Understanding terrorism
I am starting a fresh thread with optimism that we can leave some of the name calling and condescension in the other already butchered thread. (deluded SOB, huh?)
This morning I have heard newsstories talking about BBC's refusal to label bombers as terrorists and Time magazine's interview with the 20 year old suicidebomber in training. I have been hearing arguments for some time that the key to ending the conflict between western culture (us) and islamic extremists/terrorists/bombers/whatever (them) is that we must first understand what has caused them to do what they do. I have also heard that their beliefs and actions can be directly tied to poverty and lack of opportunity.
I agree we should try to understand what caused the movement, and do our best to create an immunization for the root. long term solution. I also believe we should attack and destroy the symptoms whereever we can find them now. short term fix.
my concern is that if we really believe that poverty and oppression are the reasons X number of individuals murdered some people in London last week, X individuals blew up some trains in Spain, and 19/20 individuals hijacked some planes a few years ago, then why are these perpetrators coming from upper middle/upper class families? surely they didn't feel the sting of poverty. with resources, education, and desire could they not stimulate change in a more meaningful, less destructive way? i think this is where the argument for understanding the "difficulties of their lives" argument breaks down. if the murderers were unemployed, poverty sticken individuals I think that argument would hold some water - I would still disagree - but it at least would be arguable.
I can't find the link now, but i read an article yesterday written about Al Queda's recruiting in the UK. they are targeting educated upper/middle class muslims with technical skills. these aren't oppressed people. they are people with opportunity in front of them. what then is their motivation to kill and destroy civilians?
The 20 year old bomber in training in the Time article mentioned that his family is not happy about his decision, but they understand they can't change his mind. uh, wait a second. if i knew that my son was preparing to murder people and i couldn't set him on the right track i would absolutely have him arrested. i would love and support him still, but i would not stand by and watch his quest to become a martyr via killing civilians. that is just passive terrorism.
yesterday, I read a blurb that one of the national Islamic councils had written a scathing rejection of terrorism and the Al Queda movement. Of course, I also read a blurb from another that said while they don't support killing people - it is important to remember that Islam doesn't distinguish between soldier and civilian so it isn't terrorism, per se. hmmm.
today a suicide bomber in Iraq killed @ 27 people. one of them was a US soldier. at least 7 were Iraqi children. their crime? accepting candy from the US soldier.
do you really believe that poverty and oppression are the root causes of these murders? even if you do, does it excuse these murders?
do you really believe that poverty and oppression are the root causes of these murders? even if you do, does it excuse these murders?
I think that poverty and oppression are the gasoline thrown on the fire of religious fervor and a culture that celebrates death by martyrdom.
It doesn't excuse the murders. If the culture of death is changed, it will be changed from within; that can't happen until the teeth of the monster are pulled by outside forces who have the strength to do so.
You need to get deeper. 2 levels. Lets look at communism and socialism. Where do the activists and radicals come from? The upper middle classes, they have the time and education to understand and the money to effect extreme change, at the time, revolution. However those revolutions would never have worked without the mass support caused by inequity and lack of social mobility at the time. Today, you'll still find the vast majority of far-left activists on uni campuses but you won't be seeing revolution anytime soon, why? No popular support.
Do I need to bother drawing the parallels?
There has and always will be extremists, dangerous extremists of every colour, stripe and creed, driven by fevours as diverse as humanity itself. In general they are importent becuase they lack mass support. When you create circumstances where many turn to their cause as the answer to their plight, then you have a real problem. Thats where the "difficulties of their lives" argument stand up.
As for the short term fix, sure, but every act retards change and the more heavy handed you are the more power and influence you bring to those who would rather see war than peace.
But even in your examples, poverty is not the cause of the revolution, it is the honey that draws the masses to follow a leader who has never felt the sting of the supposed cause.
for poverty to truly be the cause of a communist revolution or an islamic jihadist uprising then those who are actually being oppressed would have to one day wake up and say "i don't like this anymore, who wants to follow me." what we actually see are wealthy individuals who have a vision for how they want to see the world (worker's paradise or sh'ria rule), a vision which surprise surprise puts them on top once the current system is tossed aside. these wealthy individuals exploit and deceive the very people they are affecting concern for.
putting a lamb in every pot and a suburban in every driveway won't stop this, because the leaders of the movement will just find a different fear to exploit and motivate.
so what is the solution? have a complete hands-off policy in the middle east? that would appease radar, but few others. the fact is that from it's earliest days Al Queda has maneuverd for the overthrow of middle east gov'ts for the goal of a unified Arab nation ruled by Sh'ria law. leaving them to their own devices may not be the best course of action with that in mind.
I have been hearing arguments for some time that the key to ending the conflict between western culture (us) and islamic extremists/terrorists/bombers/whatever (them) is that we must first understand what has caused them to do what they do. I have also heard that their beliefs and actions can be directly tied to poverty and lack of opportunity.
I agree we should try to understand what caused the movement, and do our best to create an immunization for the root. long term solution. I also believe we should attack and destroy the symptoms whereever we can find them now. short term fix.
This thread is predicated on assumptions that actually create the problem. For example (Point 1) we should identify and fix the reasons for the problems? After how many hundreds of years, if we don't understand the problem by now, then we are the problem.
The problem is found in a loosely organized Muslim Brotherhood. This 1400s organization continues into the twentieth century by murdering Sadat of Egypt, nearly toppling Asad of Syria, and threatening Saddam of Iraq. It has other faces such as terrorism in Chechnya. Now tell me how we are suddenly going to stop or fix what has been ongoing long before the United States even existed.
That assumption that we are going to fix the problem is part of the problem. But then more assumptions only make the problem worse. It was their problem. Why does the US have to fix things that are not US problems? The Muslim Brotherhood was a regional problem that would have remains a regional problem had we not decided to fix the region - impose democracy on those nations - remove a Saddam that was a diminishing threat even to his neighbors. A problem to be fixed by Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc.; not the US. If we did as promised - rescue Kuwait and get out - then the Muslim Brotherhood would have nothing but antagonistic respect for the US. But the US lied. We did not leave. We therefore ensnarled ourselves into the quagmire.
We could have left. We could have left the region with Saddam in power - a diminishing threat that was only a regional problem. But somehow we have low intelligence, high testosterone leaders who always need to do things without any smoking gun reason. This mistake is why we are expected to read and learn from the Pentagon Papers; learn history so we don't make the same mistakes. This is why intelligent people routinely mock those whose only reasoning is sound bytes - ie Rush Limbaugh and George Jr.
Having followed leaders with many sound bytes and no intelligence, we are targets of the Muslim Brotherhood. Just a second reason that assumptions in this thread are really a reason for Islamic based terrorism. We insisted on fixing the region without even understanding the problem; instead of letting them fix their own region (Point 1). And then we lied about what our intentions were. We stayed when we said we would leave (Point 2). We stayed using some nonsensical reasoning that we are god's people and therefore could only do good? That we will fix things by imposing democracy? We even lie to ourselves!
A third assumption is its all about Al Qaeda. That's playing propaganda games to avoid the issue. It plays right into the hands of Muslim Brotherhood. Classic guerilla warfare tactics. Get us to attack a ghost enemy. It’s the Muslim Brotherhood. Al Qaeda was only one dandelion in a grassy field full of dandelions. If we are not going to be honest about whom we have antagonized, then we are right back in the Viet Nam syndrome all over again. Point 3 - Lookout123 has even assumed an enemy that does not physically exist as he has defined it. More reasons why his assumptions are the problem.
There is no master arch enemy called Al Qaeda. Calling Musab al-Zarquawi a member of Al Qaeda is to brainwash Americans into a concept they can better understand - an evil empire. That's why the Muslim Brotherhood survived so long. It is not a monolithic enemy in the sense that Lookout123's assumptions imply.
A fourth false assumption was to assume Saddam and Muslim Brotherhood are same. Or that they were all enemies of their people. Or that Saddam was a problem that needed fixing. We have created a perfect training ground for terrorism - Iraq. We destroyed a force that was keeping the Muslim Brotherhood in check. And now we have made it easy for these Islamic fundamentalists to not only train, but also recruit. We never first learned what the real threat was - instead inventing myths about weapons of mass destruction. We lied to ourselves - that is 70% of those reading this post. Muslim Brotherhood was never (in modern history) the growing threat that it is today. Every day the US stays in Iraq only provides the Muslim Brotherhood with more troops. Why? We even lies about what were threats to America.
So we declare victory at hand because we have killed more 'terrorists' this year than last. Vietnam all over again; where it was our own assumptions that created the problem. We repeatedly violate principles of warfare that were even well understood and written in 500 BC. How in hell do we ever expect a victory when we even deny basic concepts of war? Amb. Bremmer (who was given the Freedom Metal for making things worse) being a classic example of the Ugly American.
Some many years ago in a very contentious discussion with MaggieL, I was strongly forthright about the concept. You better damn well have a smoking gun before unilaterally attacking another nation. A point so obvious that the concept is better proven than god. Without a smoking gun, then no strategic objective can exist. Without a strategic objective, then no exit strategy and no goal to win. We have that in Iraq because no smoking gun existed. George Jr has no strategic objective other than to fix the region according to American assumptions - impose democracy.
We had no smoking gun. Therefore we have no strategic objective. All this while, we are only making more dandelions and providing those dandelions with a field to train and with anger to make them dangerous. And so we have a fifth assumption that creates more misunderstanding of a US / Islam conflict (which even our best friends the Saudis tried to warn us about). Fifth assumption - we are going to fix their society. Bull. Only they can murder one another in enough numbers to eventually want to fix their society. That is the history of democracy. Democracy or other stable government cannot be imposed. It must be earned.
Does the word "meddling" better summarize the real problem?
The assumptions posted and implied by Lookout123 are really the problem. It will only get worse until we confront the assumptions and myths - such as this monolithic enemy called Al Qaeda. Every week in Iraq means we will create more dandelions that become a new branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Not a nice picture. Meanwhile, remember this date I constantly cite: when the world changed- 1 Aug 1990.
But even in your examples, poverty is not the cause of the revolution, it is the honey that draws the masses to follow a leader who has never felt the sting of the supposed cause.
Poverty is nothing more than a symptom. Like famine, poverty is created first and foremost when the people do not even have a functioning government.
You can fix the symptoms of poverty - build infrastructure - and poverty remains. That is a conundrum that NGOs, World Bank, IMF, etc are all confronting. For even where poverty and famine have been successfully diminished (ie Uganda), corruption in government quickly reverses all the accomplishments.
Arguing poverty as a reason for conflict is bull. That assumption was long since buried by lessons of post WWII history. Poverty is only another symptom of the same problem that also creates revolution, terrorism, etc. Every attempt to solve poverty in a corrupt society has always failed. Any attempt to solve poverty without eliminating the reasons for revolution is stupidity. Learn from lessons taught by 1970s Thailand in their northern provinces. Unfortunately too many have opinions without first learning from where poverty was successfully diminished; where revolution was eliminated.
But even in your examples, poverty is not the cause of the revolution, it is the honey that draws the masses to follow a leader who has never felt the sting of the supposed cause.
It's the same thing. There are
always revolutionary would-be leaders wandering about, but there is no revolution, because people are relatively comfortable with the system as it is. A cadre of fanatics only becomes a revolutionary force when they attract popular support.
Oppression is the reason for the bombings. They want more oppression and they want to be the oppressors and the 1st world stands in their way. Arguing over whether that's because 1st world governments are less oppressive or that they want to do the oppressing themselves is beside the point.
You can talk about root causes, but if the root cause is basically that they -- the terrorists -- want Western governments to act in a way that isn't acceptable to anyone else, then the root cause can't be fixed. If they won't give in either, then the only solution to the problem is removing their ability to commit these acts in the first place.
then the only solution to the problem is removing their ability to commit these acts in the first place.
ok, then what does that mean? how do we do that? what extremes are we willing to go to?
... then the only solution to the problem is removing their ability to commit these acts in the first place.
Cannot be done. History demonstrates you cannot stop the problem by killing more people, embargoing their supplies, restricting their actions, or forcing a new government upon them. All those solutions only make more enemies. Problem must be identified and its root cause must be eliminated. As demonstrated earlier, even the assumptions in Lookout123's original post are intentionally distorted to only promote or disguise a failed American leadership problem. Intentionally distorted as to even blame everything on some mythical Al Qaeda.
Furthermore, after the invasion, there is a one year grace period. The invading nation only has something like one year to change things for the better. This mental midget president (using the same intellectual brainstorming from Adm Bremmer, et al) had no plans for the peace until seven months after "Mission Accomplished" was declared. Too little too late. We waited too long to solve anything. Our only solution lies in getting others to take over. Others who don't have the stigma of being ugly Americans.
Root cause, from the perspective of Americans, is that we decided to fix the region. Therefore we tried to fix a problem that was not a problem (Saddam), invented threats that did not exist (WMDs), empowered the real threat (Muslim Brotherhood), and made Americans a target (trying to force American ideals such as democracy down their throat).
Before 1 Aug 1990, America was not a target of Islamic fundamentals. What changed? It starts with the policy of intervention rather than the 'well proven by generations' policy of prevention or containment. This 'self serving' George Jr policy change caused America to become a target. Policy change is the mistake we made then and is the solution today - as our regional allies repeatedly remind us. Exercising that solution is difficult. Not difficult to execute. But difficult to get a leader with enough balls to do it.
In Vietnam, we could have left at any time. Instead we only doubled the American death count to protect a president's ego. When we finally did leave, then Vietnam was solved for the better. Leaving was the only solution for Vietnam. But self serving leaders such as Nixon did not have the balls to change an obviosly flawed policy - domino theory. Obviously the current president also does not have the balls nor intelligence. Everything for him is always so haaaarrrrdd.
The problem is found in a loosely organized Muslim Brotherhood. ...we are targets of the Muslim Brotherhood. ...It plays right into the hands of Muslim Brotherhood. ....Get us to attack a ghost enemy. It’s the Muslim Brotherhood. Al Qaeda was only one dandelion in a grassy field full of dandelions. ...There is no master arch enemy called Al Qaeda. Calling Musab al-Zarquawi a member of Al Qaeda is to brainwash Americans into a concept they can better understand - an evil empire. That's why the Muslim Brotherhood survived so long. It is not a monolithic enemy in the sense that Lookout123's assumptions imply.
While I agree with much of what you're saying, I think you're contradicting yourself a bit. You say that there is no "evil empire", that Al Qaeda is a false target. But you continue to cite the "Muslim Brotherhood". How is it not an enemy in the sense that Lookout123's assumptions imply? What, exactly, is the goal of this "Muslim Brotherhood"? It seems like a hazy "evil empire" Al Qaeda replacement. Please expound?
So... what made Bali a target?
What made Madrid a target?
What made New Delhi a target?
What made France a target?
What made Israel a target?
What made Riyadh a target?
What made Istanbul a target?
Lots of root causes to address here
Austin Bay quotes bits out of a NY Times story on the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh by Islamists. Why do they hate us? They don't really, emphasis mine:
Breaking a self-imposed silence that had confounded court officials here, a young Muslim man coolly accepted responsibility Tuesday for the brutal slaying of a controversial Dutch filmmaker, adding that he would do it all over again if given the chance.
Shaken by the horrific death of the filmmaker, Theo van Gogh, the Dutch heard for the first time Tuesday the voice of his assailant, who spoke of the murder in the same matter-of-fact manner in which some witnesses say it was executed.
Bicycling to work last Nov. 2, Mr. van Gogh was shot at least six times before having his throat cut.
The defendant, Muhammad Bouyeri, the 27-year-old son of Moroccan immigrants, showed no remorse, saying he had killed Mr. van Gogh based on his religious beliefs.
“I acted out of conviction and not out of hate,” Mr. Bouyeri told the court. “If I’m ever released, I’d do the same again. Exactly the same.”
He added his actions were based on “the law that instructs me to chop off the head of everyone who insults Allah or the prophet.”
Mr. van Gogh - along with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali-born Dutch politician - received death threats after their short but provocative film about abuse of Muslim women was broadcast last year on Dutch television.
Mr. van Gogh once compared fundamentalist Muslims to practitioners of bestiality. He had also written a book, “Allah Knows Better,” that was critical of Islam.
Mr. Bouyeri, who mentioned Mr. van Gogh’s expletive involving animals in court, said he chose his victim because he had insulted God, not because he had offended Muslims.
“As a Moroccan, I never felt offended,” said Mr. Bouyeri, who has passports from both the Netherlands and Morocco.
Cannot be done. History demonstrates you cannot stop the problem by killing more people, embargoing their supplies, restricting their actions, or forcing a new government upon them.
Worked on Carthage. Troy, too. Also Germany after WWII. The American South. Examples abound.
All those solutions only make more enemies. Problem must be identified and its root cause must be eliminated.
And if the root cause is simply that they like killing Westerners? That they find our very infidel existence intolerable?
Others who don't have the stigma of being ugly Americans.
Or ugly Brits or ugly Spaniards or...
Before 1 Aug 1990, America was not a target of Islamic fundamentals. What changed?
Nothing, that's a false premise; Islamic fundamentalists used to take (and kill) hostages rather than blow people up.
So... what made Bali a target?
What made Madrid a target?....
Lots of root causes to address here
Numerous isolated cases to make a pre-ordained point. Examples selected to forget the so many other acts of terrorism that go unreported. Then we add the others that did get reported. For example, what destroyed the Air India 747 over the Indian Ocean? What destroyed a French 747 over Africa? Why were French ships routinely shelled as the left the southern end of the Red Sea? What about the bombing of a German nightclub? The bombing of US Marines and French troops in Lebanon. The bombing of the King David hotel in Jerusalem. Who almost took out the Radisson Hotel in Amman Jordan? And why?
Remember myths about electric lines causing strange childhood diseases? Yes, myths. The study selectively chose their examples. From those selected examples, a pre-ordained conclusion about childhood leukemia created by electric lines was obtained.
UT is doing same thing here with selective violence. Selected first to inflame. If UT really wanted to understand the answer, he would have started with all terrorist events back to 1400s when Muslim Brotherhood was founded (I believe it was in what is now Turkey). He would have included the so many acts of violence and bloody riots recently in the many Ka'stan countries north of Iran. He would have included Assad's massacre of 10,000 civilians because he so feared the Muslim Brotherhood - and for good reason. And don't forget the concentration camps by Serbs for Muslim Bosnians.
But again, that goes to phony assumptions posted up top. Invent an Al Qaeda to blame for everything. Then one gets mythical and simplistic conclusions that one seeks. By not ignoring the nonsense about Al Qaeda this and Al Qaeda that, then one still does not comprehend what, who, why, or where the enemy really is.
Add to that list the murder of Sadat of Egypt. Without a complete list, then the examples are useless for drawing conclusions. If you intentionally distort the examples as George Jr does - blame everything on Al Qaeda - then you get the monolithic enemy he promotes. You get the silly enemy promoted on an embarrassing TV show called NCIS. A show designed for the dumb, ass kicking, enlisted man we need hyped so that he can even become cannon fodder.
Want to stop the violence? Just like in Vietnam, stop inventing enemies such as we did in Vietnam. Suddenly the enemy was Russia, and China, and world wide Communism. In reality is was about a civil war inspired in part by a corrupt S Vietnam government combined with a silly fear of communism everywhere (called McCarthyism).
Until you can describe the actions, intentions, philosophy, etc of the Muslim Brotherhood, then you cannot even say who the enemy is, let alone stop it. This has been ongoing for hundreds of years. You want to stop it. First understand it. Start by understanding what the Muslim Brotherhood really is.
tw--and before I say anything, let me tell you how pretty I think you are--are you suggesting that your "Muslim Brotherhood" is an INVENTED enemy? How many Muslims do you know on a personal level? None? One? Two? You know, I hate Bush as much as the next guy, really, but trying to understand a person who would happily, joyfully blow himself up just to off some innocent civilians? That's a hatred I can't begin to know.
And if the root cause is simply that they like killing Westerners? That they find our very infidel existence intolerable?
All this violence was long ongoing for hundreds of years before we decided to save them from themselves. Massacres in the name of fundamentalism and to eliminate fundamentalism occurred without even an historical footnote. Now we too are stuck in the quicksand because somehow we were going to fix something we did not even understand.
Only a misinformed fool would think Islamic Fundamentalism is only about killing westerners. Westerners were rarely a target until after 1 Aug 1990. In fact, some Islamic Fundamentalists once welcomed Americans as friends or honest brokers. What changed? Without that answer, then the whole thread started by Lookout123 will only be a waste of time.
How many Muslims do you know on a personal level? None? One? Two?
Remember the crash of the Egypt Airliner? The co-pilot transcript as he was crashing the plane into the sea? My Arab friends kept saying the translation was completely inaccurate. That those exact same words would be said for a completely different meaning. You do remember that the US government finally admitted to some translation error - how long ago?
They also tell me the Koran is not properly represented in English. Another from Tunisia was just recently complained how an English translation had completely distorted the Arab intent. She said she did not even recognize the English version.
Now I don't understand this distortion in translation. I take their word for what they tell me because so many Arab friends (who don't even know one another) have told me the same thing. The actual meaning of the Koran is often distorted when not in Arabic. This from someone whose Arab is limited to words such as Shocrum. This is from someone who has no Arab friends?
BTW, I sometimes read some advanced math books. Who most often asks questions about all that messy math? Rarely the traditional Americans. Often those Arab friends get curious because they also took that math in Egypt or Morroco. Makes we wonder who in America really has enough technical knowledge to innovate.
But then I don't have Arab friends?
Meanwhile, the Muslim Brotherhood was not described as an invented enemy. Curiously, the Muslim Brotherhood is also a topic that my Arab friends seem to avoid discussing. Found it curious why they tend to avoid the topic.
it looks like you are slipping - you forgot to insert my name into that post. :stickpoke
Remember the crash of the Egypt Airliner? The co-pilot transcript as he was crashing the plane into the sea? My Arab friends kept saying the translation was completely inaccurate.
So, what was the reported version vs. your friends' version?
They also tell me the Koran is not properly represented in English.
Having read the Koran in it's entirety, I'm interested in this statement ... in what way is The Koran misrepresented? What is the flavor that it's supposed to have?
Arab/Islamic terrorism for political gain seems to have gotten started in the late 1960s, which is the time at
which hijackers stopped demanding to go to Cuba (never quite understood that one, must have been the nice beaches) and started going to Syria
US planes have been hijacked by terrorists on multiple occasions through the 1970s. Iranian "students" took The US Embassy workers hostage in 1979, and things have escalated ever since.
Where'd you get the 1990 date?
Not al-Qaeda?
Al-Qaeda bomb link is confirmed
THE British-born mastermind of the London attacks had direct links with al-Qaeda, police sources confirmed yesterday.
He is believed to be connected to a senior figure who took part in an al-Qaeda terror summit in Pakistan 16 months ago where a list of future targets was reportedly finalised.
Forensic scientists said last night that the explosives used by the London bombers was the same type used by the convicted British shoe-bombers Richard Reid and Saajid Badat. Scientists hope to establish today whether it originated from the same batch.
It was made from ingredients known to be taught to al-Qaeda recruits in Afghanistan training camps and elsewhere, confirming suspicions that the London bombings were the work of al-Qaeda.
I thought I'd google the bro'hood to see what the skinny was on the outfit. It appears they had the goal of cranking up the wahabbi on all the Arab governments and own Saudi Arabia. According to
this article they got a hold of bin Laden when it hurt to pee so he decided everyone else should be protected from such a life-style. Anybody else see a pattern among religous nuts who can't do personal responsibility? It seems the bro'hood spawns these outfits (al queda etc...) but are trying to be legit governmentals (oxymoronic eh?). Anyway, I'm on the outside of three fingers of the cheapest scotch known to man so I'll let others contribute.
Having read the Koran in it's entirety, I'm interested in this statement ... in what way is The Koran misrepresented? What is the flavor that it's supposed to have?
I keep asking for specific examples of how the English version did not agree with the Arabic version. Instead I always get answers that are general; a specific example not cited. The Koran is on my reading list. And until I read it, I was not going to press them on specifics. Meanwhile, which English version of the Koran did you read?
Where'd you get the 1990 date?
1 Aug 1990 : the day that Saddam invaded Kuwait. Previously, many right wing Americans such as Kilpatrick, Buchanan, Wolfovich, Quayle, etc were still insisting that the Cold War had not ended. A resulting new world order meant the US paid practically nothing to liberate Kuwait; Japan being the country that paid most for that war. Most every nation paid something to liberate Kuwait. How's that for just another example of how the world changed. A war authorized and legal without a national declaration of war. Even the American extreme right wing conceded that the Cold War was over due to what happened on 1 Aug 1990. It is one of the rare times in history where virtually the entire world came to the same conclusion. 1 Aug 1990 was a rare example of when the entire world was working for the benefit of the world's people. 1 Aug 1990 was a day the world changed.
Another noteworthy day (and I don't have the date) was when Hitler was elected by the German people.
And so, with the multi-national ejection of a secular dictator from a country ruled by an (Islamic) monarchy, all the Islamic fundamentalists who were formerly best buddies with the United States and the West in general were suddenly our sworn enemies. (and of course it's all George Bush's fault)
Damn, tw-world is sure a strange place. If the sky is blue there, it's a blue which has no relation to what the rest of us would call "blue".
Another noteworthy day (and I don't have the date) was when Hitler was elected by the German people.
There was no such date. Hitler was never elected by the German People, per se. Hindenberg appointed Hitler to the post of Chancellor on January 30, 1933. A general election would have taken place in March 1933, if the Reichstag hadn't conveniently burned down, and the Law for the Protection of the People and State was put into place.
On March 23, 1933 a meeting of the Reichstag was held in a temporary location (an opera house) and attendance was controlled by two factors ... communist and socialist factions had already been outlawed, and the SA made sure that members of parties likely to dissent wouldn't get it. That's where Hitler got handed dictatorial power through the Enabling Bill.
TW, you keep refering to the "Muslim Brotherhood". Obviously that's not what they call it but the English translation. In that Muslim countries speak many different languages, is there one name that they call themselves? :question:
I keep asking for specific examples of how the English version did not agree with the Arabic version. Instead I always get answers that are general; a specific example not cited. The Koran is on my reading list. And until I read it, I was not going to press them on specifics. Meanwhile, which English version of the Koran did you read?
The N.J. Dawood translation, published by Penguin.
Every time I try to have a conversation on this topic with the Pakistani doctor at work, there are too darn many patients to be seen and he doesn't have time to talk when I do. If I ever do get to talk to him, I'll let you know what his impressions are.
TW, you keep refering to the "Muslim Brotherhood". Obviously that's not what they call it but the English translation. In that Muslim countries speak many different languages, is there one name that they call themselves?
I was just talking to an Egyptian friend today. His concepts of Muslim Brotherhood are those who murdered Sadat. He also noted that Hosni Mubarak curiously was sitting right next to Sadat and yet was not killed. I would have to look again to be sure.
But the point is that the Muslim Brotherhood is really a vague, loosely defined, and not well understood concept. This is not how a US President can promote an enemy. Propaganda is to create an enemy that the public can better understand - Al Qaeda. Then blame everything on Al Qaeda. Do they really think bin Laden is still planning and executing against the US? Of course not. There is no central command. There is this murky concept called Muslim Brotherhood.
Our actions in Iraq and our intentions upon Iran would only serve to make the Muslim Brotherhood stronger and more dangerous even to our friends in that region.
Hamas is also listed as an example of the Muslim Brotherhood. And yet Hamas will not to attack Americans. Just makes the Muslim Brotherhood that much more murky. And yet to understand the region, one must first understand this strange concept so often called the Muslim Brotherhood.
To declare all terrorism or insurgency as Al Qaeda is to also call the Viet Minh a world wide communist conspiracy. America also made that mistake with the simple-minded reasoning of Lyndon Johnson and Gen LeMay. One would think Americans learned from their history and mistakes. And yet here we are again making the same mistake. Before one can defeat an enemy, one must first correctly define the enemy. Instead we let the propagandists blame everything on Al Qaeda.
How does one define a strategic objective WHEN the enemy is not even accurately defined? No strategic objective is why America has no exit strategy for Iraq. That was a lesson of Vietnam. How many learned that lesson - or instead believed White House propaganda that also blamed Saddam for the 11 Sept attacks?
There was no such date. Hitler was never elected by the German People, per se. Hindenberg appointed Hitler to the post of Chancellor on January 30, 1933. A general election would have taken place in March 1933, if the Reichstag hadn't conveniently burned down, and the Law for the Protection of the People and State was put into place.
I stand accurately corrected.
Sounds like the "Muslim Brotherhood" is like the Mafia. A loose confederation of "families" with the same objective but not neccessarily working together. "Families" will come and go so a lost family will not really affect the others. :idea:
I'm sure that the key people who matter know that the "war" is really on radical Islamism, not al Qaeda. I'm sure that many people who currently undertake various operations consider themselves to be al Qaeda "sympathizers" and take the name in order to feel more badass. Nevertheless,
Al Qaeda bomb link is confirmedYou may be right but it doesn't help their credibility by bullshitting us.
Maybe they are giving the press the brush off by throwing out buzz words that are easy to report, but it's still bullshitting the public. :mad:
Since the BBC saw fit to print
this, it stands to reason that the problem is actually much worse. Bright note: the majority of folks actually think suicide bombing is a bad thing.
You may be right but it doesn't help their credibility by bullshitting us.
Maybe they are giving the press the brush off by throwing out buzz words that are easy to report, but it's still bullshitting the public.
30 some years previous, people would say that surely a man as smart as Gen William Westmoreland really knew more about Vietnam than he was saying. Guess what. His simplistic lies about Vietnam WERE what he knew. Westmoreland just died last week still insisting the war could have been won if he was just given enough support.
Don't believe for a minute that leaders know more than they are saying. This administration would blame everything on Al Qaeda because that is their knowledge. Complexities such as Muslim Brotherhood don't play well in the minds of those who also assume the region can be fixed. For if the region was as complex as it really is, then the region cannot be fixed by simply forcing democracy down their throat. Since we are going to fix the region, then those complexities cannot exist. A self fulfilling prophesy?
Frontline recently laid out the politics of Lebanon. Literally most of the country, at one point, had rallied in Beirut’s Martyr Square. So would the party of Hararri become the new leading party? Of course not. If you did not see that Frontline piece; if your knowledge of Lebanon politics is simply Lebanon’s nationalism verses Syrian dominance, then you have no idea what those demonstrations were really about. If your definition of Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, then you are listening to too many Rush Limbaugh types.
Iraq is no different. The Islamic Jihad Brigades of Muhammad's Army - is it another Al Qaeda organization? Is it another example of the Muslim Brotherhood? Probably not. It appears to be a derivative of the Baath Party which has nothing to do with religion. Another organization with a common enemy - Americans. These insurgents are also described by some as Al Qaeda simply because they too are attacking Americans. Examples of simplistic Washington logic - when do we learn the lessons of Vietnam?
Another organization is Armed Vanguards of Muhammad's Second Army. What is this? Another nationwide organization or just some cousins with a video camera. These are questions The Economist is asking because there are no simple answers - as being promoted in Washington where fixing the region is their objective.
There is no monolithic Al Qaeda; no monolithic enemy. Iraq has become the perfect training ground for numerous insurgents, terrorists, and religious extremist recruitment. Why? Our own leaders never bothered to first learn how complex the region really is. Some foolishly believed Saddam and bin Laden were allies when in reality they were the worst of enemies. These Washington leaders had the Gen Westmoreland attitude. Wolfovich was as decieved as McNamara. They just assumed this was a region where people were trained to hate Americans. That the little people would welcome American liberators and everyone would then live happy lives. Preconceived notions have now become bad reality. Our current leaders only got what they wished for because they had no idea what they really wanted. And still some insist all these attacks are somehow bin Laden's plans. Still so many in Washington have no clue, in part, because reality is political suicide in this administration.
Ironic. If they considered bin Laden as so evil, then why do we still not send a single division to get him? Because these same leaders had no plans for the peace (no concept even of lessons from 500 BC), even Afghanistan is slowly returning to the Taliban. Exactly what happens when there is no comprehension of who is the enemy, why he is an enemy, and no strategic objective (and therefore no exit strategy).
The road between Kandahar and Kabul is slowly becoming much like Vietnam's Highway 1. One town on that highway is Qalat. From The Economist of 9 July 2005:
The 19th century British fort that dominates the skyline above Qalat offers an easy reference point for low flying Apache helicopters heading for the America base near the town, the capital of Afghanistan's southern province of Zabul. Yet despite being backed by impressive foreign muscle, the government's control of Qalat barely reaches the city limits. ... Zabal remains Taliban country.
One year after America 'liberated' Afghanistan, still the promised water system was not even restored. IOW just like in Iraq, America had no plans for the peace. As a result, even the Arab Crescent (an Islamic equivalent of the Red Cross) will not go in one half of Afghanistan's proviences. That much of the country has now been taken back by the Taliban since America had no plans (just a lot of talk) for the peace.
BTW, since our leaders had no idea of how Afghanistan works, well, where is the strategic objective and exit strategy for Afghanistan? Sounds just like the same mistake made by the British in Afghanistan. Sounds just like the exact same mistake made by these same leaders in Iraq. Ask yourself what will be the strategic objective when America attacks Iran and N Korea? Or will we the people have finally learned the lessons from Vietnam? We still don't even understand who the enemy is in Iraq. And our leaders apparently don't know it either. For if our leaders had any knowledge, then they would be admitting that Iraq is only becoming worse. (UT should be asking for numbers for that statement).
I'll tell you what. The current administration is indifferent to the niceties of religous and political innuendos in the Middle East. They don't know because they don't care. If ever there was a case of an administration wagging the dog, it would be a photo finish of that flap of the tail between the Nixon and George Jr. administrations. And I don't mean any Monica Lewinski's either.
Iraq is about oil. Forget religion, forget democracy, forget crimes against humanity (Jr. commits them all the time with little, if any public comment), forget the "war on terror."
Junior went into Iraq after 9/11 in order to make it appear to the public that he was making a response to terrorism. It didn't hurt things any that a strong American force in that region will be essential to securing US strategic oil reserves. It also didn't hurt that Jr.'s sidekick, Dick Chaney, has strong ties with Halliburten, Root and CO., and their ilk. Can anyone say "war profiteering"? Hitler had the Swiss banking system. The current administration has the Cayman Islands.
What nationality is Bin Ladin?
Class? Yes, you in the back, CORRECT!
WE DON'T CARE!
Iraq is about siezing strategic control of the most precious substance on the face (actually interior) of the earth - petroleum. Our military might would grind to a halt without it. He who controls the oil, controls the world's power and wealth. It is very, very simple. And it is a game played for high stakes without remorse or compassion on either side.
The Muslim members of the educated middle and upper class understand what is going on. That's why they are willing to become terrorists. The poverty stricken masses follow because they are poor and ignorant and Allah or Jesus via their local religous leader told them to do it.
More fools are we all.
Iraq is about oil. Forget religion, forget democracy, forget crimes against humanity (Jr. commits them all the time with little, if any public comment), forget the "war on terror."
Junior went into Iraq after 9/11 in order to make it appear to the public that he was making a response to terrorism. It didn't hurt things any that a strong American force in that region will be essential to securing US strategic oil reserves.
Oil is a major part of the strategy. But it is a strategy that is Central Asia wide. For example, learn the politics behind the Caspian Sea oil pipeline. Pipeline intentionally routed so that the Russians have no influence. Carefully laid using detailed political considerations. The US is even talking about Georgia becoming part of the EU. It is why the pipeline does not run through both adversarial nations (ie. Armenia and Azerbaijan). It is why the US is courting so many K'stan nations.
It is why SCO (Shanghai Co-operation Organization) exists. From The Economist of 9 July 2005:
Judging from the activities of the member states (China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kirgizstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan), three principles define that new order: slaking China's thirst for energy, protecting member states as they tryrannise dissidents and curbing America's influence in the region.
We would not be in this problem if our energy consumption industry would innovate. GM being the classic reason why Americans must now get into a conflict and the quagmire that is Middle East and Central Asia. With innovation, American would have no trade deficient and could reduce energy consumption by up to 50% (and not by everyone driving Pintos as right wing extremists and other power brokers hype). Indeed, this is the technology that will be developed and sold by others (the competition) in later decades if America does not innovate today. History only repeating itself.
Meanwhile, we have also stated intentions on Iran. More nations we must fix to address an energy, per capita, that is about double what the rest of the world requires. The word is called waste. Either we fix the waste at home or we waste American lives in those other nations.
Meanwhile, there is no way around religion, ethnic rivalries, etc. If we demand energy now, then we must invade what we don't like; those that might impede the energy flow. We must get them to think like us; impose democracy upon them. But we could curb our appetite using innovation and let those nations first solve their own problems.
Yes oil is a primary function of this new American Imperialism - to get the oil at all cost. It is not the only reason - but oil is clearly a dominate reason. A recent massacre in Kirgizstan would be totally irrelevant if we were not trying to cozy up even to corrupt regimes. Yes we even have military bases in those countries. Why? What is the threat?
Today we must fix their religion to exploit our interests. To walk in without even knowing what is and is not important - ie religion - are the same reasons why the US is making enemies even among some of what were once friends in the region (ie Syria)
Do you know about the gas pipeline from Russia into Turkey? If you have knowledge of regional politics, then you better understand the significance of that pipeline. More interesting are so many Americans with opinions - who did not even know about the Russian Turkey pipeline or the massive politics behind the Caspian Sea pipeline.
We state the nations we intend to invade. Iran is next. Curious - another oil nation that does not kowtow to American demands. No problem. We will fix their government? Clearly that is sufficient to the cannon fodder among us to hype a war. That is enough for our religious extremists to hype a mission of saving them from their evil religious extremists.
What happened to the simple explanations such as Weapons of Mass Destruction? The real reasons are too complex for the masses to understand especially when most 20 year olds don't even read or listen to real news. Did you know about the SCO? Did you understand the significance when China failed to find oil in their Xinjian province? Why didn't Rush Limbaugh discuss this?
China's failure to secure a strong domestic supply of its own combined with its quasi-capitalist economic upsurge makes it public enemy number one as far as the US is concerned. China remains strongly xenophobic and is bristling with apprehension at the unrest it sees on its western perimeters.
US strategy will be to use the K'stan nations, as you call them, for one purpose. This area will be the recipient of a massive flux of refugees from the on-going engagements that the US will have with the Middle East. While upper echelon members of the pentagon and the administration's inner circle may know little of the regional subtexts and history, they do know that the West will never win the hearts and minds of the East. We did learn at least that much from Vietnam.
With this reality, our petroleum interests in the Mid East will remain forever precarious ones. The solution will be to persue an ever more scorched earth policy in our Mid East "liberation" efforts and creating a massive outflux of displaced population from the area while stopping short of genocide.
Those remaining in their homelands will be the ones most amenable to "democracy," if you will. Their former countrymen turned refugees will completely destabilize the "K'stan" area with their influx. China will look most unkindly on this upheaval on its borders and will have little hesitation or remorse in resolving the problem in the most expedient manner.
We will have accomplished the American occupation of the oil producing nations and given our enemy something to occupy itself with, as it drains its military and economic strength with the expenditure of the energy required to enforce the safety of its western provinces. The resulting slaughter of innocents will make the US look like the good guy by comparison, and Jeb Bush will jubiliantly be inaugurated into his third term at the White House.
The above scenario was described to me by a retired Lt. Colonel who was a professor of Russian studies at the US Air Force Academy. He was half joking when he told it, but by the end of his narration, he got a serious look on his face and said, "Hell, I think they'll actually do it."
China's failure to secure a strong domestic supply of its own combined with its quasi-capitalist economic upsurge makes it public enemy number one as far as the US is concerned. ...
The above scenario was described to me by a retired Lt. Colonel who was a professor of Russian studies at the US Air Force Academy. He was half joking when he told it, but by the end of his narration, he got a serious look on his face and said, "Hell, I think they'll actually do it."
To appreciate the larger picture as describes by marichiko, one should be looking at a map. Oil fields in the Chechnyan side of the Caspian Sea are now obtained by the west using the recently completed Caspian Sea pipeline that terminates on Turkey's Med coast. This leaves the regions between the Caspian Sea and China; wedged in between Russia on the north, China on the east, and Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iran on the south: Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, and Kirgizstan. A race is ongoing for access.
Even though the region's oil tends to be rather bitter – requires significant additional refining - it is the region where thirsty manufacturing nations could collide if we all are not careful. As if it was not bad enough that powerful nations vie for control. The region is dominated by dictators of unsavory histories, and a ripe breeding ground for religious fundamentalist uprisings. Imagine Indiana Jones as an oilman - and even his American bosses are nothing but greedy.
It does not help Indiana when American reputation in Iraq makes life difficult for Americans everywhere else. You have not yet seen the fallout from Guantanamo and Abu Ghriad. You have seen all the phoney orange alerts created by torture. You have seen increasing insurgency that will only get worse. Now our poor hero, Indiana must go to other places where these American traditions (including torture) are widely rumored.
Having seperated the terrrorist and insurgent organizations from White House propaganda, we should now move on to who gets recruited as terrorists. Therein lies more problems with White House type propaganda. Terrorist typically are not just recruited by some ghostly organization called Al Qaeda. Most terrorists recruit themselves.
Take this example provided by The Economist on 14 July 2005:
One example of such amateurism is that of two Moroccan men from the Dutch city of Eindhoven, Ahmed el-Bakiouli and Khalid el-Hassnaoui, who tried to enter Afghanistan in December 2001 in the hope of fighting some Americans. Having failed, they went to Kashmir, where they were swiftly killed by Indian security forces. In Britain, several terrorist plots uncovered since 2001 have been striking for their incompetence and lack of outside expertise.
Most so called terrorists are not recruited as current government propaganda would have us all believe. Most go looking to be terrorists. If they get lucky, they encounter a real terrorist who can teach them. This is a nightmare for police. How do you locate and arrest an Al Qaeda recruiter when he does not actively recruit and when Al Qaeda does not exist as government tells its enforcement people?
The Economist also defines what a terrorist is as demonstrated by so many historical examples:
They began as a group of second- or third-generation Dutch Muslims, mostly male and in their late teens or early 20s, who became discontented with their country and surfed the internet for ideas. At least at first, this and other groups of disaffected Dutch Muslims were pathetically unsophisticated. One was caught in 2003 trying to make a bomb—drawing on tips from a website, but using the wrong fertiliser. At some point, however, the group found a mentor who was more sinister and sophisticated: a Syrian jihadist-recruiter who came to the Netherlands and coached them in doctrine.
In Britain, too, security services have concluded that these days, connections between local youths and foreign godfathers are usually formed at the youths’ behest. To a surprising extent, the onus is on individual zealots (or groups of them) to find mentors. Al-Qaeda does not actively seek recruits for the jihadist cause, partly because that would attract the attention of the security services and partly because, ever since the destruction of its bases in Afghanistan, it has—in the view of well-placed British observers—been too loosely organised to recruit systematically.
Notice who most terrorists were. They are not recent immigrants. Often they are the second or third generation - citizens for their entire life - who often become estrangeed even from their own family and then somehow find purpose in an extremist religion. This is not just Islamics. Zionists who would openly steal Palestinian land in violation of Israeli law are really no different - except that this latter group is given a wink and nod from the Israeli government that says they are illegal. Religious christian extremists are increasing in western nations where early examples include the bombing of women health clinics and other institutions that violate their radical religous beliefs. IOW what we see from Islamic extremists may become a growing problem from other religions. Why? Their underlying purpose is to save us from ourselves. We somehow are the misguided and confused sheep. Somehow their actions in the name of a stupid concept called god will save us all. Organized religion rarely condemns and 'rats out' their extremist brethern.
First the potential terrorist starts by becoming fantantically religious. That alone does not make one a terrorist. However another factor is their inability to cope with life's complexities. Richard Reed is a classic example. So pathetic that he could not even give himself a hot foot - thereby explode a small shoe bomb. Others received even less knowledge sufficient to damage. IOW there are more terrorists among us who simply don't get much attention. But they consistently have common breeding ground - extremist religion. Any and all religion; not just Islam.
London's recent copy cat bombings may only be just that. Wanna-be extremists trying to accomplish what other religious extremists did not accomplish. Most interesting are the differences between Madrid bombings, those two weeks ago in London, and those just yesterday. This last copycat group hoped to just throw their bomb into a train as the train left the station - rather then blow themselves up. Even the Spanish bombs used a completely different system for triggering and more destructive composition. Most in common with these bombings is the reason for the will. Each apparently used different explosive. Each is typical of a terrorist organization that duplicates only what they read in the papers. But all are based in classic nonsense of religious doctrine.
No organized terrorist group exists as George Jr would preach when he talks about a 'war on terrorism'. The common factor is in cult lies - religion that can be interpreted however the human wants. Even worse, other cult members stay quiet rather than 'rat out' the enemies of mankind.
At least Muslim leaders in Europe are finally asking the question - "we think we see a problem". They finally discovered mirrors. Suddenly religious leaders are seeing a problem when the non-religious use reality to question the motives of the religious extreme. Funny how extremist religious leaders once could never see themselves in those mirrors.
The Economist also make one more interesting point:
In many cases, ... groups of young, disaffected Muslims goad one another down the path to extremism. People who may be bound together by ethnicity, worship or criminal activity develop a common interest in the suffering of Muslims across the globe. Websites and satellite television channels then supply visual images and incendiary rhetoric from any place where Muslims are fighting non-Muslims. The favourite war used to be Chechnya; now it is Iraq.
Mission Accomplished?
The Catholic Church is Pagan? Where, where have I been?
tw, you are truly a font of knowledge.
it's best not to rattle a troll's cage unless you want said troll to chew on your bones.
true. true. I've had too much :coffee:
I was just wondering from whence his transmissions come because his posts seem less like posts and more like some sort of remote-hypergraphia; like remote-viewing, only you need a keyboard. :alien:
The Catholic Church is Pagan? Where, where have I been?
tw, you are truly a font of knowledge.
Do they say that man was created in the image of god? Then god has human like characteristics - just like the Roman and Greek gods. IOW using Socrates logic, a Catholic Church god is a pagan god like Zeus and Apollo.
it's best not to rattle a troll's cage unless you want said troll to chew on your bones.
Notice that Lookout123 will only post insults. Weak minds are easily converted to religious right extremist doctrine. Oh. I' sorry. I just posted exactly like Lookout123. My mistake. I forget to post a supporting fact with my posts.
HOLY SHIT! What do the Prod's say? What do the Jews say?
tw, why do you hate people?
aw shucks tw, you sure danced circles around me again. i sure hope to be brilliant like you some day. i suppose if i barf the last book i read into a post, it would be a good start.
*just so you know - my troll comment was just to rattle your cage. this comment gets a little closer to an insult. *
tw, why do you hate people?
People want their freedom. People respect others rights. They don't stifle innovation. They don't impose on others misguided preachings from an obsolete book. Good people don't let religion pervert them to the dark side of the force. The dark side - when religion becomes anything other than a relationship between you and your god.
Those who love people would condemn religions that would even create the Spanish Inquisition and condone pedophilia (and not even apologize for it), condone torture (as the American religious right does), and massacre innocent Spanish citizens only because their government participates in an unjustified crusade against another sovereign nation. All this done only because religion somehow knows better?
But you tell me. Show me how good a church is that even told us to hate Jews because of what happened to Jesus. How could I love people and be a part of such hatred? Hatred does not exist just in Islamic extremists. It exists in those who so hate as to stifle the advancement of mankind and innovation; such as stem cell research and kidney transplants. Those who love people do not fear innovation; so fear as to even hype an obvious myth called intelligent design. Good people would not put up with such hatred for mankind’s advancement.
Meanwhile, more people could have been killed in London yesterday. Why? Because religion is so good for people? You tell me who really promotes hate. I have simply carried the message - hatred promoted by religious concepts. Do these mythical gods really exist? Then why do their doctrines promote murder - a hatred for mankind?
*yawn* the only person i've heard who has a broader brush for their stereotyping would be your pal Rush.
Stepping in as devil's advocate for a moment, I, too, have heard the Catholic church described as pagan. If I can find a cite, I'll post it.
Ah,
HERE it is.
You may now resume your squabble. :p
I'm not sure you can refer to the "Bible Discernment Ministries" as a reliable source.
I'm not disputing any claims that the Roman Catholic Church has pagan or paganized elements, but, well, the Catholic Church is what the Protestants were protesting about ...
I was lazy. It was the first one out of about 600 that popped up when I googled "catholic church" and "pagan."
Anyhow, I thought that was just sort of a given. Those clever early Christian missionaries just overlaid their doctrine on top of the pagan worship that was prevalent at the time, so we got Christmas instead of the winter solstice, Easter in place of the spring equinox, etc.
I forget what Martin Luther's exact bitch was when he nailed those 95 theses to the local Catholic university's door. I think mostly he was upset that the pope back there in Rome got to be the utilmate authority on the latest insider news from God. The Catholic Encyclopedia hints that Luther may have been a psychopath, but they're probably a bit biased.
Talk about thread drift! :3_eyes:
[QUOTE=tw] Meanwhile, more people could have been killed in London yesterday. Why? Because religion is so good for people? You tell me who really promotes hate. I have simply carried the message - hatred promoted by religious concepts. Do these mythical gods really exist? Then why do their doctrines promote murder - a hatred for mankind?[/QUOT
I never intimated that religion was "good for people", I don't subscribe to any organized religion. I know that a lot of people promote hate and it's ususally the love of filthy lucre that drives it. They may wrap themselves in the robes of this-or-that religion, but it always comes down to money.
But you didn't answer the question. Why do YOU hate people? Not why do you hate religion. It's easy to hate religion. It's easy to generalize--you spank cellarites and say they are generalizing the beliefs of the muslims but then you go and generalize Catholics, right-wingers, etc. You do the very thing you say you despise.
The Catholic Church is Pagan? Where, where have I been?
tw, you are truly a font of knowledge.
There are several of the nuttier fundamentalist Protestant sects that think Catholics are Pagans or Satanists.
There was an excellent article in the Independent today (at the fairly insane price of 5.50SFr over here grr) from a columnist who lives and works in beruit. His hyphothisis on the motives for suicide bombers in this scenario makes more sense than any Iàve heard. Shortened right down, it goes something like this.
Like early western explorers were quite taken by idea of harems but disgusted by other practices in the east, many muslims today are very tempted by the sexual freedoms and other freedoms of and living in the west. His example was a turkish student that studied over here and slept with is girlfriend but then got mummy to find him a nice turkish virgin to marry when he went home. That's the happy ending to this cultural oddity. The unhappy one is when the desire leads to self-loathing and guilt, and a spell in an old-school pakistani madrasa doesn't hurt here. The person ends up wanting to punish the society they percieve as having led them astray as well as destroy themselves.
The bomb makers are of course, a slightly different story, they are that hard-core of extremists that exist around any ideology, from my earlier socialist/communist example to facism, christianity or animal rights. I think these two ideas togher paint the best picture of the mental landscape of islamic extremism, particularly in the UK and essentailly, most of europe I've seen yet.
Makes sense, Jag.
Here is manifests itself in slightly safer scenerios, every day.
I screw up.
I sue you.
I win money.
That proves it was your fault and I didn't really screw up. :rolleyes:
Of course if I don't win money I may have to blow stuff up.
I don't understand the part about terrorism that says that Muslim Extremists can gain some kind of advantage by blowing up 73 Egyptians and 10 folks from other countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Dubai, Italy, and Great Britain.
blow up people from other countries sothat those other countries will place pressure on the US.
to do what exactly? it's frigging egypt. That incident and those like it are rooted in the state of egyptian politics or lack thereof.
just because they're all probably islamic extremists doesn't mean they're all working towards the same goal or even the same direction. The egyptians might be trying the that old idea that if you cause the government to crack down hard enough, the people rise up or just hoping to kill israeli tourists, the british ones were probably just angry, the Iraqi ones want different things depending on which of the 100 odd groups you want to mention, the Indonesian ones seem to want a pan islamic state, or indpendence, or the government to fuck off or something, the Thai ones want independence from Thailand and the government to stop killing them, the Pakistani ones want the taliban back and to generally break out the oldschool fire and brimstone stuff on infidels, the indian ones want to kill hindus over disputed religious sites and shit, that's just off the top of my head.
BTW, let's not forget the
IRA, Basque, and miscellaneous Marxist and seperatist terror groups.
London in the 1980's endured a wave of IRA bombings. The main difference is that, while fanatical, the IRA did not recruit suicide bombers.
... many muslims today are very tempted by the sexual freedoms and other freedoms of and living in the west. His example was a turkish student that studied over here and slept with is girlfriend but then got mummy to find him a nice turkish virgin to marry when he went home. ... The unhappy one is when the desire leads to self-loathing and guilt, and a spell in an old-school pakistani madrasa doesn't hurt here. The person ends up wanting to punish the society they percieve as having led them astray as well as destroy themselves.
This is similar to a 'progression' described by The Economist. Having gone through 'unholy' freedoms and then suddenly reversed - becoming an excessively devote muslim - the man is then ready for the next step. Seeking a destructive mission in life. Only but a few find a godfather type that would make them truly dangerous. But the story is classic of a minority - the lost soul looking for himself in religion.
Again, what makes this so difficult for law enforcement is that terrrorist groups do not do the recruiting. Future terrorists recruit themselves having discovered that religion must be imposed on the infidels. These people who could not handle life suddenly know what is better for everyone else. Religion doing even what the Catholic Church did - promote hate.
But you didn't answer the question. Why do YOU hate people? Not why do you hate religion. It's easy to hate religion. It's easy to generalize--you spank cellarites and say they are generalizing the beliefs of the muslims but then you go and generalize Catholics, right-wingers, etc. You do the very thing you say you despise.
Where do I ever post a single hatred of people? For that matter, where do I post a hate for religion? I post criticism of religion that is not blunt enough. Religion that becomes more than a relationship between a man and his god is satanism - turning to the dark side - classic vampire propaganda - etc. But there is no hate there. Stated is what is best for religion. To come to grips with why they are the source of problems - be it stifling of stem cell research, the reason for suicide bombs on commuter trains, or the Spanish Inquisition. These are examples of religion gone bad.
I answered your question. A strong rebuking of those who post insults and never post supporting facts - in the tradition of Rush Limbaugh - is what I believe you have mistaken for hate. People are great - especially when not brainwashed using Rush Limbaugh logic: people who just know and need not know why they know.
Religion that goes beyond its boundaries - a relationship between a man and his god - also turns good people bad. It is not a hatred of people. It is a spanking of the institutions that want to turn good people against one another - for self serving agendas.
So where specifically is this example of 'people hate'? I don't see it. I did anwer your question. I defined, for example, why good people turn bad. Religion with a political agenda being a perfect example. An understanding who and what terrorists really are is also important. Others such as George Jr would promote hate rather than understand that he promotes hate with the Pearl Harboring of Iraq. That he - like religion - knows what is better for those people? What George Jr advocates is hatred of people - imposing George Jr's beliefs on a region as if only George Jr knows what is good for them. Sounds much like another failed institution - Imperialism.
Hatred of muslims principles is not a solution, as the George Jr administration implies. After all, they are infidels and therefore can be tortured? They don't even deserve fundamental human rights because they are in Guantanamo? That is bull. But that is an example of the hatred promoted by George Jr and his fundamentalist friends who find Guantanamo to be a good thing. Where does accurate ciriticism of myopic American government extremists, or of religious extremists constitute a hatred of people? That's like saying I hate people because I speak out against Nazism.
Meanwhile, do you see me protecting pedophiles. Banning "Voices of the Faithful" only because they are demanding reform? Do you see me imposing my religious beliefs on others? Where have I generalized all muslims? I defined some types of muslims and a religion that has remained in denial as to what they were creating. These different types of muslim that George Jr always calls Al Qaeda. I have defined both terrorist or insurgent that meet different criteria. A common factor (and not in every case) is some silly belief that religion - a spirital concept - should dominate and be imposed upon a pragmatic world. Just as a Catholic Church taught me to hate Jews because of what happened to Jesus. For being so critical of the Catholic Church, now I must hate people?
I have no idea what you are asking because I did answer your question AND because you don't provide specific examples. What (as best I can tell) is called a hatred of people is, instead, a pointed criticism of the institutions (and president) who would promote hate among people. If Christian fundamentalist were so loving, then there would be massive demonstrations by Christian fundamentalists against Guantanamo and those who created Abu Ghraid. Instead these 'so called' righteous people find Guantanamo to be a good thing. Is that a hatred of Christian fundamantalists. No. It is a damning example of why they have let themselves be decieved. Why their need to imposed their religious beliefs on this nation are also dangerous. They would even tacitally support torture because those in Guantanamo must be terrorists? It goes right back to the original question of what really is a terrorist. Clearly not Al Qaeda as promoted by our government.
So how does that criticism of our president and government constitute a hatred of people? It does get Lookout123 to only post insults in reply. Why does Lookout123 then not get accused of hating people since he will post something that is nothing but one big personal insult - AND not even justify his insults?
richlevy - and the IRA had demands and usually telephoned first.
I wouldn't -- and don't -- quibble about what the Gitmo guys are getting or not getting, be it the third degree twice before supper or steamed chicken for it. Whether they are in the precise letter of the law prisoners of war or not, they are getting POW treatment, and that is enough. There is no point in calling for any other sort of treatment except in the furtherance of an ulterior motive to lose America the war.
As an American, I resent that. If you want a good world, wars against tyranny (and GWB doesn't count as a tyrant, except among people who are willfully ignorant of tyranny) must be won, not lost. Here we are not only fighting tyranny but beating it, and a bunch of cryptofascists have the bloody nerve to complain? UP AGAINST THE WALL AND BACK UNDER YOUR ROCKS, YOU TERTIARY-SYPHILITIC FASCISTOCOMMUNIST SONS OF BACHELORS. Line up for forcible sterilization before you go. If the world is to become good, you must not breed.
when you manage the considerable task of extracting your cranium from your anus, please aim for the door you malignant moron.
London in the 1980's endured a wave of IRA bombings. The main difference is that, while fanatical, the IRA did not recruit suicide bombers.
Wasn't one of the hallmarks of an IRA bombing that they gave notice that it would occur ... minimum casualties, maximum political statement?
As an American, I resent that. If you want a good world, wars against tyranny (and GWB doesn't count as a tyrant, except among people who are willfully ignorant of tyranny) must be won, not lost. Here we are not only fighting tyranny but beating it, and a bunch of cryptofascists have the bloody nerve to complain? UP AGAINST THE WALL AND BACK UNDER YOUR ROCKS, YOU TERTIARY-SYPHILITIC FASCISTOCOMMUNIST SONS OF BACHELORS. Line up for forcible sterilization before you go. If the world is to become good, you must not breed.
:joylove: You're not married or seeing anyone, are you?
As an American, I resent that. If you want a good world, wars against tyranny (and GWB doesn't count as a tyrant, except among people who are willfully ignorant of tyranny) must be won, not lost. Here we are not only fighting tyranny but beating it, and a bunch of cryptofascists have the bloody nerve to complain? UP AGAINST THE WALL AND BACK UNDER YOUR ROCKS, YOU TERTIARY-SYPHILITIC FASCISTOCOMMUNIST SONS OF BACHELORS. Line up for forcible sterilization before you go. If the world is to become good, you must not breed.
I assume that you are putting your money where your ass is and will (hopefully) be leaving soon for your third tour in the war we are winning in Iraq? :eyebrow:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16016105%5E2703,00.html
Background of one of the 7/7 bombers.
ON his last visit to relatives in Pakistan this year, one of the July 7 London bombers, Shehzad Tanweer, spoke of wanting to die in a terrorist attack to avenge the way Muslims were treated.
While his family in Britain had no idea about his suicide mission, Tanweer confessed to his cousin his ambition to become a "holy warrior".
At his father's home village, about 50km from Faisalabad, Mohammad Saleem described how Tanweer, 22, hero-worshipped Osama bin Laden.
His worst venom went to Gitmo... actually, the Newsweek "un-story":
Mr Saleem said Tanweer had spent only a short time at the village before going with Khan to a madrassa, an Islamic school.
"Whenever he would listen about sufferings of Muslims he would become very emotional and sentimental," Mr Saleem said.
"He was a good Muslim ... he also wished to take part in jihad and lay down his life."
He said Tanweer had never mentioned links with any militant group.
"He knew that excesses are being done to Muslims. Incidents like desecration of the Koran have always been in his mind," Mr Saleem said, referring to US guards at Guantanamo allegedly throwing a copy of Islam's holy book in a toilet.
I want to reply to tw's latest post, but I simply do not know where to begin. I keep typing sentences and then deleting them. tw-I was brought up Catholic and I wasn't taught to hate the Jews nor was I molested. Abuses exsist in every single aspect of every single society or organization. You constantly pick and dwell on the negative of certain societies and ignore the negatives of others. You pick and choose your examples and declare them representative of the whole. For you the world seems to be split: good or bad, nothing in between. You consistently champion the muslims, which is fine, but you need to remember that there are good and bad factors in ALL things. You want me to understand the anger of the muslim? I do. I understand anger, oppression, prejudice, ecomonic butt-fuckery and more. I understand. Somehow, though, I manage not to kill innocent people over my frustrations and anger. YOU do not understand the cult of death that has gripped the muslim world. From what I read of your posts you feel it is an appropriate response. You also lump every christian with every right-wing freak and hang the lot. Christians, like muslims, are individuals. If you want me to consider individual muslims, you must consider individual right-wing christians. You appear to fuck your own cause by being the very thing you point your finger at in disgust. You've an agenda, like the right-wing christians, like the muslims, like the terrorists, like everyone. You'll not convince me of your brotherly love--you clearly have a "side" to win. You want me to feel sympathy and understanding for people who strap bombs to themselves and blow up children? While I would agree that people who resort to such things must be very desperate or very gullible, I don't wish to attempt to excuse those people. You want to blow me up for policies my government--whom I did not choose--enforces? Why don't they try blowing up the people who REALLY make the decisions? Because they are cowards. COWARDS!
......nor was I molested.
Yes you were, granted not by a priest but another person of power, authority, in an organization structured to teach you. And he did it so slickly you thought it was your ballgame. That's the danger.
Abuses exsist in every single aspect of every single society or organization.
Agreed.
Birds of a feather and all that, means people with similar feelings will drift together. That's fine, to seek out a group that agrees with your views. It's when people don't think and simply accept the views that are being promoted by the group that happenstance puts them in. Children are particularly susceptible when parents tell they aren't allowed to question, as is often the case with religion. :(
You consistently champion the muslims, which is fine, but you need to remember that there are good and bad factors in ALL things. You want me to understand the anger of the muslim? I do. I understand anger, oppression, prejudice, ecomonic butt-fuckery and more. I understand. Somehow, though, I manage not to kill innocent people over my frustrations and anger. YOU do not understand the cult of death that has gripped the muslim world. From what I read of your posts you feel it is an appropriate response. You also lump every christian with every right-wing freak and hang the lot.
It explains why you don't understand what I have posted. I don't champion anyone - not even Muslims. To put it in terms of what you are looking for - I hate everyone with equal opportunity. One problem. I will post incendiary words so that when you see an emotional opinion, then you are only lying to yourself. There is no 'muslim world' as you have described. At least not in anything I have posted. There are 3 or 3 million factions. I champion none of them. Instead I ask some damning questions and state some contrarian facts - and for you - not so nicely so that you will ignore any emotion you might perceive. The only thing you should read are the facts. Any emotion you perceive is your own bias - which I encourage by sometimes selecting incendiary words. Stick to the facts. Emotions, if implied, are included so that your will make mistakes - and then have to accept you read looking for an emotional bias.
Most Muslims are not fanatical nor are they that religious. They are not disenfranchised. Furthermore I never once cited all Muslims in any paragraph. If at any time you did not repeatedly see discussions of unique subsets, then you have read out of context. I was discussing a few Muslims, Catholics, or Jews, or the institutions that tell them what they should do. If you think for a minute that I have posted with a broad brush, then you did not read those 300+ words as many times as I did when I wrote them. In fact another who made the 'broad brush' statement should have cited the specific paragraphs rather than just make 'broad brush' accusations.
Just tonight, I sat for a beer with another stranger who told me these 'people' all have suicidal hate in their hearts. He was advocating the president's agenda and said it was what George Jr both says and knows. That is the problem. I asked him if he had heard of the Muslim Brotherhood. Of course not. He just knew the president was right. I asked him if he understood that Bin Laden and Saddam were arch enemies. Of course they were not. They were both Muslims and therefore are united in their hate of Americans. I ask him how it was that Americans once could walk among all these people, even when they were fighting each other, and be greeted as a friend. I asked him why both bin Laden and Saddam were both allies of the US. This only confused him. What was I looking at? One who promotes "the cult of death that has gripped" too many American political mindsets. Classic of 'us always good verses them always bad' thinking that this White House promotes to justify an illegal 'Mission Accomplished' war.
Kennedy kept asking (and therefore we are all alive) questions such as, "But what does he see? What has he been told? Why would he think that?" Is that not what I have been posting repeatedly? Yes. I keep asking you to widen your horizons - especially learn how often this president lies by telling half truths about Al Qaeda. There is no solution to the quagmire of Iraq without answers first to those and other questions.
Most (I believe) here did not know of the Muslim Brotherhood OR of how and why terrorist are recruited. Outside of the propaganda from 'the powers that be', there is little fact that Al Qaeda performs all these terrorist acts. And yet to stop "them", we must first acknowledge who they are, why they act, what they know, and why we have suddenly made fanatical enemies of people who were once friends. These questions expose White House propaganda. Questions that can only be answered from THEIR perspective.
Good people ask these questions - and bluntly without any attempt to be 'politically correct'. Good people become even better when provided the full story and when forced to consider contrarian perspectives. That means text that, if read for emotional perspective, will never be understood. You have looked for an emotional bias. That means you are trying to find political correctness in what I post rather than reading using a yellow highlighter; ignoring anything that may indicate an emotion.
The ultimate question is how do we get out of this quagmire called Iraq? It starts by understanding why we are there. Why are they attacking us? Why are 'they' so many different people? Why are 'the enemies' increasing in numbers? Why are we making Americans less popular throughout the world? These are questions that good people ask and seek answers to. Those who hate people would attack the messenger - person who asks these questions. People who hate never ask for nor want contrarian perspectives; nor try to learn THEIR perspective (as the stranger in a bar who better meets your definition of hating people). Those who love people would routinely ask why so many people who would have rather been American friends no longer are. And ask that question with 'in your face' incorrectness.
These are the lessons of Vietnam when America attacked a nation who even asked to be a protectorate of the US. During Vietnam we (and I) did not ask these questions. Therefore America became a nation of not so nice people. Good people always ask the questions I have been asking. Questions such as why does America now love and approve of torture - as long it is not an American. Good people even seek, ask, or find truth in the statement "We have met the enemy and he is us". Until that statement can be debunked, good people must question themselves or their leaders. Those who seek emotional understanding would then accuse the good people of 'hating people'; for always looking for the bad things in life. Those who hate people always want to see only the good side; never ask politically incorrect questions; even fear blunt words such as penis.
Is there anything in this post that even implies an emotional bias or opinion on my part? If you think so, well, I may routinely use incendiary words just so that your emotions lie to you. And I don't care. Adults should never look for any emotion in posts. I am asking difficult questions - and will use incendiary words as you might use "thank you". IOW I am not politically correct. If you find any emotional bias in my post, it was put their so that you would lie to your self. I am asking damning questions that only "good" people would ask. People who don't hide their head like an ostrich.
Ask yourself, “Does he dislike Brianna?” The minute you find a single word to justify such an opinion, then you are lying to yourself. The only answer? You don’t know because he did not say so in a logical manner – complete with reasons why. Anything less would be looking for emotion where words are chosen to confuse the emotions – so don’t use emotional considerations to try and understand.
The only way you can make a claim that I hate people - quote specific paragraphs as examples. Trying to read into my biases? Not possible because of the perspective I use to write - to intentionally confuse your emotions. Meanwhile show by example how I lump every Christian with right wing freaks. Post those paragraphs as examples. Otherwise that would be a bias on your part. If I did not specifically state it, then you don't know of my thoughts.
Now I get it. TW is like Spock, but without the pon farr.
Now I get it. TW is like Spock, but without the pon farr.
The 'without' part was not intentional. I just don't like internet sex.
A quick post. I hope to digest tw's info and be more informed to post a better answer later. Let me say this: as an echo of Thomas Friedman's article--tw is an excuse maker. He makes up excuses for the terrorists. Blowing up civilians is not ok. tw-- I still don't believe your olive branch.
Let me say this: as an echo of Thomas Friedman's article--tw is an excuse maker. He makes up excuses for the terrorists. Blowing up civilians is not ok.
Again, personal biases are being imposed upon what I wrote. Again, show me where I said once that blowing up civilians is ok.
However this is the point I made .... repeatedly. An enemy is not defeated and terrorism does not stop without first understanding what, who, and why they are AND without first learning their perspective. Force upon terrorism does not stop terrorism; as Israel, et al demonstrate. The death knell to terrorism begins by understanding why it exists and eliminating the reason for its existence.
Again, don't read what I did not specifically write. There was no olive branch. I don't do olive branches. That would be emotional nonsense. I simply have repeated what was posted previously. That is not an olive branch. That may be a restatement. But it is not an olive branch. I have nothing to apologize for. Others are simply reading into my post what I specifically did not say ... ie I never once said blowing up civilians is OK. Apparently you read something I did not write.
Learn why the terrorism exists - or be doomed to learn the Vietnam lessons all over again.
I assume that you are putting your money where your ass is and will (hopefully) be leaving soon for your third tour in the war we are winning in Iraq? :eyebrow:
Marichiko, first get two awards of the Navy Expeditionary Medal, one of which awards I received for service in support of when the Iranian hostage rescue mission went flop back in 1980.
Then perhaps you can try twitting me.
This is a war that must be won. Marichiko outs herself as a stone fascist objecting to our fight against tyrannies in this quite uncalled-for snarky fashion. Being into human liberty, I am as far above the fascists, freedom-haters, and fellow travelers for unfree societies as the summit of Everest is above the abyssal plains. Saddam-loving, Western-civilization-hating hemipygian drool-punks f!ck off. Seventeen times. You are a pack of losers.
Marichiko, first get two awards of the Navy Expeditionary Medal, one of which awards I received for service in support of when the Iranian hostage rescue mission went flop back in 1980.
Then perhaps you can try twitting me.
This is a war that must be won. Marichiko outs herself as a stone fascist objecting to our fight against tyrannies in this quite uncalled-for snarky fashion. Being into human liberty, I am as far above the fascists, freedom-haters, and fellow travelers for unfree societies as the summit of Everest is above the abyssal plains. Saddam-loving, Western-civilization-hating hemipygian drool-punks f!ck off. Seventeen times. You are a pack of losers.
Thank you for your lucid and reasoned contributions to the debate. It must be quite satisfacory to sit up there on the Everest of ego while you watch the "losers" below slug it out. If you'll excuse me, I think they're calling me for goose step practice now. :rolleyes:
jesus with that level of understanding its no wonder that little mission went awry. which tyrannies exactly? the ones you prop up in egypt, uzbekistan and saudi? Maybe you're against the one in Iran, a direct result of US interference. Or it the liberty of white men to dominate the world's resources at the expense of everyone else that you care about so deeply? Guess what jackass, you, your lifestyle, your mindset and your career are part of the problem, not the solution, so why don't you pack your six-shooter and giddy on up the fuck over to afghanistan and bag yourself some towelheads, we haven't had a good on-air grovelling decapatitation for a while.
:beer: urbane guerrilla.
you know you aren't going to win this argument, though. your opponents don't accept any position that isn't anti-US. before opening your big mouth in the future, make sure your argument is based on the following suppositions:
(1) No religion is extreme except Christianity (as practiced by whitey)*
(2) All conflicts are, directly or indirectly, caused by the USA.
(3) Because of (2), if we are attacked, we are NOT to respond. We are to humbly cast our gaze upon the poor, pillaged Earth that our white people ruined, and try to understand why our enemies are so mad at us. Once we've determined our error, we must (humbly) beseech the United Nations to intervene on our behalf and determine what measures we must take to ensure that the offended party will no longer have reason to hate us.
(4) jaguar is a pinko, so even if you abide by points 1-3, you're still wrong. Your only recourse is to say 8 Hail Karls while masturbating furiously over a burning American flag.
* — Blacks are allowed by libs to be Christian, because they are better at singing gospel music (vocal ad-libs, matchy robes, swaying), and because Martin Luther King was a preacher.
Actually, Mr. Noodle, only poor black folks are allowed to be Christian. We concede this to them as part of our liberal guilt. Black folks who are part of the middle class we don't feel guilty over, and they are not allowed to be Christian, either.
All conflicts are completely the fault of the USA - no indirect about it. The US is wrong every time. It was even wrong to shoot back at Pearl Harbour since this was an example of prejudice against the Japanese. We should have been nicer to them.
We should never beg the UN for help. Its all our fault and we should accept the consequences of our evil Americaness.
Jag is a commie and so am I - oh no, wait - I'm the facist.
Just wanted to clarify for you before I start my daily morning flag burning. :p
marichiko - your writing style and tone is pretty different from the past. has there been some significant breakthrough in your condition?
marichiko - your writing style and tone is pretty different from the past. has there been some significant breakthrough in your condition?
I'm getting medical treatment and voc rehab, Lookout. I'm proving those doctors wrong and growing new neural passageways or synapses or something. Yea, me! I'm volunteering as an advocate for the disabled in my area and getting in some part time hours at a job through the Ticket to Work Program. I WILL get completely off SSDI! YES!
MrNoodle, thanks for the kind support.
Jaguar is simply incapable of winning an argument with me, anyway -- as a pinko, he is condemned to being half-bright at best. Any sympathy for collectivist totalitarianism is as wrong as it is inhuman, and to the degree Jag suffers from these, he is wrong, and inhuman. Note that he cannot make headway with me on the merits of the matter; it's instant ad hominem, the last resort of the debater with nothing left where his ideas should be. Something Jaguar forgets is that I do not accept anti-American views and will always torment those who hold them, for generally they hold them out of perversity, depravity, and a disregard for human liberty -- or a selfish view of it that will not willingly extend the blessings of human liberty to Iraqis. This view of liberty is usually to be found in persons who don't get that liberty is just as good for Yusuf al-Iraqi as it is for Joe Sixpack. There will be those who yell about how the Iraqis are all worse off now that Saddam's in the last residence he'll ever occupy and the Americans and Britons among others are there. To these yawpers I say: Hey, it's a war. Wars are occasionally less comfortably than tyrannies, but wars contain the seeds of a hope things will improve. Tyrannies don't have that.
Marichiko: yes, it is immensely satisfactory. Do things to bring you up here, rather than fooling around in some less happy place, and you can enjoy it too. Dress warm; it gets windy.
Any sympathy for collectivist totalitarianism is as wrong as it is inhuman,..
The largest socialist experiment in America today is the US military.
UG, I don't understand why Saddam isn't allowed to impose his way on people but you are? :confused:
Marichiko: yes, it is immensely satisfactory. Do things to bring you up here, rather than fooling around in some less happy place, and you can enjoy it too. Dress warm; it gets windy.
It wouldn't be satisfactory if I was hanging out up there, too, believe me. I'll just stick around down here with the rest of the trailer trash. Thanks for the offer, though. :cool:
Oh, yes it would be -- we all aspire to greater-than-trailer-trashiness, at least in our heart of hearts, even if we fear we wouldn't be as politically correct to be the animals more equal than the others.
Nyah.
UG, I don't understand why Saddam isn't allowed to impose his way on people but you are? :confused:
"My way" is the free way, the libertarian way. Study this way, and it will become your way also -- at least if you're not a fascist or other hidebound, slaveminded objectionabloid.
What I "impose" is the destruction of the tyrants. What the people do when the fallen tyrants' boot leaves their collective neck is
not imposed. Do you imagine me to be so unsophisticated? Why? Maybe you gotta ask the dumb ones before you can get to the smart questions -- I do that myself.
I'd further remark that Jaguar's "level of understanding" remark suggests he believes his understanding of these matters to be better than mine.
Since his kind of "understanding" is actually a wispy disguise for rationalization for doing nothing at all against the evil that men have to do to work tyranny, totalitarianism, or indeed anything but democracy, it should not be called "understanding" at all, but instead called what it is.
"My way" is the free way, the libertarian way. Study this way, and it will become your way also -- at least if you're not a fascist or other hidebound, slaveminded objectionabloid.
What I "impose" is the destruction of the tyrants. What the people do when the fallen tyrants' boot leaves their collective neck is not imposed. Do you imagine me to be so unsophisticated? Why? Maybe you gotta ask the dumb ones before you can get to the smart questions -- I do that myself.
OK, after you depose the "Tyrant" and another one takes his place, do you depose "Tyrant Jr" also? :confused:
[size=4]American Islamic Scholars Issue Fatwa Against Terrorism[/size]
I'm not in the mood to find those posters who indignantly called for Muslims to forcefully denounce the actions of a vanishingly small minority done in the name of Islam. You know who you are. Perhaps
this item will offer you comfort.
U.S. Muslim groups have frequently condemned terrorist acts, but the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Nihad Awad, says issuing a fatwa is the strongest statement that can be made by the Islamic community.
"This is the heaviest weight any opinion can be given. The reason I am saying this is because those who commit acts of terror in the name of Islam try to misinterpret and misuse certain issues in Islamic jurisprudence and they have no authority or qualification except their anger. These legal Muslim scholars come to say we are the authority on this subject and we are the ones who determine how to interpret Islam. Therefore, I don't think any person in the globe can quote the Koran or the traditions of the Prophet [Muhammad] to justify the harming and the killing of innocent people," he said.
HOORAY! It is long overdue. :band:
They even did better than the
Vatican by not blaming the victims.
Priests for Life denounces the incidents of violence that have occurred against abortion providers. Echoing Pope John Paul II, we declare that "not even a murderer loses his personal dignity" (EV #9).
We also denounce the efforts continuously made by abortion advocates to blame pro-life groups for that violence. If anything, the violence done against abortionists is encouraged by the mentality and actions of those who promote abortion. Briefly, here's why.
Better than the Vatican by not suggesting that
retaliation against terror is bad. "We were all set to denounce the terror attack, but the stupid Jews blew up the people responsible before we could say anything."
OK, after you depose the "Tyrant" and another one takes his place, do you depose "Tyrant Jr" also? :confused:
Of course! Why do you ask? -- would
you do something different? Level with me: do you honestly prefer leaving tyrants unmolested?
Consider this: do not the people who would rather live free, and let others live the same way, not outnumber the slavemakers and the slave-minded?
When are you going to ask tougher questions?
Of course! Why do you ask? -- would you do something different? Level with me: do you honestly prefer leaving tyrants unmolested?
Consider this: do not the people who would rather live free, and let others live the same way, not outnumber the slavemakers and the slave-minded?
When are you going to ask tougher questions?
So people are only free to choose what you want them to choose. That just makes you a tyrant with a bigger stick. Forcing pet rabbits out of their cage to die in the woods is not doing them any favor. :eyebrow:
I'm sure that the key people who matter know that the "war" is really on radical Islamism, not al Qaeda.
On Wednesday night
The Daily Show mocked the semantic shift in the administration because they have stopped calling it "The Global War on Terror" and have started calling it "The Global Struggle against Violent Extremism".
One can suppose that they don't reference Islam directly because it focuses too many people at Islam in general, reinforcing racism and intolerance and pissing off moderate Muslims.
This just in Chicago Trib. Another item inline with BigVs:
Muslim scholars: Terrorists not martyrs
Items compiled from Tribune news services
Published July 29, 2005
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- American Muslim scholars on Thursday carried out their plan to issue an edict condemning religious extremism and calling terrorists "criminals, not `martyrs.'"
The 18-member Fiqh Council of North America said Muslims were barred from helping "any individual or group that is involved in any act of terrorism or violence."
"There is no justification in Islam for extremism or terrorism," the scholars wrote in the edict, called a fatwa. "Targeting civilians' life and property through suicide bombings or any other method of attack is haram--or forbidden."
The fatwa states that Muslims are obligated to help "protect the lives of all civilians."
Islam has no central authority, and the council serves an advisory role for U.S. Muslims.
<SCRIPT language=JavaScript type=text/javascript> <!--function google_ad_request_done(google_ads) { var i; if (google_ads.length > 0) { document.write('<table align=center width=420 border=0 cellpadding=3 cellspacing=2 bgcolor=#aaaaaa><tr><td align=center>[font=verdana,sans-serif][size=1][color=#000000]Ads by Google[/color][/size][/font]</td></tr><tr><td bgcolor=#ffffff>'); for(i = 0; i < google_ads.length; ++i) { document.write('[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][size=2].url +"]' + '[color=#003399]' + google_ads[i].line1 + '[/color]' + '
' + google_ads[i].line2 + ' ' + google_ads[i].line3 + '
[size=1][color=#003399].url +"]' + google_ads[i].visible_url + '[/color][/size][/size][/font][size=-1]
[/size]'); } document.write('</td></tr></table>
'); }}// --></SCRIPT><SCRIPT language=JavaScript type=text/javascript><!-- google_ad_client = 'tribune_news_html'; google_ad_output = 'js'; if (typeof google_max_num_ads == 'undefined') google_max_num_ads = '5'; google_safe = 'high'; google_ad_channel = 'chictribune_news';// --></SCRIPT><SCRIPT language=JavaScript src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js" type=text/javascript></SCRIPT><SCRIPT language=JavaScript1.1 src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/ads?client=ca-tribune_news_html&dt=1122652806391&adsafe=high&lmt=1122652806&num_ads=5&output=js&channel=chictribune_news&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chicagotribune.com%2Fnews%2Fnationworld%2Fchi-0507290113jul29%2C1%2C2637499.story%3Fcoll%3Dchi-newsnationworld-hed&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.google.com%2Fnwshp%3Fhl%3Den%26gl%3Dus&cc=411&u_h=1024&u_w=1280&u_ah=994&u_aw=1280&u_cd=32&u_tz=-420&u_his=13&u_java=true"></SCRIPT><NOSCRIPT>&ampampnbsp&ampampnbsp&ampampnbsp&ampampnbsphttp://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/imp.gif?client=ca-tribune_news_html&ampampampevent=noscript</NOSCRIPT>
Copyright © 2005, [color=#0000ff]Chicago Tribune[/color]
This sort of thing needs to spread to other muslim countries. Unfortunately, those guys over there don't recognize these guys over here as true islam followers. It's a start.
This just in Chicago Trib. Another item inline with BigVs:
This sort of thing needs to spread to other muslim countries. Unfortunately, those guys over there don't recognize these guys over here as true islam followers. It's a start.
Perhaps, but the guys over here recognize the guys over there as
criminals, not as martyrs. The mantle of religious justification has been removed, with authority. Unfortunately, like any legal system, the laws only restrain the law abiders, not the lawbreakers. This is not an Islamic phenomenon.
Unfortunately, like any legal system, the laws only restrain the law abiders, not the lawbreakers. This is not an Islamic phenomenon.
More relevantly, and also not an Islamic phenomenon, laws only restrain anybody within their jurisdiction. As Fareed Zacharia said on the Daily Show, (paraphrased) Islam has no Pope, so there's nobody to say [worldwide] that terrorism isn't kosher. A fatwa will only be observed by those who recognize the authority of the issuer.
Even if islam had a "Pope," it still wouldn't help. Look how many so called "Christian" religeons we have. Catholics have the Pope, but there were those who disagree with the Catholic church so they break away. Now you have Episcipalian. You got Protestant, Baptist, Lutheran, Mormon, all believing that they are right and the other is wrong. If there was a central islamic figurehead, the extermist would still do what they want, citing that their interest are a much better way for islam and would find and distort scripture to back it up.
Well, yeah. Zacharia's point was that Islam is organized more along protestant lines than Catholic. If there was a single hierarchy, as with the Catholics, the leadership would have much more influence, for good or ill. As it is, any one imam has no more influence than a random Baptist preacher.
Previously the enemy was bin Laden and his ally Saddam. They must be allies because WE must see everything in terms of a common enemy. Meanwhile, the Chechnyan insurgents who even murder Beslam children are described by Russia as Al Qaeda. Still Putin, et al think (and may just know) that Americans, et al are so ignorant as to insist a common enemy must exist. Chechnyan rebels are (often) Islamic. Does that mean it is Al Qaeda? Does that mean it is even Muslim Brotherhood? Of course not. For that matter, clearly the Bosnian were Al Qaeda - who were also victims of ethnic cleansing. We could take it even farther using administration logic. After all, a center for manufacturing counterfeit documents (ie passports) was discovered near Albania. Clearly that too must be Al Qaeda.
The example was posted weeks ago in this topic:
The Islamic Jihad Brigades of Muhammad's Army - is it another Al Qaeda organization? Is it another example of the Muslim Brotherhood? Probably not. It appears to be a derivative of the Baath Party which has nothing to do with religion. Another organization with a common enemy - Americans. These insurgents are also described by some as Al Qaeda simply because they too are attacking Americans. Examples of simplistic Washington logic - when do we learn the lessons of Vietnam?
Another organization is Armed Vanguards of Muhammad's Second Army. What is this? Another nationwide organization or just some cousins with a video camera. These are questions The Economist is asking because there are no simple answers - as being promoted in Washington where fixing the region is their objective.
There is no monolithic Al Qaeda; no monolithic enemy. Iraq has become the perfect training ground for numerous insurgents, terrorists, and religious extremist recruitment. Why? Our own leaders never bothered to first learn how complex the region really is. Some foolishly believed Saddam and bin Laden were allies when in reality they were the worst of enemies. These Washington leaders had the Gen Westmoreland attitude. Wolfovich was as decieved as McNamara. They just assumed this was a region where people were trained to hate Americans. That the little people would welcome American liberators and everyone would then live happy lives. ... And still some insist all these attacks are somehow bin Laden's plans. Still so many in Washington have no clue, in part, because reality is political suicide in this administration.
So now we don't blame bin Laden? We blame fundamentalist Islam. Again, we are looking for a common enemy in symptoms that have little in common. Often the terrorist at one point finds his mission in life in fundamental Islamic beliefs. Or did he really find his mission in westernized bachelor whoring?
Too many blame Islamic leaders. As I noted weeks ago, the Islamic leaders in western countries have had a sort of epiphany. Therefore they recently decided that these distorted religious believers who pass through their mosques (leave as quickly as they arrive) should be warned about perverted interpretations of the Koran. Yes, they have finally decided (just as Catholic Church finally decided that pedophilia is a problem) to address the fundamentalist extremist recruiting that occurs in mosques.
But it not Islam alone that creates the problem - as so much simplistic Rush Limbaugh type propaganda would have us believe. As far as western nations are concerned, the problem did not exist until western nations decided to 'fix' the region; were not honest about leaving. It is these little details that America was warned about after 1 Aug 1990. And since we did not understand the region, we stayed.
It is those little details even lost in the translation of the Koran that can cause problems. The region should have been left to first fix itself. If we had done as we did when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan - left when it was over - then we would not have problems that we now blame exclusively and simplistically on Al Qaeda. Problems that we are now trying to blame on fundamentalist Islam.
To appreciate the problem, use a wider perspective.
The Islamic Jihad Brigades of Muhammad's Army - is it another Al Qaeda organization? Is it another example of the Muslim Brotherhood? Probably not. It appears to be a derivative of the Baath Party which has nothing to do with religion.
Don't fall for administration propaganda that now blames fundamentalist Islam. Quicksand is not just sand. We stay out of quicksand because there is no common enemy and no simple solution. However we have now decided to fix the quicksand. Now we are trying to blame its deceiving looks, trying to blame the water, then blame the muck, then the sand, then the geology, ..... instead of staying out until we really understood what it was.
Don't fall for the myth that Saddam was a threat to America - let alone even a threat to his neighbors. Don't fall for the myth that they are all Al Qaeda. Don't fall for the myth that is it fundamentalist Islam. Don't be so myopic. It is the Arab world. It is as complicated as the presidential politics of Lebanon. The minute that George Jr, Rumsfeld, or Rush Limbaugh try to define one common enemy, then they are lying.
Welcome to the quagmire that is the Middle East and Central Asia. We now suffer terrorism because for some silly reason, we decided at the presidential level to institute "prevention" of an enemy that did not exist rather than the well proven (by generations) policy of "containment". We got the problem we wanted. We have met the enemy and he is us. We couldn’t just let the region fix its own minor problems. We had to fix it rather than learn from the lessons of history. Deja Vue.
So now there is no common enemy. There is no pope to lead the Arabs against the infidels. And somehow, this thread continues to search for only one common factor - because of White House propaganda faxed daily to the Rush Limbaugh types?
The purpose of the thread was to try to UNDERSTAND terrorism. Personally, I have no desire to even TRY to understand these people. They belong to a cult of death and blow up innocent civilians--I've no more desire to 'understand' them than I do to understand the Klan. I don't need to understand them to know they, and their tactics, are WRONG. I don't blame fundie muslims, either. Who are you directing your comments to? Or are you just bored, tw? :)
Oh, and by the by--I don't see you offering any sort of solution to anything, you just drudge up what you've already told us. WHAT'S NEW, TW???
The purpose of the thread was to try to UNDERSTAND terrorism. Personally, I have no desire to even TRY to understand these people. They belong to a cult of death and blow up innocent civilians--I've no more desire to 'understand' them than I do to understand the Klan. I don't need to understand them to know they, and their tactics, are WRONG. I don't blame fundie muslims, either. Who are you directing your comments to?
A new White House propaganda line is being tested. Stop blaming Al Qaeda. Now blame fundamentalist Islam. Neither is valid even though a large number of Americans tend to believe the propaganda.
I have defined some frameworks for ending the Iraq quagmire. None are politically correct - and yet are realistic.
How politically incorrect? For example, how do we end the Palestine - Israeli conflict? Make sure both sides cause equally high numbers of deaths on the other side. Suddenly being a centrist is acceptable - and peace occurs. What happened the last time a centrist solved a Middle East problem? Likud called for and got the assassination of Rabin. The best solutions are not politically correct. Dangerous because the solution disempowers extremists who may take revenge.
One of the possible scenarios I posted was credited to Brent Scowcroft. If seeking a soundbyte solution, then you never remembered any of those possible Iraq solutions. There is no soundbyte solution for Iraq as there was no soundbyte solution for the US defeat in Vietnam.
I'm not asking you for a soundbyte. I'm asking for your solutions since you know so much about the whole thing. Someone like yourself should be able to do more than point out the obvious, right? And are you advocating assasinations?
The purpose of the thread was to try to UNDERSTAND terrorism. Personally, I have no desire to even TRY to understand these people.
You in particular don't have to. But we have to hope that
someone running the "Struggle Against Global Extremism" or whatever it is
is trying to understand them, or we will never win. You can't cure a disease without understanding it.
They belong to a cult of death and blow up innocent civilians--I've no more desire to 'understand' them than I do to understand the Klan.
There's no need to understand the Klan. They're not a threat anymore. And the reason for that is that the level of understanding was raised enough to starve them of recruits.
I used the Klan as an example only.
I'm not asking you for a soundbyte. I'm asking for your solutions since you know so much about the whole thing. Someone like yourself should be able to do more than point out the obvious, right? And are you advocating assasinations?
Some possible solutions were posted elsewhere and previously. Search on Brent Scowcroft to maybe find those frameworks.
Clearly just trying to define the enemy is a topic too large already. Solutions? They were already defined elsewhere. Resurrect those threads if they really have 'religious like' significance.
Meanwhile I did not advocate assassinations. Please read again. Solutions that drive people back into the ranks of centrists are so dangerous that, for example, the Likud party called for and got the assassination of Rabin. You do know that history? The right wing extremist party of Netanyahu (educated near The Cellar) and Sharon called for and got the murder of their prime minister because he signed onto the Oslo Accords - peace with the Palestinians and a surrender of the occupied territories to the Palestinians. It is dangerous to actually solve such problems when not enough people on both sides have been killed. That should be well understood by anyone who learns from history.
Obviously I did not call for an assassination. But what I posted assumes basic knowledge of history. The things that Rush Limbaugh types hope we never learn so that their sound bytes can "lie by telling half truths".
I used the Klan as an example only.
And your Klan example only demonstrated why the enemy must be properly defined before it can be defeated. An idea that labeling someone as a murderer is sufficient to define an enemy is simply foolish. Some of the world's great leaders were once terrorists or muderers. How can it be? The answer lies first and foremost in understanding the person - the whys behind his motivation. Never make myopic conclusions based only upon his 'headline grabbing' actions. To defeat the enemy in Iraq or in western streets, first, understanding a person beyond just being a bomber maker is essential. What really is his strategic objective? If you cannot answer that, then you have not learned from history AND have no idea who really is the 'evil one'.
How to lie to yourself: know an actor is evil without first understanding the actor as defined above.
What did Sen. Mitchell do that so significantly broke a stalemate between the IRA and the British Government? Learn from history. Just because the IRA set off bombs means the IRA was all evil? Nonsense. As has been stated so many times before, there is no such thing as good and evil. There are many perspectives.
First ask, “What is his strategic objective?” The Klan was easily defeated once the people asked that simple question. If you cannot answer that first and simple question, then you have no idea who the enemy really is. Again, lessons from history. So boring that many of us are doomed to repeat it.
I used the Klan as an example only.
Me, too. An example of a former terrorist organization that has been defanged.
(sigh) We sure like to complicate stuff. But I guess that gives all those op ed writers and Rush Limbaugh something to do.
Why does the Middle East produce terrorists? Because the terrorists are terrified, bottom line. They fear encroachment by the West on their countries and their culture.
Great Britain, Palestine, T.E. Lawrence, WWI, the Turks and the Arabs. Broken promises starting almost a 100 years ago. Throw in the Holocaust and the Jews and the formation of Israel. More frightened people, land grabs and broken promises.
Throw in OPEC and the West's dependency on foreign oil reserves. More fear. Add a sprinkling of sociopathic leaders both East and West. Viola! Everyone on both sides of the equation is terrified and to soothe their fears they want to take that brand of valium called control and power.
The US has military might. The Middle East has a zillion crazed factions of killers. We fear and hate one another and the Saudi Royal Family and the Dick Cheney's and the George Jr.'s and the Bin Ladens move their chess pieces on the board, take a valium, and sleep soundly at night.
Everybody else debates arcane questions of faith and motive and sends their sons off to join the 3/3 ACR or the jihad.
Hatred is palmed off as the act of a patriot. To quote Samuel Adams, "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel."
Pleasant dreams.
Oil is a major part of the strategy. But it is a strategy that is Central Asia wide. ... It is why the US is courting so many K'stan nations.
It is why SCO (Shanghai Co-operation Organization) exists. From The Economist of 9 July 2005: Judging from the activities of the member states (China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kirgizstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan), three principles define that new order: slaking China's thirst for energy, protecting member states as they tryrannise dissidents and curbing America's influence in the region.
Now a new twist in the K'stan drama. From the Washington Post of 30 July 2005
U.S. Evicted From Air Base In Uzbekistan
Uzbekistan formally evicted the United States yesterday from a military base that has served as a hub for combat and humanitarian missions to Afghanistan since shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, ...
Scores of flights have used K2 monthly. It has been a landing base to transfer humanitarian goods that then are taken by road into northern Afghanistan, particularly to Mazar-e Sharif -- with no alternative for a region difficult to reach in the winter. K2 is also a refueling base with a runway long enough for large military aircraft.... Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld returned this week from Central Asia, where he won assurances from Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan that the United States can use its bases for operations in Afghanistan. U.S. forces use Tajikistan for emergency landings and occasional refueling, but it lacks good roads into Afghanistan. Kyrgyzstan does not border Afghanistan.
Why does Britain produce terrorists?
Why does Britain produce terrorists?
The Brits have PTSD from the Thatcher era? They hate the French? They're terrified of what Prince Andrew might do next?
I give up. Why?
You said "Why does the Middle East produce terrorists? Because the terrorists are terrified, bottom line. They fear encroachment by the West on their countries and their culture."
You seem to be the expert so why does Britain produce terrorists?
So people are only free to choose what you want them to choose.
No one chooses the tyrant in preference to going free, you bloody, misrationalizing, hemipygian idiot. They can only be browbeaten into it by threats and killings. Do not advocate the slave viewpoint in my presence. You do not think like a free adult human being. Why then do you still have human shape? You should go on all fours, at the end of a leash, slave.
here trollytrollytrolly troll...
hemipygian
It certainly sounds oogly, but what does it mean?
Do you like raspberry, lookout123? :p
Well put, Wolf, for it's not yet in the dictionaries. Now, if callipygian means "possessed of or pertaining to beautiful or shapely buttocks," I'd say hemipygian works no matter how you slice it, vertically or horizontally.
I know another word for thesaurus, too.
Whatever it is, that's not Bruce.
Peter Mark Roget never knew this word, and many editions of Roget don't have it, but later editions do. Roget compiled his immortal tome in the eighteenth century, and the synonym absolutely screams nineteenth-century style.
I know another word for thesaurus, too.
I have a word dinosaur, but I don't use it much.
You said "Why does the Middle East produce terrorists? Because the terrorists are terrified, bottom line. They fear encroachment by the West on their countries and their culture."
You seem to be the expert so why does Britain produce terrorists?
ME? An expert? PFFFFFT! I'm like everyone else around here. I barely know what I'm talking about! However, it is my understanding that we share in common with the UK the English language, the Christian tradition, the same ideals of democracy (remember the Magna Carta?), etc.
Yep, I can hear the Brits now: "OMG, we're going to have to learn the English language, convert to Christianity, and switch over to a representative government!"
Brit1: "I say, Old Boy, I fear the cousins across the pond may impose their upstart culture upon us!"
Brit2: "Shocking, I must say! A real stain on the old school tie! What say we go fly an airplane into the World Trade Center?"
Brit1: "Smashing idea! Shall we arrange for the Queen to issue a Jihad?"
Brit2: "BRilliant! Prince Andrew has always wanted to pay the cousins back for what they did to his great-great-great grandfather in 1776! Cheerio! Pip, Pip, carry on then!"
Or are you talking about the London as "Mecca for Muslim terrorists/boys of Muslim families sent off to summer terror camp" thing? You want me to explain why Britain is responsible for THAT? Try LOCATION! It's much easier to get to London from Pakistan than it is to go the extra frequent flier miles to NYC. Also try history. Remember the British Empire? The East India Company? How about the sepoy rebellion? The Brits have a long history with the area of East India which includes a significant muslim population as in Pakistan, among others. The Brits are used to seeing them walking around. Heck, they're probably Gunga Din's third cousin or something and the Muslim fanatic doesn't have the heart to tell Mrs. Polifax that Rudyard Kipling has died quite sometime back.
Er... earth to UT? :mg:
If you don't really have an answer for the second question ("Why does Britain produce terrorists?") then one has to assume that your answer to the first question ("Why does the Middle East produce terrorists?") is a load of hooey.
I had already assumed that but wanted to make sure everyone else had perspective on it too.
:fuse:
You seem to be the expert so why does Britain produce terrorists?
Every country of sufficient size produces terrorists. Only the numbers are different.
If you don't really have an answer for the second question ("Why does Britain produce terrorists?") then one has to assume that your answer to the first question ("Why does the Middle East produce terrorists?") is a load of hooey.
I had already assumed that but wanted to make sure everyone else had perspective on it too.
:fuse:
Happy Monkey is right, its a question of numbers. Any society will produce a certain number of criminals. Show me your statistics on terrorists from the UK whose family is native to Great Britain and not part of some recently arrived ethnic minority with an ax to grind.
Mari woke up!!!! Hi, Mari!!
Look, I think we can all agree that facts are meaningless...they can be used to prove anything.
Mari woke up!!!! Hi, Mari!!
Look, I think we can all agree that facts are meaningless...they can be used to prove anything.
May I quote you on that? OK, lets throw all those stupid facts out the window. I'm right and everybody else is stupid. There, how's that? :eyebrow:
Mari, I was quoting Homer Simpson...have another cuppa.
Why does Britain produce terrorists?
From The NY Times of 31 July 2005
British Bombers' Rage Formed in a Caldron of DiscontentThe form is called Salafism, taking its name from the term for the Prophet Muhammad's companions, although its adherents often reject any label. It originated in 19th-century Saudi Arabia, and has helped inspire groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda.
The Salafi demand for purity and rejection of any Islam except that of the early years can lead to deep intolerance even for fellow Muslims like Shiites.
Salafis see politics as embedded in the DNA of Islam, which was founded to restore social justice to seventh-century Arabia. They take to heart the injunction that the ummah - the global community of Muslims -is "like one body": if one part is suffering, the rest will be in pain as well. They believe, therefore, in an obligation to physical jihad, or struggle, under the right conditions.
For educated young European Muslims who learned nothing of their own history in school, Salafism is a natural fit, Mr. Ballard said. It provides unequivocal answers. And, he said, it is largely "do it yourself."
When your religion becomes more than a relationship between yourself and your god, what happens next? A question repeatedly answered by history - and by the most latest examples in Britian.
This notion has become a recurring motif in the materials circulated by Islamic bookshops like Iqra. CD's produced and distributed by Iqra juxtapose images from the Crusades with horrifying images of war-mutilated Muslim babies. They superimpose a cross dripping blood over Iraq and Afghanistan. At the end of the video are images of what Mr. McDaid called "mujahedeen," Muslim soldiers fighting back in an array of conflicts, but he insisted those images were not on the copies given away.
Underlying facts that put the above quotes into perspective are found in that long article. Above is but only a soundbyte answer. Insufficient to answer UT's question.
Mari, I was quoting Homer Simpson...have another cuppa.
Sorry, Brianna. You're right, I hadn't had my coffee yet. I hate weekends. I sell roses on Friday and Saturday nights and I don't get home 'till late and it throws off my biological clock. By time I've re-righted it, its Friday again. I think Saturday is my crabbiest day of the week, and I can get pretty crabby as it is! ;) :coffee:
No one chooses the tyrant in preference to going free, you bloody, misrationalizing, hemipygian idiot.
Well, for millions of people, for thousands of years that has been the choice. Yes choice, because they think a Dictator, King, Omnipotent Potentate will keep order and protect them from enemies foreign
and domestic.
They can only be browbeaten into it by threats and killings.
Now you know that's not true...see above.
Do not advocate the slave viewpoint in my presence.
Fortunately for you I'm not in your presence. Nor will I be buying you any presents. If you are such a champion of truth, justice and the American Way, how is it you've forgotten about free speech. Guess you're just a tyrant with a different rant.
You do not think like a free adult human being.
I sure do, that's why I won't let you squash my free speech.
Why then do you still have human shape? You should go on all fours, at the end of a leash, slave.
Slave? See, you are just another petty tyrant.....or maybe one of those CA Nancy Boys that buy Arnies magazines. Do you have a steel reinforced collar, mirrors in your glasses and razor blades on your thumb nails? :lol:
Actually, I think Urbane Guerilla makes a good case for the thought that the US produces terrorists! :lol:
Actually, I think Urbane Guerilla makes a good case for the thought that the US produces terrorists! :lol:
Well, 'terrorist' and 'guerilla' are labels for groups with similar tactics, just different choices of targets.
'Freedom fighter' is reserved for individuals who kill and maim for an especially noble purpose (or one that the speaker agrees with), sometimes regardless of their targets.
I think rebels, guerillas, and 'freedom fighters' can all be lumped together in the
'insurgent' class. I know that 'terrorist' has been mentioned in the news seperately from insurgent, but that may have been because the speaker wished to use the sub-class label.
If insurgent means irregular forces opposed to an established authority, than that would include the founding fathers, and the Texas insurgents who fought at the Alamo.
It is a little ironic that both of these groups would meet the current standards of 'enemy combatants' and be eligible for indefinite detention at Guantanamo. This is of course better than the treatment they would have gotten at the hands of some British and Mexican commanders, who advocated summary execution.
What's happening in Iraq is a class war between the Sunnis and Shiites. We just happen to have enabled it and therefore are in the middle of it. The side we are not on automatically become the insurgents. :cool:
Well, for millions of people, for thousands of years that has been the choice. Yes choice, because they think a Dictator, King, Omnipotent Potentate will keep order and protect them from enemies foreign and domestic.
And they are conned thereby -- which isn't choice at all, but being defrauded. Tyrannies do their thing by force and by fraud, and are illegitimate governments to the degree that they do either. This is also known as browbeating by threats and killings. Libertarians understand this, but Bruce doesn't. Just because Bruce doesn't see this doesn't mean I'm in error. Which of us better grasps history will be seen in due course.
Fortunately for you I'm not in your presence. Nor will I be buying you any presents. If you are such a champion of truth, justice and the American Way, how is it you've forgotten about free speech. Guess you're just a tyrant with a different rant.
Here you in effect define free speech as that speech which agrees with you. Sorry, kiddo: my free speech is good for telling you in what manner and degree you are a tyrant-loving fellow-traveling booby, and no champion of human liberty. A reflexive contrarianism won't win you this, either; it paints you into absurd and untenable positions. Contrarianism is the property of trolls, and you know how much respect they get.
I am here to speak against tyranny. You are here to speak against me. That smart or what? Free adult human beings do
not stick up for slavery, oppression, genocide, or the myriad villainies that are part and parcel of non-democratic regimes worldwide. Slavemongers and the slave-minded, however, will jump right in. They want the rest of us as messed up as they are.
you don't get it UG - you are not speaking out against tyranny - you are speaking in favor of a different form of tyranny. you seem to think that you hold the patent on truth, justice, and the RIGHT way, and anyone who doesn't agree with your wisdom is worthy of ridicule and name calling. in your previous post you talk about people following a system or leader only because they've been browbeaten into submission or otherwise fooled - what do you think you are trying to do here? "my way rules, yer all fools" isn't exactly known for winning the hearts and minds to your way of thought.
and, jeez - your posting style is moving closer and closer to TW's with every post you make - this is frightening.
you don't get it UG - you are not speaking out against tyranny - you are speaking in favor of a different form of tyranny. you seem to think that you hold the patent on truth, justice, and the RIGHT way, and anyone who doesn't agree with your wisdom is worthy of ridicule and name calling. in your previous post you talk about people following a system or leader only because they've been browbeaten into submission or otherwise fooled - what do you think you are trying to do here? "my way rules, yer all fools" isn't exactly known for winning the hearts and minds to your way of thought.
and, jeez - your posting style is moving closer and closer to TW's with every post you make - this is frightening.
[SIZE=1]psssssst, Lookout! Don't scare it with any sudden moves or loud sounds. Ignore it and it will go away...[/SIZE] :mg:
We tried that with you, and it only worked for a while.
And you're still tryin it with me, but I'm a persistant little sh*t :biggrin:
We tried that with you, and it only worked for a while.
:mg:
:mg:
You didn't get the memo, or...?
actually when i first read it i thought tony was slamming me, but then i realized he was talking to marichiko. i'm a little slow but give me a few weeks and i usually catch on.
We tried that with you, and it only worked for a while.
See? I WARNED you what would happen, but NO--ooh, you just couldn't keep your little fingers off the keyboard, now could you? Now, see what you've done? :worried:
And they are conned thereby -- which isn't choice at all, but being defrauded. Tyrannies do their thing by force and by fraud, and are illegitimate governments to the degree that they do either. This is also known as browbeating by threats and killings. Libertarians understand this, but Bruce doesn't. Just because Bruce doesn't see this doesn't mean I'm in error. Which of us better grasps history will be seen in due course.
Here you in effect define free speech as that speech which agrees with you. Sorry, kiddo: my free speech is good for telling you in what manner and degree you are a tyrant-loving fellow-traveling booby, and no champion of human liberty. A reflexive contrarianism won't win you this, either; it paints you into absurd and untenable positions. Contrarianism is the property of trolls, and you know how much respect they get.
I am here to speak against tyranny. You are here to speak against me. That smart or what? Free adult human beings do not stick up for slavery, oppression, genocide, or the myriad villainies that are part and parcel of non-democratic regimes worldwide. Slavemongers and the slave-minded, however, will jump right in. They want the rest of us as messed up as they are.
Keep talking, the more you say the more you show how seriuosly fucked up you really are. Even Radar on his most rabid Libertarian rants never approached your level of wrong. Which reminds me, every other Libertarian tells me the constitution forbids us from using the armed forces for anything but defending our shores. Yet you want to go beat up every country that YOU don't approve of. I didn't know there is diametrically opposed Libertarians. :lol:
Tisk, tisk, tisk, Bruce. Poor Urbane Guerilla has probably only just now been de-instutionalized. I'm sure he's doing the best he can - waiting to use the internet terminal at the public library, trying to remember if he took his meds or not... Must be quite difficult, I'm sure. Oh, and let's not forget that he just climbed Mt. Everest, too. No doubt he is suffering from O2 deprivation and altitude sickness on top of everything else! :lol:
Oxygen deprivation humor from you, Mar? Isn't that sorta weirdly inappropriate?
i have tried like a motherfucker to ignore multichiko since she came back. i even had her on my ignore list, which i have never ever done before. but you fuckers keep talking to her. it really dissapoints me. i considered just forgetting about the cellar for a while, but thats a cop out. i cant put up with this any longer, cuz jinx keeps telling me how fucked up and annoying she is since she came back.
just shut up. shut up shut up shut up.
and you pricks that keep talking to her and participating in her sycophantic exchanges need to keep in mind that your stock drops with each of those posts.
One thing I have come to realize is that terrorism it not only fought with guns and bombs and violence, but with propaganda as well. These groups are big on this. From the videos of "executions," internet postings, all those videos and audio tapes put out by bin laden and al qaeda, even the claiming responsibility for attacks. They even use news agencies, both foreign and our own domestic outlets. I just read a news report that said insrugents handed out flyers in Haditha claiming they had killed 10 Marines and taken all their weapons. It's all propaganda whether it's true or not and they use it to bolster support for their cause and recuritment numbers. They use it for bragging rights. It gets everyone pumping their fists and chanting in the streets. I used to think that all we had to do is launch a propaganda war of our own, but I've come to realize that the everyday person over there is willing to listen any news as long as it's not from the U.S.
hey Jim? you just talked about her.
Ooh, he's got you there Jim, you did talk about her. Oh, now I've done it! There it is again!
context, please? did i miss a mari/lj flamewar?
Oxygen deprivation humor from you, Mar? Isn't that sorta weirdly inappropriate?
Why, not at all UT, it takes one to know one! :lol:
hey Jim? you just talked about her.
ABOUT....not
to. the difference matters
Somebody crazed enough to defend tyrannies everywhere, which is what you're too messed up to see you are doing, Bruce, telling me I'm a little off?-- my, my, that feels like a medal.
Peace at any price seems to be the standard you march under. I'm here to tell you slavery and oppression are worse than war, which is pretty much a given with the more vertebrate thinkers -- and the more vertebrate sort of libertarian, as well.
Since the kind of nations I disapprove of are uniformly totalitarian ones -- you wouldn't want to live under those regimes either, I don't think, not unless you have remarkably strong masochistic traits (I don't) -- it simply cannot be wrong that I would attack them, nor would it ever be wrong to make war upon such. The Communists used to misuse the term "war of national liberation," but the record so far is that it's the democracies, particularly the United States, that actually liberate -- by war with totalitarian systems. We have replaced totalitarian systems in two sizeable nations by warfare already: Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan have both been, in the end, improved. Even though each country got raked over pretty thoroughly, the improvement has stuck, even in a never-democratic place like Japan. Neither nation's political system precisely resembles the American, but I don't see they have to.
It seems you don't have much understanding of how umbrella a term "Libertarian" really is. That's just intellectually lazy: there are at least three major and separate streams of Libertarian philosophy: right-Libertarian, a very Jeffersonian lot; left-Libertarian, who seem to come at it from a free-love-and-legal-weed elderly-hippie platform; and the anarcho-Libertarian, who are perhaps the most radically anti-big-government of the lot, through being hostile to the very notion of any government at all -- though modified, I think, by experience. As you can tell, I'm no leftist, and I should mention that while the late Murray Rothbard was my first exposure to Libertarian thinking, I don't share his touchingly naive belief that anarchic social models are the answer to it all. That leaves the right-Libertarian, unless I can start a whole new, aggressive, brook-no-interference branch of the philosophy myself. Since I usually find myself agreeing with the kind of ideas, particularly in foreign policy, that the Republicans come up with, though unhappy with the Reps' enthusiasm for a great big state and debasing the currency by inflation, I figure I'm a right-Libertarian.
It's something like this: if libertarian ideas of proper governance are to spread beyond the borders of the United States, those holding these ideas are going to be subject to repression by the statist thugs of the very nations that need libertarianism the most: the autocracies, the oligarchies, the totalitarian regimes. They must be prepared to resist that oppression. Moral suasion isn't going to do it, as we all know, since such thugs aren't there to open a panel discussion about the issues, and the thugs employed by such states basically aren't going to have a place in the society the libertarians wish to make, certainly not as thugs. So we libertarians must be prepared to countenance violence, and revolution, and to be more efficient at it than the tyrannies can be. The slavemonger revolutionaries have managed successful accession to power by such revolution, and their strategies are well known. Why can't these strategies be turned to the aid of making open and free societies instead of closed national slave-pens?
Oh, and those Libertarians who alleged to you the Constitution forbids war save in the most narrowly defined understanding of "defensive?" They cannot point to any Constitutional clause that says that -- certainly not in Article I, Section 8, 11-16.
Marichiko? Sorry, but sane has never been and never shall be defined as "agrees with Marichiko." Nor is insane defined to the contrary.
You are very young, and you are very immature. Only time will cure that. I can offer a hint: don't compete with Jaguar for the top prize in the fatuity category.
UG, what we here at the Cellar have deteremined, through a very lengthy process taking years, is that big-L and small-l libertarians of every stripe are an extremely anti-social lot.
This has little to do with political theory, although it has a great deal to do with politics.
I count myself as anti-social but also in the process of learning how to deal with it.
Hey Urbane G, I'm curious to know how you score on the political compass.
Here's the thread, so we don't hijack this one.
What started as a refreshing counterpoint to liberal diarrhea is starting to sound a wee pompous and...dare I say it...trollish. Make thy mark, UG, that we may know what flavor of lunatic you are. (I'm a republicanarchist).
You are very young, and you are very immature. Only time will cure that. I can offer a hint: don't compete with Jaguar for the top prize in the fatuity category.
Flattery will get you nowhere, UG. Yeah, I'm doing my best to fill Jaguar's shoes until his return when I will then defer to the "greater master." :p
Well, yeah, Undertoad -- we're the antisocialists! Only stands to Reason -- the magazine.
Noodle, cool. Haven't looked at it just yet, but is this "The World's Shortest Political Quiz," with the diamond-shaped board? I landed in the upper-mid portion of it, last time I tried it.
Looks like a variation on that Shortest Political Quiz idea.
Economic Left/Right 6.0, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian -2.46
Tolja I was a right-Libertarian. That's the quadrant I fall into.
Here's the problem UG. Statism is statism whether you're arguing for hammocks for the homeless or a large mushroom cloud over Tehran, you are growing government power and reducing freedom here, in the country we supposedly control. We have built a spectacular socialist enterprise in our military and among military contractors. There is also the interesting problem in the mid-east where given the opportunity the locals will vote for oppression (I guess we do that here on a regular basis as well). If Iraqis wanted to be free they would have offed Hussein a long time ago. 1800 dead American soldiers for an Islamic Democracy allied with Iran, are you really happy with that outcome? Our involvement gives aid and comfort to the enemies of freedom by increasing their recruitment exponentially. Bush will have to hit a lot more boy scout jamborees if he wants enough carcasses for that meat grinder. Watch carefully as the Republicans slowly realize what a CF this is and begin to pull back their support. I'd hate to see a nominal libertarian left defending Bush when his impeachment should be a shoe-in.
Impeachment? Nobody gets impeached for winning a war, nor should they; and no one here should seek to lose this war. I have never seen a real reason to treat GWB as the enemy (I've heard a great many that don't cut it); it's those anti-libertarian tyrants we are fighting, after all. They are not the stumblefucks we should surrender to. And do you see anybody at all trying to bust Saddam out? For his sins, he's going to get fairly tried, by Iraqis, and then get hanged and it couldn't happen to a nicer and more deserving guy.
And do you see anybody at all trying to bust Saddam out? For his sins, he's going to get fairly tried, by Iraqis, and then get hanged and it couldn't happen to a nicer and more deserving guy.
Nope, they have a new bunch of tyrants scrambling for the top. They don't need the old one.
Even if we win we lose. We'll never make friends in that part of the world by dropping bombs. We'll lose the PR campaign every time. Our past association with tyrants makes that impossible.
The foreign nutjob terrorists are overplaying their hand right now and there will be an Iraqi backlash but it will pay no dividends to us.
Bush really did lie about Saddams WMD development, to justify his war, and that should lead to his impeachment.
For his sins, he's going to get fairly tried, by Iraqis, and then get hanged and it couldn't happen to a nicer and more deserving guy.
And the next one...and the next one.....and the.... :cool:
Impeachment? Nobody gets impeached for winning a war, nor should they;
No, but maybe they should be impeached for starting one uneccesarily.
From Nuremberg
The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility:
(a) CRIMES AGAINST PEACE: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;
Has a 'winner' ever been successfully tried? Probably not.
Impeachment? Nobody gets impeached for winning a war, nor should they; and no one here should seek to lose this war.
If we have won the war, why do we continue to send troops over there to be killed?
So, what if Bush were to send tanks into Canada just because he can and killed a bunch of Canadian non-combatants and the Canadians surrendered? A president shouldn't be impeached for such an act? What if Hitler had won in WWII? Would that automatically make him a good guy? History is certainly written by the victors, but I think your rhetoric is lacking in coherance and logic. A bad tempered outlook of "kill 'em all" does not make you a patriot, but, rather, a fool.
Impeachment? Nobody gets impeached for winning a war, nor should they; and no one here should seek to lose this war. I have never seen a real reason to treat GWB as the enemy
Should a leader be tried if he builds weapons of mass destruction, uses those weapons in defense of his country, and loses the war? If the leader was told he was going to be attacked, and did not build those WMDs, then clearly he would be the enemy of his country - deserve to be impeached or assassinated.
Meanwhile Iran is doing just that - building WMDs because George Jr all but said we will invade Iran. And yet George Jr calls the Iranian leader evil for only doing what he must do for his country.
You tell me. Is that Iranian leader evil or is he good? Because he actually does what Saddam only threatened, then does this Iranian leader deserve to be attacked, captured, and put on trial like Saddam for using WMDs on invading American troops? You tell me where morality lies? Who then is the good and who then is the evil one?
I think this guy is making a play for some of the leftover virgins. Either that, or he's just an unmitigated fucktard who uses his freedom and democratic privilege to wage verbal war against the countries whose teats he suckles from.
Who is this fuckhead Galloway anyway? What's an "MP?"
Galloway said a lot of the right things when he was before congress a while back.
That doesn't mean he's not an asshat though.
The guy is big on hyperbole, I'll grant - not that you would know anything about that subject, Mr. N! ;) Mr Galloway also claimed "the insurgents were ordinary Iraqis defending their country against foreign invaders." There's something to be said for that, let's face it. The US is a foreign country, we did invade Iraq. These two things are true. Many Iraqi's did lose innocent, civilian family members in the US invasion. The Iraqi's act to retaliate against us for this. There IS that component.
Mr Galloway also claimed "the insurgents were ordinary Iraqis defending their country against foreign invaders." There's something to be said for that, let's face it. The US is a foreign country, we did invade Iraq.
The insurgents are the ordinary Iraqis defending their country. The terrorists are the people from other countries who came to take potshots at convenient Americans. Both types are there.
Not that I think that's what Galloway was saying.
The insurgents are the ordinary Iraqis defending their country. The terrorists are the people from other countries who came to take potshots at convenient Americans. Both types are there.
Not that I think that's what Galloway was saying.
There
is a large majority of insurgents that are coming in from other countries. This no longer makes them defending thier country, but idiots trying to play the ultimate game of "dirt clod war."
Marichiko is straining much too hard to find an evil, any evil, in what is really a great good: removing the threat presented us by bigots and religious fanatics -- which threat is the greater if it is raised up in a non-democracy. Nondemocratic social orders are prone to wars, wars by proxy (terrorist movements, deniable with varying plausibility by the ruling circles) and extremism. Fomenting democracies in the midst of this cauldron of troubles is the best chance we have of making Islamoterrorism go extinct. Is this really any harder to follow than rocket science?
If Marichiko keeps straining like that, she risks losing an intestine. The result may be good for making the roses grow, but beyond that... tsk tsk tsk.
Marichiko is straining much too hard to find an evil, any evil, in what is really a great good: removing the threat presented us by bigots and religious fanatics -- which threat is the greater if it is raised up in a non-democracy. Nondemocratic social orders are prone to wars, wars by proxy (terrorist movements, deniable with varying plausibility by the ruling circles) and extremism. Fomenting democracies in the midst of this cauldron of troubles is the best chance we have of making Islamoterrorism go extinct.
If Marichiko keeps straining like that, she risks losing an intestine.
I don't ever think of was as a 'great good'. At it's best, war is an unpleasant neccesity. Also, most countries which invaded other countries in the past 100 years did so to 'liberate' those countries. There are a lot of justifications, and most of them only seem to be believed inside the borders of the invading country.
Iraq is either a $200+ billion mistake based on faulty intelligence or the result of a conspiracy. The fact that we are attempting nation building is supposed to be a side issue to the
real reason for the war.
The men and women who are making the sacrifices in Iraq today are doing so because they took and oath and trusted their leaders to use them as a last resort.
Will it be worth it? It will be while before we know. Was it a great good? If the entire Iraqi population could have voted for the invasion, would they have? We never gave them the chance to do so, and we will never know.
As for a great good, ask the parents of a dead child if the price was right.
removing the threat presented us by bigots and religious fanatics --
That is
not what we are doing in Iraq. Hussein was a tinpot dictator, but he was a secular one. He tortured people for purely personal and/or political reasons. The bigots and religious fanatics are the ones who are now preparing to write sharia law into the Iraqi Constitution.
Nondemocratic social orders are prone to wars, wars by proxy (terrorist movements, deniable with varying plausibility by the ruling circles) and extremism.
Why, that's what the US has been doing for decades! Good point. We do need to work on improving our democracy.
"We (the USA?) never gave them a chance"? Sorry, Rich, that was all Saddam's doing, as you know perfectly well. Now why in Hell didn't you have the honesty to so state?
"Ask the parents of a dead child"? Ask our dead soldiers' parents. You, Rich, will be surprised, indeed, shocked and awed, at the affirmative responses you will receive. If you have the moral courage to essay it.
My commitment to human liberty is not rattled by casualties. Not by any casualties in any amount -- for I know what freedom is worth, and know whose blood is shed to water Liberty's tree. You, OTOH, seem to know something of the cost, but not of the worth. You could stand to take a leaf from my book. I doubt you have the courage to manage it, but it would rid you of the moral cowardice I see in your position here.
I believe liberty is every bit as good for Yusuf al-Iraqi as it is for Joe Sixpack. Liberty is good for humans, and last I checked, Iraq was chiefly inhabited by humans.
Will the Shi'ite majority become politically dominant in Iraq? Very likely. It will turn out all right as long as the rights and liberties of the Sunni, Kurdish, and Christian minorities are carefully safeguarded, checking and balancing any crudities, crassnesses, or oppression the numerical majority might be tempted to enact.
Is it yet guaranteed to happen this way? No, but I'll tell you what was guaranteed: that life under a strongman rule would continue to suck, between economic distortion (few dictators ever seem to understand economics) and oppression (dictatorships always oppress, to a greater or lesser degree).
That is not what we are doing in Iraq. Hussein was a tinpot dictator, but he was a secular one. He tortured people for purely personal and/or political reasons. . .
I don't think you're looking into it deeply enough, Happy. To make Islamoterrorism go extinct, you need to eliminate
all of its breeding grounds, which means all of the non-democracies in the Arabic-speaking world, and then further, in all the Islamic world. A large task, true, but not necessarily impossible, except to the mind that finds freedom too great a strain. Iraq was one such breeding ground, and the case of al-Zarqawi getting surgery from Saddam's Iraq, connected to al-Qaeda quite closely enough for me. And what country was it that harbored Carlos the Jackal, before snuffing him just before the 2003 invasion in case he inconvenienced somebody like Saddam by talking? Saddam's Iraq was in it up to their collective neck, people, and from first principles, not because we shot at them. We'd not have shot at them if they hadn't been in it already.
To amplify: there's no particular wrong in taking the weakest dictatorship down first, and it's already been shown
ad nauseam that if our Middle East policy were solely about oil, such a policy would have been singularly ill served by our giving the Rumaila oilfield right back to Iraq just as soon as we could walk our boots and roll our tanks off it.
We want these nations to stop behaving like shitheads, and since we don't particularly wish to exterminate all their inhabitants, democratization sounds like the best bet. Will these democracies precisely resemble the US? Don't bet on it; these will always have an Arab accent to them, or their populaces will choke on them -- and go back to some shitheaded manner of society. I'd call that unacceptable, wouldn't you?
Why, that's what the US has been doing for decades! Good point. We do need to work on improving our democracy.
Monkey, that's a damned dishonest spin to put on our effort to fight against tyrannies. Just because we temporarily fail to fight against one tyrant does not make illegitimate removing and hanging another, and you know that perfectly well. I mean, how could it? The above example of leftist-think is a good example of just why I am no sort of leftist: their thoughts are stupid, and they do not satisfy. Also, I'm too old, and have grown up too far, to be a leftist, or be taken in by their cant, or their
can'ts.
Level with me, can't you? Isn't this less because its being done at all than it is because it's a Republican doing it? The Democrats haven't presented a President capable of getting this done since Johnson, and he blew it. The record of the last two generations shows the Republicans, on getting this kind of chance, don't blow it. Who's got the winning record here?
I posit myself as a fairly neutral observer of this partisan wrassle, being of the Libertarian persuasion.
"We (the USA?) never gave them a chance"? Sorry, Rich, that was all Saddam's doing, as you know perfectly well. Now why in Hell didn't you have the honesty to so state?
The US backed Saddam as long as we had a use for him. Why don't you have the honesty to admit this?
"Ask the parents of a dead child"? Ask our dead soldiers' parents. You, Rich, will be surprised, indeed, shocked and awed, at the affirmative responses you will receive. If you have the moral courage to essay it.
Nah, UG, you're the one who lacks the moral courage to ask. I am extremely proud of my career military father's 30 years of service to this country. I was angrier than hell that he had to go risk his life doing two tours of duty in 'Nam - a foolish politician's war, if there ever was one. I'd be angry if he had to go fight in Iraq today. My friend whose husband has orders to go to Iraq in October is angry. The E3's and E4's I've talked to who have had to do 2 or 3 stints in Iraq are angry. Try to get an active duty soldier to say what he thinks about Iraq for the record. They'll be a member of JAG standing just behind his left elbow to make sure he says the right thing.
My commitment to human liberty is not rattled by casualties. Not by any casualties in any amount -- for I know what freedom is worth, and know whose blood is shed to water Liberty's tree. You, OTOH, seem to know something of the cost, but not of the worth. You could stand to take a leaf from my book. I doubt you have the courage to manage it, but it would rid you of the moral cowardice I see in your position here.
Why don't you just crawl back into the pages of Soldier of Fortune with all those other gung ho nuts who never have seen combat? Were you with the tanks in the first wave of assault in Desert Storm? Were you in the jungle during the Tet offensive? Have you been in a fire fight in Iraq? Most soldiers who have seen actual combat don't write like you do. Tell us what branch you served in, what was your rank, and in what engagements were you under direct enemy fire. What campaign ribbons do you have, what military honors and citations? Tell us what its like to be on the "FEBA" and no fair copying out of someone else's memoirs.
I don't need to burst a gut. You provide more than enough manure around here.
I proudly bear two awards Navy Expeditionary Medal, as I've said before -- stupid of you to forget, isn't it? I've got nine years' more military service than you do, Marichiko, in the United States Navy. I served in the Naval Security Group and made Cryptologic Technician (Interpretive) First Class -- I made my living speaking, reading, and writing Russian. My first award of the Navy Expeditionary was for service in support of the Iranian hostage rescue mission, the second for secretive doings off the shore of a then-hostile nation, further north.
So I'm not going to crawl back into anywhere, you squealing little lightweight. You haven't done any of this, and I've got your number: you've got a flapping jaw and a foolish hatred for the United States and that's all, unless you count a correspondingly foolish love for tyrants as an asset. I wouldn't.
You actually show a ray of hope in that you "don't need to bust a gut." Good: stop doing what you don't need to, then. This will help you be something other than purblind and immature. I'd rather deal with a better Marichiko than the one I'm seeing.
In other words, you were a spook for the navy who never saw real combat. I rest my case.
The US backed Saddam as long as we had a use for him. Why don't you have the honesty to admit this?
Ah but I do: I recall our giving intelligence support to Iraq when they were shooting at Iran, with whom we ourselves were all but at war with at the time. This strategy worked pretty well, too: set one asshole regime to bleed another monstrous regiment of assholes, and you end up with both these troublemakers seriously weakened. We took the anti-American zip right out of Iranian policymaking -- military-age kids are terrorist-age kids too, and since neither Iran nor Iraq were any too brilliant at fighting that war, that demographic got bled white, particularly in Iran -- and that was just what we needed.
Set a gangsterish dictator to strangle a fanatical absolutist mullah -- tough to find the downside.
As an aside, why do you think that was an answer to the actual question I posed, Marichiko? Immaturity cropping up again? Sorry, but I have zero patience with unrighteousness pretending to righteous wrath. I have this minor flaw: I resent being lied to.
Set a gangsterish dictator to strangle a fanatical absolutist mullah -- tough to find the downside.
Think about that seriously for 10 seconds. Why do they hate us? Just like all authoritarian types you ignore what really happens to the people you play your games with.
...for the navy...
Hey, hey, hey!
Lay off the navy or I'm gonna come over there and we'll have a
real slap fight! :worried:
Mar only respects the military branch her dear ol' dad was in. Don't you know that? It helps to know where people are coming from, TS. I don't think she served in ANY branch, though.
Hey, hey, hey!
Lay off the navy or I'm gonna come over there and we'll have a real slap fight! :worried:
Did I say anything against the Navy? No. My point was merely that UG seems to have been more involved in covert type operations rather than battlefield situations. I would have made the same comments if he had said he was a Russian language specialist and cryptographer for the Army or Air Force. The men who serve and have served in the Navy are as honorable and brave as any other members of our Armed Forces. I write of men (and women) who serve in the US Army and Air Force because these are the people I know first hand. My father served in the Army, as did a close friend of mine. My father's brother, my uncle Leland, served in the NAVY in WWII and saw action in some of the great naval battles of that war. I respected my Uncle Leland as much as I did my Dad. There is a large Army base where I live and the Air Force Academy is located here, also. The last I heard, there are no naval bases located in Colorado, in case no one has noticed.
Mar only respects the military branch her dear ol' dad was in. Don't you know that? It helps to know where people are coming from, TS. I don't think she served in ANY branch, though.
Wrong on the first part, correct on the second. I did actually talk with a NAVAL recruiter back in the 70's and give serious though to enlisting with the Navy. However, I wanted to go in as an officer and they told me I needed to finish my degree before they would consider allowing me to enlist and go through officer's candidate school. By time I finished my degree, I had gotten married and my life took a different direction. :p
Did I say anything against the Navy?
Joke, dear, joke.
That's what the smiley and the mention of a slap fight were to indicate.
I know, TS. My response was directed more at another poster, Meow! ;)
I know, TS. My response was directed more at another poster, Meow! ;)
I've just been so sensitive today. Just a heavy day I guess.
I know, TS. My response was directed more at another poster, Meow! ;)
You should simply say what you mean. Then there aren't any misinterpretations--which can be deadly. :rattat: "you said my mother wore
what?! " that type of thing.
Oh, and by the way,
what did you say about my mother..?
Wench.
I don't think you're looking into it deeply enough, Happy. To make Islamoterrorism go extinct, you need to eliminate all of its breeding grounds, which means all of the non-democracies in the Arabic-speaking world, and then further, in all the Islamic world.
Actually, the terrorist breeding-grounds are
every country in the world. Pre-war Iraq wasn't much (if at all) worse than average in that regard, and it was lower than pretty much all of its neighbors.
Monkey, that's a damned dishonest spin to put on our effort to fight against tyrannies. Just because we temporarily fail to fight against one tyrant does not make illegitimate removing and hanging another, and you know that perfectly well.
Did I say anything about temporarily failing to fight? The US has actively supported tyrannies and terrorist organization both publically and behind the scenes for decades.
Level with me, can't you? Isn't this less because its being done at all than it is because it's a Republican doing it?
No.
The Democrats haven't presented a President capable of getting this done since Johnson, and he blew it. The record of the last two generations shows the Republicans, on getting this kind of chance, don't blow it. Who's got the winning record here?
Clinton, I guess, by your definition. Bush I left Saddam in power, and the current Bush is putting the Sharia Law people in power in Iraq and Afghanistan. The war Clinton was involved in was successful, had no US casualties, and didn't trash the country involved.
Oh, and by the way, what did you say about my mother..?
Wench.
Yer Mamma wears combat boots! :apistola: :lol:
So I've read pretty much most of te posts in this thread and have concluded that y'all really haven't concluded much, other than terrorists are bad, m'kay?
On understanding terrorists... Why complicate it by assuming their justifications and then poking holes in them? There are no justifications, there are no good reasons to perpetrate suicide bombings and inflicting injury, mayhem, and death on innocent civilians. Trying to involve U.S. policy in the cause and effect of terrorism is just plain stupid. It shouldn't matter if every 'Murican pissed on the Koran and called Allah a pig farker. There's really no rational, sane reason to do what these nut cases are doing.
Try understanding folks that target men, women, and children alike in their attacks. Can you honestly even begin to get your head around that? I sure can't and the first thing I feel is dispair when I even try. The next thing I feel is a desire to protect mine and myself from these folks, even if it means supporting military action, which is just so contrary to my character.
Ultimately, I think it is the goal of these terrorists to cause these mental disruptions and psychic traumas. It's one hell of a tactic and used only both folks I'd label as evil.
kudos, Mouse. I agree. But now tw is going to regale us with some really convoluted shit about...well, you'll see.
Indeed, its allll about the details here sometimes :smack:
:beer: urbane guerrilla.
you know you aren't going to win this argument, though. your opponents don't accept any position that isn't anti-US. before opening your big mouth in the future, make sure your argument is based on the following suppositions:
(1) No religion is extreme except Christianity (as practiced by whitey)*
(2) All conflicts are, directly or indirectly, caused by the USA.
(3) Because of (2), if we are attacked, we are NOT to respond. We are to humbly cast our gaze upon the poor, pillaged Earth that our white people ruined, and try to understand why our enemies are so mad at us. Once we've determined our error, we must (humbly) beseech the United Nations to intervene on our behalf and determine what measures we must take to ensure that the offended party will no longer have reason to hate us.
(4) jaguar is a pinko, so even if you abide by points 1-3, you're still wrong. Your only recourse is to say 8 Hail Karls while masturbating furiously over a burning American flag.
* — Blacks are allowed by libs to be Christian, because they are better at singing gospel music (vocal ad-libs, matchy robes, swaying), and because Martin Luther King was a preacher.
Man, Mr. Noodle, this is too true and a daily source of so much frustration for me. When the hell did folks get so dogmatic about their thinking? Personally, I attribute it to laziness. It seems to be easier to be a lock-step hater or even, for that matter, a lock-step ass-puppet for whatever Authority has to say. (Sorry, can I say 'ass-puppet?' I'm new and don't want to offend.) I'd love to know when everything became to black and white or, currently, red and blue.
(Sorry, can I say 'ass-puppet?' I'm new and don't want to offend.)
Don't worry about offending anyone here.. its a daily thing. Just as long as you can back up what you say, or just fart and leave like Bruce suggests :fart:
My commitment to human liberty is not rattled by casualties. Not by any casualties in any amount -- for I know what freedom is worth, and know whose blood is shed to water Liberty's tree. You, OTOH, seem to know something of the cost, but not of the worth. You could stand to take a leaf from my book. I doubt you have the courage to manage it, but it would rid you of the moral cowardice I see in your position here.
So tell us how democracy is flourishing in Vietnam. We literally used every military resource (except nuclear) to democratize a country that did not want nor would fight for democracy. Instead they wanted independence. So clearly your vision of liberty is proven by Vietnam.
Clearly democracy is flourishing in Haiti where democracy is also being forced upon the nation. And Somalia?
By now one can appreciate why enlisted men are both dumb and directed. We need such cannon fodder in the front lines. But the lessons of history are lost on these militaristic types. No problem. Knowing why would only keep them from grasping their enlisted man job.
A nation cannot have liberty and democracy forced upon it. That nation must earn those rights. Only fools still claim that the US can force democracy on nations such as in the Middle East and Central Asia. Fools who fail to first learn basic history or even the purpose of war.
Fools said we would save Vietnam when it did not want to be saved. And so those fools even lied to us until they were exposed by the Pentagon Papers. Urbane Guerrilla talks just like Gen William Westmoreland. He would have fit perfectly in late 1960s America - when America foolishly thought we could force democracy and liberty on other nations. When smarter people said Westmoreland, et al were wrong, Urbane Guerrilla types would then insult the better educated. Somehow insults and claims of military service are a replacement for knowledge, education, and intelligence. Deja Vue.
I once thought Americans would learn from the mistakes of Vietnam. Apparently enlisted men need not learn history. They just know better. It explains why enlisted men are not officers. Officers are now required to learn the lessons of history.
It explains why enlisted men are not officers. Officers are now required to learn the lessons of history.
good thing tw never stoops to insulting people. UG is ridiculous in his assumptions and arguments, but tw - you know this is an asinine statement.
1) a 12 week "officer candidate school" is all that separates the enlisted from the officers in many cases when you acknowledge that a very high percentage of enlisted have at least a bachelor's and many have advanced degrees.
2) If officers are required to learn the lessons of history and officers are the decision makers, how could the mistake of repeating history be made?
"We (the USA?) never gave them a chance"? Sorry, Rich, that was all Saddam's doing, as you know perfectly well. Now why in Hell didn't you have the honesty to so state?
"Ask the parents of a dead child"? Ask our dead soldiers' parents. You, Rich, will be surprised, indeed, shocked and awed, at the affirmative responses you will receive. If you have the moral courage to essay it.
My commitment to human liberty is not rattled by casualties. Not by any casualties in any amount -- for I know what freedom is worth, and know whose blood is shed to water Liberty's tree. You, OTOH, seem to know something of the cost, but not of the worth. You could stand to take a leaf from my book. I doubt you have the courage to manage it, but it would rid you of the moral cowardice I see in your position here.
You mean like these
parents of soldiers?
You claim to have been in the Navy. You must remember your oath. I was never in uniform, but I also took an oath to 'support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies'.
The 'Constitution of the United States', not the Constitution of Iraq. If we really wanted to invade Iraq and commit to nation building, then by all means make the case and ask for volunteers. The men and women in Iraq are doing their jobs as well as they can considering how truly *&(*ed up the planning for this war was. They are abiding by their oath, which also says that they will obey the President. This does not mean that they should be there or that they even think that they should be there. It was the job of Congress and the President to decide when to deploy them and how to support them and they royally screwed up.
If a bunch of gung ho idiots are really up for 'freeing the world', then they should reenlist and let the soldiers who have done their tour and just want to come home do so.
You show me a real, credible threat to this country and I will fight it. Getting cranked up from watching too much GOP TV and getting a hard-on to take on the world is a waste of my time.
I'd love to take a leaf from your book, but I don't read crayon too well.
BTW, if you have a complaint, you can ask for me by name, my real name. I use it to back up every post that I make. How's that for moral courage, Mr. Urbane?
Actually, I really don't need an answer. There are people on the Cellar who I disagree with who I still have a lot of respect for. Their opinions matter to me. Considering the tone, manner, and content of your posts, I think a dialogue with one of Wolf's tenants would probably be more productive than anything you could generate, assuming you are a real person and not a pseudonym of some Cellarite picking the most outlandish personality to stir up trouble. You just seem a little too one-dimensional, Mr. Urbane.
If you are indeed real, your prayers have been answered and there's a war on. Don't let us keep you from your nearest recruiting station.
Considering the tone, manner, and content of your posts, I think a dialogue with one of Wolf's tenants would probably be more productive than anything you could generate, assuming you are a real person and not a pseudonym of some Cellarite picking the most outlandish personality to stir up trouble. You just seem a little too one-dimensional, Mr. Urbane.
Gosh, maybe Urbane Guerilla is really Slang! :worried:
TW, where your argument fails is that we are not, contrary to your claim, "forcing democracy" on anyone, as we know that doesn't work very well. What the military force we apply does do is to remove the obstacle to democracy a tyrannical regime presents, by pulverizing the regime, or in Iraq's case, less pulverizing than sublimating: it evaporated in front of us.
While Vietnam may not at this time have democracy, we can take comfort in that it really doesn't have Communism either, big C or small, except as a sort of state religion you're supposed to believe in if you want a job in government. On the streets it's capitalism and small businesses.
Turning to Richlevy: most of the rest of your arguments, sir, are and likely will remain the preposterous rationalizations of those who want this war against tyrants who would prefer oppressing us to leaving us alone to be lost, immediately, and at any cost. I have nil respect for such people and such opinions; America should win her wars. Is there something so wrong in this?
Widebody jetliners into large buildings is a credible threat, to anyone who comprehends credible threats. Why would anyone set the bar higher? You will not be able to answer this question, Rich; I know your sort. Handwaving about a waste of your time is ridiculous, and a rationalization for the moral cowardice you daily offend with. Phooey! You will sidestep, dance, expostulate, obfuscate, and evade. What you won't do is fight terrorism nor tyranny -- which constitute threats to the Constitution and the several States to which we've both sworn. Too much a waste of your precious, inviolable time. Wow.
This is why my manner indicates contempt. You can't back up the convictions your post says you hold, name or no name. If you think my book is crayon (not that you believe even that), you think terribly poorly, which is par for the antiwar types in here. They may satisfy themselves with their "reasons" to undermine and fail at this war on tyranny -- but their reasons don't satisfy me.
The recruiting stations stop taking them at thirty-nine, and I've got more military time and decorations than you do anyway, as you admit. So Phooey again; your bleatings don't impress.
You've done a fine job of making yourself the issue for a couple of posts, but this is an end to it. We now return to the matter of terrorism, and its proper excision.
Marichiko, you just don't want to understand that Slang apparently is not alone in certain opinions. If you're going to make jokes, use smilier smilies or I'm likely to assume you're being as straightfaced as I am.
Marichiko, you just don't want to understand that Slang apparently is not alone in certain opinions. If you're going to make jokes, use smilier smilies or I'm likely to assume you're being as straightfaced as I am.
Now there is a terrifying thought, indeed. Hopefully, they won't be letting you out any time too soon, and I refuse to smile when I write this.
While Vietnam may not at this time have democracy, we can take comfort in that it really doesn't have Communism either, big C or small, except as a sort of state religion you're supposed to believe in if you want a job in government. On the streets it's capitalism and small businesses.
WE who, white boy? I sit at The Wall in DC, trace my fingers on certain names etched in stone, never to hear that man's voice again, never to see his smile, and I am to take comfort in the thought that some street vendor in Saigon is selling wrist watches made in China? Sorry, pal. The soldiers who gave their lives deserve better than that cheap plastic watch sold in the name of the state religion of ANYTHING, be it communism, Mohammed, or Jesus. Nope, thats not what my Dad and my friends fought for (and some died for) during the Tet Offensive, or any other encounter in that miserable, sorry excuse of a waste of American lives. How dare you make so light of their sacrifices?
Widebody jetliners into large buildings is a credible threat, to anyone who comprehends credible threats. Why would anyone set the bar higher?
Excellent question. Go to the head of the class! Where is Bin Laden? Iraq? BBBZZZZZT! WRONG! Of what family is Bin Laden from? Saddam's? Nope, wrong again. Go to the back of the class, after all. WHY AREN'T WE GOING AFTER BIN LADEN? HELLO? AS someone who was involved in military intelligence and covert ops, aren't you the slightest bit puzzled over what the hell we are doing in Iraq? Give me a break, if we were going to invade ANY country in retribution for 9/11, would it not be Saudi Arabia? Is not Bin Laden a member of the House of Saud? When is the last time the Saudi's had a democratic election to pick out their king, since you are so worried about democracy, hmmmm? Its as if after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, we decided to declare war on New Zealand. What the hell? Close enough!
This is why my manner indicates contempt. You can't back up the convictions your post says you hold, name or no name. If you think my book is crayon (not that you believe even that), you think terribly poorly, which is par for the antiwar types in here. They may satisfy themselves with their "reasons" to undermine and fail at this war on tyranny -- but their reasons don't satisfy me.
Took the very words out of my mouth. You cannot back up your convictions. You advocate a generalized blood bath which does nothing to bring to justice the perp behind 9/11, you tell us Vietnam was a worthy sacrifice of American lives because some street vendor over there gets to sell a couple of bannana's, and you complain of failing "at this war on tyranny." NO SHIT SHERLOCK! Try going after the tyrants for a change, how about? Granted, Saddam was a tyrant, but the fucking world is chock full of tyrants! The US neither can nor should go out to war against all of them. The proper function of the military in a DEMOCRACY is to defend the country's own borders. Did the Iraqi's send the planes into those towers? Hello? NO! WHY AREN'T WE GOING AFTER THE TYRANT RESPONSIBLE FOR ATTACKING OUR COUNTRY??????????????????????
I'm waiting, Mr. Democracy, and why the hell don't you put your body where your mouth is and go fight some Iraqi "insurgents," since you are so god damn gung ho about killing prople? Go kill 'em already, why are you wasting your time
here?
TW, where your argument fails is that we are not, contrary to your claim, "forcing democracy" on anyone, as we know that doesn't work very well.
The US government demands that Iraq have their constitution written and approved by 15 August. That sounds exactly like forcing a government down their throats. Furthermore, the US government has put restrictions on what can and cannot be in that constitution.
Meanwhile, history demonstrates that when democracy is pushed down their throats, bad things like Civil War occur. Brent Scowcroft (a closest friend of George Sr) was discussing this as a real possibility maybe one year ago. Now reporters in the 'field' are reporting civil war as a more likely consideration with each month.
The Kurdish leader Massoud Barzani is recently been quoted saying, "the Kurdish people have the right to secede.''
Meanwhile, one of the underlying themes from the founding members of "Project for a New American Century" was to fix the Middle East and Central Asia; to impose democratic structures on these nations. Those are underlying concepts behind pre-emption. We will fix these people because they cannot fix themselves. Stable democratic governments do not occur when those governments are unilaterally imposed by an exterior force. We even tried to do that in Vietnam. All we ended up with was the most corrupt government in the region. Furthermore, we ended up destabilizing governments in adjacent nations.
Liberty and democracy cannot be imposed. The people must sweat and bleed to eventually 'earn' their own government. If democracy is so good, then democracy will occur naturally. But a democracy imposed on a nation just will not work. George Jr is trying to impose democracy upon Iraq. America has even issued deadlines. Next on the list: Iran.
One of the underlying principles behind "Project for a New American Century" is pre-emption - to unilaterally force a change upon them. In fact, many of the most right wing members of this group have openly called for imposing democracatic institutions on these nations.
America is trying to impose democracy, in part, because the George Jr administration was surprised that democracy did not happen in the first seven months after "Mission Accomplished" was declared. The George Jr administration's own principles just assumed democracy would spring up when the people were liberated. They failed to learn the lessons of history. Those people must take the first steps to liberate themselves. In Iraq, they did not. America is forcing changes upon them - complete with deadlines.
1) a 12 week "officer candidate school" is all that separates the enlisted from the officers in many cases when you acknowledge that a very high percentage of enlisted have at least a bachelor's and many have advanced degrees.
Could you define "very high percentage", my bullshit detector is spazing? :eyebrow:
Meanwhile, to understand terrorism, then appreciate how the administration may be changing its tune - having learned that the "Mission Accomplished" war is winable ... just like Vietnam. This from Billy Kristol, one of the 40 founders (including Rumsfeld) of "Project for a New American Century":
Bush v. Rumsfeld
Until a few months ago, Bush administration officials refused to speculate on a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. They criticized those who did talk about withdrawing, arguing that such talk would encourage the terrorists, discourage our friends, and make it harder to win over waverers who wanted to be assured that we would be there to help. The administration's line was simply that we were going to stay the course in Iraq, do what it takes, and win.
The president still tends to say this. But not Defense Department civilian officials, who have recently been willing to indicate a desire to get out, and sooner rather than later. After all, Rumsfeld has said, insurgencies allegedly take a decade or so to defeat. What's more, our presence gives those darned Iraqi allies of ours excuses not to step up to the plate. So let's get a government elected under the new Iraqi constitution, and accelerate our plans to get the troops home. As Rumsfeld said Thursday, "once Iraq is safely in the hands of the Iraqi people and a government that they elect under a new constitution that they are now fashioning, and which should be completed by August 15, our troops will be able to, as the capability of the Iraqi security forces evolve, pass over responsibility to them and then come home." The key "metric" is finding enough Iraqis to whom we can turn over the responsibility for fighting--not defeating the terrorists.
As Newsweek reported last week: "Now the conditions for U.S. withdrawal no longer include a defeated insurgency, Pentagon sources say. The new administration mantra is that the insurgency can be beaten only politically, by the success of Iraq's new government. Indeed, Washington is now less concerned about the insurgents than the unwillingness of Iraq's politicians to make compromises for the sake of national unity. Pentagon planners want to send a spine-stiffening message: the Americans won't be there forever."
But not-so-well-hidden under the pseudo-tough talk of "spine-stiffening" is the inescapable whiff of weakness and defeatism. Rumsfeld either doesn't believe we can win, or doesn't think we can maintain political support for staying, or doesn't believe winning is worth the cost. So we're getting out, under cover of talking about how "political progress is necessary to defeat the insurgency."
Bruce i haven't seen a report in about a year but i will look around and see if i can dig one up, when i get a chance.
by "very high percentage" i don't mean 90% or anything close. keep in mind that a large number of enlisted are only 1-3 years out of high school. i should have been more specific in my statement, because i was referring to the NCO's and career enlisted. for instance, I am at the base for duty right now. as i look around this unit (we are a little top heavy in my area) i see 3 LT Col's 1 has a Doctorate, 1 a master's, 1 a bachelors. there is 1 major with a bachelor's, 1 captain with a master's. there are 12 enlisted on the floor right now. 3 have master's degrees, (1 working on his doctorate), 3 with bachelor's, (one just entering law school), and 2 with Associate's. that means that half of the enlisted in this area alone have higher than the minimum requirements for a commission - so the only thing that separates them officers is the 12 week course.
on further thought, one of the E-6's will retire as a Major. he gave up his commission due to time constraints. in the last 12 months two of us have been offered the opportunity for commissioning, but declined for personal reasons - in my case i simply can't leave my business to go to a school.
Turning to Richlevy: most of the rest of your arguments, sir, are and likely will remain the preposterous rationalizations of those who want this war against tyrants who would prefer oppressing us to leaving us alone to be lost, immediately, and at any cost. I have nil respect for such people and such opinions; America should win her wars. Is there something so wrong in this?
Widebody jetliners into large buildings is a credible threat, to anyone who comprehends credible threats. Why would anyone set the bar higher? You will not be able to answer this question, Rich;
So you are now floating the notions that:
1) Saddam Hussein was oppressing
us.
2) Saddam Hussein was resonsible for 9/11?
For someone whose job it was to collect intelligence, you seem to have picked up a few pieces of which %99.9999999999 of the rest of the world is ignorant. Did you receive these on a special radio in your bomb shelter or did the tin foil hat slip one day and let them in?
I will fight enemies who pose a 'clear and present' danger along with anyone else, but I'd like the next guy over in the foxhole to be sane. Maybe those recruiters are smart to set some limits.
keep in mind that a large number of enlisted are only 1-3 years out of high school.
And a large number of enlisted haven't seen a college for the sand...or mud...or snow. ;)
And a large number of enlisted haven't seen a college for the sand...or mud...or snow. ;)
When I was younger I met a kid at Fort Dix who was 17. He said his recruiter told him he could get his diploma while in the Army. I don't know if they had regular classes or were just helping him towards a GED.
You are talking about your Reserve unit, I presume, Lookout. Major difference between the educational attainments of the Reserves versus regular career military. Bruce is right about the snow and the sand getting between the pages of those college text books. My Mohican Indian friend who fought in Desert Storm was lured into the military by the promise of a college diploma. Never happened. He became disabled in the First Gulf War and his disability precludes him attending college now. Anyhow, it wasn't the rank and file officers who got us into this mess. It was the politicians in case no one has noticed. :eyebrow:
..I'd like to teach the world to chill and something Coca-Cola....
When I was younger I met a kid at Fort Dix who was 17. He said his recruiter told him he could get his diploma while in the Army. I don't know if they had regular classes or were just helping him towards a GED.
My Dad got his GED while he was in the Marines. I think that was pretty common years ago.
So you are now floating the notions that:
1) Saddam Hussein was oppressing us.
2) Saddam Hussein was resonsible for 9/11?
1) No. The tyrants I speak of are al-Qaeda and their ilk, who behave most tyrannously to not only Christendom, but about everyone else, to judge from al-Zarqawi's pronunciamentos telling Muslims to avoid democracy. Terrorist attacks are tyrannical methods, are they not? And opposing democratization of the social order means support for tyrannical governance instead, does it not?
I do apologize for being a little unclear as to which particular tyrants I was assailing. (It's still very important that you've never done anything of the kind yoursel owing to your appallingly limited conception of liberty. News flash, Richie: liberty is not and shall not be the exclusive property of the United States.)
2) No again. Isn't it astonishing how many of the soft-on-tyranny sort of Americans believe that some other Americans believe Saddam launched it? Well, the left wouldn't be so recognizable if it weren't for its ill-founded ideas. Personally, I couldn't name one single American who believes Saddam had anything more to do with 9/11 than Hitler had to do with Pearl Harbor. And I couldn't name a single American who
did think that way that I couldn't show him that he was mistaken.
Fortunately for the nation, you guys are gullible enough to think
we're about as smart as you are -- it keeps you wasting your efforts to undermine the rest of us. You instead spend your time in futilities, and lose elections -- repeatedly.
I will fight enemies who pose a 'clear and present' danger along with anyone else, but I'd like the next guy over in the foxhole to be sane. Maybe those recruiters are smart to set some limits.
Sooo... you're in denial about the idea that widebody jetliners into buildings might pose a danger to the Republic that is both clear as could be and as present as the rubble pile left in downtown Manhattan. Sounds about like what I ought to expect from the likes of you, Rich.
Fighting against tyranny is what sane people do, Rich. You, in what appears to be some of the most grossly misplaced egotism to be found anywhere on the 'Net, aren't fighting the tyranny. Son:
you don't qualify to fight in the next metaphorical foxhole from me.Urbane, you seem to be splitting up your posts. Is this one for each personality?
As for denial, you are the one who seems to be whipsawing back and forth between Al-Queda and Saddam. My point was that the war in Iraq was not part of the war on terror. You seem to agree with that point and criticize my opinion at the same time.
Want to fight tyrants? Let's make a list and throw in Myanmar, Congo, and at least a dozen more. We'll leave off North Korea and Iran, since they may actually have nukes and paradoxically cannot be invaded by us. It's sort of like the idea of only loaning money to people who don't need it. You can only invade countries which threaten you with nukes if they don't actually have them.
I love your sterotype of liberals. At the same time that you go into a harangue about the concept of everyone thinking every neo-con is stupid enough to believe the Saddam-9/11 connection, while that is what your post appeared to support, you of course paint liberals with a broad brush.
My personal preference is that instead of 30,000 soldiers in Afghanistan looking for Bin Laden and 160,000 in Iraq, we have 200,000 soldiers in Afgahnistan looking for Bin Laden. My way would probably result in getting the 'tyrant' who actually attacked us. That's hardly being 'soft' on tyrants.
I support and defend my Constitution. I hold my leaders accountable. I do not sit on my ass humming patriotic tunes and playing "don't ask, don't tell" with politics. A soldier does his duty by following orders. A citizen does his duty by questioning authority and insuring that Congress has the consent of the governed. You seem to spend an inordinate amount of time worrying about every tinpot foreign tyrant in the world. I worry about us raising one here, or setting the stage for one in the future.
If it were only your ass on the line, I'd love to let you dress up and go out there to shoot something. Unfortunately, there are a quarter of a million men and women who are expecting to be sent to the right place at the right time and with the right equipment and support. We let them down this time. They did not have to go to Iraq. There were no weapons pointed our way. We have changed their mission and they are doing the best that they can with where we have placed them.
Right now you can say it was worth it. I wish you were younger and had a classification where you actually got shot at, so you could come back and tell me if that is really true.
For some reason you have become infected with Heinlein syndrome. This malignent disease results in the idea that veterans are automatically better citizens than civilians.
Hear, hear, Rich! Right on! I am not a veteran, but as a soldier's daughter I spent age 13 -14 and again, age 16 - 17 glued to the TV every night when CBS Evening News would come on with its Vietnam war footage. It took 10 days back then for a letter from Vietnam to reach the US. My Dad wrote me every day he possibly could, so I'd know he'd been alive 10 days before. I'd scan the faces on the clips aired by CBS anxiously looking for my father's - was he dead? Wounded? And for what just cause? In what honorable fight?
I live in a military town, and certain businesses here hang large banners proclaiming, "WE SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!" Bullshit! These folks are just in the business of ripping off soldiers they know will be in Iraq in a few months and will have other things on their mind than to complain about being ripped off.
UG is the sort of sociopath who climbs out of the woodwork drooling bloodlust and passes it off as patriotism. Anyone who cares about this country will ask what the hell we are doing in Iraq? Anyone who wants to prevent further 9/11's will go after the man responsible, not the people who weren't. Anyone who honestly "supports our troops" will be horrified that they are being sent off to fight and die in a game of smoke and mirrors. The fiasco in Iraq is at best a display of criminal incompetance on the part of the leaders of this country and, at worst, evidence of an uncaring, self-serving desire to hold on to the reins of power and win elections, our soldiers and our people and our country be damned. :mad2:
The voice of unreason as usual, Marichiko.
WE who, white boy? I sit at The Wall in DC, trace my fingers on certain names etched in stone, never to hear that man's voice again, never to see his smile, and I am to take comfort in the thought that some street vendor in Saigon is selling wrist watches made in China?
I've walked the Wall more than once myself. I've stood in the little pine grove near the Three Bronze Grunts (the nurse statue wasn't up yet) and played "Battle of the Somme" on my pipes. After I was done playing, some of the patch veterans that frequent the Wall came up and told me how much they'd liked it. There was more than one pair of misty eyes there that afternoon.
I bet they'd thank you if you went and did likewise. From a raw-beginner start, it would likely take you about eight to twelve months of practice to get you where you'd be ready to do it. Like any musical instrument, it's less the days of doing it than it is the hours.
How dare you make so light of their sacrifices?
That you'd like me to make light of their sacrifice is just one more reason that that will never happen. And taking your political ideas for action -- dubious, very very dubious. William F. Buckley and L. Brent Bozell (speaking, as we soon will, of "in the family") seem to me far more trustworthy.
AS someone who was involved in military intelligence and covert ops, aren't you the slightest bit puzzled over what the hell we are doing in Iraq?
Not remotely puzzled: I can see what it is we're trying to do. We are trying to make Islamoterrorism extinct by eliminating its natural breeding grounds: Islamic non-democracies. There's nothing in particular wrong with eliminating the weakest non-democracy first, and that was Iraq -- interesting, was it not, to note how few felt like dying for Saddam's régime? And those few, well, they died. Good riddance: a lack of lackeys emasculates tyrants.
We who were in the military intelligence community tend to differentiate strongly our understandings of what routine intelligence gathering and covert operations really are -- considering covert ops to be Special Warfare and the bailiwick of the Special Forces, the SEALs, Delta, and perhaps a few less publicized outfits of get-in-and-whack-'ems. We SIGINT guys -- well, it's good duty, but I'd be the last to call it exciting to watch: it's guys under headphones staring at equipment. Perhaps the nearest civilian equivalent to SIGINT is radio astronomy -- you're using the electromagnetic spectrum to tease out information that isn't necessarily meant for you, and you
don't reach out and twiddle with what you're getting the information from. Covert operations? Only in the very broadest sense of covert, and not as used within the community.
. . .if we were going to invade ANY country in retribution for 9/11, would it not be Saudi Arabia?
Or shouldn't we be treating Saudi as an ally? They've been wiping out al-Qaeda sympathizers to the tune of five thousand arrested or dead. And since we've been this active in the region, elections are happening in Saudi too. Who'd've expected that development? Would we have expected it without the Iraq campaign? The people who try to find failure in all this don't strike me as honest, not at all. The House of Saud is walking a tightrope between their biggest markets on one side and the more idiotic sort of al-Wahabis on the other, but on balance they come down on our side because they know they'd be the poorer if they bowed to al-Wahab -- about as big a clench-butt in the Islamic world as the most tightassed fundie televangelists you can think of.
Is not Bin Laden a member of the House of Saud?
He is not. The bin Laden family is Yemeni in origin, and made the family fortune in construction -- in Saudi, where the money was. The bin Laden family don't like Osama very much at all, either. They treat him like a remittance man. This suggests they don't find him anything approaching reasonable themselves. Osama's what happens when you've got religious bigotry combined with tens of millions of dollars.
Good liberals ought to fight against religious bigots, shouldn't they? If they're actually good, I mean?
Its as if after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, we decided to declare war on New Zealand. What the hell? Close enough!
This is the sort of raving that tells us you're wrapped considerably too tight, and that you think this makes your point demonstrates your want of wisdom.
You cannot back up your convictions.
Heh heh. Sez you; and I shall be delighted to prove you mistaken, and at length. Say, for the next forty years, by which time I'll be pushing ninety and may be bored with it.
. . .you tell us Vietnam was a worthy sacrifice of American lives. . .
Of course it was. Fights against tyrannies (and was North Vietnam anything but?) are worthy fights by definition. Check Augustine of Hippo on the topic. What was wrong with Vietnam was the strategy was in effect designed to lose, and the war was lost not in the hills of Vietnam but in the halls of Congress, to our shame. That the Saigon government was not exactly a model of either enlightenment or efficiency in no way invalidates the battle against Hanoi, as a quarter million Vietnamese refugees and boat people will happily and rightly tell you. And what's become of the Communist régime in Vietnam? Its communism has decayed, and will fairly soon be replaced by something more in accord with human nature, bit by quiet bit.
Granted, Saddam was a tyrant, but the fucking world is chock full of tyrants! The US neither can nor should go out to war against all of them.
As a strong believer in the goodness of human freedom, I find the first sentence flatly disproves the second. You see, I want a good world. That means a world with no tyrannies, nor tyranny's excesses. "All of them"? Eh, one at a time will suffice. The tender feelings of tyrants and their lackeys should receive no consideration beyond the mercy of a bullet through the skull, rather than say burning at the stake or just plain impalement, which doesn't consume firewood and if done Wallachian style, takes longer too. Blunted point, greased shaft. Considering where they stick it in, embarrassing too, though death
per anum may well suit the irredeemably assholic.
The proper function of the military in a DEMOCRACY is to defend the country's own borders.
This is mistaken too. The proper function of a democracy's military is to defend that democracy's INTERESTS. These do not stop at the borders.
I'm waiting, Mr. Democracy, and why the hell don't you put your body where your mouth is and go fight some Iraqi "insurgents," since you are so god damn gung ho about killing prople? Go kill 'em already, why are you wasting your time here?
Well! The shriller you get, the more the madwoman you sound. You're saying "Mr. Democracy" as if it were a
bad thing. I believe I've made it clear at least twice that I am now over military age, and yet have nine years more military service than you do. I've a wife with twenty and a retirement. You do not have any standing to screech about this; I've told you you're a lightweight, and that's why. What I'm doing here is one of two things: either converting you from your current error (I'd go so far as to call it a sin -- one I don't commit.) or leaving you as the sole and the only adherent to it: isolated in your error and your wrongfulness, while all the Cellar points at you and laughs.
My point was that the war in Iraq was not part of the war on terror. You seem to agree with that point and criticize my opinion at the same time.
I do not agree with that point at all. They are one and the same. Those who want the war lost insist they are somehow separate, but you should know my views on that by now. From now on, please take it as read that I regard the Iraq campaign as an integral part of the War on Terror, part of that denial of breeding grounds I've so often mentioned.
The chappie who disses Heinlein does not understand what it takes to keep a Republic on the libertarian path -- hardly the path of wisdom, is it now?
. . .evidence of an uncaring, self-serving desire to hold on to the reins of power and win elections, our soldiers and our people and our country be damned.
As neatly phrased an indictment of the Democratic Party's misbehavior and misplaced motivations as I've seen in months. I'd like to borrow it.
As neatly phrased an indictment of the Democratic Party's misbehavior and misplaced motivations as I've seen in months. I'd like to borrow it.
Feel, free, UG. Borrow away. Your response to my points about Vietnam was that you got to go play your bagpipes at The Wall. That's nice. So, all those men died so you could go get your ego gratified at their national memorial? And what makes you think I know nothing of music and the time and dedication it takes to play music well? But that's a not the issue, now is it?
In response to my question of why are we not going after Bin Laden you respond that "There's nothing in particular wrong with eliminating the weakest non-democracy first, and that was Iraq." You have made my point for me. Bush took the easy way out and allowed the real culprit to remain at large.
Frankly, if the people of any given nation don't have the desire or will to rid themselves of dictators and tyrants, why should we spill our blood on their behalf? Let them reap their just reward as a nation and as a people. They'll figure it out - or not.
You may finally become bored at 90, but I have a short little span of attention and I am bored now, so I'll respond to you no further. I have better things to do with my time
One of tw's central points is that much Islamic terror is no longer from al-Qaeda but something the administration
calls al-Qaeda. Huh:
Saudis warned UK weeks ahead of bombings
Saudi Arabia officially warned Britain of an imminent terrorist attack on London just weeks ahead of the 7 July bombings after calls from one of al-Qaeda's most wanted operatives were traced to an active cell in the United Kingdom.
Senior Saudi security sources have confirmed they are investigating whether calls from Kareem al-Majati, last year named as one of al-Qaeda's chiefs in the Gulf kingdom, were made directly to the British ringleader of the 7 July bomb plotters.
One senior Saudi security official told The Observer that calls to Britain intercepted from a mobile phone belonging to Majati earlier this year revealed that an active terror group was at work in the UK and planning an attack.
He also said that calls from Majati's lieutenant and al-Qaeda's logistics expert, Younes al-Hayari, who was killed in a separate shoot-out just four days before the 7 July bombings, have also been traced to Britain.
The Saudi official said: 'It was clear to us that there was a terror group planning an attack in the UK. We passed all this information on to both MI5 and MI6 at the time. We are now investigating whether these calls were directly to the London bombers. It is our conclusion that either these were linked or that a completely different terror network is still at large in Britain.'
One of tw's central points is that much Islamic terror is no longer from al-Qaeda but something the administration calls al-Qaeda.
These articles and accusations have continued every week since 7 July. Your assumption is that those phone called were to Al Qaeda operatives in Saudia Arabia - not to some Al Qadea 'look alikes' better called Muslim Brotherhood. Show me the trail to bin Laden?
You are assuming that every terrorist must be Al Qaeda. That is the administration propaganda. Time after time, the many terrorist attacks over the past few years have no connection to Bin Laden. Even Zarqawi's relationship to bin Laden is best called fictional; only exists in the principles of Muslim Brotherhood.
Part of the problem with this big centralized Islamic conspiracy under the headline of Al Qaeda: Al Qaeda does not even exist according to Musharraf of Pakistan. It has long since disbanded as effective terrrorist and guerilla insurgents routinely do.
For Al Qaeda to exist according to administration and Rush Limbaugh propaganda, then Al Qaeda also attacked the World Trade Center in 1993. But then these are the same people who blamed Saddam for 11 September. There is this wee little thing called credibility.
Post back when you have credibile facts - not just another accusation from one source that claims it was Al Qaeda. A phone call was made to Saudia Arabia. Therefore it must be Al Qaeda!!!!!
"Bank was just robbed in the next town. I read a report that says it was Al Qaeda. Oh god. Dear me. They're coming to get me." Call me when real facts exist. Posted here is just another in a long list of claims all citing Al Qaeda - from unnamed government sources... Karl Rove.
Of course it was. Fights against tyrannies (and was North Vietnam anything but?) are worthy fights by definition. Check Augustine of Hippo on the topic. What was wrong with Vietnam was the strategy was in effect designed to lose, and the war was lost not in the hills of Vietnam but in the halls of Congress, to our shame. That the Saigon government was not exactly a model of either enlightenment or efficiency in no way invalidates the battle against Hanoi, as a quarter million Vietnamese refugees and boat people will happily and rightly tell you. And what's become of the Communist régime in Vietnam? Its communism has decayed, and will fairly soon be replaced by something more in accord with human nature, bit by quiet bit.
So over 50,000 dead, a war lost, and the former enemy is reforming itself without our military intervention, but through trade.
Sounds like an argument against war to me.
It's nice that you respect them, it's nice that you play the pipes for them, but the best result for them would not to be there in first place. I personally would like to see less walls and monuments and more living monuments with their friends and families.
War is sometimes necessary, but you have set the bar abysmally low.
Fights against tyrannies (and was North Vietnam anything but?) are worthy fights by definition. Check Augustine of Hippo on the topic. What was wrong with Vietnam was the strategy was in effect designed to lose, and the war was lost not in the hills of Vietnam but in the halls of Congress, to our shame. That the Saigon government was not exactly a model of either enlightenment or efficiency in no way invalidates the battle against Hanoi, as a quarter million Vietnamese refugees and boat people will happily and rightly tell you.
Obviously, if Hanoi and Vietnam was a hell hole, then those boat people are still coming in the millions. Just the other side of the fact that Rush Limbaugh and UG would forget to mention. Tyranny was not N Vietnam. One is suppose to learn history instead of rewriting it. Tyranny was the S Vietnamese government and its army.
But then we cite specific examples. Who asked to be made a protectorate of the US? Ho Chi Minh. Whose Declaration of Independence is an example copy of the US Declaration of Independence? Vietnam's.
Who was the enemy of the poeple? Who really were the freedom figthers that UG promotes? Unfortunately, the US government listened to militarists who had enlisted man intelligence - such as Gen William Westmoreland. The US lost that war because the US military commanders violated basic military principles and doctrine taught even in 500 BC. To his grave, Westmoreland refuse to admit HE was the problem - just like that 'dumb and directed' enlisted man who cannot learn on his own. An informed military man would have known that war was lost by the generals (and a just as myopic president) who were more enthrilled with their military hardware than in the purpose of war and the lessons of history.
Officers are suppose to first understand basic concepts such as what and why. The Vietnam war is a classic example of what happens when military leaders fail to define a strategic objective - and then lie to coverup their illegal war. This treachory at the highest levels of military and government officials is well documented in history. UG has demonstrated that his knowledge is more based in his militaristic emotions and not in first learning the lessons of history. UG has no idea why the Vietnam war was well understood as lost in the mid 1960s - by the officers on the ground. UG is encouraged to read what some of the toughest Marines in Vietnam learned that early on - David Halbersham's "Making of a Quagmire". Must reading for any enlisted man who intends to have an officer's education.
So just like in the "Misson Accomplished" war, even the intelligence was subverted to serve the lying leadership. According to military intelligence, we had killed everyone in Vietnam three times. But UG blames Congress. Its called rewriting history.
listened to militarists who had enlisted man intelligence
enlisted man who intends to have an officer's education.
tw, do you actually believe that officers are more intelligent than the enlisted?
Ah hem. Must say that TW is just a bit off in his assumptions there. My Dad was an enlisted man who could read Ceasar's Commentaries in the original Latin. One of his tours in "Nam was in MACV under Westmoreland. My Dad didn't think much of the man. He preferred McArthur. My Dad had a book case filled with volumes on military history and strategy and had read them all. You were saying about ignorant enlisted men?
tw, do you actually believe that officers are more intelligent than the enlisted?
You want to make proof by specific examples. Overall, enlisted men don't have the curiosity to be officers. That does not say all enlisted men are dumb or do not have officer education. Indeed, even Bill Gates, Michael Dell, and Peter Jennings would only be enlisted men. But yes, the typical enlisted man has the education of a technician. He knows very well how to work with what he has. Typically has no interest in knowing the bigger picture - the strategic objective. Officers are supposed to understand that bigger picture.
In Vietnam, the officer named Westmoreland did not have sufficient intelligence or curiosity to be commanding general material. Would the enlisted man even know? Things that every officer was supposed to know were not even provided to enlisted man. The enlisted man only knew the symptoms -
"And it's one, two, three, what are we fighting for?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn, next stop is Vietnam
And it's five, six, seven, open up the Pearly Gates.
Well, there ain't no time to wonder why,
Whoopie we're all gonna die. "
They knew the top generals were wrong; were lying. The music said so. Any yet if we told enlisted men why, well, eyes would only glaze over. You tell me. How many enlisted men read Sze Tzu's 'Art of War' - and why not? Required reading for anyone in the military - with sufficient knowledge of the job. Anyone trained even in those basic concepts knew we were in trouble when the 3rd ID had no orders for the peace. Officers may have understood. We know quite accurately that the commanding officer for the 101st Airborne in Mosul understood the problem quite accurately - and all but said we have a leadership problem. As an officer, he saw what enlisted men would not even ask. For the most part, enlisted men did not have sufficient education and knowledge to appreciate how bad things would become in Iraq.
Yes there can be enlisted men with officer's education. Exceptions exist. But how many enlisted men were asking why the dimensions of those aluminum tubes were exact dimensions for a Medusa rocket. Such curiosity is lost on most enlisted men. An enlisted man need only be dumb and well directed. Any additional intelligence is a benefit - but not required - when they will not be doing officer work - such as understanding the big picture - the strategic objective.
An enlisted man need only be dumb and well directed. Any additional intelligence is a benefit - but not required - since they will not be doing officer work.
only a true fool would believe intelligence can be estimated based upon a rank.
are you one of those elitists that believes a degree is a direct reflection of one's intelligence? have you ever met an ignorant individual with a degree? more than one? have you ever met a truly intelligent individual without a degree? more than one?
a degree is evidence of a formal education, not proof of intelligence. a formal education does not necessarily instill the ability to analyze, interpret, and formulate a plan of action. lack of formal education does not exclude the ability to do the same.
lack of a commission means a lack of curiosity? an ignorance of one's surroundings?
an enlisted man only needs to be dumb enough to follow directions? what military service have you been around?
in all my time and experiences in the military i have only met 1 officer who displayed such misplaced, elitist contempt for the enlisted. i have however found similar elitist attitudes in the academic world, usually in people that would never be able to hold their own outside the walls of academia.
My Dad had a book case filled with volumes on military history and strategy and had read them all. You were saying about ignorant enlisted men?
So you are claiming your dad is typical of all enlisted men? I don't think so. That would be why he was in HQ.
I find it very disconcerting that anyone would cite one exception as proof of a trend. if true, then video games have caused massive increase in murders, car thefts, and overall mayhem. After all, a single example in the local gossip news proved it to be true. An exception does not prove anything other than an exception exists.
You have not yet represented by example what I posted IF you did not example every one of 1 million enlisted men - and show me the volumes of history and strategy that each has read. Most enlisted men would not learn why, for example, the smoking gun is essential to justify war. Technicians need not understand the bigger picture.
Again, be very careful with what I posted verses what you have just read. I did not say all technicians remain that ill informed. I said - and read it carefully "Technicians need not understand the bigger picture". Some might even regard an understanding of that bigger picture determental to their own health and safety.
Lookout123's posts concerning this are nothing more than cheap shots. He perverts what I posted. I did not say all enlisted men are dumb. So Lookout123 does a Rush Limbaugh trick. He phrases a challenge to pervert what I said. Its classic propaganda. He says things I did not say. Don't fall for how he intentionally misrepresents what I had posted. He would even pervert what I posted into "every officer is always more intelligent than every enlisted man". Obviously I did not say that. And yet that is what Lookout123 wants you to believe.
"every officer is always more intelligent than every enlisted man". Obviously I did not say that. And yet that is what Lookout123 wants you to believe.
no, tw, i am not trying to pervert any of your posts or put words into your mouth. contrary to what you may believe, i think that you are an intelligent, educated individual with a drastically different world view than i hold. i was shocked to read what sounded like a declaration that generally,
officers are more intelligent than enlisted. i asked you a question hoping you would clarify.
you want specific proof that enlisted people are as intelligent as officers? what would be sufficient? IQ test results for every member of the military? you are asking for proof of something that cannot be proven in a text book fashion. what we can do is step back and look at the sea of humanity we see everyday. are managers necessarily more intelligent than their employees? are people in "professional" careers necessarily more intelligent than those in non-"professional" positions? to think that intelligence can be judged by a quick glance at rank, job, or pay would be a mistake.
a mistake that i didn't believe you would make.
Uh, nobody has mentioned draftees....you know.....the ones that fought in Viet Nam. :eyebrow:
So you are claiming your dad is typical of all enlisted men? I don't think so. That would be why he was in HQ.
In Vietnam, the officer named Westmoreland did not have sufficient intelligence or curiosity to be commanding general material. Would the enlisted man even know? Things that every officer was supposed to know were not even provided to enlisted man. The enlisted man only knew the symptoms -
"And it's one, two, three, what are we fighting for?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn, next stop is Vietnam
And it's five, six, seven, open up the Pearly Gates.
Well, there ain't no time to wonder why,
Whoopie we're all gonna die. "
They knew the top generals were wrong; were lying. The music said so. Any yet if we told enlisted men why, well, eyes would only glaze over. You tell me. How many enlisted men read Sze Tzu's 'Art of War' - and why not? Required reading for anyone in the military - with sufficient knowledge of the job.
That sounds like a blanket indictment to me. You were painting every enlisted man with the same brush and depicting them all as being like the typical Vietnam era draftee. Senior NCO's hardly deserve to be subject to such blanket condemnation, nor do the draftees, for that matter.
My father didn't listen to the local rock station. He preferred Johnny Cash, but he still had grave misgivings about Westmoreland. I don't know if he ever read Sze Tzu, and its too late to ask him now. Was he atypical of a top ranking enlisted soldier (E-9)? I don't really think so, other than his knowledge of Latin, perhaps.
What percentage of the Army is E-9? :question:
What percentage of the Army is E-9? :question:
I don't know.
Once when I was a child I can remember asking my Dad why he didn't join the officer ranks. He replied, "Because I'd have to accept a demotion to 2nd lieutenant!" :D
That sounds like a blanket indictment to me. You were painting every enlisted man with the same brush and depicting them all as being like the typical Vietnam era draftee. Senior NCO's hardly deserve to be subject to such blanket condemnation, nor do the draftees, for that matter.
Again, you can distort anything and everything I have posted by changing the perspective. What clearly was never a blanket statement is changed into "sounds like a blanket indictment". Serious mistake on your part. If I stated that, then you can cite the specific sentence that says that. If I don't state it, then assume I have intentionally led you astray so that your emotions would make wrong conclusions.
Assume what I have posted as bait for your emotions; so that you would ASSUME. That is not my intent. But stated often, I post bluntly. That means I don't waste time with politically correct statements. I am not a politician. Therefore it is easy for one to pervert what I had posted into implications and 'sounds like' misrepresentations. Again, where is the exact sentence that 'sounds like' anything? If that sentence does not specifically say it, then 'sounds like' is only personal bias.
Tell me how long the coastline is around Britain. We measure from space and get a specific number. Then we move down to an airplane's perspective. Suddenly there are numerous inlets and other geographical features that maybe double that coastline. Then we walk that British coastline to find far more coastline as the beach curves in and out. Then we take a microscopic perspective - measuring the beach as it curves around each grain of sand. Completely different numbers are due to different perspectives.
Was I lying when I provided Britain’s perimeter from space? I was 'painting with a broad brush'. Therefore I am wrong? No. But if you don't use my perspective - if you take what I post out of context - then you could even prove I will be a racist murder for the KKK. Perspective. Context. 'Sounds like' is not sufficient for valid reasoning. At best 'sounds like' is only enough to wildly speculate - only enough to justify a question.
A valid point is that enlisted men in Vietnam clearly were even less intelligent than their counterparts today. Of course. Few had any interest in advancing their intelligence. Do your time and get out. The music of that time listened by a massive majority of enlisted men told the story. "WAR ... what is it good for. Absolutely nothin'"
BTW, intelligence is created by working at it every day. Only part of intelligence is inherited. Intelligence is created more by 'viruses' such as curiosity, doubting, incessant reading of what was once boring, and using the concepts of science as routinely taught in school. In Vietnam, few wanted that intelligence. A disease created and promoted by a crook who was also a lying president (85% of all problems ...).
Officers are better trained, have more insight, and get their job by having more intelligence - can better see the bigger picture. They must; it is their job. There is no way around that fact. Meanwhile, what does a better army do? Increase the intelligence of its lowly enlisted men. Do better trained enlisted men make for a smarter army? Absolutely. But does that make enlisted men smarter than their officers. Maybe when it comes to firing a 105 Howitzer faster – a technically smarter enlisted man. But not when it comes to the most important facts in any army - such as its strategic objective.
Perspective. Don't distort the perspective I have posted. In some ways, you have done what Lookout123 does. Convert clear trends into an assumption that all enlisted men are dumber then their officers. Easy to change my post by taking the wrong perspective - taking what I have posted out of context. 'Sounds like' or 'implies' is not sufficient to interpret what I posted. Where is the irrefutable fact that I even implied such conclusions? A logical response would post the exact sentence where that 'sounds like' comes from. Where is that exact quote - the irrefutable fact?
There is good reason why officers tend to go to college and have advanced degrees whereas enlisted men do not. There is very good reason why the military schools train everyone as an engineer. The former have more curiosity, a quest to understand why - the bigger picture, a firmer grasp of reality, and must follow up with more questions and doubts. Such are required of officers. Such is less desirable in enlisted men (which is why accusing only enlisted men of torture in Abu Ghriad is a mockery of intelligence thinking).
The latter tend to get a job, learn to do the tasks, and don’t spend substantial time advancing their education in things such as advanced math, psychology, or quantum physics. Enlisted men do what their officers say or intend - which would be exactly what happened in Abu Ghriad.
Again, some enlisted men prefer not to ask those questions that officers are required to ask because, sometimes, enlisted men regard knowing too much as hazardous to their own health and attitude.
Stated is a complex analysis which is more consistent with reality. There is nothing in this post or any previous post that can be analyzed by 'sounds like'. Sounds like is how Oprah fans and a Jerry Springer audience make judgments. If it 'sounds like', then where are the exact quotes, numbers, and underlying science that justifies that 'sounds like' conclusion. Cite the irrefutable fact such as the specific sentence.
BTW, how did 2nd LTs survive in Vietnam? They first turned to their Sgt and ask, "How do we do this". The sign of an intelligent officer.
BTW, how did 2nd LTs survive in Vietnam? They first turned to their Sgt and ask, "How do we do this". The sign of an intelligent officer.
AND an intelligent Sgt who got them out of the mess that the green 2nd Lt had put them in! ;)
I'm not going to argue semantics with you, and its true enough that most officers tend to be better educated than most enlisted men, especially if we start comparing E2's and E3's to majors and colonels.
In today's military, however, many do join the enlisted ranks precisely because the military holds out the carrot of a college education, so you can hardly condemn today's rank and file soldier for not wishing to better himself or having a lesser intelligence.
I suspect the Vietnam era draftee would have displayed more intelligence if he had been asked to risk his life for an intelligent cause. The cause in Vietnam was far from an intelligent one and the unwilling soldiers who were swept up to be cannon fodder for Johnson and Nixon showed great cunning in merely staying alive.
Feel, free, UG. Borrow away. Your response to my points about Vietnam was that you got to go play your bagpipes at The Wall. That's nice. So, all those men died so you could go get your ego gratified at their national memorial?
Dear, dear, dear, Marichiko. How monomaniacally unwilling you are to be fair. Everyone but you knows that is BS. Perhaps you should take up cultivating roses instead of trying to take me on, for you are palpably defeated this day, and your carryings-on are in vain.
Frothings from you aside, that's just my estimation of how much time and experience it would take to play the pipes well enough to do a good public performance. Most playing of the great Highland bagpipe out of doors is necessarily rather public anyway; there's no way to play the things softly, unless you count stationing the piper on one hilltop and his audience on the next one over.
Frankly, if the people of any given nation don't have the desire or will to rid themselves of dictators and tyrants, why should we spill our blood on their behalf? Let them reap their just reward as a nation and as a people. They'll figure it out - or not.
True enough --
if that were the case with the Kurds and the Shi'ites. Did not the both of them rise in revolt against Saddam? You don't revolt if you aren't oppressed, tyrannized, and generally living in a hell, which is exactly the situation when you're living under a dictator whose rise to power partook more of the nature of a mafioso than a U.S. President. I'd say they've got the desire and the will. Do you see Iraq changing course because the Rump Saddamites are leaving bent and blasted car parts all over? No you don't. Did not reporters before the war advise us that Iraqis
from Baghdad, when the government minders weren't around, were privately telling them, and I quote, "If the Americans don't come, I'm going to kill myself." They were done with Saddam. True, they might have been done with Saddam eleven years before had we not been afraid of losing the Coalition and aided the rebellions to finish the job then, as the people who reckon Soldier of Fortune was right about it advocated, but in the end the tyrant is still fallen -- as much of his own misunderstandings of what he was doing and having done as anything we might accomplish in our campaign.
I shall assume that an
unjust recompense for Iraq's travails as a nation would be the return of a Ba'athist dictatorship.
Bored, not going to answer further and better things to do with your time? I'm glad I've more honesty than to use such childish and transparent phrases to conceal an acknowledgement of defeat on the merits of the matter. I know the sound of a defeated America-should-lose-this-because-I-don't-want-liberated-foreigners-no-matter-how-small-the-cost, and you're making that sound.
But there are other things in this. Clearly there is so enormous a chasm between Marichiko's worldview and mine that neither of us can even reliably perceive the other's important core values, let alone understand or appreciate them. Sure, not taking casualties is preferable to taking casualties -- but that is not an option in a general war, and this one is far more general than bombing targets in Kosovo. We have no known enemies who are too incompetent to blood some of us and kill others. The measure of the worthiness of America's cause is not to be found in our soldiers not getting hurt.
The measure of the worthiness of America's cause is not to be found in our soldiers not getting hurt.
The worthiness of soldiers is not found in dispatching them to self serving political causes - such as fixing the Middle East only for the greater glory of "Project for a New American Century". A truly respected soldier is deployed for reasons justified by a smoking gun. If a US soldier was indeed respected, then soldiers would have been in Afghanistan - hundreds of thousands - to find, capture, or destroy the real enemy.... Osama bin Laden. A deployment so worthy that even NATO would deployed for the same objectives. A deployment so worthy that even former Soviet Republics and Libya's Kadaffi endorsed and supported that objective.
Instead a US president would lie - blame Saddam - so that soldiers would be deployed for a personal political agenda. Lie to even alienate NATO allies. Like in Vietnam, lie so that American soldiers have doubt about their mission. Lie so that even the Defense Department now changes the parameters of victory - to minimize the possible impact of defeat.
How could a government so disrespect its soldiers? We are supposed to have learned from Vietnam to never do that again to the American soldier. We have so disrespected the American soldier that Osama bin Laden still runs free.
Osama bin Laden still runs free. Those with respect for the American soldier and American principles would never have let that happen. Why is Urbane Guerrilla so silent about disrespect for the American soldier and American principles?
... and its true enough that most officers tend to be better educated than most enlisted men, especially if we start comparing E2's and E3's to majors and colonels.
Now that is a 100% agreement with what I posted. Why so much disagreement previously? No semantics. You just posted exactly what I was posting.
TW, this is going to be fun. For me, anyway.
Obviously, if Hanoi and Vietnam was a hell hole, then those boat people are still coming in the millions.
The quarter million that did come are sufficient to prove my case, leaving zero justification for your views. They did not run to Hanoi, but away from it, and in some cases more than once. Communist Vietnam was a hell hole, and it improved once they stopped trying to practice Communism on the streets of Saigon (I will not name a city after Ho.).
Tyranny was not N Vietnam.
Those reeducation camps for South Vietnamese with the temerity not to like the Viet Nam Cong San were what? Summer camps for underprivileged urban kids? The fruits of some figment-tree of right-wing conspiracy, postwar? The penalty for being politically incorrect from Hanoi's point of view was mostly slow death and occasionally a quick one. This is the surest mark of a tyranny, and it is one you missed by half a parsec. That's pretty incompetent thinking, TW. Don't do that; I'll bite big raggedy chunks out of you every time.
One is suppose[d] to learn history instead of rewriting it.
You can't even copyedit as well as I do, yet you expect me to take you seriously as a thinker? The bar's a bit higher than that, TW. Meet it or lose.
But then we cite specific examples. Who asked to be made a protectorate of the US? Ho Chi Minh. Whose Declaration of Independence is an example copy of the US Declaration of Independence? Vietnam's.
This was Ho's move to find a power sponsor who could back him against the French. It's interesting, but after that, what? How much substance is there in might-have-beens?
But UG blames Congress. Its called rewriting history.
The blame does not fall on the armed forces. It falls on trying to fight a polite war, which was done in the nation's capital -- an error which today's Administration, having experience of Vietnam, is determined not to repeat. Neither the Kennedy nor the Johnson Administrations knew how to win Vietnam, and in the losing of Vietnam, the domino theory was vindicated also: South Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and additionally Burma fell into darkness. That not all the available dominoes fell is just our, and their, good fortune, not a disproof of the concept.
TW, were I your history teacher, I'd give you a failing grade. You're bad at this.
The more rumors I hear about the PNAC -- got it bookmarked somewhere -- the more I think I'd approve of it in almost every particular. Seems to be about making everyone free, freer, and richer.
The quarter million that did come are sufficient to prove my case, leaving zero justification for your views. They did not run to Hanoi, but away from it, and in some cases more than once. Communist Vietnam was a hell hole, and it improved once they stopped trying to practice Communism on the streets of Saigon (I will not name a city after Ho.).
What happened once those fears were unfounded? Oh. That means UG must now learn all of history. Did Vietnam change anything that caused people to stop fleeing? Of course not. People stopped fleeing - and many returned to Vietnam - because Vietnam was not the hell hole that an enlisted man is so sure existed. An enlisted man who will be exposed for rewriting history in direct contradiction to US government accounts.
Ahh but writing fictional history is fun. One is not encumbered with all that dirty reality.
This was Ho's move to find a power sponsor who could back him against the French.
Allow me to appreciate what UG has just posted. Pulp fiction is nothing more than an excuse for using dirty words. Meanwhile, Nationalist Vietnamese wrote a Declaration of Independence only so that the US would come to their aid? A document as fundamental to them as the US Declaration of Independence is to Americans was instead written only as a cheap and dirty ploy to get America to come to their aid? Invent history when you don't know the answers?
Ho Chi Minh asked to become a protectorate of the US because ... well even the US government says why he made those requests. So which one is lying - Urbane Guerrilla or the US government? Urbane Guerrilla - at least learn what the US government said before you rewrite history for personal gain. Yes it is fun to write fiction. But better fiction writers first spend years learning reality before writing their fiction. You have just contradicted well published US government documents by saying
This was Ho's move to find a power sponsor ...
IOW you again invent history to suit your needs. You have been caught and exposed.
The blame does not fall on the armed forces. It falls on trying to fight a polite war, which was done in the nation's capital -- an error which today's Administration, having experience of Vietnam, is determined not to repeat. Neither the Kennedy nor the Johnson Administrations knew how to win Vietnam, and in the losing of Vietnam, the domino theory was vindicated also: South Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and additionally Burma fell into darkness.
The domino theory was a lie predicated on a now universally discredited theory that Vietnam was part of a global communist agenda. A global communist conspiracy necessary to justify a widely discredited Domino Theory did not exist. What you describe as targets of that Domino Theory was nothing more that civil war - leading to far more corrupt government in Cambodia. Thailand instead remained true to their people and therefore suffered no coup. How can that be if the Domino Theory was valid? Only the ill educated would still believe the Domino Theory.
A polite war? Where do you come up with these myths? America used every asset of our conventional war machine in that war. Armed forces in Europe, S Korea, etc were sometimes stripped down to almost decommisioning to fight a *polite* war. We even considered using nuclear weapons. We lost almost 10% of our B-52 force. When did that become a *polite* war? Urbane Guerrilla - are you the reincarnation of a disgraceful American General named Westmoreland? You also change history and facts to promote your agenda.
Even Johnson, in recently released tapes as president, admits the American war in Vietnam was not winnable. Even Johnson says UG has misrepresented the facts. Blame does not fall on the armed forces. Blame belongs on top management who both literally and intentionally lied to create a Vietnam War. Deja Vue. We do it again to American troops in Iraq. Even worse, Urbane Guerrilla endorses the trashing of American troops and American principles. He even puts up 'straw men arguments' about blaming the armed forces. The military was but another victim of lying Generals and civilian leaders. But again, Urbane Guerrilla conveniently declares the military was blamed.
Urbane Guerrilla has even posted history in direct contradiction to what the US government has published. When Urbane Guerrilla does not know history, he invents it. The Vietnam Declaration of Independence was a ploy to get American support against the French? UG - who do you think was paying the French - according to US government documents?
Meanwhile here we are again making the military another victim of a lying president and his "Mission Accomplished" war. When I say those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it, well, we have Urbane Guerrilla as a perfect example.
TW, you have written at length, to an unexpected end: neither you nor I know what the hell you're talking about.
Refugees do not flee nice places. How many run away from the United States?
What happened once those fears were unfounded?
What unfounded? Do you not know that Laos and Cambodia were conquered by communists? There's a pattern to your representations here...
Nationalist Vietnamese wrote a Declaration of Independence only so that the US would come to their aid? A document as fundamental to them as the US Declaration of Independence is to Americans was instead written only as a cheap and dirty ploy . . . ?
Something you're not discussing, and I am, is the question of are they following the libertarian impulse behind such Declaration? They aren't, AFAIK, doing that even nowadays. Had they done something other than the usual communist oppression, purges, and poverty, they wouldn't have had refugee one. I'll take the evidence of a quarter million fleeing, preferring pirates, robbers, and dying of thirst at sea on rafts, to ordinary daily life under communism, over all of your pravda, TW.
Ho Chi Minh asked to become a protectorate of the US because ... well even the US government says why he made those requests.
And this is known; I addressed that in my previous post. It is known that he was disappointed in this, and that he turned instead to Red China and the Soviet Union, both of whom were hardly unwilling to spread Communism, and with a religious fervor about it, to yet another region undeserving of such monstrousness. Did Ho set up anything but yet another Communist prison state? I'm unaware of Ho's state doing anything Mao would have taken exception to. You have to understand totalitarian systems are evil, impoverishing, and wasteful of life before you can understand anything of history, TW, especially the history of the twentieth century. For an instance -- and such an instance! -- non-democracies perpetrated every single genocide in the twentieth century. Such understanding is less than evident in what you post.
The domino theory was a lie predicated on a now universally discredited theory that Vietnam was part of a global communist agenda. A global communist conspiracy necessary to justify a widely discredited Domino Theory did not exist. What you describe as targets of that Domino Theory was nothing more that civil war - leading to far more corrupt government in Cambodia. Thailand instead remained true to their people and therefore suffered no coup. How can that be if the Domino Theory was valid?
Who needs a global conspiracy when a regional campaign of expansionism will do? Who needs a conspiracy when you consider that at its base communism was a sort of religion? What did the communists do besides go on jihad? What did they succeed in doing besides kill folks by the many tens of millions over seventy years and make folks poor? What you present as argument is not so much history as collectivist-totalitarian pravda, which you've swallowed hook, line, and sinker. How does it feel to be in a fellational relationship with the shades of Lenin, Stalin, and Mao? I'm sure I'll never find out for myself.
Where do you fall in the political quiz over in Politics? I'd like to see your numbers.
Cambodia had communists in its hills, for years upon years. You want corruption? Look at the wonders the Khmer Rouge performed upon the Cambodian population. Corruption? -- better say Cambodia was run by
crazy people. Whatever one can say about Norodom Sihanouk, he wasn't an ignorant maniac like Pol Pot. The domino fell.
A polite war? Where do you come up with these myths? America used every asset of our conventional war machine in that war. Armed forces in Europe, S Korea, etc were sometimes stripped down to almost decommisioning to fight a *polite* war. We even considered using nuclear weapons. We lost almost 10% of our B-52 force. When did that become a *polite* war?
Okay, here I'll cut you some slack because you've never thought of it this way, and are completely at sea.
Look at the limitations we clamped on our strategy: we stopped at borders, rather than go harrying the enemy wherever he might flee. Polite. We made a point of not bombing war matériel north of the Chinese border, rather than doing everything to break their power to battle us. Polite. It became even more absurd: rather than destroy the sinews of war everywhere in or near North Vietnam, we publicly restricted ourselves to only bombing targets in certain patches of North Vietnam. Beyond polite; this was born to lose, and the idea didn't come out of the people doing the fighting. This totally allowed the North Vietnamese to install missile sites to shoot at our guys --
unmolested in the least. We were so concerned about
bothering a pack of totalitarians committed to an inhuman system that we forgot to win the war.
Even Johnson, in recently released tapes as president, admits the American war in Vietnam was not winnable.
Having lived through the 1960s, I don't recall that Richard Nixon thought of it in quite this way. He seems instead to have possessed the Republican capacity for resolve in war. Even with all our too-polite strategy, the communists remained stalemated until we left in 1973.
Even Johnson says UG has misrepresented the facts. Blame does not fall on the armed forces. Blame belongs on top management who both literally and intentionally lied to create a Vietnam War. Deja Vue. We do it again to American troops in Iraq. Even worse, Urbane Guerrilla endorses the trashing of American troops and American principles. He even puts up 'straw men arguments' about blaming the armed forces. The military was but another victim of lying Generals and civilian leaders. But again, Urbane Guerrilla conveniently declares the military was blamed.
This paragraph constitutes a most astounding misreading of this one:
"The blame does not fall on the armed forces. It falls on trying to fight a polite war, which was done in the nation's capital -- an error which today's Administration, having experience of Vietnam, is determined not to repeat. Neither the Kennedy nor the Johnson Administrations knew how to win Vietnam, and in the losing of Vietnam, the domino theory was vindicated also: South Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and additionally Burma fell into darkness. That not all the available dominoes fell is just our, and their, good fortune, not a disproof of the concept."
The Vietnam Declaration of Independence was a ploy to get American support against the French?
What, this again? Was Ho Chi Minh NOT seeking outside aid? Was this NOT directed against the French? Ho was already done with the Japanese. I've never said it was a ploy and I'm not going to. Please cease to misrepresent the matter.
UG - who do you think was paying the French - according to US government documents?
Are you saying that immediately postwar we somehow shouldn't have been helping a very battered wartime ally? And is there any particular relevance in this, or indeed anything astonishing?
Meanwhile here we are again making the military another victim of a lying president and his "Mission Accomplished" war. When I say those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it, well, we have Urbane Guerrilla as a perfect example.
What you've posted here is remarkably congruent with the kind of pravda that communists and their fellow travelers would say. TW, you do not have anything to teach me.
Hypergraphia. It's not just for tw anymore.
but this is a good thing. there is now a countervailing wind, and we can be buffetted by gusts from both sides.
I'm sure they're reading each other's posts, but I wonder if anyone else is.
No offense to either of you. You're just really....voluminous. My old newspaper editor would be having fits.
I can't say I understand terrorism any more than I did before.
well, as long as you understand that enlisted people are stupid, then all is well. :eyebrow:
well, as long as you understand that enlisted people are stupid, then all is well. :eyebrow:
HAHAHAHAHA!
I'm trying to figure out what a right-wing military junta in Burma has to do with communists.
They do have an agreement with China, but that might have more to do with our relationship with China than losing Vietnam.
well, as long as you understand that enlisted people are stupid, then all is well. :eyebrow:
Well, just hold this thought, ya dumb NCO!
BTW, how did 2nd LTs survive in Vietnam? They first turned to their Sgt and ask, "How do we do this". The sign of an intelligent officer. :lol:
I'm trying to figure out what a right-wing military junta in Burma has to do with communists.
They do have an agreement with China, but that might have more to do with our relationship with China than losing Vietnam.
Well, my Dad fought in Burma during WWII. Probably he bungled something since he wasn't an officer and that explains it all! :mg:
And this is known; I addressed that in my previous post. It is known that [Ho Chi Minh] he was disappointed in this, and that he turned instead to Red China and the Soviet Union, both of whom were hardly unwilling to spread Communism, and with a religious fervor about it, to yet another region undeserving of such monstrousness.
Well again Urbane Guerrilla demonstrates fictional knowledge of history. Ho Chi Minh asked to become a protectorate of the US because Ho Chi Minh feared ..... Red China. Well documented in US government analysis but not found in "The World According to Urbane Guerrilla". Same documents that the US government feared Americans would read.
Those documents were widely published and read by Americans who learn from history rather than rewrite history. Urbane Guerrilla would even claim that Saddam was participatory in attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. He is again doing as the George Jr administration would do; rewrite history when convenient. Maybe Urbane Guerrilla will also declare "Mission Accomplished"?
Interesting how history will be rewritten to justify the invasion of Iran. Let's consult an expert. Urbane Guerrilla: what is the historical justification for an invasion of Iran? Legal precedent found in a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor? Or is being defined as an axis of evil is sufficient? Maybe their election was rigged. Would that justify an invasion to rescue democracy in Iran? Maybe we could arrange a Gulf of Tonkin in the Persian Gulf? So many good myths from Vietnam could justify the invasion of Iran.
Ho Chi Minh asked to become a protectorate of the US in five letters to Truman because he feared Red China. Urbane Guerrilla tells us that Ho Chi Minh went to Red China for help. From what? Red China?
Urbane Guerrilla would even claim that Saddam was participatory in attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.
Nope.
Remarkable how
many Americans think some
other Americans believe that, and will insist to the rest of us that somebody else, somewhere on the continent, believes that. However, actually finding such people is damned hard -- I certainly don't know any.
Let's see, what did North Vietnam get from Communist-bloc sources? Every rifle they fired at us once they'd run out the supply of catch-as-catch-can WW2 surplus, every cartridge also fired from these SKS and AK rifles, and the PPSh submachineguns and their cartridge, which also means the Tokarev semiauto pistols that fire the same cartridge, every ChiCom grenade, every SA-2 Guideline missile, and every MiG-15, -17, and -21. Both Red Chinese and Soviet sources, if memory serves. Ho got this largesse through
fearing Chinese dominion? Please.
But that won't be enough evidence for you, TW. No factual evidence will ever jar you from your fellow-traveling. You are now trying to turn things to make ME the issue. You will fail, as you generally do. It's pretty clear you're only going to find out what you're up against the hard way.
Urbane Guerrilla would even claim that Saddam was participatory in attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.
Nope.
Remarkable how many Americans think some other Americans believe that, and will insist to the rest of us that somebody else, somewhere on the continent, believes that. However, actually finding such people is damned hard -- I certainly don't know any.
From The Weekly Standard entitled
Case Closed
OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta--according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
The memo, dated October 27, 2003, was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was written in response to a request from the committee as part of its investigation into prewar intelligence claims made by the administration. Intelligence reporting included in the 16-page memo comes from a variety of domestic and foreign agencies, including the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency. Much of the evidence is detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources. Some of it is new information obtained in custodial interviews with high-level al Qaeda terrorists and Iraqi officials, and some of it is more than a decade old. The picture that emerges is one of a history of collaboration between two of America's most determined and dangerous enemies.
UG - just a little more history you forgot to learn before you rewrote it.
Having lived through the 1960s, I don't recall that Richard Nixon thought of it in quite this way. He seems instead to have possessed the Republican capacity for resolve in war. Even with all our too-polite strategy, the communists remained stalemated until we left in 1973.
Johnson finally conceded that his Generals, especially Westmoreland, were lying to him. The war was not winnable. So Generals (and Urbane Guerrilla) wanted to take the war into other nations. The same Curtis LeMay, who also claimed we would win a nuclear exchange, agrees with UG. How scary is UG's world?
From McNamara's own analysis,
[The Vietnam War] had been an American war almost from its beginning: at first French-American, eventually wholly American. In both cases it was a struggle of Vietnamese ... against American policy and American financing, proxies, technicians, firepower, and finally, troops and pilots. ...
In terms of the UN Charter and of our own avowed ideals, [The Vietnam War] was a war of foreign aggression, American aggression.
Ok Urbane Guerrilla. You tell me about a Nixon who had a resolve for war. Nixon literally sent every remaining conventional weapon we had against N Vietnam. Results were exactly as virtually every intellegence agency had predicted in the 1960s. There were no military significant targets in N Vietnam. Bombing would not deter a nation from its declaration of indpendence. But then winning the war was not a Nixon agenda.
Having lived through the 60s, you only learned what was convenient. By 1969, this was a fact from the field as even stated to Johnson by Gen Westmoreland when Westmoreland was asking for another 1/2 million troops. The Vietnamese would match our troop strength no matter how many troops we sent into Vietnam. How is that war winnable when we remain in the world of reality?
Nixon also would not commit additional troops we really did not have. The 'polite' war had severely tapped out most conventional weapon systems. There were no reserves to deploy. And winning the war was long proven not possible as Nixon's own actions proved. Nixon was only interested in 'withdrawing with honor'. Just as long as a unilateral withdrawl did not happen under Nixon's watch. This was Nixon's secret plan to end the war. Sacrifice good men from my generation for his greater glory.
Realizing how badly the war was going, Nixon even proposed mutual troop withdrawls - and N Vietnam rejected the offer. Obviously. Why would N Vietnam that was winning the war and fighting for independence instead withdrawl troops? Meanwhile Nixon felt that as long as he keep up the war, then a N Vietnam flag would not fly in Saigon until after 1972. Nixon was primarily worried about how a N Vietnam flag in Saigon would affect Nixon's reputation; America be damned. Some Democrats also had the same self serving agenda - to make it more of Nixon's war. Again, America be damned.
By 1967, no S Vietnam military units would patrol at night. S Vietnamese unit commanders could be punished if they lost material in a VC battle because their primary mission was to protect the government ... from whom? Even in 1965 as well as in 1970
Almost no one from the embassy traveled much outside the environs of Saigon alone in a car; everyone moved by chopper or sometimes in a convoy.
This was a war that UG claims America could win? Ironically, Americans are just as restricted from movement in Iraq. Deja Vue.
Richard Nixon's primary interest in that war was to not have a N Vietnamese flag in Saigon until after 1972. Just another fact from history that UG rewrote.
Lets see. Something like 10% of the US B-52 force was lost over N Vietnam. Was this to cause them to surrender? Of course not. Even Nixon had conceded that victory was not possible. The B-52s were deployed to force N Vietnam to negotiate (in earnest) in Paris. The B-52s were a last conventional military option - the war was going that badly. Nixon deployed it to force a stalemate. Knowing that, Nixon still sent tens of thousands of my generation to their death. You talk honorably about this man. Shame on you for rewriting history only because it suits your self serving opinions. Shame on you for having so much contempt for the American soldier.
UG still knows that war could have been won. He also rewrites history when it is convenient. His lying exposed earlier in this thread. He even tries to change history about a mythical Saddam / bin Laden alliance. How convenient when he can rewrite history at will.
Urbane Guerrilla probably thinks Iraq will eventually be conquered. "Mission Accomplished" or Deja Vue. It means the same thing when history is nothing more than pulp fiction.
TW, you are very much at pains to misread what I write, and the Case Closed article is one familiar to me. What you antis just refuse to wrap your minds around is that Saddam was hooked up with the terror guys -- but didn't himself do 9-11, and we who want to win this understand that. We also understand that Ba'athist Iraq was part of the overall problem we would have to solve. Just as Hitler didn't bomb Pearl Harbor but needed to be defeated, so with Saddam. It is not legitimate to insist that Saddam doesn't parallel Hitler's case: he does. Dictators are more alike than different -- these two even share a penchant for facial hair and uniforms. What to do about dictators is more similar than different case by case also.
While I don't necessarily think US forces will be there at the end, the terrs in Iraq are notable in achieving absolutely nothing now, and will in the end be defeated -- by the rest of Iraq. They have nothing to offer but murders in aid of returning to the previous tyranny. The rest of Iraq isn't interested, and won't allow it.
I'm trying to figure out what a right-wing military junta in Burma has to do with communists.
I don't draw any particular link between them either. They are as isolationist as Radar and over twice as cranky. Combine this with totalitarianism and the army and police, and you've got Burma/Myanmar as one fucked-up sweet-potato patch.
As they put it in
The Green Mile, "That's a bad combination."
Noxiousness need not have a global conspiracy to be noxious.
Who cares...they don't have anything we want. :headshake
When caught lying, then a liar can either apologize for his mistake, OR he can ignore the accusation. Urbane Guerrilla, caught rewriting history for a self serving agenda, instead posts
TW, you are very much at pains to misread what I write, and the Case Closed article is one familiar to me. What you antis just refuse to wrap your minds around is that Saddam was hooked up with the terror guys -- but didn't himself do 9-11, and we who want to win this understand that.
The enemy of fundamentalist Islamics extremists (ie Al Qaeda) are secular governments. Since Urbane Guerrilla has been exposed lying about Vietnam, he now changes the topic to Saddam. He claims Saddam was hooked up with people who were Saddam's most dangerous enemies. Saddam of Iraq, Asad of Syria, Nasser and Sadat of Egypt, and Hussein of Jordan are all secular governments - targets of the same people that Urbane Guerrilla tells us that Saddam was, instead, allied with.
In "The World According to Urbane Guerrilla", enemies are allies? Same pulp fiction claimed that America could have easily won the Vietnam War. Same pulp fiction claims that the US only fought a "polite" war in Vietnam. Same pulp fiction invents myths as to why Ho Chi Minh asked to become a protectorate of the United States. Same pulp fiction that claimed the US was not forcing democracy on anyone (even though a 15 August US deadline is being imposed on the Iraqis). UG now pretends he did not invent those fictions.
This goes right to the personal character of Urbane Guerrilla. You advocate wasting of good American lives by justifying lies; inventing enemies; posting pulp fiction to cover up insufficient knowledge of history. Many good American died because a president also did same - for a self serving agenda. Why would Urbane Guerrilla disparage good American solidiers - of past and future? Your integrity and honesty is the question. UG doesn't even deny lying about history - especially when caught doing it repeatedly. Instead UG pretends those lies were never posted.
Saddam was not a threat. A well proven fact. Even George Jr no longer makes that claim that UG now posts. Still Urbane Guerrilla would promote a myth that has long since been proven wrong - "that Saddam was hooked up with the terror guys". This way UG need not admit to lying about Vietnam.
Well UG - prove it. Don't wait for the translation. I am prepared to wait for hell to freeze over. Your next post, if you are an honest man, will prove "that Saddam was hooked up with the terror guys". Show us that you are not just Rush Limbaugh high on hard drugs. Show us. Can I make the challenge any more obvious? Prove your accusation or admit to, again, posting more lies. You made the claim. Prove it. Show us "that Saddam was hooked up with the terror guys".
TW, you are not seeing the whole forest because you are fascinated with about three of its trees. If Islamoterrorism is to go away, its sponsors must be finished off.
Islamoterrorism doesn't happen without the say-so of Islamic governments or government entities. It keeps transpiring, for a somewhat far-flung instance, that Indonesian Islamoterrorists have covert ties with the Indonesian military. And just how many Islamic nations/governments are on the list of terrorist sponsors? Two that were recently knocked off that list are Afghanistan and Iraq. Still on it are Syria and Iran among others.
Your next post, if you are an honest man, will prove "that Saddam was hooked up with the terror guys".
That was proven by the "Case Closed" article, which you were so kind as to link to and to exerpt from. Really, TW, your analysis of all this can most charitably be described as eccentric, and more clearly described as friggin' bonkers, and nobody thinks your silly personal accusations have any basis.
Same pulp fiction that claimed the US was not forcing democracy on anyone (even though a 15 August US deadline is being imposed on the Iraqis).
Let this stand for several other instances of a
peculiar view of this. The Iraqis, having had the obstacle to democratization the Saddam régime constituted removed, are setting forth a constitution for a democracy, and unlike TW, they are
not complaining about getting it done by mid-August. They figure, nothing loath, that a constitution might as well be drafted by a certain date and be ready for a plebiscite then. Imposed, quotha!
TW is driven by the insane belief that the United States must be the root of all evil, apparently because, well, it's the United States. So he goes hysterical whenever this anti-American orthodoxy is criticized, or, God or whatever forbid, challenged. As long as you use this for the basis of your thinking, TW, you can be nothing but wrong. And you still don't know any twentieth-century history. Telling me you do doesn't help you. I'm not crazy enough to believe it.
TW, you are not seeing the whole forest because you are fascinated with about three of its trees. If Islamoterrorism is to go away, its sponsors must be finished off.
Islamoterrorism doesn't happen without the say-so of Islamic governments or government entities. It keeps transpiring, for a somewhat far-flung instance, that Indonesian Islamoterrorists have covert ties with the Indonesian military. And just how many Islamic nations/governments are on the list of terrorist sponsors? Two that were recently knocked off that list are Afghanistan and Iraq. Still on it are Syria and Iran among others.
Your terrorist nation list is promoted to people who need not first learn history. Indonesia as a terrorist nation is clearly absurd; only for those who blindly believe; reality be damned. Only an extreme right wing agenda - to even promote hate and justify more wars - would make that claim.
Meanwhile, those 'Islamoterrorists' are a greater threat to the local secular government including Syria, Indonesia, Egypt, Syria, the many K'stan nations, Pakistan, western China, and Saudi Arabia. UG, learn from history rather than blindly believe what a drug addicted Rush Limbaugh tells you to preach.
Who almost killed the Prime Minister of Egypt? Who then later and successfully killed Nasser? Who was so close to killing Syria's Asad that Asad literally massacred something like all of 10,000 people in towns that were 'hotbeds' of 'Islamoterrorists'. What government supported and encouraged these 'Islamoterrorists' attacks? IOW why do you post facts that are invented - fictional - created to promote a political agenda much like the Nazis did in 1930s Germany and Milosevik did in 1990 Balkans?
IOW this is about the character and integrity of Urbane Guerrilla:
Don't wait for the translation. I am prepared to wait for hell to freeze over. Your next post - as a liar must do - avoided "that Saddam was hooked up with the terror guys". Show us that you are not just Rush Limbaugh high on hard drugs. Casting blame on TW does not get UG out of this. Outright and intentional lying is the most unforgivable sin one can practice here. Prove "that Saddam was hooked up with the terror guys". An honest and credible Urbane Guerrilla could prove "that Saddam was hooked up with the terror guys". Prove it. Show us that you don't just rewrite history when it is convenient - that you have a shred of honesty inside you.
We are now stuck right here on the character and integrity of Urbane Guerrilla who refuses to: show us "that Saddam was hooked up with the terror guys". How cold is it in hell? I don't need a forest to recognize lying. Show us that Urbane Guerrilla has some integrity. Answer the question.
Least you forget:
Outright and intentional lying is the most unforgivable sin one can practice here.
Here ya go. From page 1 of a Google search of "saddam terror link"
Ugly web page, but the pictures are pretty damning. Don't want a debate -- I can't go toe-to-toe with every 3-page instance of random, disjointed, encyclopaedic facts about unrelated wars (I'm at work). So I will just leave the site out there as a visual aid.
British Plan to Deport 10 Foreigners
You gotta love those Brits. They don't screw around with niceities, PC, or profiling and they don't take :turd: from no one.
The man himself was a terrorist.. lest we forget the Kurdish gassing, etc.
When you look at the antiwar rhetoric, the attempts to demonize a perfectly respectable SCOTUS candidate, and the general shrillness of the left for the last 5 years, something becomes more apparent every day. The only real platform the Democrats are running on these days is "sour grapes over the results of the last two elections".
If they put as much effort into finding real solutions as they did into trying to neutralize any and all Bush efforts, we might actually get somewhere.
next time you see someone ranting because the poor blacks and mexicans are disproportionately fighting and dieing in the middle east - show them
this.
for some reason i can't grab the actual chart, so you will have to follow the link. what i see is that of all the deaths in Iraq:
1,265 have been white
195 hispanic
185 black
not that you would hear that on the evening news.
next time you see someone ranting because the poor blacks and mexicans are disproportionately fighting and dieing in the middle east - show them this.
for some reason i can't grab the actual chart, so you will have to follow the link. what i see is that of all the deaths in Iraq:
1,265 have been white
195 hispanic
185 black
not that you would hear that on the evening news.
It's Flash so you'd have to do a screen grab.
Who the hell is ranting about blacks and hispanics disproportionately fighting in Iraq?!?!?!?!?!? My God! have we really run out of things to truely gripe about!!!??? What do these people think, that the war in Iraq is yet another underhanded way the "man" is beating the brother down? :meanface:
As far as I know, lookout123 is the only one ranting about it. I haven't seen it anywhere else.
I've heard of people ranting about the disproportional number of blacks in Vietnam, but not Iraq. Maybe I'm sheltered. After all, I'm sure you can find someone somewhere to rant about any paricular issue.
Indonesia as a terrorist nation is clearly absurd; only for those who blindly believe; reality be damned.
Read
Allah's Torch, by Tracy Dahlby, you incompetent.
While the situation there looks defusable from the international relations viewpoint, I don't think we've heard the last of them.
After all, I'm sure you can find someone somewhere to rant about any particular issue.
As evidenced by the worthy TW. Good thing I'm not going to take him seriously. He shows me yet another example of what leftism does to the weak-minded -- further data.
"Least" you forget? -- don't ever try hiring on as a copyeditor.
Baer ruled that Saddam Hussein’s government was complicit in the September 11 attacks and that the Baathist government owed the plaintiffs a judgment of $104 million.
The way the American courts work they would have found the airlines complicit in the Sept.11th attacks if the Feds hadn't prevented it. :eyebrow:
i haven't heard many people ranting about minorities in combat recently. Al Sharptong was a few months ago, i've heard Dean do it once or twice but it didn't really catch. then i had a client come complaining because they were taking all the mexican soldiers and sending them to Iraq to die so no "white boys" would have to. that conversation motivated me to look up the actual numbers, coincidentally CNN ran the numbers during the same week. so there you go - more insight into the twisted thought process of lookout.
Well, this being America, the difference is not really race, but economics. After all, OJ and Michael did find justice. Poor white kids and poor black kids join the Army. It is the employer of last resort and is a way to make some money and, if someone is ambitious, get training.
This war was slightly different in that there is a large National Guard and Reserve element. I would say that the Guard skews more towards middle class than the regular Army. Most of them have civilian jobs. A lot of them bought that 'The National Guard has not been called up since WWII' line.
As evidenced by the worthy TW. Good thing I'm not going to take him seriously. He shows me yet another example of what leftism does to the weak-minded -- further data.
Urbane Guerrilla, as a typical left or right wing extremist must do, cannot admit he had no proof for his speculation "that Saddam was hooked up with the terror guys". He admits, using silence, of no knowledge that "Saddam was hooked up with the terror guys". Silence is preferable to being honest when playing propaganda games.
Centrists first need facts before making a conclusion. Extremists will even lie to justify preordained agendas. Urbane Guerrilla will not admit it, but honesty appears to be not part of his character. That is the problem with having extremist and preordained agendas. Honesty no longer matters when propaganda and the agenda is more important.
Of course, UG still could demonstrate honesty. He still has the oppurtunity to prove his statement "that Saddam was hooked up with the terror guys". He admits, by silence, of no knowledge that "Saddam was hooked up with the terror guys". But he can't for two reasons. 1) No proof exists AND 2) that would be contrary to who Urbane Guerrilla is. Honesty and extremism are mutually exclusive.
But who is Urbane Guerrilla? Can Urbane Guerrilla name someone who is too right wing for him; more right wing then himself?
For the second time, TW: Case Closed was proof. It exists. You linked it here. You proved my case. And you just can't admit that non-democratic regimes have such a penchant for warmaking that they'll employ proxies as cat's-paws -- to make war. The dictatorships about which TW has such a blind spot continue to behave wrongfully unless firmly checked.
I am enjoying your demonstration of your neurotic thinking in your Fenimore Cooperesque verbiage, and as I said, you will fail in making me the issue. I enjoy seeing fanatics dig themselves in deeper: they are ineffectual, so. Whattaya know, honesty and extremism are mutually exclusive.
The Birchers are too right-wing for me. So are the LaRouchies. The KKK aren't really right-wing though -- their thinking isn't sane enough. Despite appearances, at their core Nazism and the other brands of fascism are really more leftist than rightist, with their "the State is all" philosophy: collectivism and aggrandizement of the State are of the left, not the right -- check von Kuhnelt-Liddehn for a rather impressive argument for this.
The Left is without virtue, TW. Don't whore after their false gods. I don't.
Cannot claim to have read every comment/view that went before, but have some obesrvations.
Terrorism is international because we make it appropriate for it to be that way - Israeli support/bias, Iraq regime change being prime culprits. Give a man a good enough reason (stimulus) to react and he will - the harsher the reason the stronger the reaction. That applies both ways. From the 'terrorist' angle, take foreign interference out of the equation and how long would international 'terrorist' reaction be justified, or better still supported? Sure there would always be regional 'terrorist' reaction to regional issues - Irish with UK, Basque with Spain, and so on - but the reason to take a local issue to another country would evaporate - to maintain the support needs ongoing 'in-the-face' reason (stimulus). Think of the product life cycle of anything and you will appreciate that interest will only be sustained in any product/situation so long as there is sufficient stimulus to do so. Remove this and over time the original reason will be surpassed by a more attractive/novel/original cause to support. Hence the fact that we cannot tar everything that happens with a common brush but must acknowledge and accept that there are specific factions that rise and then fall in popularity. Saddam doesn’t = terrorism, doesn’t = international threat, but take away Saddam and you create the vacuum that terrorism can fill where there is a deluded and wanting public. Add the international element that evicted Saddam and is seen as supporting Israel over Palestine, and mix that with a faction of terrorism that acts against international interference and you have the volatile recipe that has fuelled the current well-baked cake of disruption.
A key question then is: have we gone too far to achieve a return to local/regional reaction? The deeper you are entrenched the harder it is to extract yourself and it will be brave international leaders that have the courage and foresight to find the means and support to withdraw on an international level and overcome the short-term economic and strategic risks and consequences that such action precipitates.
Clearly the current aggressive approach is not working and serves only to escalate the crisis. Poverty has a link to the extent that it causes the local population to share an identity of common cause when there is nothing else to give them hope of changing their status - and of course they have time and will enough to follow the leaders that court their attention. The poor need one or both of: freedom from poverty and/or reason to support another doctrine.
Time now therefore to put effort, not into aggression, but to achieving the withdrawal of support for 'terrorist' reaction on an international scale while preserving the status quo in economic stability. Achieve that and international threats will reduce to local issues can be dealt with – byte sized pieces that can be attended to with the appropriate level of action and remedy locally, without requiring an international presence. A difficult objective but is there really any other way…?
That was just about the most sensible post in this thread I've seen thusfar.
:beer:
It is a thoughtful post, but it still ignores a few basic facts:
1) Extremist imams call the shots in much of the middle east.
2) These imams call for the eradication of ALL Jews.
3) Israel is our ally. Muslim extremism therefore is targeted at America by default.
4) Terrorism has always been international. The only reason for its absence on American soil is not appeasement or negotiation, but the threat of our military might.
By attacking Iraq, we have achieved the following:
1) Terrorist acts are not occurring here, as on 9/11; when they occur, they tend to happen there, where they can be contained, and the perpetrators can more easily be killed or captured.
2) Those acts that do occur internationally are directed at our allies, to reduce support. They are not happening in the US, because of two things:
.....a) we have a highly effective anti-terrorism machine.
.....b) because we have shown the will to respond with force, terrorism on our soil will not reap the benefits it did in Spain. Britain's latest events were tests of resolve, which were passed with flying colors. They'll pick on another ally next time, unless I miss my guess.
3) Iraq is no longer a source of income and shelter for terrorists. It's a place for them to meet Allah, which achieves our strategic goals as well as their personal ones. Win-win! /sarcasm
4) When we pull out, Iraq will have a democratically elected government, and a police/military that is prepared and motivated to to fight their own war on terror. It will also serve as a buffer between extremist nations, hampering their ability to operate at will in that region.
Abandoning Iraq will scuttle any hope of freedom from terror for its citizens. The first wacko imam to the capitol building will take over, and every death will have been in vain. This is an acceptable alternative to our anti-war crowd because it gains them a domestic political victory. That's sickening.
We have to win in Iraq. It will stabilize the area and send a strong message to other countries that harbor terrorists that we are committed to eliminating the threat that terrorism represents. That is the only way to get their cooperation. Diplomacy and sanctions only work to a point. They are utterly useless tools against extremists whose only goal is to die in the jihad against the west.
Israel is our ally. Muslim extremism therefore is targeted at America by default.
IMO, were aren't being targeted because we are friends with Israel, but because we are the biggest and tuffest dude on the block who has thier fingers in everyone's counties. A lot of these extermists are young, unemployed, highly impressionable kids/young men who are looking for a better life. When you have someone telling you how you can have a dozen virgins feeding you moldy grapes for all eternity and become a local hero in the process, they want this. Since the Russians pulled out of Afganistan, they ran out of reasons to die for...enter the U.S. who is not going anywhere for a long time. We are high profile and can be viewed as bullies when it comes to implementing democracy on other contries. What better way to justify Jihad and get a few points under your belt than to take out a few hundred Americans.
They are not happening in the US, because of two things:
.....a) we have a highly effective anti-terrorism machine.
.....b) because we have shown the will to respond with force, terrorism on our
I think the real reason why we haven't been attacked again is because Al Qeada is masters at biding thier time. They can wait months, years, even decades before striking. Time means nothing to them. True, we do have a better infastruction that has prevented some serious potential attacks but the majority of our Anti-terrorism machine is still covered up in bubble-wrap and located in some storage wharehouse somewhere. I don't think it's as effective as we are being led to believe.
It will stabilize the area and send a strong message to other countries that harbor terrorists that we are committed to eliminating the threat that terrorism represents.
We can not eliminate terrorism, it has to run it's course. Eventually, the extermists will grow tired of this way of life and move on to something else (possibly more sinister). The only way it can be defeated externally is if the entire world grows tired of thier people dying in sensless and brutal deaths, bands together, and begins to erraticate all Muslims wholesale in an event that will make Milošević look like Walt Disney (not going to happen).
They are utterly useless tools against extremists whose only goal is to die in the jihad against the west.
Excellent. This is the crux of the reason why conventional war/battle/force will not work in the defeat of terrorism. You can't threaten death to someone who is praying for death...literally. They got nothing to loose. You kill them, they become martyrs. You let them live, they become martyrs. You hit them with sactions, they become martyrs. You...well, you get the picture.
I cannot agree with a lot of what you say mrnoodle, but I suspect that would be stating the obvious. To give my reasons - your words first f/b mine hopefully in Italics if the programming works as it should::
1) Extremist imams call the shots in much of the middle east.
** There are extremists in many countries - we have the BNP, France has Le Penn for example. They are unsuccessful because the bulk of the population has a civilised lifestyle as a result of the existing regime. These extremists' message has no value for the majority and so they are ineffective. The answer is to render the imams ineffective - trying to eradicate them turns them into either living or dead martyrs, and, as Hobbs says, that feeds the extremist regime.
2) These imams call for the eradication of ALL Jews.
** as above
3) Israel is our ally. Muslim extremism therefore is targeted at America by default.
**Just because Israel is your ally does not mean that everything that your ally does is right. The strength of a friendship is in the ability for one party to influence the others actions for their benefit and the greater benefit of others. Rightly or wrongly Israel is seen as an aggravant whose actions appear to receive wholehearted US support. Change that view to change the view of the extremists
4) Terrorism has always been international. The only reason for its absence on American soil is not appeasement or negotiation, but the threat of our military might.
** Not true on both counts. Having lived through decades of our own 'terrorist' problem in Northern Ireland, I do not recall that the problems we faced extended beyond our shores. We may not have solved the Irish issue but we have achieved much more than many with a protracted ceasefire and a return to a level of normality in daily life that, whatever the differences might be, none of the affected parties is in a hurry to throw away. This was not achieved by the might of the sword but by the might of the word.
By attacking Iraq, we have achieved the following:
1) Terrorist acts are not occurring here, as on 9/11; when they occur, they tend to happen there, where they can be contained, and the perpetrators can more easily be killed or captured.
**Not sure I understand the logic here - on this basis the acts should be diminishing but they certainly are not
2) Those acts that do occur internationally are directed at our allies, to reduce support. They are not happening in the US, because of two things:
.....a) we have a highly effective anti-terrorism machine.
.....b) because we have shown the will to respond with force, terrorism on our soil will not reap the benefits it did in Spain. Britain's latest events were tests of resolve, which were passed with flying colors. They'll pick on another ally next time, unless I miss my guess.
**The perpetrators are not afraid and as Hobbs says it is only a matter of time. The longer that aggression towards and destruction of the factions is the objective there will be counter-attack. I tend to agree with Hobbs that it might not be hitting US soil right now but that is not to say it won't. Also IMO the attacks on Britain are unlikely to be the last.
3) Iraq is no longer a source of income and shelter for terrorists. It's a place for them to meet Allah, which achieves our strategic goals as well as their personal ones. Win-win! /sarcasm
4) When we pull out, Iraq will have a democratically elected government, and a police/military that is prepared and motivated to to fight their own war on terror. It will also serve as a buffer between extremist nations, hampering their ability to operate at will in that region.
**Unfortunately the democratically elected goverbnment failed to attract a major section of the population who have not signed up to the new way. As a a result, there is more likelihood of ongoing civil unrest and even a splitting of the nation into two opposing and warring factions. You simply cannot force a way of life on to a people that does not recognise that way as being any part of their culture. They will rebel.
Abandoning Iraq will scuttle any hope of freedom from terror for its citizens. The first wacko imam to the capitol building will take over, and every death will have been in vain. This is an acceptable alternative to our anti-war crowd because it gains them a domestic political victory. That's sickening.
We have to win in Iraq. It will stabilize the area and send a strong message to other countries that harbor terrorists that we are committed to eliminating the threat that terrorism represents. That is the only way to get their cooperation. Diplomacy and sanctions only work to a point. They are utterly useless tools against extremists whose only goal is to die in the jihad against the west.[/QUOTE]
** I can almost agree your words in the last two paragraphs, but I would be applying the words to a different concept. Diplomacy has to be the better answer (not the only answer) as foreign intervention of an aggressive and dictatorial nature certainly will never achieve longterm stable results. I certainly do not advocate abandoning the situation for the very reasons you state. However, eliminating terrorism does not mean killing the perpetrators, to my mind it means rendering them and their doctrine ineffective by making it unpalatable and unattractive to the highest possible proportion of the population. Winning in Iraq for me means achieving that.
** There are extremists in many countries - we have the BNP, France has Le Penn for example. They are unsuccessful because the bulk of the population has a civilised lifestyle as a result of the existing regime. These extremists' message has no value for the majority and so they are ineffective. The answer is to render the imams ineffective - trying to eradicate them turns them into either living or dead martyrs, and, as Hobbs says, that feeds the extremist regime.
The only way the US (or the West in general) could possibly give the population of such countries a civilized lifestyle is to first move in and take over from the governments who are currently there. Are you sure you want to support such overt imperialism?
**Just because Israel is your ally does not mean that everything that your ally does is right. The strength of a friendship is in the ability for one party to influence the others actions for their benefit and the greater benefit of others. Rightly or wrongly Israel is seen as an aggravant whose actions appear to receive wholehearted US support. Change that view to change the view of the extremists
Ridiculous. The extremists will hate Israel no matter what the US does, and they'll hate US support of Israel as long as it exists, whether or not that support appears "wholehearted" or not.
It's imperialism if you're determined to stay and exact tribute from the resulting subjects. Absent staying...
It is a thoughtful post, but it still ignores a few basic facts:
4) Terrorism has always been international. The only reason for its absence on American soil is not appeasement or negotiation, but the threat of our military might.
Considering the fact that terrorists do not sit in one place waiting to be attacked, how does the 'threat of our might' stop them. After 4 years we still can't find Bin Laden, the most wanted fugitive in the world. We can raid all the houses and caves in Iraq, but have still failed to lower the number of terrorist attacks.
Terrorists (and rebels, insurgents, etc) do not fight from fixed bases or capitals. They cannot be invaded. They hide in neutral or allied countries.
It's possible that our improved security has made it harder to attack the US, but it's really not possible for Bin Laden or Al Qaeda to become even more wanted by us, so I don't believe that they are holding back out of fear that we will want to kill them even more than we do now.
It's imperialism if you're determined to stay and exact tribute from the resulting subjects. Absent staying...
We're building the biggest embassy in the world there, and I doubt the military bases we're building are temporary. As f
or tr
ibute, we'
ll see.
We can raid all the houses and caves in Iraq, but have still failed to lower the number of terrorist attacks.
Fox News reported this week that the number of terrorist attacks in Iraq has dropped for the third month straight. The number is down by about a quarter from three months ago, but the bangs are getting bigger. Fox also remarked that they didn't know whether it was us or them -- Rump Saddamites losing steam or the calm before another storm?
Monkey, the solidest and most objective evidence out there is that our Middle East policy is not and never was all about oil. Israel? Nary a drop that didn't get there by tanker. We had an army sitting atop the Rumaila Field, which is the biggest of Iraq's oilfields. We drove off it, packed up and went home. Didn't even pump barrel one for a souvenir. I believe and credit that solid and objective evidence. Being immunized against conspiracy theory, I don't get sucked in by the kind of thing you're believing in.
[QUOTE=Cyclefrance]** There are extremists in many countries - we have the BNP, France has Le Penn for example. They are unsuccessful because the bulk of the population has a civilised lifestyle as a result of the existing regime. These extremists' message has no value for the majority and so they are ineffective. The answer is to render the imams ineffective - trying to eradicate them turns them into either living or dead martyrs, and, as Hobbs says, that feeds the extremist regime.
You raise an important point in your response to the above Russotto. It was not my intention that the example of 'civilised lifestyle' should be associated so directly as a solution to extremism in every case (it was supporting the European examples given) but the effect was that you made that connection. There you have it: intention vs. effect. How often is that behind the wrong result. No doubt the US intended/intends to make the US and world a safer place through its actions, but the effect has produced and continues to produce something else. The answer in such situations surely is a rethink and change, not more of the same.
Monkey, the solidest and most objective evidence out there is that our Middle East policy is not and never was all about oil.
I'm glad you put the word "all" in there. Because otherwise it would have been one of the most ridiculous things you've said, and that's saying a lot. As it is, with the "all" in there, you essentially said nothing.
When US bring democracy in other countries :
Mossadegh prime minister was elected in Iran in 1952 and wanted to nationalize petrol.
Eisenhower said something like “ eliminate the problem called Mossadegh and get our petrol back “ (french translation…)
CIA organized communist bomb attacks, riots (operation Ajax) in order to raise the Shah to power and his prime minister nazi general Fazlollah Zahédi (his political police : Savak highly influenced by Gestapo)
Mossadegh died in prison in 1967.
Salvator Allende was elected president of Chile in 1970, CIA raised dictator Pinochet in 1973.
Salvator Allende was executed in 1973.
Hugo Chavez is elected in Venezuela (petrol). US always try to eliminate this president who invests his petrol benefits for his country.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Is elected in Iran in august 2005 and launch again a civil nuclear program (that could lead to military program ?…)
When there will be no more petrol in Iran, what kind of energy will this country be allowed to use ? If western countries were Iran, what would they do ? They’ll also try to anticipate future. I know may be he isn’t a saint, I just keep occidental logic.
What will GW Bush decide ? He’s waiting for the first reason to declare war in end August or beginning September 2005 ! US military bases have already been set around Iran (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kirghistan, Ouzbékistan, Irak, Koweït and Qatar) for months.
(It would be also ironical that US let now Irak attack Koweit since Irak is under US political control : the 02 aug 2005 Irakian deputies declared Koweit was infringing Irak/Koweit border line. I just make a free nightmare without any evidence of this intention ! But the last time it happened, Saddam Hussein overran Koweit.
GW Bush lost the election in Florida in 2000 and was declared president by the Supreme court (justice) with members named by G W Bush’s father.
Bush declared war to Irak and Afghanistan, change their governments without catching Ben Laden, without finding links between Irak and Ben Laden, without finding mass destruction weapons in Irak.
US own civil and military nuclear. US launched a program of miniaturised nuclear bombs “mini-nukes”. And remember what is the only country that used nuclear weapon in history ?
Recalling WW2 :
Before the nuclear bombing, unlike other Japanese cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki had never been attacked by US because it would have altered the results in order to establish liable statistics of the nuclear efficiency !! (French and British TV broadcast last week)
Japan had already decided to surrender before Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and US leaders knew all about that. Thanks to Little Boy and Fat Man, Japan will surrender to US and not to URSS ! Thus Japan became under US control and not URSS control.
Tokyo 70.000, Hiroshima 140.000, Nagasaki 70.000 at the end 1945. Multiply per 2 after for the two last ones victims of radiations.
We should do something to bring democracy and freedom in United States !
After
- a century of oil pillage in middle east, by the western world (France, GB as well),
- manipulations in order to keep these Arabian countries divided, and thus keep the power
(you can extend to Asia, Africa and South America). French and British are also responsible in having cutting the border lines throw ethnic people according to their economical interests, and divide these new countries in several different ethnic trends.
Divide in order to rule !
- years of food blockade in Irak,
I don’t think virgins are necessary to motivate people to become terrorists and fight against US ! (French members of Resistance were seen like terrorists in WW2.)
It's imperialism if you're determined to stay and exact tribute from the resulting subjects. Absent staying...
When the domination is obvious, people have an easy objective to fight (some French against nazis…). When you put a puppet, stemmed for this country, you command it, and you control the main companies, it’s less easy for folks to react. But this country is still under your control. It will follow your orders and interests.
For example it’s also useful to control countries producing petrol in order to keep dollar as the main international trade money… Otherwise it would lead to an economical breaking down
that threatens US (and the world) because economically they aren’t really so mighty. Look at the economical deficit.
No doubt the US intended/intends to make the US and world a safer place through its actions, but the effect has produced and continues to produce something else.
I often agree with you, but in this case I doubt whether it’s true: Just look at the results. Leaders aren’t crazy in their logic (but humanely, emotionally they are), I think they want these effects.
Give a man a good enough reason (stimulus) to react and he will - the harsher the reason the stronger the reaction.
I agree 500%. It’s the reason they act like this with several stages (economical crisis, food blockade… à reaction (terrorist, war) à action (war that you are surely going to win) to get the power justified as being seen as victim of terrorism)
For exemple : US iron and petrol blockade against Japan before WW2, food blockade against Irak before Gulf War (hundred thousand civil victims)………..
After war Iran / Irak, Irak was ruined. But Saddam could be an important force in Middle East. US incited Koweit to provoke it in extracting oil at the border line and in requiring repayment of military help. US promised with ambassador April Glaspie that US wouldn’t interfere because before British decolonisation Koweit was part of Irak. à Saddam attacked Koweit à US Gulf war 1
When you want a result, create the problem that your result will resolve ! Thus the population will accept it and thank you !
I think in politic there’s no friend, no enemy, only just interests. Just look back at history.
I disagree with countries politic not people.
Bye :biggrin:
There you have it: intention vs. effect. How often is that behind the wrong result. No doubt the US intended/intends to make the US and world a safer place through its actions, but the effect has produced and continues to produce something else. The answer in such situations surely is a rethink and change, not more of the same.
Invoking the standard rule here, now that you have told us the policy is bad, and needs to be replaced, you absolutely must tell us your proposed policy.
Fair warning, we intend to tear it to shreds.
Tell us, how DO you get rid of a hornet's nest without getting stung?
When US bring democracy in other countries :
Don't forget all of Europe in this list.
How'd that work out, BTW?
I think in politic there’s no friend, no enemy, only just interests. Just look back at history.
You know, that's one of the wisest things I've ever heard(read), are you sure you're French? :lol:
GW Bush lost the election in Florida in 2000 and was declared president by the Supreme court (justice) with members named by G W Bush’s father.
Right, except for the "lost the election" part. The vote re-counters in Florida continued counting for the hell of it even once the Supreme Court told them the results would be ignored. They determined that even after the recount, Bush did in fact win Florida.
He did not receive a majority of the
popular vote, to be sure, but that is not how our election system works. He is not the first president to win with less of the popular vote than his opponent.
But don't feel bad, most of the American media ignored that part of the story too. ;)
Don't forget all of Europe in this list.
I really don’t forget Europe. Sorry if you’ve understood that in my post. I’ve mentioned some examples and used words like “western world”. Meanwhile I think US are the most active nowadays. Aren’t they ? It’s the privilege of the world champions.
If you want some more about France :
- France responsible of genocide in Madagascar in 1947 : 300.000 dead people.
- France made war in Algeria (1954-1962) : about 300.000 Algerians dead
- Mitterrand was chosen in 1990 to negociate peace with Saddam Hussein before Gulf War 1. Saddam Hussein answered positively and accepted to free the hostages. After suddenly Mitterrand closed negotiations (to join US point of view) and the war began. : > 100.000 dead
- France and Mitterrand (I hate this man) responsible of genocide in Rwanda in 1994 : 800.000 dead Tutsis.
- …..
We can easily find others for England, Russia…
are you sure you're French? :lol:
Sure I’m French. May be I was an American in a former life ! :p
But I’ve forgotten a lot of my English when I was in heaven.
I really don’t forget Europe. Sorry if you’ve understood that in my post.
You misunderstood me.
I mean:
When listing all the countries that the US brought freedom and democracy to, don't forget Europe.
I'm not talking about WW2. I know it has been too long to expect leftover gratitude for that.
I'm talking about the cold war and the events of the last 20 years.
Meanwhile I think US are the most active nowadays. Aren’t they ? It’s the privilege of the world champions.
And the responsibility.
I'm glad you put the word "all" in there. Because otherwise it would have been one of the most ridiculous things you've said, and that's saying a lot. As it is, with the "all" in there, you essentially said nothing.
Codswallop. I finished the thought in the rest of that post. You are being extremely dishonest. That should not satisfy you.
What was the thought that you finished? That Israel is also a major influence on our Middle Eastern foreign policy? Thanks for the heads up. That you found an example of a time we didn't out-and-out take oil during a war? The whole Iraq/Kuwait war was about the Rumaila oil feild.
Don't forget all of Europe in this list.
Except spain. :eyebrow:
You raise an important point in your response to the above Russotto. It was not my intention that the example of 'civilised lifestyle' should be associated so directly as a solution to extremism in every case (it was supporting the European examples given) but the effect was that you made that connection.
Whether you intended or not, the issue is out there and you have refused to address it. If the solution to terrorism is to give the people who might support it a "civilised lifestyle", then how exactly do you intend to go about this, given that the governments of countries where terrorists do most of their recruiting aren't interested in allowing their people a "civilised lifestyle"? Your proposed abstract solution -- give the people a civilised lifestyle -- leads directly to attempting Bush's concrete one of forcibly removing the governments who keep the people from having an "uncivilised lifestyle". And no amount of listing American-installed previous dictators will change that.
Invoking the standard rule here, now that you have told us the policy is bad, and needs to be replaced, you absolutely must tell us your proposed policy.
Fair warning, we intend to tear it to shreds.
Tell us, how DO you get rid of a hornet's nest without getting stung?
That’s fair enough Mr Undertoad. I don't/won’t pretend to have all the answers, though (if I have any at all it will be a miracle!) - in fact at this stage the idea of presenting a ready-to-go solution is simply not realistic. There is a process of analysis to undertake and, right now, this can only be taken so far. The situation currently is so sensitive and complex that any and every step needs to be taken carefully – even the best and most appropriate plan will likely be misconstrued and distrusted.
Given the opportunity to turn the clock back, Iraq should never have been invaded. Oh, that such a thing were possible. Why our PM supported the action only he knows, and is a subject that warrants separate discussion.
Alas there is no opportunity to change past events, so the question is what should we do now that we are in Iraq with all the problems that this has created and continues to create? Well, there's a saying that if you find yourself in a hole the first thing you should do is stop digging, and this is what we should be doing with regards to Iraq. No withdrawal, for reasons already stated in this thread, but no escalation of current planning and policy. We need to take on board that what is happening in Iraq now is a symptom of another, more demanding problem - the root problem that won't go away based on anything currently being proposed for Iraq. The best and least damaging course to take here, at the moment, will be to contain the current situation. That may not be very palatable, but the real energy and effort just has to be transferred to dealing with the root problem.
And the root problem is...?
Well everything points to the Israel/Palestine issue, and pivotal to that the perceived US approach to it. Policy therefore has to be to address this, as it looks pretty clear to me that the Middle East’s upwardly spiraling crisis is not going to reverse unless and until it is addressed. A military solution isn’t going to work, only a diplomatic one, irrespective of failures in the past. And time is relatively short. I think reports suggest that Iran will have a nuclear capability within ten years. The issue needs to be well on its way to being settled before that time arrives.
How to go about it? Ceasefire, negotiation, investment, independence. That on its own would sound a bit like a cop-out short answer in light of the request you made, so here are my expanded reasons.
There are five basic steps to follow to arrive at a solution to a crisis – these are essentially the same sequential steps that are used in any problem-solving situation:
1. Identify the root cause – which means looking beyond the symptoms to find out what is really driving the crisis. In this case taking on board that the Israel/Palestine issue is at the core and driving everything else. The current issues in Iraq are not there as a result of Saddam’s legacy, but because of the vacuum that his removal created. That vacuum has been filled by regimes driven by frustration and anger at the absence of a solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict and the stance the US has taken towards it. The US presence in Iraq for them represents a store (further biased interference) on which they can draw as they sell their doctrine to dissatisfied segments of the population.
2. Subordinate all other crises – which means putting the real effort and energy into dealing with the root problem and certainly not devoting more to the symptomatic crises than to the root cause – extensive energy and effort spent other than on the root problem will effectively be ill-spent as these sub-crises can only be solved as and when the root cause is dealt with
3. Exploit the current situation – in other words, make the best out of the current Israel/Palestine situation. Most certainly the first action would need to be a ceasefire coupled with international effort to sustain that status and to bring the factions to the table. The process moves to understanding what needs to be changed to improve matters and getting all the parties concerned to acknowledge and accept that this change is necessary. This will be a lengthy process (but not as long as step 4) and at its heart must be the protection of the ceasefire. Any proposed step should only proceed provided that the ceasefire is upheld (and I accept it will be no easy matter achieving this first step). This becomes the anchor and ensures that all parties move forward at the speed that is appropriate to ensure and protect ongoing success. It also places responsibility on the relevant parties to act in the event of any violation of the ceasefire (bound to happen).
4. Elevate the crisis – taking the situation to a higher level. Real negotiation, formulation and execution of a long-term durable solution – a comprehensive plan and desired timescale that will undoubtedly include stages involving investment and ultimately independence from international involvement. There must be commitment to proceed, to review, and to revise to improve where and when necessary. The ceasefire continues to play its role. Movement on to a next step only proceeds when the preceding step is accepted by the parties to the plan as being satisfactorily completed or sufficiently advanced to warrant moving on sooner. This keeps everyone on board, and the longer they stay on board the stronger the relationship becomes allowing both sides to learn how much better it is to fight the problem rather than fight each other.
5. Revisit and be prepared to revise - if during the process of dealing with the root cause it transpires that the balance shifts such that something that was a subordinate crisis now predominates (because of progress with the original root crisis), or even a new crisis develops and this now becomes the superior problem, then the process starts again with what becomes (now) the new root cause.
In my view the policy now HAS to be to attend to the Israel/Palestine conflict. Proof that this is happening and progressing will be the cornerstone to reducing the influence of the regimes that use the current state of this conflict as their pitch to oppose and fight the West. The countries where they have infiltrated will need to be encouraged with investment and independence of government, and this needs to be made available at a time when its value and benefit has a real chance to be appreciated and to succeed.
As for not getting stung, at this stage of the proceedings that is impossible to achieve. Rather the course has to be first to take appropriate action to control and limit the amount of stinging, then, provided that unnecessary and unwarranted provocation doesn't follow, the incidents of stinging will reduce and, eventually, if this approach is maintained, the nest will present no real threat of danger. Alternatively this advice could be ignored, at worst resulting in the nest falling and breaking, and the occupants then becoming uncontrollable and unpredicatable.
I think I will leave it there for now. I hope I have gone some way to addressing your request – hopefully far enough to justify the onslaught of constructive criticism you promise....at least I trust that is what you had in mind when you mentioned tearing to shreds!
Very eloquent, Cycleman…..to bad it won’t work.
When you sit down to discuss/negotiate a solution with terrorists like Mazen, Sharon and Urbane Guerrilla you’re doomed before you start. These fools would kill you before they would consider listening to a solution they don’t dictate. :headshake
Very eloquent, Cycleman…..to bad it won’t work.
When you sit down to discuss/negotiate a solution with terrorists like Mazen, Sharon and Urbane Guerrilla you’re doomed before you start. These fools would kill you before they would consider listening to a solution they don’t dictate. :headshake
They said the same thing about the IRA - but the situation has progressed and improved albeit very slowly (inevitably two steps forward one step back but overall moving, still, in the right direction) - but then the speed of the result should not be the objective but the durability, and if that takes time, so be it (with a 100 years of troubles and legacy to cure vis-a-vis Northern Ireland that's understandable). It starts with a common acceptance from all sides that change for improvement is necessary - once you have that denominator then you can and will move ahead.
Maybe the likes of you and me could not turn the tide in respect of Israel/Palestine, but I believe that there are people (professional negotiators)who can. What else would you propose because I honestly do not see another route that has the power to deliver?
Cyc, that's good karma by you, stating up front that you don't have all the answers. I don't either.
I don't think Israel/Palestine is the root of any of this. I think it's just the most visible flashpoint. It fails to explain things like Bali and Chechnya.
I don't think negotiation works at all because I think the other side sees it as a point of weakness. In 1999 Clinton worked with Arafat to come to a negotiated agreement on the problem. He was offered more than he'd ever been offered before. His answer was to turn it all down and return home and start the most recent intifada. "They are talking, they must be at the end of their rope, it's time to attack!"
I don't think Israel/Palestine is the root of any of this. I think it's just the most visible flashpoint. It fails to explain things like Bali and Chechnya.
I accept that there is no direct link. I think Bali still counts as an attack against the west, and Chechnya against foreign government interference. However, I don't really know too much about the detail of these to make further comment. Middle east for middle east, I still hold an Israel/Palestine solution as the key for neutralising support for the regimes that are causing disruptions there, and related disruptions elsewhere - also if we look back over the past few decades then a hell of a lot of terrorist acts have been linked to this conflict. Also I am not saying that Isreal/Palestine is responsible for every problem just that it is the root of the middle east and I would find it hard to argue that this was not the most damaging and dangerous at the present time. Prove that you can negate support for the perpetrators middle east wise, and there is good reason for applying the same approach in other situations..
I don't think negotiation works at all because I think the other side sees it as a point of weakness. In 1999 Clinton worked with Arafat to come to a negotiated agreement on the problem. He was offered more than he'd ever been offered before. His answer was to turn it all down and return home and start the most recent intifada. "They are talking, they must be at the end of their rope, it's time to attack!"
I should have included the point in my original reply to you that I made later to Bruce namely that there needs to be agreement on a common objective first and throughout - you can't move forward if one side doesn't share the same objective - clearly Arafat had a separate agenda. Nonetheless, it is possible to turn a dissenter around to accept that change for the common good is valid - there are plenty of strong arguments involving big prizes to win (e.g. the carrot of staged substantial investment in return for and in line with results, the opportunity for longterm stability, and so on). Also that change brings with it big win/wins, not big win for one and big lose for the other. Always one step at a time and moving ahead another stage only when it is right to do so, otherwise it is unnecessarily courting risk of failure when there is no need to.I don't think negotiation works at all because I think the other side sees it as a point of weakness. In 1999 Clinton worked with Arafat to come to a negotiated agreement on the problem. He was offered more than he'd ever been offered before. His answer was to turn it all down and return home and start the most recent intifada. "They are talking, they must be at the end of their rope, it's time to attack!"
Just remember that Sharon did his part to help that along, also. I'm glad that he is now making up for lost time in trying to work on the settlement.
In the end, peace requires not only the big stick, but 'speaking softly'. I think Bush learned that too late. You can't threaten someone and then ask them to disarm. "Crusade" and "axis of evil" have really set him back.
snip~~ It starts with a common acceptance from all sides that change for improvement is necessary - once you have that denominator then you can and will move ahead. ~~snip
That's my point, terrorists don't want a point of common acceptance. That would cause an erosion of their ability to impose their will on their targets. It could also cause cause them to lose their power base. :blunt:
Just remember that Sharon did his part to help that along, also. I'm glad that he is now making up for lost time in trying to work on the settlement.
In the end, peace requires not only the big stick, but 'speaking softly'. I think Bush learned that too late. You can't threaten someone and then ask them to disarm. "Crusade" and "axis of evil" have really set him back.
Unfortunately as he is moving people out of Gaza and token parts of West Bank, so he is building new settlements on the outskirts of Jerusalem. On top of that Israel will not be relinquishing control of Gaza. So net result he doesn't move anything forward so far as the Palestinians are concerned. Sceptisism remains and is not addressed. Lost opportunity. But then, if I am reading it right, it appears to be a one-off, high profile initiative with no comprehesive agreed plan behind it. One-sided solutions don't work. The other party has to be involved. If you want to be cynical, maybe this is behind Sharon's effort - 'Look, I did all this in Gaza and still they attack us.' If you want to be optimistic, the withdrawal in Gaza could provide the jolt needed to allow Abbas to address terrorist activities as a means and reason to push Israel to extend disengagement even further. It really shouldn't be a guessing game, though.
You misunderstood me. I mean: When listing all the countries that the US brought freedom and democracy to, don't forget Europe. I'm not talking about WW2. I know it has been too long to expect leftover gratitude for that. I'm talking about the cold war and the events of the last 20 years.
Quite difficult to understand each other, maybe because we disagree somehow.
I wasn’t talking about WW2 neither. I have written my point of view about gratitude in the thread “why do we hate French again”.
About cold war and after in Europe, I think it’s the same logic that what I said in my first post (most of time interests versus URSS, and to control “free” countries with puppets).
Why do you imagine Italia, Spain (before Zapatero), Poland !!!! (I’m dreaming, wake me up), send troupes to Irak despite their folks are opponents to this war. Italia has been under US control since WW2. Former Soviet republics under US control are weakening Russia.
Divide in order to control !
Meanwhile I think that most of Eastern Europe people felt really better once they were no more under Soviet domination despite the transition is difficult.
“State institution needs war for its wellbeing” (author ?).
“I would welcome every war so much I think this country (US) needs one” Theodore Roosevelt 1897
Thus I think a threat is useful for a State. Of course not for folks.
We can also consider that THANKS TO his Soviet opponent, US increased their territory and economical domination. So did URSS in the first part, they lost the second one. And the terror balance was useful to perpetuate these conquests on both sides. It’s my opinion : In fact I think that, because of common interests US and SU were the world best allies during this period ! Look at the results, not at what politicians say.
Finally US won Cold War against URSS.
PS : if I was making war I wouldn’t chose the same symbol as my enemy :
US plane Corsaire :
http://images.google.fr/imgres?imgurl=http://users.belgacom.net/airimg1/avion1/13100.jpg&imgrefurl=http://users.belgacom.net/aircraft1/avion1/5.html&h=455&w=580&sz=23&tbnid=SSDmSb1Fe0YJ:&tbnh=103&tbnw=132&hl=fr&start=14&prev=/images%3Fq%3Davion%2Bcorsair%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Dfr%26lr%3D%26sa%3DG
SU plane L11 : (bottom of page) :
http://users.belgacom.net/avion1/avion1/80.html#1362
US tank : Sherman M10 :
http://www.photoway.com/fr/dest/NORM02_34.html
SU tank : KV1 (bottom of page) :
http://worldwartwo.free.fr/v%E9hicules/KV%20I/KV%201.htm
And after cold war, there were no more excuse to present to US folk in order to motivate other conquests. Perhaps it’s the main reason that made this time quite cool ? They took time to find a new threat : Muslim terrorism. Petrol is a visible economical purpose, maybe not the only one.
PS : Some Muslims leaders, at least some Arabian leaders, are also glad to be pointed out as powerful enemies. They finally can be unified. (but they do against US or Western Countries)
I could discuss with you about Europe if you show me more precise examples (who, when, how ?) in order to develop your idea.
Bring freedom and democracy :
Democracy : in order to be controlled by school, medias, and chose between two identical candidates ? (as in US, France…)
It can be seen like a kind of more subtle and stable dictatorship.
Freedom : Nobody is more slave than someone feeling free without being so (Goethe).
I’ve found Star Wars 2 and 3 excellent in showing how a democracy can give birth to a dictatorship :
You look like a good democrat (Palpatine) waiting for your hour and wanting to be a dictator, you need an army that obey without thinking but that your folk would refuse :
Create, use or strengthen an existing problem (separatists, terrorists) --> Use the full powers given legally by the parliament in promise you’ll defend fatherland and give them back after the problem is resolved (better when you buy senators before) --> Bring the solution (clones army) --> eliminate your former friends and actual enemies (Jedi) in accusing them of betrayal --> transform the Republic in an Empire under general applause --> eliminate your actual enemies and former friends (separatists) --> keep the power as a life emperor under terror when you’re the last one. --> Be careful of your pupil !
“Tell them the truth, they won’t believe you !”……
If fiction looks like reality, maybe it’s because reality looks like fiction !
For example I wouldn’t feel me safe if US were victim of a bacteriological attack, alleged terrorist, that would officially allow US Army to take the power. I read that during 911’s events US army took control of a bacteriological lab : Fort Detrick (Maryland), officially it is a medical lab. It was the only military base evacuated this day. True info ? ??
And the responsibility.
If that could be true, I would be really glad. I used to agree.
Responsibility to sign protocols of Tokyo, to wait for ONU decisions before bombing Irak…
Right, except for the "lost the election" part. The vote re-counters in Florida continued counting for the hell of it even once the Supreme Court told them the results would be ignored. They determined that even after the recount, Bush did in fact win Florida.
I can’t find info about that ?!
Bye
I can’t find info about that ?!
Here's a quick little BBC article on it.
Here's a quick little BBC article on it.
Thanks
My info was just saying that “some” American Newspapers (which ones ?) recounted ballots in Broward county, and declared Gore winner in this county (with how many ballots ?) and thus Gore won the US presidency as well.
Yours is more accurate.
Could we recount to be sure ?!?! :biggrin:
barg, way too many "conspiracy theories" in your post. Italia and Poland under the control of the US? I don't think so!
Do you believe in Thierry Meyssan's 9/11 book?
I’ve found Star Wars 2 and 3 excellent in showing how a democracy can give birth to a dictatorship :
You look like a good democrat (Palpatine) waiting for your hour and wanting to be a dictator, you need an army that obey without thinking but that your folk would refuse :
Create, use or strengthen an existing problem (separatists, terrorists) --> Use the full powers given legally by the parliament in promise you’ll defend fatherland and give them back after the problem is resolved (better when you buy senators before) --> Bring the solution (clones army) --> eliminate your former friends and actual enemies (Jedi) in accusing them of betrayal --> transform the Republic in an Empire under general applause --> eliminate your actual enemies and former friends (separatists) --> keep the power as a life emperor under terror when you’re the last one. --> Be careful of your pupil !
First thing I thought of there was Julius Caesar (Although whether he was going to stay a dictator was a question). Or, for that matter, any supposed "free" country that becomes a dictatorship. I think our good friend the Naturalist in Master and Commander said it best... "... Authority Corrupts". And in all honesty, it does. Oliver Cromwell: fought for freedom against the monarch, right? Ended up being a dictator. Stalin: Okay, negative picture here for a negative guy, but it's the same principle. And it isn't a democracy, but, he took power from the powerless to just be plain wicked.
I know it probably does sound fictitious and unrealistic. But it's happened before in history. It sounds conspiracy theoristic, but that's generally how such coups of liberty take place. slowly and surely. First it's unwarranted searches on subways, then its unwarranted searches on the streets, then it's unwarranted searches of homes. See the general direction? I find it quite scary that we are voting away our freedoms. Or rather, those lovely senators and represenatives are voting away our freedoms. I think our good friend Ben Franklin summed it up best when he said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety".
barg, way too many "conspiracy theories" in your post. Italia and Poland under the control of the US? I don't think so!
Do you believe in Thierry Meyssan's 9/11 book?
I know these theories are crazy for somebody who is well intentioned. I wasn’t believing them before and sometimes I feel safer in front of somebody who doesn’t agree.
About Italy : look for “Gladio” operation, US “Stay behind”
About Poland : I don’t remember precisely, see “freedom house”, National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Poland is member of OTAN (ruled by US) since 1999, what could be Polish interests in Irak ?
About Thierry Meyssan :
- A friend of mine is Ukrainian. She said me : “I don’t understand why in French TV you always present Yushchenko (Orange Revolution) as a good pro occidental democrat ? In Ukraine he’s our Le Pen (French extreme right)”. She said also his pro Russian opponent wasn’t better.
You can agree with me : when you trust your friend who’s moderate, living in this country, her information is the best you can find.
I looked for confirmation in French newspapers, TV info, web sites, and I only found this opinion on Thierry Meyssan’s site…
- I’ve read Thierry Meyssan's “Pentagate”, I believe in it until somebody shows me it’s false : no problem.
http://www.voltairenetwork.net/article25.html
Did you read Thierry Meyssan's 9/11 book ? When is he wrong / right ?… with significant exemples.
Another conspiracy theorie :
- Hitler LEGALLY became chancellor of the Weimar Republic ! (30th jan 1933)
He was popular among Germans thanks to his rearming politics, his first economical success, his theory saying the others are enemies : Jewish, Tzigane, Black, other religions… (Aryan race is the best) THE GOOD VERSUS THE BAD AXIS
- He raised the power despite the Nazi party never received majority vote.
- Thanks to the Reichstag (parliament) burning organised by Nazis themselves (27th feb 1933), he sent his political opponents to prison and limited freedom drastically.
- The Reichstag gave him LEGALLY the full power (23th march 1933) : he immediately forbid trade unions and other political groups. He made killed his opponents during the “long knifes night” (French translation)
- when president Hindenburg died (2 aug 1934), Hitler became LEGALLY the new president because German constitution was saying the chancellor would temporary take the place. The Reichstag made a law in order to merge presidency and military power : he became LEGALLY “Fuhrer”
He made everything LEGALLY !
In 1939 German army organised a false invasion of eastern German border, by alleged Polish soldiers. Thanks to this pretext allowing him to be a VICTIM Hitler attacked Poland ---> WW2
England and France did declare war to Germany. Hitler didn’t !
If you find similar events in our actuality nowadays…
Watch over laws evolution because Hitler acted LEGALLY.
Even when they were in Auschwitz, Jewish people couldn’t believe Hitler’s aim.
It’s like car accidents : it’s always for other people ! So be careful !
I believe world peace begins by ourselves. Politician and other leaders symbolise the major part of people.
Bye :)
About 911 : It looks like Thierry Meyssan but it's not Thierry Meyssan. I find it interesting, it's the most precise info I've found, a lot of explanations.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/022904degrand.html
There are references of books.
Useful if you need a laugh.
I forgot I had posted in here recently, and now there's too many pages between my bit and the end to dredge it all up again. But I'm curious -- rather than tell us what's wrong with the war Iraq (while ignoring what's right), why won't someone offer an alternative?
In glancing over this thread, I think I've identified what appear to be the opposition's main points:
1. We shouldn't be in Iraq, and the common Iraqi doesn't want us there. Instead, we should all come home and send out individuals to find Osama bin Laden. Once he's caught, the books are balanced for 9/11, and we can resume our pre-9/11 lives
2. Without catching bin Laden, terrorism can't be eliminated, we just have to wait until it goes away.
3. We're just trying to get oil, anything said to the contrary is just a Bush 3-card monte game.
4. Terrorists aren't enemy combatants, they're criminals who should be shuffled through the justice system with the full legal rights and representation of any other criminal.
5. If we would stop doing things to make terrorists mad, they wouldn't bomb us any more. Terrorism doesn't exist unless bred by oppression (specifically, Jew-American), poverty, and lack of opportunity. No one really believes all that jihad nonsense -- they just need to know someone loves them.
6. "Extremist Islam" is a catchphrase designed by the right to justify racism and warmongering. It doesn't exist; if it does exist, it's only in small pockets.
7. We "support" our volunteer military by saying their mission is unjust, their actions in theater are criminal, and their volunteerism is actually ignorance that they are simply pawns for an evil madman.
little editorializing in that last one, but have I hit all the salient points?
Where's the solution? Let's assume that we're wrong in taking the fight to them, rather than sitting back and hoping everything will turn out okay. If a man is born and raised for no other purpose than to serve his God by killing infidels wherever he finds them, do you really think that a roomful of people with powdered wigs can legislate him out of doing it? Really?
1. We shouldn't be in Iraq, and the common Iraqi doesn't want us there. Instead, we should all come home and send out individuals to find Osama bin Laden. Once he's caught, the books are balanced for 9/11, and we can resume our pre-9/11 lives
That's not accurate, but even if it were, it's better than "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2][color=#000000]"I am truly not that concerned about him."
[/color][/size][/font]
2. Without catching bin Laden, terrorism can't be eliminated, we just have to wait until it goes away.
No, terrorism can't be eliminated at all. It will never go away. But catching bin Laden is important.
3. We're just trying to get oil, anything said to the contrary is just a Bush 3-card monte game.
There is also the point of pride, with his dad's history. And also the desire to set up a military staging point in the area.
4. Terrorists aren't enemy combatants, they're criminals who should be shuffled through the justice system with the full legal rights and representation of any other criminal.
Are you talking about terrorists here, or people
accused of being terrorists?
5. If we would stop doing things to make terrorists mad, they wouldn't bomb us any more. Terrorism doesn't exist unless bred by oppression (specifically, Jew-American), poverty, and lack of opportunity. No one really believes all that jihad nonsense -- they just need to know someone loves them.
There will always be a few terrorists. Oppression increases the numbers. If we actually
do what they
say we want to do, people on the cusp will join them.
7. We "support" our volunteer military by saying their mission is unjust, their actions in theater are criminal, and their volunteerism is actually ignorance that they are simply pawns for an evil madman.
1) Troops aren't responsible for what the mission is.
2) Individual troops are responsible for criminal actions, but not as responsible as people who ordered them to commit them.
3) Their volunteerism is noble, but it is being exploited. Most volunteered before they knew how they were to be used. As for others, there are any number of reasons to volunteer, including a desire not to let someone else go in your place.
If a man is born and raised for no other purpose than to serve his God by killing infidels wherever he finds them, do you really think that a roomful of people with powdered wigs can legislate him out of doing it? Really?
There's nothing you can do about someone raised that way. You have to decrease the number of people who are willing to raise their kids that way.
... why won't someone offer an alternative?
...do you really think that a roomful of people with powdered wigs can legislate him out of doing it? Really?
Noninterventionism.
No, but apparently Bush does. Minding our own business and building a model free society in America is our best defense.
Two replies so far, and only one offer of an alternative solution -- noninterventionism -- which isn't a solution to our present condition at all. It's a policy stance, and subject to many factors that have nothing to do with the so-called war on terror.
Our model is what they despise. That's why they want us dead.
Troops aren't responsible for what the mission is....Their volunteerism is noble, but it is being exploited. Most volunteered before they knew how they were to be used. As for others, there are any number of reasons to volunteer, including a desire not to let someone else go in your place.
This is doubletalk. I haven't researched the number, but a great many volunteered specifically for duty in Afghanistan and Iraq after war had already begun. The idea that they are volunteering for some kind of peace corps mission and then being duped into killing civilians discredits their intelligence and their sacrifice.
The idea that they are volunteering to avoid "someone else [going] in your place" is just...I don't know. You're using this vast generalization to support your point, and your point is false. You usually catch others doing this -- physician, heal thyself.
Someone want to try for a real solution? Take all the time you want. You won't find one that works, and you won't hear your Dem leaders offering one that works, because the one that works is currently being implemented by none other than GW.
Someone want to try for a real solution? Take all the time you want. You won't find one that works, and you won't hear your Dem leaders offering one that works, because the one that works is currently being implemented by none other than GW.
Except it isn't working.
This is doubletalk. I haven't researched the number, but a great many volunteered specifically for duty in Afghanistan and Iraq after war had already begun. The idea that they are volunteering for some kind of peace corps mission and then being duped into killing civilians discredits their intelligence and their sacrifice.
SNIP:
The U.S. military is looking for a few good men and women — or a few thousand.
According to the May 16 issue of Newsweek, the Army continues to fall behind its enlistment quotas, and missed its April goal by 42 percent,
recruiting only 3,821 of the 6,600 sought. Although recruitment was up from September through January, this is the third month in a row that the Army has failed to meet its goals.
Well, do the research next time before you make such a blatant error in your assumptions.
Someone want to try for a real solution? Take all the time you want. You won't find one that works, and you won't hear your Dem leaders offering one that works, because the one that works is currently being implemented by none other than GW.
Really? Do you suppose the families of those killed in the London subway bombing attacks would feel that GW's "plan" is working? If its working so great, how come we continue to send troops over there to fight and die? If its working so great, how come we still get treated to those little chance of terrorist attack barometers like the temperature predictions in the weather forecast? If what we've current got going on is "working", I'd hate to see "not working."
Our model is what they despise. That's why they want us dead.
This is the flaw in W's whole strategy. He doesn't get that for the Islamist on the street Americans in America are not relevant. Americans in the mid-east imposing non-model governments and proping up dictators are relevant to them. We gave up all moral authority in that part of the world by keeping the Shah in power, an interventionist policy not in keeping with the American model. It is simply unrealistic that an American oil man backed by the greatest army the world has ever known will be considered worthy of trust, no matter what his intentions.
Not doing anything is worse. Much worse.
Army recruitment numbers aside, those who are in the military are in it as volunteers. The Sheehan whose mother is being mind-raped by the left and used as a puppet not only volunteered for duty POST-invasion, he volunteered for the specific mission that he died on.
Read more than just the lib talking points.
This is the flaw in W's whole strategy. He doesn't get that for the Islamist on the street Americans in America are not relevant. Americans in the mid-east imposing non-model governments and proping up dictators are relevant to them. We gave up all moral authority in that part of the world by keeping the Shah in power, an interventionist policy not in keeping with the American model. It is simply unrealistic that an American oil man backed by the greatest army the world has ever known will be considered worthy of trust, no matter what his intentions.
We did not give up any moral authority whatsoever. We are offering, for the first time, an opportunity for a truly populist government (one not run by a minority religious sect through fear and intimidation) to run the country of Iraq. The man in the street in Iraq does not care one whit for Bush's oil background -- that's totally a domestic partisan weapon. Try finding a leader in that part of the world who's not connected with oil. Or religion, for that matter. Any Arab hatred of Bush is due to his American-ness, which convicts him as a Zionist.
Domestic political hatred of Bush doesn't apply on the ground in the middle east, and no matter how much you try to bring it into play, it never will.
I forgot. I'm a reality based opponent of interventionism. We no longer live in a real world.
Our model is what they despise. That's why they want us dead.
That is only true of the most hardcore of hardcore terrorists. They are only able to recruit because of actual foreign policy issues.
This is doubletalk. I haven't researched the number, but a great many volunteered specifically for duty in Afghanistan and Iraq after war had already begun. The idea that they are volunteering for some kind of peace corps mission and then being duped into killing civilians discredits their intelligence and their sacrifice.
Your point was that saying the war was wrong was somehow not supportive of the troops. I provided some examples of why the mission is not indistinguishable from the troops. There is as much difference of opinion in the military as there is outside of it. By your logic, holding
any opinion is disrespecting at least some of the troops.
The idea that they are volunteering to avoid "someone else [going] in your place" is just...I don't know.
That was one example of "any number of reasons"; the one I hear most often in interviews.
You're using this vast generalization to support your point, and your point is false. You usually catch others doing this -- physician, heal thyself.
You're the one who said this:
Our model is what they despise. That's why they want us dead.
You won't find one that works, and you won't hear your Dem leaders offering one that works, because the one that works is currently being implemented by none other than GW.
How do you define "
works"?
Thank you MrNoodle for your long answer ! What a success !
And thank you for reading mine too.
1) 911 / USA / Irak
2) Thierry Meyssan and
http://www.prisonplanet.com/022904degrand.html
3) Solutions : don’t ask for immediate miracles !
The first time I saw the 911 attack, despite it’s a tragedy, I thought it was an opportunity to act wisely (USA would have been GREAT in trying to resolve world injustice and problems). ONLY USA have the power to do that, Europe is divided, Russia, France… too weak.
I’m sure you think USA do that ! But I don’t agree with the means they’re using :
- When Bush wants to bring justice, he’s not allowed to lie ! He MUST show the example in order that folks trust him. (Will your children trust you if you lie them ? I’m sure you act better than Bush does). Leaders must be the most worthy of respect of us. Even in a good purpose, US are not allowed to lie about mass murder weapons in Irak. They MUST respect the law of the ONU and not attack Irak before ONU decides it’s useful.
- Use of violence increases violence. Look at children or people.
- It’s a nonsense to declare war to COUNTRIES (Irak and Afghanistan) when on the other hand Bush says Al quaida is a NON GOVERNMENTAL terrorist movement that decides with self operating cells.
- So USA don’t have the right to change the government of those countries (even if it’s essential for Saddam Hussein, USA have to wait for ONU : I know it’s too long because when they have no interests, countries haven’t got the courage to interfere. Meanwhile in 1991 ONU allowed Gulf War 1.)
cf Griff : “You’ve responsibility of national defense. It does not give us the authority to do international offense”
Do you remember “Schindler’s list” when the chief of the Nazis camp realises that his power allows him to forgive ! That means do not reply by definitive violence but look for justice.
I would just like to know how Undertoad, MrNoodle or other people, answer to the questions asked by Thierry Meyssan and the link
http://www.prisonplanet.com/022904degrand.html
These are just questions. If it can help you : IMAGINE IT OCCURRED IN FRANCE !
- It's the most surveilled area in the world but no video of the plane who attacked the Pentagone, has been shown by medias.
- “Payne Stewart, in 18 minutes had five F-16s around him in the middle of no where. In the most sensitive air corridor in the world, the eastern coast there, D.C./ New York, with these four planes all over the map. And they know there's been hijackings and Dick Cheney's in control “ “The fighters that were stationed in Virginia, just across the border from Washington, D.C., could have been flying at bust speed, which is max speed, they could have intercepted those planes in 15 minutes and saved all that tragedy. And the second airplane was 15 minutes behind the first airplane. So to think they didn't do anything about the second one makes it even more ludicrous”
- At the beginning medias said there were more than 4 planes. (like in the link)
- terrorists were Saoudian. Why Bush didn’t attack Saoudi Arabia ? It isn’t a democratic country, women’s rights are weak.
- the wallet of one terrorist was found at the bottom of a Twin Tower after they broke down. Isn’t it a wonderful luck ?
- why nobody found mass murder weapons in Irak despite Powell said they were there.
Are these questions justified ? Thierry Meyssan is trying to give an answer. What’s yours ?
What are the other possible answers ? I’m open to every kind of solution
If there’s no other possible answer : Do you think the conspiracy theory is really impossible ? If no why ? STILL IMAGINE IT OCCURRED IN FRANCE.
What do you think about the example of Hitler I’ve quoted before ? He used conspiracy theory.
I’ve forgotten p22 that Hitler accused communist terrorists from having set the Reischtag on fire (doesn’t it look like Twin Towers ?).
Is it crazy to ask these questions because it already happened before ?
Solutions :
Let other countries decide what they want to do with their own territories and wealth. Respect them. Other countries don’t have to interfere. For a while we can let ONU decide BUT in the future nothing warrants that ONU will be wiser than other countries it represents. So ONU isn’t a good permanent solution.
Why Irakian, Iranian, African and so many countries natural resources belong to occidental countries or companies. Isn’t it unfair ?
The problem is that the world economy is based on unfairness ! We must rebuilt economical laws like FORBID BANK SECRET that allows and fuels mafias, terrorists and secret services. In fact I think secret must be forbidden wherever you can..
US solution is the one of an ending world. Perhaps NOW we have no better one’s ! But we must be aware it’s a bad solution. (As for me I still don’t think it was made on this purpose to be a solution against terrorism)
I think the good solution begins by ourselves because Politician and other leaders symbolise the major part of people. (There’s a more esoteric explanation too but it’s too long to write, (see ‘egregore’ in French))
We must be aware of what and how rules the world. We must grow up, became wiser thanks to HUMANISTIC EDUCATION (to give everyone the possibility to realise his own desire) and SOCIAL HELP. So it’s not for tomorrow, maybe the day after tomorrow if Bush and other leaders could invest in social instead of weapons.
Girls instinctively know that and often don’t care about politic. They less do war either.
Undertoad : Thank you for letting us your data base. The Cellar is the beginning of a good political solution by getting us informed, and freely make one’s mind.
Hoping there will always be enough freedom to go on ! :)
Bye
wolf -- don't worry, as soon as I close this window I'm going to get a burger. It's easy to argue from a completely emotional standpoint. Five uses of terms like "murder" and "innocent" to put the reader on the defensive, bolstered by one logical point (there are alternatives to meat), all based on the sacred cow of "good intentions". It's easy to be a lib. :P
Dude! You're right, it IS easy!
Just take five uses of emotionally loaded terms to put the reader on the defensive:
...mind-raped by the left...used as a puppet...political hatred of Bush...simply pawns...their actions in theater are criminal..
and add one logical point:
Where's the solution?
Then hide behind a sacred cow:
"taking the fight to them"
Piece of cake! You call it bein' a lib, but the sanctimonious self righteousness of your delivery shows you're taking it to a whole new level, all your own.
If a man is born and raised for no other purpose than to serve his God by killing infidels wherever he finds them, do you really think that a roomful of people with powdered wigs can legislate him out of doing it? Really?
Do I really think so? Yeah, and I'll tell you why. Because in spite of the galactic hipocrisy shown by GWB, he's mortal, and the hissy fit he's thrown during his occupation of the White House won't last. This republic has withstood greater threats than his apocolyptic tantrums. This "man born and raised for no other purpose than to serve his God" is just one jerk. A powerful and power-mad two faced shallow figurehead of a jerk, sure, but still just a jerk.
dang, I haven't read this thread in awhile...
This could go on all day. Rather, it could if your examples fit the paradigm. How is "political hatred" too strong an emotive term for the diatribe you just posted? How does anything I said compare to even the mildest anti-conservative rhetoric?
You might be able to find a post where I'm guilty of what you're talking about, but it's not that one. You really think that the left isn't using a mother's grief for political advantage? Where were those same people when the father of one of the Rangers killed in Mogadishu and dragged naked through the streets refused to shake Clinton's hand at a medal ceremony? Oh, I remember. They were berating him for his "disrespect of the office of the President". Of course, he didn't say "May he rot in hell" like radar did. It would be hate speech coming from anyone but a lefty.
This "great republic", as you so rightly call it, didn't become great because of failure to respond to threats. It's quickly losing its luster, however, because of apologist attitudes which produce lines like:
That is only true of the most hardcore of hardcore terrorists. They are only able to recruit because of actual foreign policy issues.
HM? You can't be serious. There is a difference between a "hardcore" terrorist and the more mundane hobbyist? They are only able to recruit because of actual foreign policy issues?
By that reasoning, why aren't there thousands of willing American suicide bombers? Certainly the hatred is there.
dang, I haven't read this thread in awhile...
This could go on all day. Rather, it could if your examples fit the paradigm. How is "political hatred" too strong an emotive term for the diatribe you just posted? How does anything I said compare to even the mildest anti-conservative rhetoric?
Personally, I'm rather fond of this:
you know you aren't going to win this argument, though. your opponents don't accept any position that isn't anti-US. before opening your big mouth in the future, make sure your argument is based on the following suppositions:
(1) No religion is extreme except Christianity (as practiced by whitey)*
(2) All conflicts are, directly or indirectly, caused by the USA.
(3) Because of (2), if we are attacked, we are NOT to respond. We are to humbly cast our gaze upon the poor, pillaged Earth that our white people ruined, and try to understand why our enemies are so mad at us. Once we've determined our error, we must (humbly) beseech the United Nations to intervene on our behalf and determine what measures we must take to ensure that the offended party will no longer have reason to hate us.
(4) jaguar is a pinko, so even if you abide by points 1-3, you're still wrong. Your only recourse is to say 8 Hail Karls while masturbating furiously over a burning American flag.
* — Blacks are allowed by libs to be Christian, because they are better at singing gospel music (vocal ad-libs, matchy robes, swaying), and because Martin Luther King was a preacher.
There is a difference between a "hardcore" terrorist and the more mundane hobbyist? They are only able to recruit because of actual foreign policy issues?
Of course there's a difference. That difference is the reason there are more terrorists now than there were before the Iraq war. People who weren't terrorists became terrorists.
By that reasoning, why aren't there thousands of willing American suicide bombers? Certainly the hatred is there.
Could you be more specific about how that reasoning applies? Hatred of what?
I'm thinking he's referring to hatred of the United States of America.
mari mari mari. Don't be taking quotes out of context. In the very next line, I said you might be able to find a post I made that was hyperbolic, but that the one in question wasn't it.
Also, the post you are referring to is obviously satirical in nature, riffing on what many of us perceive to be extreme leftist goofiness; it doesn't look, sound, or feel the same as "Bush is a lying Nazi pig who steals elections and kills babies for oil and I hope he DIES!!!!!11"
Monkey, dude. There are not more terrorists now than there were before Iraq. They're coming out of the woodwork from neighboring countries, using Iraq (instead of the US) as their holy battleground for Allah. If they have any political motivation at all, it is on the leadership level. There, they know that they have allies in the American media who are determined to weaken our resolve in order to nullify a presidency they oppose. They can almost taste a pullout, and they know if they can keep pecking away at the edges of our military, we'll leave and let them have their power back.
American liberalism doesn't see this. It depends on failure for its success, in everything from war to welfare to affirmative action. Only if something isn't going right does anyone listen to a liberal.
American liberalism doesn't see this. It depends on failure for its success, in everything from war to welfare to affirmative action. Only if something isn't going right does anyone listen to a liberal.
War is rapidly becoming the Rights plantation. Maintaining the problem by assisting terrorist recruitment overseas is comparable to the parts of the welfare system that hold people down rather than helping them up. The left has its teachers, professors, and social workers to protect, while the Right answers to military contractors and their employees. Its the same game with the same rules, solving problems is counter-productive.
Monkey, dude. There are not more terrorists now than there were before Iraq.
Keep thinking that.
If they have any political motivation at all, it is on the leadership level.
Yeah. I'm sure the invasion of a Middle Eastern nation isn't a major factor in the rank and file's decision to join. I'm sure they're just clamoring to join because they don't like "our model".
They're clamoring to join because American culture represents all that is immoral, anti-Islam, pro-Jew, and otherwise despicable in the eyes of Allah. If they die while fighting us, they will automatically be rewarded beyond measure in the afterlife, regardless of past sins. They have a very different perception of what is noble, glorious, or even right than you or I do, as much as we disagree. Trying to apply western standards to what an arab terrorist thinks or feels is as accurate as saying Garfield represents the thoughts of cats.
The word "model" was not mine initially, please don't forget that.
While we're here, did you know that the AP has uncovered
a shocking occurance of the Pentagon politicizing the war dead? That's just sick. I can't read any more, I'm going back to the Cindy Sheehan coverage.
the gravestone issue is a complete non-issue in my mind. AS LONG AS the family has the choice, which apparently there have been some mistakes that need to be corrected.
in the past if you saw a soldier's gravestone and noted the date you could make a pretty safe assumption of where they died. there was no need to have WWII or Korea engraved. in today's environment of "non-war" there are two completely separate combat theaters and if i were KIA i would want it noted which one i was involved in.
mari mari mari. Don't be taking quotes out of context. In the very next line, I said you might be able to find a post I made that was hyperbolic, but that the one in question wasn't it.
I couldn't resist. You did sort of leave yourself wide open, there. I'll be good. I promise! :lol:
--snip--
Monkey, dude. There are not more terrorists now than there were before Iraq. They're coming out of the woodwork from neighboring countries, using Iraq (instead of the US) as their holy battleground for Allah. If they have any political motivation at all, it is on the leadership level. There, they know that they have allies in the American media who are determined to weaken our resolve in order to nullify a presidency they oppose. They can almost taste a pullout, and they know if they can keep pecking away at the edges of our military, we'll leave and let them have their power back.
American liberalism doesn't see this. It depends on failure for its success, in everything from war to welfare to affirmative action. Only if something isn't going right does anyone listen to a liberal.
Hey, mrn, do you even read your own posts? Or are you more of a perfomance artist, just firing them off blindly, like some beat poet of the blog generation? Should I be listening for content and consistency or is it more the flow, the rhythm?
There are not more terrorists now than there were before Iraq. They're coming out of the woodwork...
Usually the phrase "coming out of the woodwork" means a surprising increase from an unknown source. So what is it: Not more or yes more?
...they [the terrorists] know that they have allies in the American media who are determined to weaken our resolve in order to nullify a presidency they oppose.
This falls squarely in "artistic speech" land. You don't seriously contend that there are allies of terrorists in the American media, do you? If you do, I would like to see some evidence, an example. Cite, please. Wouldn't that make them terrorists too, or close to it? "Nullify a presidency"? What? Who are you suggesting is trying to nullify a presidency? It sounds like the terrorists, from your statement. Do you really mean opposition to policies? Opposition to positions of one side or the other or the other is what this country's all about, indeed, what the latest spin is on our "mission" in Iraq, to give them choice too.
They can almost taste a pullout, and they know if they can keep pecking away at the edges of our military, we'll leave and let them have their power back.
A pullout. Ok, this is a substantive issue. I sense you're opposed to a pullout from your remarks. What is the alternative to a pullout? A stay-in? Do we agree that we're not staying in Iraq indefinitely? If we do agree, and I hope and believe we do, then let's start talking about the "not-indefinite" part. When? How? And importantly, START!
Surely you don't think that merely talking about that
inevitable phase of the operations there gives aid and comfort to the enemy? Bah. What would you do? Stay, stay, stay, stay, then up and leave in the middle of the night? WooHoo! Surprise! Hell no. We're leaving or we're staying. What is it? If we're leaving, then let's talk about it. If we're staying, then we damn sure need to talk about that, too. But this talking about leaving and actually doing about staying is bogus.
As to the return of power, damn skippy somebody's gonna get the power back. Isn't that why we undertook this adventure??!! Check this, we do not want the power in Iraq. Do you disagree? Then hand it over, dammit. I reckon you're p'ticular about just who you hand power over to, am I right? "We" want to hand the power over to the people "we" want to have the power, people, what,
inclined toward gratitude, eh? Maybe I'm off base here, but there's a phrase for that, and it's not flattering.
American liberalism doesn't see this. It depends on failure for its success, in everything from war to welfare to affirmative action. Only if something isn't going right does anyone listen to a liberal.
If this were true, there'd be a helluva lot more listening to liberals today, since there's plenty not going right. But do you hear a lot of liberal voices in Iraq? I don't either.
I just don't see you as an authoritative voice regarding "American liberalism". You regularly attack and deride Liberal points of view, and worse, you assign the label "liberal" when you intend "libel". You clearly consider "liberal" a defamatory remark. Charitably, you miss the point, sir.
They're clamoring to join because American culture represents all that is immoral, anti-Islam, pro-Jew, and otherwise despicable in the eyes of Allah.
And most would be perfectly happy to let Allah punish that without help.
There are two interpretations of jihad. The interpretation of the hardcore terrorists is that it means to kill all non-Muslims. The interpretation of the moderate Muslims is to defend Muslim lands from invasion. The former group is the one you are talking about, and it is a much smaller group. By invading a Muslim land, we are bringing the second, much larger, group into play.
If the moderate ones are defeated, then, it would hurt the cause of the hardcore ones?
Sorry you didn't get the first part of that. It was a bit sloppy, I'm distracted from my post writing by actual work :lol: . Here are the Cliff notes:
1) Terrorists from other countries are operating in Iraq. They're not "new", implying that Iraqis are rebelling against our occupation by becoming terrorists. They already existed, and are being dispatched by
2) their leaders, who are the only ones operating under any sort of political agenda. The bombers themselves are religiously motivated, tricked by their handlers, or paid.
3) The left wants our international policy to fail. That's because they hate Bush. They hate Bush because he "stole" 2 elections from them. Since they can't beat him at the ballot box, they want to make sure his presidency is nullified in the history books. Meaning, any successes are to be undermined and any failures are to be inflated in importance. This serves another purpose, however. By constantly harping on Bush and trying to make his effort in Iraq fail (for partisan politics' sake), they are -- perhaps unwittingly, perhaps not -- working for the same goal as the terrorists. This makes them de facto allies. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. I will spend my lunch hour digging up the actual US news reports that are used by Arab leaders as anti-American propoganda. asshole, I was going to eat instead.
4) Pullout. Yes we should leave eventually. Why not start now, you ask. Because if we leave before we have empowered the Iraqis to run their own antiterrorism operations, we have wasted our time. We are not only rebuilding their country, we are protecting their own citizens from the many scattered terrorist groups who all would vie for power in our absence. Iraq wants us out, but it does not want us out *now*, not if it intends to ever be free from terrorism.
To make it clear that I am now moving on to a different thought, I will implement "white space."
I don't care if they like us or not. The endgame here is to make it unprofitable for terrorists to operate in the middle east, and therefore eliminate their ability to operate internationally on any significant scale. Iraq is an important piece of that puzzle. Get the fuck over the fact that you lost the damn election, and try backing your COUNTRY for a change instead of indulging in an eight year whining rant that doesn't advance your cause, but DOES embolden the enemy.
The former group is the one you are talking about, and it is a much smaller group. By invading a Muslim land, we are bringing the second, much larger, group into play.
That's the first time I've heard it explained in a way that makes sense. But it's still wrong. If the second group harbors, funds, and defends the first group, screw em. They now belong to the first group as well.
If the moderate ones are defeated, then, it would hurt the cause of the hardcore ones?
No. The hardcore ones feed off of the pain and death which would result from the defeat of people defending Muslim lands from invasion. Their goal is to goad us into killing as many moderates as possible, to prove what a danger we are to the survivors.
So we should base our military strategies around the propoganda of the enemy? This isn't a PR campaign, this is a military campaign. We can't win the former until we win the latter. Repeat, we MUST win in Iraq, regardless of how anyone feels about the cause of the war, the president who engaged it, or any other factor. We can't pull another Somalia or Vietnam this time. Much more is at stake.
That's the first time I've heard it explained in a way that makes sense. But it's still wrong. If the second group harbors, funds, and defends the first group, screw em. They now belong to the first group as well.
That's easy to say, but it doesn't hold up. Plenty of Americans sent money to the IRA, out of sympathy for Irish independence. Plenty of Americans have sympathy for Irish independence, but sent no support. Most Americans didn't think about it either way in their daily lives, but might have had an opinion (informed or not) if asked.
Now, knowing what the IRA did with the money, it's easy to say that the first group is just as responsible as the IRA itself, and that would be reasonable. But if your response is "screw em", and you initiate a campaign that causes some people in the first and second groups start to actually
join the IRA, and gets the third group to start thinking about the IRA's cause more seriously - causing some in group three to move to groups one and two - you are worse off than you were before.
--X--
Repeat, we MUST win in Iraq,
--X--
Simple, but not easy question: Will you define this please?
So we should base our military strategies around the propoganda of the enemy? This isn't a PR campaign, this is a military campaign.
It is
both. And yes, you
do have to take enemy propaganda into account when making military strategy. Because if we end up behaving the way their propaganda predicts, they become stronger.
I couldn't resist. You did sort of leave yourself wide open, there. I'll be good. I promise! :lol:
Hey, mrn, do you even read your own posts? Or are you more of a perfomance artist, just firing them off blindly, like some beat poet of the blog generation? Should I be listening for content and consistency or is it more the flow, the rhythm?
.
MrNoodle you're fantastic : in 10 lines, you always give rise to 2 pages of good comments. On the one hand, that make me… cheerful ! :)
(Hoping that won't hurt you)
About US influence in Eastern Europe :
Ukrainian president Iouchenko’s wife is US, his three children have US nationality.
He was famous in having been poisoned by Russians and his spotty face was showing it. In fact he had plastic surgery in Austria and didn’t respect the precautions like no alcohol…
Info coming from Ukrainian medias. French medias have never said it. Ukrainian people are already disgusted with Orange Revolution (organised by US)...
We do not behave as their propoganda predicts. Our rules of engagement, rules for prisoner treatment, and rules for interacting with non-combatants are more stringent, more bend-over-backwards conciliatory than those of any armed force in history. Anywhere.
The only place enemy propoganda is having the desired effect is on our own soil. The "insurgents" (a misnomer, as they are not from Iraq, nor are they fighting on behalf of Iraq -- they target civilians) are failing. Iraqis are not joining insurgent forces -- in fact, they're working with us, fighting alongside us, and refusing to give in to terrorism.
Where enemy propoganda works is in the American media, who are on a constant mission to prove wrongdoing on the part of American forces and leadership. Soldier A shot someone without provocation. Soldier B didn't handle the Koran with latex gloves, thus offending the prisoners. Theinsurgencyiswinningtheinsurgencyiswinningtheinsurgencyiswinning. Day after day after day. Nary a single kind word about a soldier, unless they are thoughtful enough to die and provide more proof that theinsurgencyiswinningtheinsurgencyiswinningtheinsurgencyiswinning. Hell, the terrorists hardly even NEED al Jazeera. They have the New York Times.
blah blah blah, skip over a few paragraphs, miss little, blah blah blah
You have stated that the Muslim Brotherood is a bunch of little organizations all over the world. OK. You call it the Muslim Brotherhood.
GW calls them Al'qaeda. (I know that's spelled wrong, but I dont care enough to go look find it to correct.)
Seems to me that the idea is the same. A bunch of people that don't mind killing civilians and innocents or themselves, all of whom are Muslim, and extremists.
So GW tries to "label" them as Al'Qaeda. You label them the Muslim Brotherhood. Doesn't matter what you call them. They are still the enemy.
The only place enemy propoganda is having the desired effect is on our own soil. The "insurgents" (a misnomer, as they are not from Iraq, nor are they fighting on behalf of Iraq -- they target civilians) are failing. Iraqis are not joining insurgent forces -- in fact, they're working with us, fighting alongside us, and refusing to give in to terrorism.
I don't know if I agree with this statement. I tried reading this several times so as not to misquote, mislead, or take out of context thereby angering you... :D . The propoganda is working very well off our soil. You have to remember, there are lots of people over in Iraq who have been led to believe that we are responsible for the misery in their country via the embargos. There are lots of folks over there who hate us after all these years just in general. When someone says something bad about the U.S., they are more apt to believe it than not. The terroists know this and use this very well. If it didn't work, they why bother release statements, videos, audio tapes. True, some of these have the United States as a targeted audience in mind, but it is very effective in Islmaic countries as well. I might not aide much in recruitment purposes, but it does bolster support and serves as justification for thier actions. Yeah, a lot of what is reported by the terrorists are not true (reports of abuse, number of dead woman and childern), but lots of people over there are not willing to give us the benifit of the doubt.
That's easy to say, but it doesn't hold up. Plenty of Americans sent money to the IRA, out of sympathy for Irish independence. Plenty of Americans have sympathy for Irish independence, but sent no support. Most Americans didn't think about it either way in their daily lives, but might have had an opinion (informed or not) if asked.
Now, knowing what the IRA did with the money, it's easy to say that the first group is just as responsible as the IRA itself, and that would be reasonable. But if your response is "screw em", and you initiate a campaign that causes some people in the first and second groups start to actually join the IRA, and gets the third group to start thinking about the IRA's cause more seriously - causing some in group three to move to groups one and two - you are worse off than you were before.
We are seperated from Ireland by an ocean, and it is not the policy of our country to fund terrorists (conspiracy theories aside). Our citizens have the freedom to behave quite badly. Those who send money to the IRA are culpable in the crimes the IRA commits. If Ireland wants them punished, they should get the justice they deserve. If some idiot doesn't like it, and joins the IRA in protest, he is a tard, and yes, he is now as culpable as the first idiot. If a third idiot decides "hey, what's with all this anti-IRA stuff?" and decides to go down the same path, how is that Ireland's fault? Ireland should stop taking out IRA bombers because it makes idiots mad? Screw em to the nth degree.
...how?
Killing lots of terrorists. Training Iraqis to do the same. Providing infrastructure and terrorist-killing services while leaders from the Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish factions meet and try to come up with a constitution. Making sure that constitution doesn't allow for things like executing children while their mothers watch. Making sure it does allow for things like schooling and jobs for girls. Making the country the most inhospitable place outside of the US that a terrorist could ever hope to find himself condemned to.
Above all else, not bailing out because we're afraid the enemy might get more angry at us. Screw em.
re: Hobbs
Of course there are people who believe the anti-US propaganda. But not the kids who line up for candy and photographs with the soldiers.
Oh wait, they're dead. Killed by the noble freedom fighters.
(I don't get mad at these discussions, not really. It's just mystifying how people's outlooks can be so different given that we're all looking at the same information)
We do not behave as their propoganda predicts. Our rules of engagement, rules for prisoner treatment, and rules for interacting with non-combatants are more stringent, more bend-over-backwards conciliatory than those of any armed force in history. Anywhere.
I didn't say rules. I said behavior. Of course there are rules against things like Abu Ghraib and Guantanimo and "disappearing" prisoners, but they also need to be followed. And even if every rule of engagement were followed to a tee, we invaded a country on false pretenses! Nothing could have assisted enemy propaganda more than that.
The "insurgents" (a misnomer, as they are not from Iraq, nor are they fighting on behalf of Iraq -- they target civilians) are failing. Iraqis are not joining insurgent forces -- in fact, they're working with us, fighting alongside us, and refusing to give in to terrorism.
Did you read the blog of Michael Yon, which UT linked to in the Image of the Day on the IED? In that blog, Yon writes about his experience with our troops as they caught a terrorist red handed, trying to blow up a bomb buried under a road in Mosul. They take the terrorist back to his house to search it. His mom is very proud of her boy:
She smiled the whole time, as if to say, That's my boy! The translator heard her say to her son, "Don't worry. You will be released soon." She smiled at me.
The most serious terrorists do not fear prison here. Captain Jeff VanAntwerp, who commands Alpha Company, recently told me that Iraqis joke among themselves that they would pay 5,000 dinar per night to stay at Abu Ghraib prison. It's air-conditioned, the showers are good, the food is good, and the water is good. The mother seemed to know this and it curled in contempt behind her smile.
Our guys back at the Yarmuk traffic circle called saying they were in a little firefight and were taking mortar fire. But on the block where the terrorist lived, with his proud smiling mother, soldiers knocked on the neighbors' doors. The children clearly recognized the man, but everyone disavowed knowledge of him, despite that his mother encouraged him in front of us.
When the soldiers talked with other neighbors, they showed the transmitter and the terrorist. But clearly this was not diminishing his stature: We were making a local hero. And his neighbors were coalescing to shield him. This wasn't getting us anywhere useful, so we changed course...
Sure, there are some foreign terrorists in Iraq. But there are native Iraqi terrorists too. And they enjoy the support of many of their fellow Iraqis.
re: Hobbs
Oh wait, they're dead. Killed by the noble freedom fighters.
And what did we see shortly after this occured? Riots in the street by civilians protesting the freedom fighters...no. They blamed the U.S. Fist-pumping marches denouncing the U.S. "occupation." :mad2: Grrr! Drive me nuts! :mad2:
So.
The behavior of a minority of individuals indicts the whole country (vis-a-vis American actions).
And...
The behavior of a minority of individuals does NOT indict a whole country (vis-a-vis terrorism).
mmmmk.
And we didn't invade a country on false pretenses. As I recall, we didn't ask for their permission in the first place. We did get bad intel on WMD, but that was only one of several reasons Bush gave at the time. It was the sexy one, but not the only one. At any rate, dragging this up every time you are forced to admit that we need to win this war is bad form.
Sorry you didn't get the first part of that. It was a bit sloppy, I'm distracted from my post writing by actual work :lol: . Here are the Cliff notes:
--snip--
I will spend my lunch hour digging up the actual US news reports that are used by Arab leaders as anti-American propoganda. asshole, I was going to eat instead.
--snip--
Dude, have a sandwich and a soda. Seriously. This is not about being able to find a reference to an American media story published in some Arab media that is unfavorable to us, and by extension, helpful to the cause of some of their viewers? Trivial. Don't you think even GWB's "axis of evil" is burned into the the crawl on tv screens around the world? Does that make GWB the sympathizer? What about the broadcasters of his remarks?
Just have your lunch. I, too, find work intruding on my part of the conversation today.
Cheers.
I was kidding. I didn't look for shit. I went to Wendy's :lol:
Still missing the point though: The terrorists don't need to make their own propoganda, they can use ours.
And what did we see shortly after this occured? Riots in the street by civilians protesting the freedom fighters...no. They blamed the U.S. Fist-pumping marches denouncing the U.S. "occupation." :mad2: Grrr! Drive me nuts! :mad2:
I'm not sure if you're arguing with me or not.
I really have to get back to work.
We are seperated from Ireland by an ocean, and it is not the policy of our country to fund terrorists (conspiracy theories aside).
Hrm. Yah. Conspiracy theories, Mujahideen aside. And I'm not sure where the ocean fits in.
Our citizens have the freedom to behave quite badly. Those who send money to the IRA are culpable in the crimes the IRA commits. If Ireland wants them punished, they should get the justice they deserve. If some idiot doesn't like it, and joins the IRA in protest, he is a tard, and yes, he is now as culpable as the first idiot. If a third idiot decides "hey, what's with all this anti-IRA stuff?" and decides to go down the same path, how is that Ireland's fault? Ireland should stop taking out IRA bombers because it makes idiots mad? Screw em to the nth degree.
Whether they are culpable tards or not is irrelevant, and I agree they are. The issue is whether the punishment
works. Killing a terrorist is a pyrrhic victory if you end up with two more. If England had decided to fight the IRA by bombing a whole town, they would have been worse off than before.
Ocean = our idiots can't take a donkey over the border to fight for the cause.
"We can't hurt anybody, it will be misconstrued and even more people will dislike us" is the opposite of the attitude that will win the war. If 100,000 terrorists are killed and that causes 20,000 to join the cause, that's 80,000 to our favor. We're not worse off because of the new 20,000
If the Brits bombed a town because it was infested with terrorists, I feel sorry for the non-terrorists who died. Not sorry enough to allow the terrorists to hide under their skirts, however.
The behavior of a minority of individuals indicts the whole country (vis-a-vis American actions).
I'm not indicting the whole country. I'm indicting the administration that fights tooth and nail every attempt to investigate the widespread abuses in the many detention centers the US operates. The coverup is worse than the crime, for the purposes of PR.
And we didn't invade a country on false pretenses. As I recall, we didn't ask for their permission in the first place.
:eyebrow:
We did get bad intel on WMD, but that was only one of several reasons Bush gave at the time. It was the sexy one, but not the only one. At any rate, dragging this up every time you are forced to admit that we need to win this war is bad form.
The rest of them didn't hold up either, which is why he went with WMDs. And I've been referring to the invasion the whole time. Why the surprise?
But there is no equivalence between the number of terrorists and how angry the left is that we went to war.
Well, a majority of the country now feels that Iraq was a bad idea, so it's not just the "left" anymore. And I expect the growth of that number does have a link to the failure of the war to curb terrorism.
As for those who were against the war from the start, it was the expectation that becoming the agressors in an invasion would be counterproductive in the war on terror. The realization of that expectation is more an occasion for sadness than anger, I guess.
No. The hardcore ones feed off of the pain and death which would result from the defeat of people defending Muslim lands from invasion.
So Afghanistan was a mistake then?
Well, a majority of the country now feels that Iraq was a bad idea, so it's not just the "left" anymore.
Because they are constantly bombarded by agenda-driven media that steadfastly refuse to report anything that might be construed as positive for this administration.
Exactly. my. point.
Sorry you didn't get the first part of that. It was a bit sloppy, I'm distracted from my post writing by actual work :lol: . Here are the Cliff notes:
1) Terrorists from other countries are operating in Iraq. They're not "new", implying that Iraqis are rebelling against our occupation by becoming terrorists. They already existed, and are being dispatched by
2) their leaders, who are the only ones operating under any sort of political agenda. The bombers themselves are religiously motivated, tricked by their handlers, or paid.
I have read on the various military forums that our soldiers are discovering members of other mid-east nations among those fighting the US troops in Iraq. Some of these inviduals may qualify for the label "terrorist." Some may be no different from any soldier who joins to fight in a cause he believes in. My friend who is Canadian who joined the US army and fought in desert storm - was he dispatched by the Canadian leadership? The French came to our assistance in the War for Independence. The French were politically motivated to do this because they were on the outs with Great Britain at the time. I'm not sure of your point here. The peoples of the Muslim world believe what they believe, just as we do. I agree with you assessment of the bomber's motives, but I think your list is rather short. I suggest that there are other motivating factors.
3) The left wants our international policy to fail. That's because they hate Bush. They hate Bush because he "stole" 2 elections from them. Since they can't beat him at the ballot box, they want to make sure his presidency is nullified in the history books. Meaning, any successes are to be undermined and any failures are to be inflated in importance. This serves another purpose, however. By constantly harping on Bush and trying to make his effort in Iraq fail (for partisan politics' sake), they are -- perhaps unwittingly, perhaps not -- working for the same goal as the terrorists. This makes them de facto allies. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. I will spend my lunch hour digging up the actual US news reports that are used by Arab leaders as anti-American propoganda. asshole, I was going to eat instead.
You are deliberately mis-interpreteting the stance of those to the left of the political spectrum. I do not presume to be the spokesperson for such a large group of people, but nowhere have I come across any statement from a democrat or someone of a liberal persuasion who says, "I want the US to fail." My feeling is that given the current situation the US is DOOMED to fail. This thought brings me no joy, as you seem to believe. I would rather that my country succeeded, thank you very much. I don't see how it can. Just become some Islamic terrorist bombs the London subways or commits some other act of atrocity, does not mean that I consider this individual to be my new best friend. I do, however, look at cause and effect, and I see how US foreign policy has created a reason for the terrorist to act as he did - a reason is not an excuse, by the way. There is no excuse for the slaughter of innocent civilians. Just because I feel Bush's actions are wrong, does mean that I rejoice in the death of children at the hands of an Islamic fundamentalist, nor does any other member of "the left." If I cannot speak out against the actions of my government which I feel are wrong without being accused of giving aid and comfort to the enemy, then I might as well go live in North Korea or some other totalitarian regime.
No one is forcing you to give up your lunch hour. You feel strongly enough that you decided to make that choice, so don't try to guilt trip us over your own free decision of what to do with your lunch break.
4) Pullout. Yes we should leave eventually. Why not start now, you ask. Because if we leave before we have empowered the Iraqis to run their own antiterrorism operations, we have wasted our time. We are not only rebuilding their country, we are protecting their own citizens from the many scattered terrorist groups who all would vie for power in our absence. Iraq wants us out, but it does not want us out *now*, not if it intends to ever be free from terrorism.
The Iraqui's must have the WILL to run their own anti-terrorism programs. So far, I have seen the US do nothing that will fill a significant number of Iraqui's with this desire. As it currently stands, with current policy, hell will freeze over first.
To make it clear that I am now moving on to a different thought, I will implement "white space."
:juggle:
I don't care if they like us or not. The endgame here is to make it unprofitable for terrorists to operate in the middle east, and therefore eliminate their ability to operate internationally on any significant scale. Iraq is an important piece of that puzzle. Get the fuck over the fact that you lost the damn election, and try backing your COUNTRY for a change instead of indulging in an eight year whining rant that doesn't advance your cause, but DOES embolden the enemy.
See above. What different thought?
--snip--As for those who were against the war from the start, it was the expectation that becoming the agressors in an invasion would be counterproductive in the war on terror. The realization of that expectation is more an occasion for sadness than anger, I guess.
Sadness,
AND anger. And helplessness, futility, astonsishment, bewilderment, confusion, resignation, and determination, among others.
Sadness at the profligate needless waste of American lives in a futile, wrongheaded, ill-conceived and poorly executed aggressive war of invasion. Sadness at the loss of life for
all who died.
Anger, well, I seemed to have covered this already.
Helplessness at the continuing flailings of an administration that doesn't know where it's going or how to get there but confidently presses the pedal to the metal while observing "We're making good progress". Progress is a vector quantity, having magnitude
and direction.
Futility at the prospect of looking at the same evidence and seeing those in power draw the wrong conclusions, time after time.
Astonishment at the seemingly willful inability of the loyal opposition in our country to disregard evidence, facts and truth as mere inconveniences in pursuit of the elusive "victory" (or "security" or "freedom").
Bewilderment from being surrounded by a swarming array of moving targets and shifting goals, an overall lack of direction.
Confusion at the constant changes in the messages from our leaders: WMD, democracy, terrorists, al-Qaeda, Saudia Arabia, Iraq, oil, GWOT and The Fight Against Global Aggression or whatever it's called today...
Resignation to the fact that our country is on a path that takes enormous efforts to change, and that popping a vessel over today's idiot takes away one more chance to make a difference tomorrow.
Determination to work as hard as possible that the mistakes of this period in our history be remembered and learned from and not repeated.
So Afghanistan was a mistake then?
Afghanistan was started at a time when most of the world, even many moderate Muslims, had sympathy for the US. We took advantage of that to invade a country that had a direct and certain connection to the attack on our soil that generated that sympathy. Afghanistan wasn't even remotely close to the recruiting value of Iraq.
For those of you who get nerd boner over the whole footnoted, annotated thing in your political argyments,
here's the text of an interesting presentation on the AFC, the antiwar organization in WWII that gained notoriety when its poster child, Charles Lindbergh, showed himself to be a Nazi supporter.
Some of the parallels to today's situation are striking, even though the political parties are reversed. But my favorite part was in the endnotes:
Roosevelt had told the nation during a fireside chat in December 1940 that “the Nazi masters of Germany have made it clear that they intend not only to dominate all life and thought in their own country, but also to enslave the whole of Europe, and then to use the resources of Europe to dominate the rest of the world.” Therefore “the United States had no right or reason to encourage talk of peace, until the day shall come when there is a clear intention on the part of the aggressor nations to abandon all thought of dominating or conquering the world.” He also rejected any notion of a negotiated peace, since such a peace “would be only another armistice, leading to the most gigantic armaments race and the most devastating trade war in all history. And in these contests the Americans would offer the only real resistance to the Axis powers.” Cole, Roosevelt, p. 343.
Roosevelt was a neocon! Be still my heart.
I'm not sure if you're arguing with me or not.
My point was the terroists use this opportunty for bad publicity for the Americans soldiers. U.S. miltary + kids = death and distruction. The obvious culprits are of course the freedom fighters, but the blame gose to the U.S. eventhough it is obvious who is at fault. The insurgent propoganda machine keeps on rolling along.
In Iraq most attacks are on other Arab Muslims, so who is being recruited for what now?
Basically, we have a war between people who find Fox News completely unbiased and truthful, and people who think the same of Al-Jazeera.
It would be nice if the skeptics could be left alone.
The behavior of a minority of individuals does NOT indict a whole country (vis-a-vis terrorism).
I will remember this sentence (vis-a-vis US politics) : Mrnoodle does NOT indict whole US people ! :biggrin:
For that, I am immensely gratified. Have you heard some of those people? :crazy:
Well done !
In order to really agree :
Do you remember my questions in #340 ?
Sort of. I remember reading the radio interview, which had an ex-army colonel talking about coups d'etat and other Art Bell-type nonsense. One of those "we have an expert who knows a bunch of secret stuff that no one else is covering, but we are presenting it LIVE!!! on our midnight radio show".
Then you asked, "what if it had happened in France?" And I refuse to answer, because to do so would Godwin the thread. :angel:
Too nice ! :)
but sooooooo easy :(
In Iraq most attacks are on other Arab Muslims, so who is being recruited for what now?
No answer HM?
It's important for us to get the narrative right. We aren't getting it from anywhere else so we have to depend on each other. This morning
Belmont Club looks at
Michael Yon's latest dispatch and points out bin Laden's response to Somalia. What gave him strength was American withdrawl:
But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where -- after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order -- you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a remedy to the "chests" of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut , Aden and Mogadishu.
Yon's latest also includes the point that one of the terrorists that the soldiers are fighting was previously captured, spent time at Abu Ghraib, was released against protest and returned to fight. He didn't have to be recruited. He was a bad guy and remained a bad guy after thinking about it in prison.
Regular Yon readers will know... Abu Ghraib is like a vacation, six months in air conditioning with three squares. It's important for us to get the narrative right. We aren't getting it from anywhere else.
No answer HM?
They subscribe to the same mentality that mrnoodle is championing. They see some other Muslims as assisting the enemy and say screw 'em. Or they figure it's just too bad if some innocents happened to be near the American targets.
This morning Belmont Club looks at Michael Yon's latest dispatch and points out bin Laden's response to Somalia. What gave him strength was American withdrawl
What gave him strength is that America went into Somalia without any smoking gun. Insufficient reason to be there and no comprehension of WHY we entered are why the withdrawal was necessary AND why bin Laden would have been emboldened.
You would think we would have learned from Somalia about the dangers of invading a nation without a smoking gun. And yet even in the Cellar, some advocated the same mistake in Iraq using mythical reasons such as WMDs. And so bin Laden is laughing at America - emboldened by the extremist rhetoric that protected bin Laden. Some Americans were even so foolish as to think our own allies (Germany and France) were against us rather than first learn the lessons of Somalia and what those allies were warning about.
Bin Laden still runs free because too many Americans here forget where the smoking gun exists ... Afghanistan. So instead we blame Saddam for 11 September and run off to another Vietnam. Then when it becomes a quagmire, we then blame it on Somalia? Where does this extremist rhetoric come from?
Where does it come from? You invent it through your miserable reading comprehension skills.
![http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/imp.gif?client=ca-tribune_news_html&ampampampevent=noscript]("http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/imp.gif?client=ca-tribune_news_html&event=noscript"){kind=link}
