu$hler removed them two yrs ago.
we lose in Iraq now or we lose later.
Now lets talk about the relivant War - the one against Terror.
Iraq is a costly diversion from that war.
Post by Joe
We can wind down - essentially the position of the mainstream Left -
wind down in Iraq - which is not part of the War on Terror.
get your facts straight dipshit.
Post by Joe
and return to a pre-September 11 situation, treating Islamism as a
criminal justice matter
correct. the only way to win this "War"........and to get the fuck out of
Iraq.
Post by Joe
or deserving of an occasional cruise missile.
No - that just gets innocents killed and is effective in only recruitment.
Post by Joe
This, in my view, would be a disaster and guarantee another mass attack.
of course "in your view" - you are a war mongering NeoCon.
Probably an Israeli one as well. most NeoGoons are, or have dual
citizenship and possible dual loyalties.
Post by Joe
Or we can continue to pacify Iraq.
how do we do this Numbnutts? what the fuck do you think we've been trying
to do these past 2-1/2 yrs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Post by Joe
We then wait and see whether the ripples from the January elections -
without further overt American military action into other countries -
bring democracy to Lebanon,
Lebanon's independence has NOTHING to do with our actions in Iraq and
EVERYTHING to do with the murder of their former Prime Minister.
But to over inflate our actions as the prime mover and negate those if
non-americans is on par with the arrrogance of the NeoCons.
Here is another clue, Lebanon was OCCUPIED (like Iraq is now) they got
tired of being OCCUPIED and so rose up (as Iraqis will start doing more
and more).
So in a way Occupation is a great catalyst for starting Democracies. when
we get our arses kicked out of iraq in utter defeat, maybe Iraqis will
build their democracy (after the civil war they will have of course).
Post by Joe
Egypt, the Gulf States, and eventually the entire Middle East.
so what.
I don't give a shit what form of government the rest of the Nations of the
Earth have, and neither should you. Its not important and none of our
business.
Post by Joe
This is the apparent present policy of the administration: talking up
democracy, not provoking any who might disagree. It may well work, though
such patience requires constant articulation to the American people that
we are really in a deadly war when it doesn't seem to everyone that we
are.
blah blah blah....................we have no "policy". We were suppose to
have invaded Iran and Syria by now - you know after the Iraqis have of all
those roses.
Thats what Wolfy/Rummy told us.................
now since reality is here (and the Chimp has problems with reality) we are
flying blind in the policy department.
Post by Joe
Or we can press on.
..................Onward Christian soldiers.......!!!!!!!!
Post by Joe
We apprise Syria to cease all sanctuary for al Qaedists and Iran to give
up its nuclear program - or face surgical and punitive American air
strikes.
"american" or Israeli?..............oh foolish of me - same thing these
days.
Post by Joe
Such escalation is embraced by few, although many acknowledge that we may
soon have few choices other than just that.
while we play footsy with North Korea..............
Post by Joe
But for now we can sum up the American plans as hoping that democracy
spreads faster than Islamism,
You bias is showing NeoGoon. the above two are not mutually exclusive. Ask
Turkey.
Post by Joe
and thus responsible government will appear to ensure terrorists and WMD
disappear.
they will dissapear when the US foreign policy in that region changes -
not before.
Post by Joe
The above, of course, is what we plan, but gives no consideration to the
intent of the enemy.
more important question is what is our intent in the Middle East???
Black Gold of course.
Post by Joe
As we speak, he desperately searches for new strategies to ward off
defeat as jihad seems more likely to lead to ruin than the return of the
caliphate.
not if we spend ourselves into oblivion/exaustion (like the USSR did)
trying to swat flies with a sledge hammer first.
Post by Joe
For now Islamic fascist strategy is to make such horrific news in Iraq
that America throws up its hands and sighs, "These crazy people simply
aren't worth it,"
........more relivant question is "is Iraqi oil worth the life of your son"?
Post by Joe
goes home, snoozes - and thus becomes ripe for another September 11.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Victor Davis Hanson is a military historian and a senior fellow at the
Hoover Institution at Stanford University. His website is
victorhanson.com.
http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200506030807.asp
he is also an idiot.
gaffo
2005-06-07 03:52:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Blue
You got that right Gaffo.
thank you Sir.
good to see a friendly face ;-).
Post by Blue
But you aren't preaching to the choir here!
These folks get their reality from the American military-industrial-media
complex. Their motivation is "different" from the common folk.
Ya I know. I usually hand out the the alt.politics and
alt.politics.consitution

I drop by here to see whats happening in some of the old sims (like EAW)
every few months.

Then I see some thread like this and I become the fly on the shit. Got
to reply .........then the usual 2-week back and forth yada yada
yada........




tiring........

;-/.

peace.
PAPADOC
2005-06-10 02:30:05 UTC
Permalink
Lots of drivel snipped for the my sanity.
Post by gaffo
oh BTW WTF does the irrelivant, constitutionally illegal and illadvised
Iraq War have to do with the War Against Terror?
Just about everything.

PAPADOC
My Blog all about politics and the terror war.
www.papadoc.net/PinkFlamingoBar.html
Loading...