Bush's Shrinking Safety Zone
A 29 Nov 2005 commentary that asks a rather accurate question:
Bush's Shrinking Safety Zone
What does it say about the president of the United States that he won't go anywhere near ordinary citizens any more? And that he'll only speak to captive audiences?
President Bush's safety zone these days doesn't appear to extend very far beyond military bases, other federal installations and Republican fundraisers.
Tomorrow, Bush gives a speech on the war on terror -- at the United States Naval Academy. Then he attends a reception for Republican party donors.
Today, he visits a U.S. Border Patrol office, then attends a Republican fundraising lunch.
Yesterday, he spoke at an Air Force base and a Republican fundraiser.
Before leaving the country on his recent trip to Asia, Bush made one last speech -- at an Air Force base in Alaska. A few days before that, he spoke at an Army depot in Pennsylvania. When he delivered a speech on Nov. 1 about bird flu, it was to an audience of National Institutes of Health employees ....
The last speech Bush gave that was not explicitly controlled by the White House was in downtown Norfolk on Oct. 28. ...
The one person officially charged with answering questions at the White House, press secretary Scott McClellan, has been oddly averse to meeting with the press corps lately ....
As many readers and bloggers have recently pointed out, McClellan hasn't done a full-fledged briefing since November 9. ....
So basically: Torture is in the eye of the beholder, and we will be the only ones beholding, ....
I am reminded how long ago those who know this stuff were warning us about George Jr. Way back when, the Norwegian foreign minister said that George Jr would destroy the Oslo Accords. He did.
They let him out for just one minute. He says, "No one expected the levees to be breached." ... when he was told the previous Saturday night that the levees would be breached (defacto president Cheney was probably furious.) But few back then few really understood what a mental midget looks like.
All hail Richard Nixon ... for same reasons.
What does it say about the president of the United States that he won't go anywhere near ordinary citizens any more? And that he'll only speak to captive audiences?
Just like his reelection campaign. :neutral:
I have a friend who got to be one of those "lucky" enlisted guys sitting in the rows on the platform when W. spoke at an army base. My friend said the whole thing was rehearsed endlessly and that W treated the soldiers like shit. Refused to so much as shake a single hand or acknowledge them once the dog and pony show was over.
From the NY Times of 30 Nov 2005:[
U.S. Is Said to Pay to Plant Articles in Iraq Papers
The Government Accountability Office found this year that the Bush administration had violated the law by producing pseudo news reports that were later used on American television stations with no indication that they had been prepared by the government. But no law prohibits the use of such covert propaganda abroad.
Where do Fox News and Rush Limbaugh daily get their talking points faxed from? Is this really new - or just proof of what is widely known?
Clearly the administration did not out Valerie Plame. Administration said so. I believe them .... while vomitting.
tw, off topic, but ......do you have some aversion to the word "the" ??? it seems that you rarely use it.
Well, he did use the word "the" twice in the reply just above yours, LJ. I think tw is making good progress in overcoming is his difficultywith the "the" word. He's trying. Leave the boy alone! ;)
Propaganda and warfare go together like birds of a feather. Its like peanut butter and jelly...soup and sandwich...Laurel and Hardy...Jekyll and Hyde...theocracies and totalitarianism.
tw, off topic, but ......do you have some aversion to the word "the" ??? it seems that you rarely use it.
When Tiger Woods began changing his swing, I got inspired to fix my form as well. I clearly must learn to write with fewer words. Since "THE" was the first word I learned in 1st grade, then it seemed like a good place to start.
"The Cat in the Hat sat on the Mat". Let's see. "A Cat in the Hat sat on the Mat". Well it does change the meaning. "The Cat in a Hat sat on the Mat". Not good enough. "The Cat in a Hat sat on a Mat". Even better. It still says what was originally intended - with four less letters.
I am so amused and totally curious. Been experimenting with the elimination of extraneous "THE"s. Never thought anyone would notice. Leave it up to a 'Straight guy with a queer eye' to see it. BTW, not
the 'Straight guy ....' . A 'Straight guy....'
Lumberjim, did you also notice Tiger's new swing? I am completely fascinated (and feeling a little exposed) that you noticed my change.
"The Cat in the Hat sat on the Mat". Let's see. "A Cat in the Hat sat on the Mat". Well it does change the meaning. "The Cat in a Hat sat on the Mat". Not good enough. "The Cat in a Hat sat on a Mat". Even better. It still says what was originally intended - with four less letters.
Anytime you swap the indefinite article for the definite article you
are changing the meaning of a constituent.
Anytime you swap the indefinite article for the definite article you are changing the meaning of a constituent.
... sometimes. In this case, the elimination of "THE" caused no change in what was intended. It may have caused a change in the many ways another could have interpreted what was written. But the missing "THE" caused no change in what the author intended to say. The one interpretation intended by the author remains intact without "THE". (And now my spelling checker is complaining about dangling prepositions. No one is happy with this language - or why lawyers make so much money.)
Some languages don't even bother with definite articles. English, however, is definitely not one.
I'm not lying. You can trust me. I'm a religious fanatical extremist.
And so we believed everything he said - at least 25% of us who are also so religious extremist as to advocate and endorse torture.
From the BBC of 8 Dec 2005:
US blocks ICRC access to suspects
The US has admitted for the first time that it has not given the Red Cross access to all detainees in its custody.
The state department's top legal adviser, John Bellinger, made the admission but gave no details about where such prisoners were held.
Even a mental midget would never be this despicable. No wonder he needs Bolton in the UN. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition - did we.
From the BBC of 7 Dec 2005:
US 'shifts' position on torture
The US secretary of state says the UN treaty on torture applies to American interrogators in the US and overseas, in an apparent shift in US policy.
The Bush administration has previously said the convention, which bans cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment, does not apply to US personnel abroad.
Wow! Suddenly its no longer acceptable for Americans to Gitmoize prisioners. Clearly god must have told George Jr something he did not know. Now George Jr, god's chosen disciple, can tell us all how to be good Christians.
Where are the above facts in error? Foolish me. I thought religous extremists were good people. My mistake.
From the BBC of 7 Dec 2005:
'Tortured' Australian speaks out
A former Australian terror suspect says he was caught up in the controversial US policy of transferring detainees to foreign countries for interrogation. ...
The US State Department has not commented on his specific allegations, but says it does not transfer prisoners for the purposes of torture.
And clearly enlisted men brought dog collars with them to Iraq so as to walk naked prisoners down the halls of Abu Ghriad. Clearly Americans at the highest levels don't condone torture - just like Saddam conspired to attack the World Trade Center. After all, did not an honest president claim that in his State of the Union address?
Honest, decency, morality, and god's chosen people. Yep. That's US. Therefore when we torture, it must be for the greater glory of god ... or maybe our leaders are corrupt?
We have two choices in Iraq. Either withdrawl to let Iraqis *earn* the government they want. Or send 500,000 troops in right now to end the insurgency. No. With Generals repeatedly complaining they don't have enought troops, instead, George Jr has decided he will appease you. He announced troop reductions. Not many. Just enough to hinder military operations in Iraq. He announced exactly what the Generals don't want.
At least in Vietnam where an insurgency also grew due to American presence, still, Americans could be relatively safe in Saigon or on the road to Tan Son Nhat airport. In Iraq, Americans cannot go in most all of Baghdad and are easily killed on but a five mile road to the airport. Yet somehow, George Jr tells us we are winning this war.
Meanwhile, it would appear the administration is quietly seeking to get out of Iraq.
... America's ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad said Americans could talk to any insurgents except extreme Islamists or former loyalists of Saddam Hussein; also said that Mr Bush had given him permission to "open a dialogue" with Iran, which has a (debatable) degree of influence over iraq's main Islamist Shia parties, over how best to bring stability to the country.
That from The Economist of 3 Dec 2005. Well at least the administration is slowly conceding what this author has been saying for years. Even George Jr has conceded that these are insurgents and not his mythical Al Qaeda terrorists. At current count, the US now knows of at least 74 different guerilla organizations. Even the little and overhyped Zarqawi group is suspected, in only eight months, to have grown from a few hundred to a few thousand active supporters.
These are intelligence estimated that have been previously underestimated in this war - as they also were in Vietnam. IOW how much larger is the insurgency in reality.
Recently 10 American Marines were killed in one attack in Fallujah. How can this be? Fallujah only has four entrances. All checkpoint equipped even with explosive sniffing machines. And yet still insurgents harmed 21 Marines in one (of many) attacks by using multiple artillery shells. Hiding those munitions in wreckage from a previous attack. All this inside a city that the US said was safe and that is kept munition free by four heavily guarded checkpoints.
Ahhh, the president would not lie. We are winning the "Mission Accomplished" war that we won years ago. And yet still Iraq produces less electricity today than when Saddam ran the country. George Jr hopes you never learn such facts. But we are winning. There is light at the end of the tunnel.
"Trust me", he says. Somehow I find that to be a tortured conclusion. Suggested by something I think I may have recently read (or quoted).
I read where George Jr has a dress code for the White House. Does it ban blue dresses? As long as there is no blue dress, does that mean the president can lie and not be impeached? Clearly demonstrates what are righteous religious principles. I wonder if dog collars were also banned? Otherwise somebody might get the wrong idea.
From the NY Times of 9 Dec 2005:
Qaeda-Iraq Link U.S. Cited Is Tied to Coercion Claim
The Bush administration based a crucial prewar assertion about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda on detailed statements made by a prisoner while in Egyptian custody who later said he had fabricated them to escape harsh treatment, according to current and former government officials.
The officials said the captive, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, provided his most specific and elaborate accounts about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda only after he was secretly handed over to Egypt by the United States in January 2002, in a process known as rendition.
The new disclosure provides the first public evidence that bad intelligence on Iraq may have resulted partly from the administration's heavy reliance on third countries to carry out interrogations of Qaeda members and others detained as part of American counterterrorism efforts. The Bush administration used Mr. Libi's accounts as the basis for its prewar claims, now discredited, that ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda included training in explosives and chemical weapons.
Clearly the above must be all lies. First, it is contrary to what religous Christian extremists have been telling us. Torture does not produce lies - even though tortured enemies in Guantanamo provide unreliable information. Even though we contract others to do it - rendition. Even though we are not secretly kidnapping people in other nations. Even though numerous people once held in Guantanamo for years are being quietly released back to freedom in their own countries - because they were never terrorists.
The Bush administration used Mr. Libi's accounts as the basis for its prewar claims, now discredited, that ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda included training in explosives and chemical weapons.
The fact that Mr. Libi recanted after the American invasion of Iraq and that intelligence based on his remarks was withdrawn by the C.I.A. in March 2004 has been public for more than a year. But American officials had not previously acknowledged either that Mr. Libi made the false statements in foreign custody or that Mr. Libi contended that his statements had been coerced. ...
The [CIA] currently holds between two and three dozen high-ranking terrorist suspects in secret prisons around the world.
But these prisons never exists. A righteous Christian tells us so. The president wouldn't lie.
Among the first and most prominent assertions was one by Mr. Bush, who said in a major speech in Cincinnati in October 2002 that "we've learned that Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb making and poisons and gases." ...
The question of why the administration relied so heavily on the statements by Mr. Libi has long been a subject of contention. ...
The document showed that the Defense Intelligence Agency had identified Mr. Libi as a probable fabricator months before the Bush administration began to use his statements as the foundation for its claims about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda involving illicit weapons.
Just waiting for George Jr to claim that he also reads his PDBs. After all, what is one more white lie. The nuns told me that lying was a mortal sin. Clearly the nuns were wrong. George Jr is god's chosen one. George Jr would never commit a mortal sin.
tw- i don't necessarily disagree that we need more boots in the sand to bring this to a quick close... but have you read some of the independents, such as Michael Yon.
although the situation is far from good, it is necessarily as dire as we see on TV. i'm just sayin'.
I see, tw, that you are still hellbent to lose the war to a bunch of religious bigots who don't deserve to win anything but a sudden death.
I say you are a fool. You can't even conceive of knowing any better, you walking bundle of wisdomless short circuits. Daily you demonstrate that your third eye needs its glasses cleaned.
although the situation is far from good, it is necessarily as dire as we see on TV. i'm just sayin'.
Who is looking at TV? Do the numbers. Iraqi unemployment still remains just as high - well in excess of 50%. Why join the army? Army is one of the few jobs that actually pays. Now if that recruit can just stay out of combat - which is why so many Iraqi battalions disappear when the battle starts.
Where are these utilities that are provided how many years after "Mission Accomplished" was declared? Even Saigon had better electrical supply while we were losing the Vietnam War. Baghdad still has less electricity than when Saddam was in power. In Iraq, Americans don't leave the once called Green Zones. Even Vietnam was safer for Americans during that war.
American intelligence numbers say the insurgency is growing in numbers so large that they really are not sure how large the insurgency is. In only eight months, one insurgency group call Zarqawi could increase his numbers by a factor of ten! And new insurgency groups are appearing every month. This is widespread. So where is this victory?
The numbers say things completely different from what George Jr is preaching. For if things were getting better, then why is unemployment so high? Why have the number of battle ready Iraqi battalions only decreased - down to one. If things are getting better, then why have the military stopped talking about ongoing reconstruction? No sense talking about reconstruction when most projects were halted - some literally sabotaged. If things are getting better, then why does more than 25% of all reconstruction money, instead, go to security? Even in Vietnam, construction did not require so much security.
If this were Firestone, then we would all be blaming failures on someone else - ie Ford - and then claim the war against failing tires was being won. Then we could ignore the numbers of failed tires. If the war was being won, then Urbane Guerilla could post some facts demonstrating same. Well, maybe that is too much of a stretch.....
The facts stand sharply consistent with Vietnam of 30 years previous. Americans in Iraq must reside only in areas with multiple layers of security. There are few places outside of Kurdish and southern Iraq that is safe for any American without layers of protection. Even Fallujah, that was suppose to be a secured city instead saw multiple artillery shells maim 21 Marines. This in a city where those shells should have been detected by explosive sniffing machines. So how did all those bombs still get into Fallujah if we are winning this war? Deja vue Vietnam ... all over again. We won that war too? Yes, in the minds of those who denied reality of the numbers. Ie Willaim Westmoreland - may he also sizzle in hell and his own lies.
With current troop levels, we are losing the "Mission Accomplished" war. But the generals have always said we don't have enough troops. Who do you believe? Republican Party spin doctors who decided to "fix" Iraq and who now short the generals of needed troops? Or the generals who actually do the work? The generals say they don't have enough troops. Facts say that we are not winning "Mission Accomplished" - which is only consistent with what the generals are saying.
So how does George Jr win this war? He is currently on a propaganda campaign to 'win the war'. Clearly propaganda can win a war because the enemy is American minds. Does George Jr give the product people - the generals - what they need? Of course not. MBAs win by cutting costs - not solving problems. George Jr need only convince US that the war is being won. So again he can claim "Mission Accomplished". Deja vue Vietnam. The numbers say the "Mission Accomplished" war is being lost no matter how much propaganda George Jr spews.
The numbers are damning to any claim made by George Jr or President Cheney.
tw- i don't necessarily disagree that we need more boots in the sand to bring this to a quick close... but have you read some of the independents, such as Michael Yon.
although the situation is far from good, it is necessarily as dire as we see on TV. i'm just sayin'.
The Stryker Brigade that Mike Yon was with seems to be effective. But it looks to me it's like being the world champion at "Whack-A-Mole", they keep whacking but the "Mole" supply seems endless.
On another note....The Iraqui people have been so closely controlled, for so long, I wonder if they've lost all inititive to do anything but wait to see what they are given by the government? :confused:
On another note....The Iraqui people have been so closely controlled, for so long, I wonder if they've lost all inititive to do anything but wait to see what they are given by the government? :confused:
It makes me wonder how fragile and complex voluntary associations between people are. As we in this country replace choices with mandates and interdependence with dependence, will we reach a tipping point?
I see, tw, that you are still hellbent to lose the war to a bunch of religious bigots who don't deserve to win anything but a sudden death.
Hey, you can't talk about Kansas like that.
Within Republican extremist circles, they are trying to decide where George Jr will appear in relation to Reagan on the list of great presidents. They don't have a clue because of their .... well we have Urbane Guerilla who has the same grasp of reality.
Today George Jr spent a very short time exposed to the public - in Philadelphia. The boos were loud and aggressive - as any patriot must. To have so much animosity towards a president, one must go all the way back to another scumbag president - Richard Nixon. Presidents that lie for their own personal glory must avoid public exposure. Just being on the streets of Philadelphia - well, news reports suggest violence was on the verge of breaking out.
But then, when was the last time an American president caused the death of 100,000 civilians in a conquered nation. He did not even understand the purpose of war - and therefore left Iraq to simmer for seven months without any effort to construct an ally. Only an idiot leader would have done that. And only an idiot would fire the army and police - in direct contradiction to basic military doctrine. Yet we never had reason to attribute intelligent thought to this man.
As new reports note, George Jr is desperately campaigning for his popularity. It's billed as a speech about Iraq. Finally the public has seen George Jr for what he is - as was becoming apparent so many years ago in those contentious posts between MaggieL and this author. Which one correctly identified George Jr's agenda?
A liar only because he is the mental equivalent of Dan Quayle. He has not a clue - does not even read his PDBs or even the famous four page memo from Paul O'Neill (his Sec of Treasury). But George Jr does have a self serving political agenda. And so he goes about the country, carefully protected from the public, presenting Rush Limbaugh type logic in speeches to defend his fiasco - the "Mission Accomplished" war.
Richard Nixon would sacrifice 35,000 of America's best only because he could not lose Vietnam on 'his watch'. Denial is essential when the president is more concerned about his ranking in history than in the purpose of his job. George Jr would even condone torture to secure a high ranking on that historical list - screw America as necessary. But the George Jr was educated as an MBA - means such thinking is consistent with his education.
And so the patriots in the street of Philadelphia loudly called president names that were appropriate.
We only have two acceptable options in this war we created when we Pearl Harbored Iraq. Either we give the generals sufficient troops to end this problem this year - or we pull out within the year. Anything else - such as the George Jr strategy - will only prolong this war even for a decades, massacre America's best in a "Mission Accomplished" war that cannot be won, and make America one of the worlds less respected nations. Either we must get in to fix the problem, or get out that another president so smartly did in Somolia. It requires a president with real balls - and a grasp of the world.
In 2004, ABCNEWS, BBC and Time Assess Iraq
What We Found
By nearly every quantifiable measure, the situation has improved since before the war — and also since our last effort.
However, the one exception security also happens to be the yardstick that Iraqis say matters most.
That was a year ago. The BBC last night announced from Baghdad a result of the latest poll conducted by ABC News, Time Magazine, BBC, Der Spiegel, and NHK. By numbers of two to one, Iraqis declared everything as worse than it was under Saddam. Security has never been worse - although neighborhood security and security in the more rural areas has improved. But other things such as jobs, basic human services, etc all were lists as worse. After US spending $2billion just on the electrical grid, Iraq still has less electricity than under Saddam. Amazing what happens when an MBA throws money at a problem - that he created.
BTW, the ABC News version of the same poll is more optimistic noting gains in Shia and Kurd regions. But most important is the Iraq overall opinion that Americans should leave once the Iraqi government takes power. That means get out in one year.
As the president stomped his 'I'm doing good' tour, remember what the numbers really say in Iraq. Things are getting worse every year the US stays there with woefully too few troops. The generals say we needed about 500,000. George Jr only gives then 135,000. Classic of MBA cost controls.
Finally the BBC World Service reporter noted one more glaring fact. Last year, he recorded the poll's report from inside an Iraqi shopping mall. Today, he says, he does not dare enter that mall anymore. Doing so would only invite death or kidnapping. Yes, Iraq is getting worse every year - no matter what the mental midget president declares - while carefully protected from public view. Just like Richard Nixon - who lied when he declared himself 'not a crook'.
What I found very interesting was GWB's answer to the 'Saddam-9/11' link. He stated that the reason that 9/11 was a reason to invade Iraq was that 9/11 taught him not to ignore danger.
I'm surprised he didn't explain his thinking to Congress when he was seeking authorization. I'm sure they would have understood his reasoning and found it well worth 200 billion dollars and 17,000 US casualties.
Agree or not, at least I could have respected that position. :cool:
ABC itself, left to digest the same poll as tw's BBC
Poll: Broad Optimism in Iraq, But Also Deep Divisions Among Groups
Surprising levels of optimism prevail in Iraq with living conditions improved, security more a national worry than a local one, and expectations for the future high. But views of the country's situation overall are far less positive, and there are vast differences in views among Iraqi groups — a study in contrasts between increasingly disaffected Sunni areas and vastly more positive Shiite and Kurdish provinces.
An ABC News poll in Iraq, conducted with Time magazine and other media partners, includes some remarkable results: Despite the daily violence there, most living conditions are rated positively, seven in 10 Iraqis say their own lives are going well, and nearly two-thirds expect things to improve in the year ahead.
Surprisingly, given the insurgents' attacks on Iraqi civilians, more than six in 10 Iraqis feel very safe in their own neighborhoods, up sharply from just 40 percent in a poll in June 2004. And 61 percent say local security is good — up from 49 percent in the first ABC News poll in Iraq in February 2004.
Nonetheless, nationally, security is seen as the most pressing problem by far; 57 percent identify it as the country's top priority. Economic improvements are helping the public mood.
Average household incomes have soared by 60 percent in the last 20 months (to $263 a month), 70 percent of Iraqis rate their own economic situation positively, and consumer goods are sweeping the country. In early 2004, 6 percent of Iraqi households had cell phones; now it's 62 percent. Ownership of satellite dishes has nearly tripled, and many more families now own air conditioners (58 percent, up from 44 percent), cars, washing machines and kitchen appliances.
...
Other views, moreover, are more negative: Fewer than half, 46 percent, say the country is better off now than it was before the war. And half of Iraqis now say it was wrong for U.S.-led forces to invade in spring 2003, up from 39 percent in 2004.
The number of Iraqis who say things are going well in their country overall is just 44 percent, far fewer than the 71 percent who say their own lives are going well. Fifty-two percent instead say the country is doing badly.
There's other evidence of the United States' increasing unpopularity: Two-thirds now oppose the presence of U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq, 14 points higher than in February 2004. Nearly six in 10 disapprove of how the United States has operated in Iraq since the war, and most of them disapprove strongly. And nearly half of Iraqis would like to see U.S. forces leave soon.
Specifically, 26 percent of Iraqis say U.S. and other coalition forces should "leave now" and another 19 percent say they should go after the government chosen in this week's election takes office; that adds to 45 percent. Roughly the other half says coalition forces should remain until security is restored (31 percent), until Iraqi security forces can operate independently (16 percent), or longer (5 percent).
Other views, moreover, are more negative: Fewer than half, 46 percent, say the country is better off now than it was before the war. And half of Iraqis now say it was wrong for U.S.-led forces to invade in spring 2003, up from 39 percent in 2004.
There's other evidence of the United States' increasing unpopularity: Two-thirds now oppose the presence of U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq, 14 points higher than in February 2004. Nearly six in 10 disapprove of how the United States has operated in Iraq since the war, and most of them disapprove strongly. And nearly half of Iraqis would like to see U.S. forces leave soon.
Nothing unites a country like a common enemy.
Uh...that would be us. :smack:
Take a nude picture of yourself and American businesses must now censure your photographs. This because right wing religious extremists have decided they must protect you from yourself. Their religion and morality must be imposed on you. Should your child use a condom, well, that too is evil. Using condoms violates moral beliefs - which must be imposed upon you and your child. Sex should only be for creating children. Even condom use in Africa is now discouraged in exchange for American aid. More righteous religion imposed on other people
Is not one of the commandments "Thou shalt not lie?" Of course. But more important is that a leader lie so as to impose religious extremist rhetoric. It was only a white lie that Bownie was doing a good job or that no one expected the levees to be breached. That the president said aid was coming – when none was coming while hundreds were drowning in their homes. And so they elected a mental midget president who will do anything - even a Spanish Inquisition and torture - to promote the religious extremist agenda.
Just another example of what he will do to promote that agenda. From ABC News of 14 Dec 2005:
Bob Novak Says President Knows Leak Source
Columnist Bob Novak, who first published the identity of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame, says he is confident that President Bush knows who leaked Plame's name.
Novak said that "I'd be amazed" if the president didn't know the source's identity and that the public should "bug the president as to whether he should reveal who the source is."
Is it evil for Wal-Mart to censure one's personal nude photographs? Not when their religion is more important than your rights. Is it evil to commit treason - out a CIA agent? Not when her husband exposed another presidental lie. This is the new moralty - what happens when religious beliefs - the Spanish Inquisition - are more important than American principles.
From the president's own speech of 14 Dec 2005:
We removed Saddam Hussein from power because he was a threat to our security. He had pursued and used weapons of mass destruction. He sponsored terrorists. He ordered his military to shoot at American and British pilots patrolling the no-fly zones. He invaded his neighbors. He fought a war against the United States and a broad coalition. He had declared that the United States of America was his enemy.
1) Saddam was not a threat to US security. He was no longer a threat to his neighbors – as every adjacent nation said. It was Saddam's own wish to avoid all conflict with the US - even obtaining what he saw (and rightly so from his perspective) approval from the US for an invasion of Kuwait.
2) He pursued WMDs. And then we add the facts a mental midget president (who does not even read his memos) forgets to mention. Such as Saddam destroyed his WMDs in 1996 and began a program of deception so that others did not really know how toothless he was.
3) British and American warplanes were openly attacking Iraqi air defense sites long before the "Mission Accomplished" war. These attacks were preparation for an invasion many months later. George Jr just forgot to mention that part. In many if not most cases, the provocateurs were US and British warplanes - so that air defense facilities would 'light up' their radars - so that those radars could be located and destroyed. Some of those attacks were outside of the No Fly Zone. So why were American and British planes that far north?
4) Yes Saddam fought a war against a coalition. That was the Kuwait war - not the "Mission Accomplished" war. And he lost. But that Kuwait liberation was tarnished by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfovitz, etc when they failed to define a political settlement of that war. They failed to perform their job. They drank champagne rather than provide Schwarzkopf with the necessary conditions of surrender. And so Saddam was permitted to attack and kill maybe 20,000 civilians in Basra as the American army sat only 5 miles away - and watched. Saddam remained in power because America's current leaders (from the George Sr administration) failed to perform their job. They even violated basic principles of war as even defined by Sze Tzu in 500 BC. Let’s not forget who desperately wanted a second Iraq war to correct their historical mistakes.
How convenient this president would distort facts - lie by telling half truths - so that you will think kindly of him. Are you so poorly educated as to not see through his half truths? Some are so politically biased as to deny these facts. Others realize why George Jr needs Rush Limbaugh and Fox News propaganda.
Twist and spin facts for those who blindly believed even lies about aluminum tubes - lies that even experts in America identified. Curious, when the president is a master of propaganda, then many never heard what those experts were saying. Does he still think he can lie and we will believe him? Yes.
Just one paragraph from today's presidential speech - notice how many lies.
The same president who can be trusted to tell us that Saddam was using aluminum tubes for WMDs has routinely subverted other US laws and principles - to even approve of torture. But we need a Patriot Act since Americans cannot be trusted.
Good reasons exist to believe that the administration may have investigated me and so many like me. Is that a desire to make the George Jr Enemies List? I'm sure he has one computerized somewhere because he is like Nixon - demanding absolute loyalty. George Jr's disregard for the law and for American principles are so Nixonian. Why do we need more laws like the Patriot Act?
Bush Authorized Domestic Spying
President Bush signed a secret order in 2002 authorizing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens and foreign nationals in the United States, despite previous legal prohibitions against such domestic spying, sources with knowledge of the program said last night.
The super-secretive NSA, which has generally been barred from domestic spying except in narrow circumstances involving foreign nationals, has monitored the e-mail, telephone calls and other communications of hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of people under the program, the New York Times disclosed last night.
Did I start some kind of vendetta against a mental midget president? Not for a minute. Revelations about outright corruption and anti-American principles by George Jr are now leaking like the Taum Sauk Reservoir dam. Apparently things like the USS Bataan doing nothing for days as Americans died in New Orleans has made little people realize this president is not honest or patriotic. Apparently political attacks on Rep Murta are slowly turning even those with blind loyalty against a lying president. Maybe another levee that George Jr thought would not be breached? Stories of corruption and incompetence by the George Jr administration are leaking daily.
The president authorized electronic monitoring even of American citizens by the NSA. The same NSA that was spying on allied leaders and nations on the UN Security Council only because our allies would not help George Jr to 'Pearl Harbor' Iraq. How many laws can this president disregard? Hundred? Thousands? When does too many become an impeachable crime; more illegal than a White House blow job? Where is Ken Starr when real laws are violated?
Well, if W has an enemies list, I wanna be on it, too. You call W a mental midget, I call him a sociopath. There's no other rational explanation for W's actions and attitudes other than something seriously wrong with his so-called brain - be it stupidity, pre-senile dementia, or emotional illness.
But W is just a puppet, anyhow. Other players behind the scenes have taken advantage of W's stupidity and/or pathology and use him for their own ends. The rest of us turn a blind eye, wave our flags (burning or no), demand that English Only become a state sanctioned holy sacrament, and burn at the stake anyone who says the word "evolution" in the presence of a child aged 5 - 18.
We soothe ourself to sleep at night by mouthing the words of "America the beautiful" to ourselves and recite the Bill of Rights like a priest chanting latin invocations to ward off evil spirits. Latin is a dead language, and the Bill of Rights is dying of gangrene. At least Latin has the advantage of being useful to pre-med students. Might as well burn the Bill of Rights along with your flag. Its a dreary, shameful period in US history, and I don't see the light at the end of the tunnel as anything but an on-rushing train.
Did George Jr approve of torture? Of course.
In an Awkward Dance, the President Is Forced to Follow
Nearly five months ago, President Bush issued a formal threat to veto legislation barring torture, and for the past five months he has been trying to find a way to avoid doing just that. The price: giving Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) the upper hand.
Once again the awkward, freighted Bush-McCain relationship with all its history of rivalry and resentment took center stage in American politics yesterday, as the second-place finisher in the 2000 Republican presidential primaries forced the first-place finisher to swallow something he once opposed. ...
In hindsight, it may have been Vice President Cheney, more than Bush, who provoked the confrontation that led to yesterday's truce. When McCain, a prisoner of war in Vietnam, and other Republican senators proposed outlawing the cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees, Cheney launched a personal lobbying campaign to block it on the grounds that it could diminish the U.S. campaign against terrorists.
The McCain bill simply quotes US Army training manuals. IOW George Jr even opposes military doctrine on torture. He is that sadistic. Or maybe he never learned that doctrine while AWOL?
Senate voted 90 to 9 against a president who so hates the military as to openly advocate torture. House weighed in with a 308 to 122 vote. Can you believe 122 people in the House actually approve of torture? Not that you need be informed of what is right or wrong. Clearly any decent American knew George Jr was wrong - that torture is that obviously wrong. But it suggests how many potential nazis get elected to Congress.
So why did this president take confrontation so far? It says so much about his morality and integrity. So typical of those who would impose their religion upon others.
The House/Senate vote was 398 to 131 - a three to one landslide against George Jr approved torture. Unfortuately we still have 131 Congressmen who approved of torture. The House vote is provided in
ROLL CALL 630 . Does your Congressman, like George Jr, approve of torture?
From
here.
In a stinging defeat for President Bush, Senate Democrats blocked passage Friday of a new Patriot Act to combat terrorism at home, depicting the measure as a threat to the constitutional liberties of innocent Americans.
Republicans spurned calls for a short-term measure to prevent the year-end expiration of law enforcement powers first enacted in the anxious days after Sept. 11, 2001. "The president will not sign such an extension," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., and lawmakers on each side of the issue blamed the other for congressional gridlock on the issue.
The Senate voted 52-47 to advance a House-passed bill to a final vote, eight short of the 60 needed to overcome the filibuster backed by nearly all Senate Democrats and a handful of the 45 Republicans.
There was a chance for agreement on a short extension, something that makes sense for an list of items that are esentially emergency measures and not necessary or justifiable in a future peacetime, but Sen. Frist said the White House wanted all or nothing.
So they got nothing.
I'm all for security, but permanent means forever. It's bad enough my grandchildren will have to inherit a mountain of debt from this adminstration. Should they have to worry about their freedom too?
Should they have to worry about their freedom too?
I'm afraid this minor setback won't assuage their fears much. :headshake
Richard Nixon once claimed before the Supreme Court that he was exempt from laws - citing British common law as precedent. George Jr made a similar claim in his radio address. George Jr said he need not comply with laws; some made specifically because Richard Nixon and his plumbers were doing same. From ABC News of 18 Dec 2005:
Bush Defends Secret Spying in the U.S.
Often appearing angry in an eight-minute address, the president made clear he has no intention of halting his authorizations of the monitoring activities and said public disclosure of the program by the news media had endangered Americans.
Bush's willingness to publicly acknowledge a highly classified spying program was a stunning development for a president known to dislike disclosure of even the most mundane inner workings of his White House. Just a day earlier he had refused to talk about it.
Since October 2001, the super-secret National Security Agency has eavesdropped on the international phone calls and e-mails of people inside the United States without court-approved warrants. Bush said steps like these would help fight terrorists like those who involved in the Sept. 11 plot.
"Mr. Bush had secretly instructed the security agency to intercept the communications of Americans and terrorist suspects inside the United States, without first obtaining warrants from a secret court that oversees intelligence matters." That from the NY Times.
Why is the US kidnapping people on streets of other nations? Why is "rendition" transporting abductees (not prisoners) to third countries for activities such as torture - where the Supreme Court can say nothing? Why was Guantanamo Camp Xray established to evade US courts, international law, and to subvert basic human rights?
Nobody expects a Spanish Inquisition. George Jr today admitted to open violation of US law as acceptable, legal, and appropriate. He said the courts need not approve of wiretapping. He said his judgement alone is sufficient to wiretap anyone. Somehow, Eisenhower's U-2 flights over Cuba justify his actions. He also needs a Patriot Act so that other violations of constitutional privacy can be exercised without judicial restraint. Don't take my word for it.
His Speech of 17 Dec 2005
A silent response from most Cellar dwellars. Many were not congnizant during Watergate. This is how Watergate started. Most Americans were in denial of Watergate even when Nixon ordered the Saturday Night massacre. Back then, Richard Nixon also acted as if above the law - and most Americans paid little attention. Today, George Jr must be careful to not alienate religious right extremists when he does similar. Nixon made that mistake.
Before 11 September, at least four seperate FBI field offices could have prevented the attack. In at least three cases, George Jr administration halted or hindered investigations. George Jr claims to need extraordinary presidental powers to stop what he all but let happen on 11 September. Can you really trust a man who is told by god what to do? Who subverts 'rule of law' because he knows better? That is essentially what he said in his speech. "Trust me."
Terrorism is a threat to American laws and principles. That terrorist is George Jr. What will he do tomorrow to top this string of anti-American declarations and revelations?
Why does George Jr fear disclosure of "mudane inner workings of his White House"? Terrorists and criminals fear public exposure of their actions and intents. Is there a difference?
Every generation gets fed this special case nonsense, but our generation is so much more comfortable with the state intruding into our daily lives that what should be the beginning of impeachment procedings doesn't even stay on the front page.
Bush's willingness to publicly acknowledge a highly classified spying program was a stunning development for a president known to dislike disclosure of even the most mundane inner workings of his White House. Just a day earlier he had refused to talk about it.
This is
not a stunning development. This is pure SOP for the administration. Do something wrong, keep it secret as long as posible, and when it comes out they scream that it was the right thing to do, justified by 9-11, and they only kept it secret because of the liberal media. The media, in its pathetic obsession with not seeming liberal, treats that position as if it were just as legitimate as the position that the action should never have been done in the first place, and should never have been keps secret in the second.
By late 2005 standards it is treason, but by 2002 standards it is what is expected. If he had not signed the order in 2002, the American public would have asked for his head.
FDR rounded up ordinary Americans on the basis of their race and put them in internment camps. People thought that was the right thing to do. By 2005 standards it is treason. You behave differently in times of war.
The President becomes a King in wartime.
The President becomes a King in wartime.
Only if the courts allow it. The Supreme Court allowed the internment of Americans during WWII. In this case, the Bush White House did not seek the approval of Congress or the courts.
The reason every soldier (and almost everyone else in Government) takes an oath to support and defend the Constitution is that the document, in setting up a three branch government, provides the checks and balances necessary to insure freedom from an authoritarian goverment.
GWB ignored the other two branches to 'protect' us. In doing so, he came closer to becoming more like Hussein, the junta in Myanmar, and many other tyrants who seized power during crisises in otherwise democratic countries by promising security.
Is this hyperbole? Not really. The principle is the same, it's just a matter of degree. I doubt that it could happen here. But I refuse to say 'never'. People think that Germany or Iraq became dictatorships overnight, that in a week or a month they went from democracies to countries dotted with death camps or detention and torture facilities. The reality is that a frightened demoralized people gave away more and more of their authority to a regime and at some point stopped asking questions.
GWB did what he did and got caught. He did not accept any oversight and so could essentially order eavesdropping on anyone. I wonder if he shredded Kerry's file yet?
By late 2005 standards it is treason, but by 2002 standards it is what is expected. If he had not signed the order in 2002, the American public would have asked for his head.
He's reauthorized it
at least 30 times since then.
He has still been in 2002 mode.
So, since it's now 2005, you'd say it's treason?
I don't see the light at the end of the tunnel as anything but an on-rushing train.
That's one hell of a dildo! :lol:
A bird in the bush is worth two in the hand. :p
You behave differently in times of war.
So when do we start fighting the war. When do we go after bin Landen?
Bin Laden's dead. Personally, I think we have proof but refused to let him be a martyr by announcing it. But even if he's been vaporized and we have no idea when it happened, the man is dead.
Well, there's always Alec Baldwin.
So when do we start fighting the war. When do we go after bin Landen?
Wrong war pal. We're fighting the war against Constitutional checks on Executive power. George is winning.
Bin Laden's dead. Personally, I think we have proof but refused to let him be a martyr by announcing it. But even if he's been vaporized and we have no idea when it happened, the man is dead.
I'm so glad to find out I am not the only person who is sure of that. When I tell people that he has been dead for years now I seem to be all alone in that opinion. Asked why I think his death was not revealed, I explain that we could not have recovered the body for indisputable proof anyway, and the US does not want a martyr which the Muslims can rally around and turn him into a saint. On the other hand, the Bin Laden followers, especially the recruiters of new talent, want to keep the money flowing in which Bin Laden used to control and they also don't want the Arab world to know that the US really DID keep their promise to wipe the guy out. Believe me, it is not that difficult to mix a tape with Bin Laden's voice, because they have practically unlimited funds to invest on the technology (especially with their cells in Germany). And think about it, with all the imense fortune Al Quaeda controls, why are the videotapes of Bin Laden of such dismal quality? ON PURPOSE! So you can't really see for sure who it is! Think how long they could keep up the masquerade if HDTV was the medium?
I'm so glad to find out I am not the only person who is sure of that. When I tell people that he has been dead for years now I seem to be all alone in that opinion.
It is the nature of the Muslim Brotherhood. Bin Laden was just another dandelion in a large field called Muslim Brotherhood. JI in Indonesia is but another example. They were not Al Qaeda. But American spin doctors also need JI to be Al Qaeda to promote their agenda. Just another example of the confusion - and why bin Laden could be perfectly safe, happy, and alive.
Bin Laden's job has simply moved to others by the same method that he inherited the job. He is probably alive. And will remain an inspiration for others to kill Americans. Americans so feared bin Laden as to not go after him. Does not matter whether that is your opinion. That is how bin Laden plays out where it matters.
By not going after him, we only demonstrated that Americans are the equivalent of a paper tiger. Rise up and join the insurgency - Allah Acabar. Even bin Laden lives - no matter what you may suspect. We have George Jr to thank for that.
From here.
Look. We have a President here who is making a claim of unlimited power, for the duration of a war that may never end. Oh, he says it's limited by the country's laws, but they've got a crack legal team that reliably interprets the laws to say that the President gets to do whatever he wants. It amounts to the same thing.
I am not exaggerating. I am really and truly not.
September 11 started the war. When will it end? Maybe never. Where is the battlefield? The entire world, including the United States. Who is an enemy combatant? Anyone the President says is an enemy combatant, including a U.S. citizen--no need for a charge, no need for a trial, no need for access to a lawyer. What if they're found not to be an enemy combatant? We can keep them in prison anyway, and we don't have to tell their families they're alive or their lawyers that they were cleared. What can you do to an enemy combatant? Anything you want. Detain him forever, for the rest of his life, because this is a war like any other and we have always been able to detain POWs for the duration of the war. But you don't need to follow the Geneva Conventions, because this is a war like no other in our history. And oh yes--if the President decides that we need to torture a prisoner for the war effort, it's unconstitutional for Congress to stop him. They took that position in an official memo, and they have not backed down from it. They have said it was "unnecessary" but they have never backed down from it.
They are not only entitled to do these things to people; they are entitled to do them in secret. When Congress asks for information about them, they can just ignore it. And they are entitled to actively deceive the public about all this.
That's the power they claim. At what point are we going to take that claim seriously?
I am not exaggerating. I am really and truly not.
I'm sure she believes that.
Falling sky noted. Does anyone want to make an entry on the Cellar calendar for a prediction on when it will land?
Falling sky noted. Does anyone want to make an entry on the Cellar calendar for a prediction on when it will land?
The nature of the beast is that the sky only falls on a few people. Keep your head down, and hope it's not you. So far, it's just the towel-heads with funny sounding names that have to worry. I should be safe.
Right? :worried:
Yes. You ARE safe from the horrible possibility of having agents of the federal government listen to your phone conversation without the OK of a federal judge.
And now, so are the towel-heads.
Do you feel safer? You probably aren't.
If some government agent wants to listen to me, then so be it. I have nothing to hide, at least the terrorests that are here afraid to fart for fear they will be caught.
Great line fargot.
"The only thing better than vanquishing your enemies is eating their young!!!"
Love it!
Seems like some people here would rather lick 'em where they pee. :yum:
I am not exaggerating. I am really and truly not.
I'm sure she believes that.
Where's the exaggeration? These are the official stated positions of the Bush administration.
Yes. You ARE safe from the horrible possibility of having agents of the federal government listen to your phone conversation without the OK of a federal judge.
And now, so are the towel-heads.
By "towel-heads" do you mean US persons? Because that's the only group affected by this change. And through the FISA courts, they only had to get the Judge's permission 72 hours
after they started tapping. Bush apparently thought even that was too restrictive.
Where's the exaggeration?
We have a President here who is making a claim of unlimited power
Unlimited power! Exaggeration.
for the duration of a war that may never end
May
never end! Exaggeration.
Oh, he says it's limited by the country's laws, but they've got a crack legal team that reliably interprets the laws to say that the President gets to do whatever he wants.
Whatever he wants! Exaggeration.
By "towel-heads" do you mean US persons? Because that's the only group affected by this change.
Also the people with whom they are speaking.
I would favor court oversight, but please. This is not the Nixonian enemies list we're talking about here. These are dangerous people. Don't get played like a fiddle into being anti-WoT... that's what Rove wants.
But what's the exaggeration? He's claiming that his ability to spy on and imprison people is absolute. On his say-so alone, any person, American or not, can be imprisoned and tortured without trial.
That is his claim.
And a war on terror may indeed never end. There will always be terrorists of some sort.
This is not the Nixonian enemies list we're talking about here. These are dangerous people.
Don't forget the separate domestic spying issue, concerning antiwar groups, like the Quakers.
Where'd he claim all that again? Because I missed it.
Don't forget the separate domestic spying issue, concerning antiwar groups, like the Quakers.
Or the Tim McVeighs.
Or the
Catholic Workers Group. Because, uh, they sound vaguely Commie.
Well, that FBI nonsense is just insane, but I've always thought the FBI was pretty much broken.
I don't know what I think about this yet. On one extreme, you have the government listening to any and all phone conversations, trying to pick anti-govt sentiment from personal conversations so that the speaker can be thrown into the gulag.
Not likely.
On the other side of the spectrum, you have someone planning a terrorist act, calling bin Laden in the Caribbean to get the go-code, and we're unable to do anything about it because, by gosh, it's ILLEGAL to listen in on a phone conversation.
Not likely.
The whole thing is looking like a political witch-hunt, with Bush trying (and failing) to fend off the people who want his ass no matter what the cost to the country. The reality is, if the government wants you, they know where to find you, and won't let a little thing like the law stand in the way (unless it's something that might get caught in the public radar, in which case, the spin doctors are mobilized). On paper, that looks like a bad thing.
But if someone thinks they can operate a terrorist cell within our country and hide behind the Constitution while thumbing their nose at us, that's a worse thing, and people will die if it happens.
Where'd he claim all that again? Because I missed it.
You ought to have been paying attention.
His claim is that it is an
executive power, with no oversight from the courts (or anyone else), to declare someone an unlawful combatant. His claim is that unlawful combatants are outside the purview of the Geneva conventions, are outside the purview of the Judiciary, and may not be inspected by the traditional Red Cross. He has fought tooth and nail against restrictions on torture of people the US has in custody.
These are not each happening in independent sandboxes; they are all happening together.
On the other side of the spectrum, you have someone planning a terrorist act, calling bin Laden in the Caribbean to get the go-code, and we're unable to do anything about it because, by gosh, it's ILLEGAL to listen in on a phone conversation.
Not likely.
What is even worse - when terrorists were successful, it was made possible because Federal agents were halted by George Jr people from doing their job. Need I quote what was YELLED at those Chicago agents? "YOU WILL NOT OPEN A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION!" Since we all first learn the facts before making conclusions, we all saw those FBI agents specifically say this on the network news. Oh? Some people have opinions and yet never learned these facts?
I should not have to do this if you have learned recent history: when a president did his job - read his PDBs, and with fewer powers, then terrorism was halted.
It is a damning fact. This nation's #1 anti-terror investigator died when? Since it was posted here multiple times, they you know the answer. John O'Neill was driven from government service by the George Jr administration. Knowing where a next attack might be coming, John O'Neill took a job as head of security at the WTC. John O'Neill died in his first week on the job during the WTC attack. John O'Neill died in his first week on the job during the WTC attack. John O'Neill died in his first week on the job during the WTC attack. How many times need we cite examples of why terrorism was permitted - and why no extraordinary powers were required?
How many hundreds of examples need I provide before you admit why the George Jr administration did things that permitted terrorism. And why can George Jr be trusted with extraordinary powers when the problem was only the George Jr administration?
The solution is competent leadership. 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. Federal agents had plenty of power and information to stop domestic terrorism. When George Jr failed to read his PDB, then people died. When Clinton read his PDBs, then Millennium attacks all over the world were halted.
George Jr uses fear to hype "MORE POWER". That was the Tim Allen joke on Home Improvement. Was "MORE POWER" the solution? Of course not. The solution was a smarter human who spent less time in the hospital emergency room. You're expected to learn from the jokes - such as "No one expects a Spanish Inquisition". George Jr does not need more power. We need more intelligence in the Oval office. Someone who knows how to read PDBs.
... people will die if it happens.
Domestic terrorism happened when the president had a PDB warning of the attack and did nothing. And when the president, on 11 September, did so little as to never once authorize American fighter planes to go hot - to defend American cities. That too should make you angry. On 11 September, the president nor anyone on his senior staff did anything to defend America. You don't agree? Show me. I would love to see it.
Reposted by Happy Monkey:
September 11 started the war. When will it end? Maybe never. Where is the battlefield? The entire world, including the United States. Who is an enemy combatant? Anyone the President says is an enemy combatant, including a U.S. citizen--no need for a charge, no need for a trial, no need for access to a lawyer.
A minor point that everyone should recognize - a fact of history. The "Mission Accomplished" war, the liberation of Kuwait, both attacks on the WTC, when even Rush Limbaugh and other right wing extremists acknowledged the cold war was over, etc are all directly traceable to one 'day when the world changed'. 1 August 1990. The day that Saddam invaded Kuwait. Event that resulted in reasons for a "Mission Accomplished" war.
One should also remember three names so much responsible for making those changes: Sec of State Baker, George Sr, and Margaret Thatcher.
Where's the exaggeration?
Unlimited power! Exaggeration.
1) If the administration needs a wiretap to stop criminal or terrorist activity, then it can go to any court - and will get court permission. 2) If that is not good enough, a secret court exists to provide judicial permission. And 3) if that is not good enough, they can wiretap for 72 hours before going to any of those courts. Where is court permission an impediment to stopping terrorism? Nowhere. Not anywhere - three times over - does the need for a court order cause any risk to any Americans.
However a mental midget president says he should have the right to wiretap and bug anyone he wants at any time. OK. 4) The president now says he needs unlimited power. However UT disagrees? How is this possible - unless one has a right wing 'the president is never wrong' agenda.
Why did United States District Judge James Robertson of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court - the secret court - resign yesterday? Why even bother to have such courts when the president says he has the right to bug and wiretap anyone anytime without any judicial review? Somehow UT sees that as a president with limited powers. One would have to be daft to make such conclusions. This president is declaring he is above the law - as Richard Nixon also tried to claim before the Supreme Court. If George Jr can wiretap anyone anytime, then Nixon's plumbers also did nothing wrong.
Therein lies the damning fact for UT. How does George Jr's sound byte reasoning differ at all from what Richard Nixon did? Little hint. George Jr has the same Nixonian attitude - or is it President Cheney?
I have nothing to hide, at least the terrorests that are here afraid to fart for fear they will be caught.
Problem with your assumptions are a complete shortage of real world examples or facts. They are "I feel this is true" statements often found among hypothetical 'dumb blond' groupees and unquestioning supporters of a mental midget president.
Domestic terrorists were at great risk when a president had intelligence. But then you tell me. You tell me why Diana Deans so successfully stopped Millenium terrorist attacks all over the world. In fact, to have credibility, you can start your reply by telling us who Diana Deans is. Why were domestic anti-terrorist once so successful. You tell me because what you are posting does not agree with historical fact. Show me why we suddenly need violations of constitutional prnciples?
BTW, saying we need such unlimted government power because the president is dumb and does not read his memos - that just is not an acceptable reply. Show me. Show me why terrorist suddenly have reason to fear. I await for your demonstration of 'real world' knowledge. Show me. Who is Diana Deans? Why was she so successful?
Better do your homework more carefully yourself, tw. Her name is Diana DEAN :rolleyes:
85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. Federal agents had plenty of power and information to stop domestic terrorism. When George Jr failed to read his PDB, then people died. When Clinton read his PDBs, then Millennium attacks all over the world were halted.
85% of all hairs removed from one's ass are .37 inches long. It is apparent to any independent-minded reader of your one-sided drivel that you are so disinterested in the truth that you will omit any salient fact that controverts your wafer-thin conclusions.
Go ahead and call me a ditto head and/or a W supporter or whatever your weekly Al Franken talking points memo instruct you to do. I'm neither. I think for myself and, unlike you, I consider facts that don't agree with a concusion faxed to me before I've had a chance to examine it. I think its pretty ironic if not hilarious that while you scoff at management buffoons, you make the exact mistake that they make by allowing the conclusion to precede the analysis. You could care less about the truth. All you are interested in is wounding the object of your derision. And while I have no interest in muting your disgust with W, the way you try to recruit others to your point of view is shockingly indistinguishable from the persuasive methodology deployed by a no-money-down-real-estate infomercial.
You are so blind to the reality of what is going on that for you, a "W free" world would be a peaceful utopian society - bin Laden working side-by-side with Rush Limbaugh building Habitat for Humanity houses in Decatur, GA.
Put the doobie down and sober up. bin Ladan wants your self-rightous ass as dead as he wants mine regardless of who is president.
Its not about "W", its about America. W wasn't president during the hostage crisis in Iran - Carter was. W wasn't president during any of the terrorist attacks against the US from 1970 through 2000. That's right, tw, the terrorists actually did attack us before the dimwit W took office. Carter couldn't stop it. Reagan couldn't stop it. Bush Sr. couldn't stop it. Clinton couldn't stop it. And yes, Bush Jr. can't stop it.
The terrorists won't stop until the US is finished off.
But don't let me discourage you from voting for whomever you wish in 2008. But since you've managed to blame W for every terrorist attack dating back to the early 70s, I'm sure you will have little difficulty blaming W for every attack from Jan 15th 2008 to Jan 15th, 2525.
It is really painful for me to read your posts and see such a capable intellect so easily forsake his potential for honest analyis to further such blatently transparent mouthpeice propoganda. Keep spewing, though. It emboldens an army of lesser intellects who can't put a nose ring in fast enough.
85% of all hairs removed from one's ass are .37 inches long. It is apparent to any independent-minded reader of your one-sided drivel that you are so disinterested in the truth that you will omit any salient fact that controverts your wafer-thin conclusions.
Hi there ditto head. Clearly you want to say something nice about a mental midget president. So where are your facts? ... Oh. You post a personal insult. That proves you are as intelligent as the president who did not know what countries are adjacent to Israel.
Beestie. If you thought for yourself, then you would have posted facts in defense of the mental midget president. You did not because, well let's see if we can find any. Otherwise, you would post Rush Limbaugh type insults - accusations without facts.
Meanwhile, where are all those domestic terrorist attacks before George Jr demoted the Counterterrorism Security Group and had it removed from the White House? Why would George Jr demote the organization that responds to terrorism AND even force this nation's #1 anti-terrrorist investigator out of government? Just more facts about George Jr competency - posted without personal insult. Beestie - the only reason you post insults is that you cannot defend the mental midget president.
Well at least you did change the name before you posted. My name is not Hilary.
Blind is one who supports a president when he lies about the Oslo accords, weapons of mass destruction, the reasons for intentionally distorted intelligence, why even our allies will not support us, "Mission Accomplished", stem cell research, Chiristian values, free trade, fiscal responsiblity, Social Security, corporate welfare to the drug industry, corporate welfare to the steel manufacturers, corporate welfare to special interests such as Halliburton, promoting energy consumption rather than innovation, perverting space science for a personal political agenda, underming American relations with virtually every nation in the world, imposing Christian extremist values even unto aid to Africa (they cannot even have condoms to protect from Aids), doing absolutely nothing to protect America during 11 September, promoting government financial support to religous organizations, endorsing and advocating torture, $8billiion to the airlines with no strings attached, ending international treaties that promoted a safer and healthier world, advocating a termination of the nuclear test ban treaty, openly promoting assistance to India's nuclear program in direct contradiction of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, letting First Energy operate a nuclear reactor with a potential Three Mile Island problem AND a hole in its six inch containment vessel in exchange for a $450,000 campaign fund raiser, not even reading memos from his own Treasury Secretary, spending $billions on an anti-missile defense system that does not work to defend against an enemy that does not exist (Don Quixote syndome), destroying a multinational program that would have brought N Korea back into the world as a responsible citizen, sitting on his ass while people were dying and while the USS Lincoln sat for five days in Hong Kong doing nothing, outrightly lying about aluminum tubes when even the American manufacture of that equipment demonstrated six times over why those tubes could never be used for WMDs, advocating new nuclear weapons even as bunker busters and other purposes, letting the USS Bataan side outside New Orleans doing nothing as people were suffering and dying only four blocks away from where that ship could have been docked, almost getting into a shooting war with China over a silly spy plane, permitting the Israelis to use American weapons to attack Palestinian civilians (no other president permitted that - and Reagan was the most adament about that), building a military back up to Cold War type expenditures in a world devoid of any such enemy, more $billions for a useless ISS that does no science while eating (destroying) the 10% of NASAs budget that actually does science, filling FEMA with political hacks who then perverted and undermined the organization that was fixed in 1990s, perverting science, declaring Global Warming as non-existant, then admitting it is happening but refuse to do anything (the ostrich mentality), building a Roman Empire across southeastern Asia only to promote military crusades called preemption against enemies that do not exist, stifling the prosecution of so many criminal corporate executives until Congress finally had to step in, .... Wiretapping whenever he wants only for the greater glory of George Jr.
Still waiting for Beestie to show us something that says this president works for the American people. Let's see. Insult, insult, insult ... no ... not one facts posted. it is hard to defend someone who will end up in history rated somewhere below Richard Nixon.
You see, Beestie, my every post cites facts and supporting evidence. Maybe next time I should cite your emotions as a fact? After all, it is the only fact you have in support of a mental midget president.
Yes I am insulting you because you posted insults without a single fact. You like the president? Then post a fact that says why. You could not so you did not. Because this president has become - logically undeniably - that bad. You post insults at me because deep down you cannot admit I am right. But again I posted reasons that support my claims.
One last fact. George Jr started with grudging support from me. I saw someone without promise, but OK. He could be worse. Back then, if you remember, I noted how in Texas he worked more with Democrats. I suggested he may indeed be a compationate conservative more in the model of his father. George Jr earns my comments that are provided with facts. And only in this past year - total contempt. Even The Economist magazine called his administration incompetant. And that was a full month before Katrina.
But again, I digress by adding more facts to the fire called incompetent George Jr. Beestie - an honest American would have posted some facts with your Rush Limbaugh diatribe. Look above. Facts. Plenty of facts.
Put the doobie down and sober up. bin Ladan wants your self-rightous ass as dead as he wants mine regardless of who is president.
If the president was honest, bin Laden's ass would be sitting before a court of law on trial for crimes against humanity. Instead he runs free because the president lied.
I'm glad I no longer argue with people who can't figure out that:
"The cat in the hat"
is not the same as "The cat in a hat"...
That's not "the cat in a hat". That's "a cat in a hat"!
That's not "the cat in a hat". That's "a cat in a hat"!
Yeah, I know. I was just trying to use tbe tw example from earlier.
There's very little point in debating you, tw. As I pointed out already, you take a position and then ignore anything that doesn't substantiate it.
Not unlike W.
Has everyone forgotten about
the Echelon Program?
There's very little point in debating you, tw. As I pointed out already, you take a position and then ignore anything that doesn't substantiate it.
You never tried to debate. Why? You don't like what you hear but cannot dispute those facts? Apparently. If you know something, then you can also say why - the supporting facts. Why can Beestie not provide facts? I maintain that Beestie has no supporting facts - only has unsubstantiated opinion - that even justified the 'Pearl Harboring' of Iraq.
Meanwhile, Beestie, if you had noticed, George Jr only got from me as much criticism as Clinton. However using only facts, my post on George Jr have become more callous. That only based upon what the mental midget does. Any president who does not even read his own memos? How can Beestie have any respect for such as president? He cannot if he is being honest with himself.
But prove me wrong. Show me. Show me where terrorists are waiting in line to kill us all. Widespread domestic terrorism exists in hype and fear promoted by George Jr and Rush Limbaugh (who even maintains today that we have no right or expectation of privacy). But again, Beestie, show us where these dangers exist. I maintain you cannot which is why you only posted insult. Show me logical thought rather than another Limbaugh type insult. Rather than post insults, why not post facts? Because you have none. I maintain that is where most of George Jr's support comes from - those who have opinions without logical thought. I put up reasons for what I believe. Where are yours?
From
here.
<table style="direction: ltr;" border="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr><td>Bush Welcomes Patriot Act Extension</td></tr> <tr> <td valign="top"> By Scott Stearns
Washington
22 December 2005
</td> <td align="left" valign="top">
</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>
President Bush is welcoming the temporary extension of anti-terrorism laws that were first passed following the 2001 attacks in New York and Washington.
President Bush says 2005 was a good year for the American people. He says there has been strong progress toward a freer, more peaceful world and a more prosperous U.S. economy.
Mr. Bush welcomed Senate action to lower government spending and temporarily extend anti-terrorism laws known as the Patriot Act. "It appears to me that the Congress understands that we've got to keep the Patriot Act in place. We are still under threat. There is a still an enemy that wants to harm us, and they understand that the Patriot Act is an important tool for those of us here in the executive branch to use to protect our fellow citizens.
I think what the president meant to say was 'a good year for the American people with a net worth over a million dollars'.
White House Spokesman Scott McClellan this past week said President Bush would not accept a temporary extension of the Patriot Act, and threatened to veto a massive defense spending bill unless the laws were fully reauthorized.
But with Senate Democrats refusing to yield on concerns about protecting civil liberties, Republican congressional leaders and the White House accepted the temporay (sic) extension.
The president said one of his biggest priorities for 2006 will be winning a full reauthorization of the Patriot Act as well as continuing to help those affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
So, was this a flip-flop? It appears that Congress, in a semi-bipartisan move, called his bluff.
This is almost as much backpedaling as Rick Santorum is demonstrating on Intelligent Design.
If the president was honest, bin Laden's ass would be sitting before a court of law on trial for crimes against humanity. Instead he runs free because the president lied.
Except he doesn't run free, because he's dead. :greenface
Except he doesn't run free, because he's dead. :greenface
He must have died from his health problems as well since Al Potata isn't playing the martyr card. IOW God killed him.
TS got it right with Echelon. Well played sir
Spy Agency Mined Vast Data Trove, Officials Report
Only the NSA could operate such a wiretapping operation, technologically...
TS got it right with Echelon. Well played sir
Spy Agency Mined Vast Data Trove, Officials Report
Only the NSA could operate such a wiretapping operation, technologically...
I guess the issue that comes out of call patterns is 'degrees of separation'. If you call your local store to order flowers and the owner of that store gave money to Hamas, does that make you eligible for a wiretap?
Added with data mining, it could get even more complicated. The system might have said that you were not a 'person of interest' until you bought or rented a copy of 'Munich', which put you over the threshold.
All of this might not even really matter except that they have now mixed in criminal with anti-terrorist. This means that if they use this extraordinary power and find that you have broken a mundane law like drug possession or tax evasion, they can use the information gathered without court approval against you in criminal court. It might even work out that you can be charged in criminal court and not be able to see the evidence against you since it was gathered in secret, although I'm pretty sure that this is clearly a Constitutional violation that the adminstration has not gotten around - yet.
Don't get played like a fiddle into being anti-WoT... that's what Rove wants.
Instapundit points to two links that make this case. First,
Ann Althouse points out that the most politically shrewd D player has avoided the issue entirely:
Hillary Clinton. Has she said anything about the current domestic surveillance controversy? I think she had the good sense to see how this was going to play out and to leave her record clear of comments that would come back to haunt her.
Ace political analyst
Mickey Kaus always understands this:
One reason the warrantless eavesdropping controversy may help, rather than hurt, Bush in the polls has more to do with the character of his administration than popular support for eavesdropping. In particular, Bush's tendency to hide behind a carapace of formal, not-completely-apposite justifications (e.g. "we must recognize Iraq as the central front in our war on terror") leads voters to ask what is really going on behind the facade. The Katrina botch suggested not much--maybe Bush, as the left-wing caricatures always suggested, really was out to lunch, playing computer golf in the Oval Office while various Michael Brownian cronies held meetings to plan their wardrobes. That's why, if the Bushies have really had the energy to secretly do all sorts of illegal spying against terrorists, it's almost reassuring. At least they've been on the case, doing their job as they see it. The more thorough and secret the eavesdropping, the more reassuring on this score.
The biggest limiting factor in Presidential, or any public power at all, is not the law. The biggest limiting factor is the politics involved.
This means that if they use this extraordinary power and find that you have broken a mundane law like drug possession or tax evasion, they can use the information gathered without court approval against you in criminal court.
But no - that's one of the strange twists here.
If the legality of the wiretap was not put under judicial review a priori, it would *definitely* be put to judicial review in a criminal case. Since the methods of the wiretap couldn't be evaluated, that evidence would be thrown out before the end of the discovery phase.
Anything would have to be a non-ordinary "enemy combatant" type of war court, not your basic criminal court.
But can they use the things they hear in the wiretap be used to get a search warrant to gather "hard" evidence? :confused:
Not if the judge finds out they did.
Today's WaPo
The administration contends it is still acting in self-defense after the Sept. 11 attacks, that the battlefield is worldwide, and that everything it has approved is consistent with the demands made by Congress on Sept. 14, 2001, when it passed a resolution authorizing "all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons [the president] determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks."
"Everything is done in the name of self-defense, so they can do anything because nothing is forbidden in the war powers act," said one official who was briefed on the CIA's original cover program and who is skeptical of its legal underpinnings. "It's an amazing legal justification that allows them to do anything," said the official, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issues.
Get a dog.
Just now a talking head on cable news said that the NSA's persistent cookies let them track "wherever you go on the Internet".
Boo!
You know, nobody went into a libertarian panic while I was working on libertarian issues.
(The persistent cookies story is a non-issue, a red herring, even the cookies of the NSA are NOT harmful in any way.)
But no - that's one of the strange twists here.
If the legality of the wiretap was not put under judicial review a priori, it would *definitely* be put to judicial review in a criminal case. Since the methods of the wiretap couldn't be evaluated, that evidence would be thrown out before the end of the discovery phase.
Anything would have to be a non-ordinary "enemy combatant" type of war court, not your basic criminal court.
Actually, the court has given more leeway to 'tainted' evidence. Alito is rumored to be very pro-law enforcement. I don't think anyone could count on a definitive 'no' on the use of that kind of evidence.
The court has said you can use evidence gathered without a proper warrant, or obtained illegally (I think), if you were going to get that evidence legally some other way. Can you think of any other leeway decisions?
The court has said you can use evidence gathered without a proper warrant, or obtained illegally (I think), if you were going to get that evidence legally some other way. Can you think of any other leeway decisions?
Or by 'purged taint', if your actions give similar information.
From
here.
Although the exclusionary rule has not been completely repudiated, its utilization has been substantially curbed. Initial decisions chipped away at the rule's application. Defendants who themselves were not subjected to illegal searches and seizures may not object to the introduction of evidence illegally obtained from co-conspirators or codefendants,<sup>402</sup> and even a defendant whose rights have been infringed may find the evidence coming in, not as proof of guilt, but to impeach his testimony.<sup>403</sup> Defendants who have been convicted after trials in which they were given a full and fair opportunity to raise claims of Fourth Amendment violations may not subsequently raise those claims on federal habeas corpus, because the costs outweigh the minimal deterrent effect.<sup>404</sup> Evidence obtained through a wrongful search and seizure may sometimes be used in the criminal trial, if the prosecution can show a sufficient attenuation of the link between police misconduct and obtaining of the evidence.<sup>405</sup> If an arrest or a search which was valid at the time it was effectuated becomes bad through the subsequent invalidation of the statute under which the arrest or search was made, evidence obtained thereby is nonetheless admissible.<sup>406</sup> A grand jury witness was not permitted to refuse to answer questions on the ground that they were based on evidence obtained from an unlawful search and seizure,<sup>407</sup> and federal tax authorities were permitted to use in a civil proceeding evidence found to have been unconstitutionally seized from defendant by state authorities.<sup>408</sup> The rule is inapplicable in parole revocation hearings.<sup>409</sup>
So if the police or IRS are given tainted evidence, it may still be admissible since the prosecuting agency did not engage in the warrentless seizure.
You know, nobody went into a libertarian panic while I was working on libertarian issues.
You weren't 'lucky' enough to have this administration in office.
But man, you really gave up on the whole libertarian
idea, not just the infighting in the party, huh?
Within the LP, there was more cause for libertarian panic in the previous administration. See UG. The opposition can almost always paint the party in power as anti-libertarian, because they're the ones making decisions and practically every political decision can be seen as anti-libertarian.
Infighting within the party proves that politics is inevitable even amongst the supposedly "principled", which in turn proved to me that "principle" is not the operating consideration that even LPers think it is.
Within the LP, there was more cause for libertarian panic in the previous administration. See UG.
I used a small 'l'. I don't know what the big 'L' Libertarian's priorities are, but Clinton was Ayn Rand compared to Bush.
Y'know, though, that's how it *always* looks from the opposite school of thought.
From the left Clinton is fixing the health care system.
From the right Clinton is stealing the health care system.
From the left Bush is stealing the social security system.
From the right Bush is fixing the social security system.
I remember how the Ls (and ls) thought about Clinton when his first two big steps were raising taxes and going after medicine. The sky was falling! We were running towards socialism! Failure imminent!
But it wasn't.
~~snip ~~Infighting within the party proves that politics is inevitable even amongst the supposedly "principled", which in turn proved to me that "principle" is not the operating consideration that even LPers think it is.
So you decided since the "principle" was not the primary consideration of the LPers it wouldn't be yours either? :confused:
Politics trumps principle in the public square where action counts louder than words.
No, HM, Clinton wasn't remotely a libertarian of any stripe: his political instincts were formed in an essentially one-party State, which isn't going to make a libertarian. Even worse, the only thing Clinton ever cared about was the convenience of Clinton -- a bad habit in a President. This is how you can explain both his Administration's approach to foreign policy and to domestic policy: what conveniences the Clintons? Just the most conspicuous proof of this is in the behavior of the senior echelon of the DoJ during the Clinton era -- they largely confined themselves to running interference for the one-party-state operations of the Clintons.
Over and above the objections of those who think they have solid grounds to object on, I overtly assess George W. Bush as substantially more libertarian (small L) than his too-statist predecessor. Because of this contrast, as well as the incompetence of the national Democratic Party in general, his predecessor never got my vote, while GWB did, and repeatedly. The Republicans are just more satisfactory in time of war, and it's been that way since the late Sixties.
I haven't seen this aired, but is not what the Bush Administration trying to do is function under war powers? This would be simpler had a formal state of war been declared, true, but does it not behoove us to all actually prosecute the war on Terror? I think it does, yet there are those who would confine their efforts to fighting a war on Republicans instead. WTF, you guys?! Do you have even the smallest hope of explaining and justifying that to a skeptic like me? Lame, half-thought reasons might be enough to satisfy your fellow travelers, but how about the people who regard your behavior with stony expressions?
Infighting within the party proves that politics is inevitable even amongst the supposedly "principled", which in turn proved to me that "principle" is not the operating consideration that even LPers think it is.
For parties that are not in power, internecine fights over who is the more principled is about all they have to do. Parties in power actually having a responsibility to craft wise and functional policy don't have the time for it. An out of power party might do better if it didn't waste any energy over who's purer than whom and simply set out to attain office instead.
No, HM, Clinton wasn't remotely a libertarian of any stripe: his political instincts were formed in an essentially one-party State, which isn't going to make a libertarian. Even worse, the only thing Clinton ever cared about was the convenience of Clinton -- a bad habit in a President. This is how you can explain both his Administration's approach to foreign policy and to domestic policy: what conveniences the Clintons? Just the most conspicuous proof of this is in the behavior of the senior echelon of the DoJ during the Clinton era -- they largely confined themselves to running interference for the one-party-state operations of the Clintons.
That is even more true of Bush.
I haven't seen this aired, but is not what the Bush Administration trying to do is function under war powers?
That is what should chill the heart of any libertarian. Bush is claiming that "war powers" justifies anything he wants to do.
But don't ya see man? YOU think that because of where you stand. YOU think that because YOU are inside a school of thought where Bush lies, is evil, scarfing up power, etc.
Clinton made exactly the same claim, except it wasn't in wartime!
The feared XO, Executive Order. I remember it. Man was I scared. But I got a dog, and it's better now.
Um, that's Drudge, you know. Neither Clinton nor Carter's orders included American citizens. To use either order, the Attorney General had to certify that it wasn't likely that American people or property would be involved.
Not that I'm particularly happy with that either, but I never said Clinton was libertarian, just that Bush makes him look like one.
Fine, let's
look at the act directly instead of filtering it through Drudge.
If the Bush administration had said that
the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section
and then said that the people who could "make the certifications" included
Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Director of Central Intelligence, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Deputy Secretary of State, Deputy Secretary of Defense, and Deputy Director of Central Intelligence
...would or would you not shit yourself? Be honest.
No, the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Director of Central Intelligence, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Deputy Secretary of State, Deputy Secretary of Defense, and Deputy Director of Central Intelligence under Clinton were all honorable, upright patriots. :blush:
Clinton made exactly the same claim, except it wasn't in wartime!
What UT forgets to mention is that such wiretaps of government employees in his position are legal- due to conditions Ames accepts as part of his employment. Is that Drudge Report a subsidiary of Rush Limbaugh Inc? Why do they also forget such details?
From The Washington Post of 2 Jan 2006:
U.S. Has End in Sight on Iraq Rebuilding
The Bush administration does not intend to seek any new funds for Iraq reconstruction in the budget request going before Congress in February, officials say. The decision signals the winding down of an $18.4 billion U.S. rebuilding effort in which roughly half of the money was eaten away by the insurgency, a buildup of Iraq's criminal justice system and the investigation and trial of Saddam Hussein.
... When the last of the $18.4 billion is spent, U.S. officials in Baghdad have made clear, other foreign donors and the fledgling Iraqi government will have to take up what authorities say is tens of billions of dollars of work yet to be done merely to bring reliable electricity, water and other services to Iraq's 26 million people.
The country must import its oil. Iraq produces less electricity than when Saddam was in power even after America spent $2billion just on the electricity grid alone.
Some years ago, the US invited other nations to a conference for rebuilding of a 'just conquered' Iraq. European nations were stunned. US insisted the world contribute more money to Iraq than what is provided to all of Africa. $20 billion. So how much did American spend on Iraq? Almost $20 billion. And still Iraq - an oil rich nation - needs $tens of billions more.
More insteresting is where much of that money ended up. A 300 man task force that goes out most every night to rescue kidnap victims in Baghdad alone. But Iraq is safer? George Jr tells us so.
How much did the US spend to liberate Kuwait? Almost nothing. Brunt of that justified war was paid for by other nations. Remember that when a recession years from now, created by massive and uncontrolled US government spending, occurs. George Sr was so responsible as to have the world to pay for a justified war. George Jr was so irresponsible as to Pearl Harbor a sovereign nation for nothing more than his greater glory and his political agenda.
Pay we must - and somehow we like it. $200,000 per annum for each private guard (Blackwater) in Iraq. Good thing we have the Chinese to buy up America - just as America once did for Europe in the early 1900s when Europe saw war and military conquests as a justified solution to national interests.
What UT forgets to mention is that such wiretaps of government employees in his position are legal-
But that's not a part of the executive order.
Bush supporters need bigger dogs to protect them from the evil ones so we don't have to give up on an open society.
The problem as I see it is that we have two booster clubs willing to grant any powers necessary to their own side without realizing that the other team will always take that power and try to push it to the next level. To bring in that other thread, when you excuse Clinton's use of the ATF you are pimping for Bush.
...would or would you not shit yourself? Be honest.
Maybe, maybe. But Bush didn't
have to, did he? He could have left that one in place, or reissued it, couldn't he? But no, he thought that that was too restrictive. Here's what his powers were when he came in:
1) Wiretap anyone with a court order.
2) If the courts are balking, get a FISA court order, which has never denied a request.
3) If you can't wait for a court order, you can get it up to 72 hours after starting surveilance.
4) If the Attorney General certifies that all parties are not US people, no warrant is needed.
He came in there, looked at those powers, and said they were not enough. He needed
completely unchecked surveilance power over
everyone, US or not.
I never said Clinton
was libertarian, just that Bush makes him look like one.
But that's not a part of the executive order.
These members of the executive branch surrender their right of privacy as part of the job. That does not mean they can be wiretapped at any time. I never fully understood the legalities. But it does permit an executive order to authorize that wiretap of Ames. A president has no right to wiretap ordinary citizens using executive order. A president must get permission from the courts. Otherwise Nixon's bugging of Watergate could have been completely legal.
A president cannot authorize domestic wiretapping without judicial approval. Nixon got (he claimed) authority from British common law where the king was above the law. Apparently George Jr gets his authority from god - because the Constitution does not give him such powers.
Meanwhile, Rush Limbaugh says otherwise. Rush Limbaugh - who gets White House talking points - says you have no expectation of privacy. George Jr, through his propaganda machine Limbaugh, says he has power to wiretap anyone he wants. Apparently from the same powers that permit him to torture as he sees fit and that told him to invade Iraq.
The XO says nothing about whether someone is in the executive branch or not.
The XO says nothing about whether someone is in the executive branch or not.
George Jr's Executive Order (XO) was issued using a reasoning that George Jr can wiretap anyone, without Judicial approval, if George Jr believes that person is a national threat. So if that person is working for impeachment of this corrupt president, then George Jr can now wiretap that person as a threat to national security.
Nixon used that same reasoning. No other president found such reasoning to be legal. And yet Rush Limbaugh says you have no right to privacy. Rush Limbaugh, as the administration's defacto spokesman, tells the naive among us that this president can wiretap anyone without Judicial review. No other president, except Nixon, was so corrupt.
We sents Humvees mostly without armor. It took a soldier about one year later to literally ask Sec of Defense Rumsfeld - live and face to face - why American soldiers had insufficient armor. Then an Ohio company who makes that armour said they could more than double production - but Rumsfeld never asked. Extremists politicians declared "Mission Accomplished" - outrightly denied an insurgency - invented lies about Al Qaeda. Why provide armour for a problem that does not exist - according to extremist rhetoric? Same rhetoric that also left bin Laden to run free.
From the NY Times of 6 Jan 2006 that was leaked because this president only cares about his own popularity - like Nixon - at the expense of American troops:
Extra Armor Could Have Saved Many Lives, Study Shows
A secret Pentagon study has found that at least 80 percent of the marines who have been killed in Iraq from wounds to their upper body could have survived if they had extra body armor. That armor has been available since 2003 but until recently the Pentagon has largely declined to supply it to troops despite calls from the field for additional protection, according to military officials.
The ceramic plates in vests currently worn by the majority of military personnel in Iraq cover only some of the chest and back. In at least 74 of the 93 fatal wounds that were analyzed in the Pentagon study of marines from March 2003 through June 2005, bullets and shrapnel struck the marines' shoulders, sides or areas of the torso where the plates do not reach.
Thirty-one of the deadly wounds struck the chest or back so close to the plates that simply enlarging the existing shields "would have had the potential to alter the fatal outcome," according to the study, which was obtained by The New York Times.
For the first time, the study by the military's medical examiner shows the cost in lost lives from inadequate armor, even as the Pentagon continues to publicly defend its protection of the troops. ...
The vulnerability of the military's body armor has been known since the start of the war, and is part of a series of problems that have surrounded the protection of American troops. Still, the Marine Corps did not begin buying additional plates to cover the sides of their troops until this September, when it ordered 28,800 sets, Marine Corps officials acknowledge.
Had Rumsfeld et al acknowledged what their own studies said (and instead not have fired all those researchers all before the war started), then troops would have been provided with armoured HumVees and sufficient armored vests. Problems like this are directly traceable to an administration full of paper soldiers (including an AWOL president). But like MBAs and lawyers, these extremist politicans know they must be right. This same adminstration even called Rep Murtha a coward because Murtha told a correct and honest fact. Just like Nixon who sent 35,000 good Americans to their death knowing that war could not be won. Blame the troops for their own death? Why not if that will protect the president's popularity ratings. Same reasonings used by Nixon during his unjustified war.
An important phrase in that report:
... cost-cutting that left some armoring firms on the brink of collapse as they waited for new orders.
George Jr's Executive Order (XO) was issued...
We were talking about Clinton's XO.
We were talking about Clinton's XO.
Clinton's XO would be legal, as I understand it. The president can issue an executive order to wiretap executive branch employees who have signed a release. That release, as I understand it, is required when accepting those high security positions. No judicial review required to authorize such surveillance of people such as Ames. But an executive order or something equivalent is required. That XO is legal.
George Jr authorized, by executive order, wiretapping of people who were not of the executive branch. He authorized this without judicial review as was required by law. And as we now know, the Asst Attorney General who was in charge at that time refused to condone it. People with questionable backgrounds then went to the hospital to pressure Ashcroft into giving approval. Ashcroft was reluctant but eventually gave in because he was told it was a matter of national security. George Jr's XO is illegal. The only way they could get even Ashcroft to agree was to pressure the man repeatedly in his hospital bed.
An executive order to authorize those wiretapping was not legal. It was just another George Jr half truth to justify illegal wiretaps for the greater glory of George Jr. Another example of a dictator demanding loyalty over American principles and laws. They even had a secret court and had 72 hours, after doing the wiretaps, to get court permission. And still that was not good enough? Their facts were as flimsy as the aluminum tubes for WMDs. So they created their own version of law - without judicial review. Knowing that even that secret court would reject their claims as bogus; these extremists justified wiretapping knowing full well that we will not demand impeachment or any other sanctions.
It’s rather silly to even think George Jr would have any respect for laws. He routinely subverts trade laws to protect big steel at the expense of American workers and their jobs. He unilaterally terminates international treaties on weapon proliferation and anti-missile defense. He lies about how much the drug bill will cost so that excessively high drug prices can be protected AND so that government will price support those profits. He unilaterally attacks another nation on bogus WMDs and outright lies. He has no qualms about a nuclear reactor with a Three Mile Island problem running in Toledo as long as he got his $450,000 fund raiser. His administration's connection to K Street corruption is unprecedented. Just a sampling of how his god (also called Satan) tells him what to do - such as run for the presidency or invade Iraq.
UT, if you think for one moment that this president is innocent, well, I have this mafioso friend who will make you a great deal on free money. This made man is also as honest as George Jr - and he reads his memos.
He lies about how much the drug bill will cost so that excessively high drug prices can be protected AND so that government will price support those profits.
Speaking of lying, I just saw GWB giving a speech saying that if tax cuts are not made permanent, families making $50,000 a year will pay 50 percent more in taxes.
I'm trying to understand what kind of math he was using, or if he was playing games with words and that he wasn't actually saying that their total federal income tax of all or most families would rise by %50, but that some combination of circumstances and deductions made it theoretically possible to raise the taxes of one or more families by %50.
For example, a family living entirely on dividends from a stock in Yugoslavian eel farming.
I haven't found any analysis yet on factcheck.org. I'd be real curious about it.
From
here.
[font=arial, helvetica, sans serif][size=2]By letting people keep more of what they earn, this economy is strong. Unfortunately, just as we're seeing the evidence of how the tax cuts have created jobs and opportunity, some in Washington are saying we need to raise your taxes. See, that's either by saying we're not going to make the tax cuts permanent -- in other words, they're going to expire -- or why don't we repeal the tax cuts right now. When you hear somebody say, let's don't make the tax cuts permanent what they're telling the American worker and the American family is, we're going to raise taxes on you. If that were to happen, a Chicago family of four making $50,000 would see federal income taxes go up by nearly 50 percent.[/size][/font]
Again, Clinton's XO says nothing about whether someone is in the executive branch or not.
Tw, even distilling facts down to a single sentence has no effect on you. You're impervious to points that don't agree with your POV. Fix this.
Again, Clinton's XO says nothing about whether someone is in the executive branch or not.
Tw, even distilling facts down to a single sentence has no effect on you. You're impervious to points that don't agree with your POV. Fix this.
UT - why does the XO have to say anything other than authorize the wiretapping of Ames? It does not. An XO order that wiretaps Ames is legal because Ames permits it as part of his employment.
Meanwhile, when George Jr authorizes wiretapping of all in the Cellar only using an XO; that is illegal? Do you say George Jr can wiretap all in the Cellar because Clinton wiretapped an administration employee? Clearly there is no logical thought in that rationalization.
An XO need make no mention anything other than to authorize the wiretap. Clinton's and George Jr's XO could be worded same - a single sentence. And yet Clinton's would be legal because of
who it wiretapped. George Jr's would be illegal because he wanted to wiretap the Democratic headquarters in the Watergate, the Cellar, or a completely innocent lawyer in Oregon who just happened to be Muslim - whose child's Spanish homework was cited as part of a conspiracy to bomb trains in Madrid. Look at how absurdly psychotic this 'we must bug everyone' administration has become. Somehow they have the right to bug anyone - and somehow you agree?
UT, repeating the obvious fallacy in your ridiculous arguments - that question how your heavy breathing is affecting your intelligence - has no effect on you. You see. I too can post useless insults. Stop with the insults and explain why a Clinton XO that only says 'wiretap Ames' is not legal? An XO can authorize wiretapping of Ames, not say why, and be perfectly legal. So what is your point? That the XO must go into specific detail on why it is legal - else it is not legal? What is your point of even mentioning Clinton - a totally irrelevant topic?
Hypothetically: Clinton writes an XO that says one sentence: "Wiretap Ames". Nothing more. That is legal. George Jr writes an XO that says "Wiretap Mr. Joe Citizen". That too is a complete XO text. George Jr's XO would be illegal. Why do you have a problem with this obvious fact?
But then why is Clinton's legal wiretap even mentioned by UT? Clinton is not a president who seeks dictatorship much like Nixon did. The question is George Jr who clearly has no respect for laws - probably because god tells him what is right - or righteous. George Jr has but again violated the law. He authorizes wiretaps without judicial approval when judicial approval is required - by law. Why, UT, do you have a problem with patriots who again expose the president as a crook? He wiretaps because he is president and therefore has the right to wiretap anyone. That is criminal.
Report Rebuts Bush on Spying
A report by Congress's research arm concluded yesterday that the administration's justification for the warrantless eavesdropping authorized by President Bush conflicts with existing law and hinges on weak legal arguments.
The Congressional Research Service's report rebuts the central assertions made recently by Bush and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales about the president's authority to order secret intercepts of telephone and e-mail exchanges between people inside the United States and their contacts abroad. ...
The report includes 1970s-era quotations from congressional committees that were then uncovering years of domestic spying abuses by J. Edgar Hoover's FBI against those suspected of communist sympathies, American Indians, Black Panthers and other activists. Lawmakers were very disturbed at how routinely FBI agents had listened in on U.S. citizens' phone calls without following any formal procedures.
According to the George Jr admininstration, then J Edgar Hoover also did right to wiretap whomever he wanted. After all, Hoover's only interest was national security - right? Hoover also had no ulterior motives. Neither did Nixon. Clearly each was only violating law for righteous reasons.
I'm getting person because it's the only thing that works.
Clinton's XO does not mention Ames. It doesn't mention federal employees. It doesn't mention anyone. Of the examples
you have given, in the post two up ^^, Clinton's XO would be of the
illegal variety.
AGAIN, here is Clinton's XO, in its entirety. Read it. Show me where it is limited.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 12949
- - - - - - -
FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PHYSICAL SEARCHES
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution
and the laws of the United States, including sections 302 and 303 of the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("Act") (50 U.S.C. 1801,
et seq.), as amended by Public Law 103- 359, and in order to provide for
the authorization of physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes
as set forth in the Act, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the
Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a
court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of
up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications
required by that section.
Sec. 2. Pursuant to section 302(b) of the Act, the Attorney
General is authorized to approve applications to the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court under section 303 of the Act to obtain
orders for physical searches for the purpose of collecting foreign
intelligence information.
Sec. 3. Pursuant to section 303(a)(7) of the Act, the following
officials, each of whom is employed in the area of national security or
defense, is designated to make the certifications required by section
303(a)(7) of the Act in support of applications to conduct physical
searches:
(a) Secretary of State;
(b) Secretary of Defense;
(c) Director of Central Intelligence;
(d) Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation;
(e) Deputy Secretary of State;
(f) Deputy Secretary of Defense; and
(g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.
None of the above officials, nor anyone officially acting in that
capacity, may exercise the authority to make the above certifications,
unless that official has been appointed by the President, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
THE WHITE HOUSE,
February 9, 1995.
I'm getting person because it's the only thing that works.
Clinton's XO does not mention Ames. It doesn't mention federal employees. It doesn't mention anyone. Of the examples you have given, in the post two up ^^, Clinton's XO would be of the illegal variety.
AGAIN, here is Clinton's XO, in its entirety. Read it. Show me where it is limited.
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the
Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a
court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of
up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications
required by that section.
Section
302(a)1 of the Act which is mentioned is limited to communications
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at— (i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
Of course, this is a newer version of the law and I cannot state for sure that this was the exact text in Clinton's time. At no point does Clinton mention including US citizens. In fact the phrase
Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) means that he is limiting himself to the boundaries of the Act.
Once he ordered the surveillance of US citizens, GWB stepped outside the bounds of the Act. Whether the post-9/11 declaration gave him the right to do so is all that is left to argue here.
if "pursuant to" means "limited to", why would the XO say that physical searches are permitted pursuant to an act limited to communciations?
if "pursuant to" means "limited to", why would the XO say that physical searches are permitted pursuant to an act limited to communciations?
The second part states:
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
The point is that Clinton referred to the act in his order and limited the scope of the order to that allowed by the act, which meant not US citizens. That is a big difference from what was done by GWB. All he had to do was submit a request to the FISA court within 3 days
after the intercepts.
But the XO says...
Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches,
...and you have pointed to section 302(a)(2).
Where? I only see references to 302(a)(1)(A)(i) and 302(a)(1)(A)(ii). 302(a)(1)(B) and 302(a)(1)(C) are also applicable.
My drawing paper as a kid was tax law...
What about 303(a)(7)? :confused:
Here is a lefty link parsing this xo. This one appears to exclude citizens from warrantless searches.
Clinton's general abuse of xo's was, however, a huge problem as some loc folks are finally noticing, since Bush is now playing the game.
The lefty site is right.
I think I would prefer the word 'correct'. Feel free to use 'kosher'.
Anyway, the Bush adminstration's claim is that this is war. Also, considering the request for
permanent adoption of the "Patriot" Act, this war will apparently last
forever.
Forever? There will always be terrorists and we will always be at war with EastAsia.
Yeah, but we don't have to be at war IN EastAsia
Apparently, the NSA spying started
months before 9/11. I guess Congress' authorization of force isn't the actual legal justification for it. I wonder what the next one will be.
[size=1][edit][/size]
And no, it can't be "9/11 changed everything" or "if we had these powers before 9/11 we could have stopped it" either.
That guy needs a dog. Go to page 37 of
the PDF and read the section marked "major policy issues". A reasonable summary of it would be:
We can't do our job unless we monitor at a very high level. We'll do that, and stay within the law.
This guy's summary of it is
We're gonna listen to what we please. We say so in December 2000 because, WTF, the Bushies are coming in, if this Florida thing gets resolved, and we predict they will want it.This guy's summary of it is
We're gonna listen to what we please. We say so in December 2000 because, WTF, the Bushies are coming in, if this Florida thing gets resolved, and we predict they will want it.
I don't know where you get that. It's not even close to what he's saying:
What had long been understood to be protocol in the event that the NSA spied on average Americans was that the agency would black out the identities of those individuals or immediately destroy the information.
But according to people who worked at the NSA as encryption specialists during this time, that's not what happened. On orders from Defense Department officials and President Bush, the agency kept a running list of the names of Americans in its system and made it readily available to a number of senior officials in the Bush administration, these sources said, which in essence meant the NSA was conducting a covert domestic surveillance operation in violation of the law.
...
"The president personally and directly authorized new operations, like the NSA's domestic surveillance program, that almost certainly would never have been approved under normal circumstances and that raised serious legal or political questions," Risen wrote in the book. "Because of the fevered climate created throughout the government by the president and his senior advisers, Bush sent signals of what he wanted done, without explicit presidential orders" and "the most ambitious got the message."
It's hyperbole. My point is, the document that he calls out as his smoking gun doesn't say any of that.
From the Washington Post of 19 Jan 2006:
In Iraqi Oil City, a Formidable Foe
"When Saddam was in power, we used to go to Mosul, to Tikrit, to Baghdad. . . . It was safer all over," said Salah Aub Ramadan Obaydi, 65, a retired teacher, serving tea and pastries to visiting American soldiers in the curtained sitting room of his east Baiji home. Now "people get shot every day and no one cares."
...
The American convoy tried to turn around, but Iraqi cars blocked the way and people waved the soldiers down an alternative, dirt route along the Tigris nicknamed "Smugglers' Road."
"It was weird," Bartlett recalled thinking. A few hundred yards down the road, bordered by fields, the convoy was hit by a massive explosion.
... He went on, hoping to find his men sitting in the truck. But as he got closer, he recalled, "I didn't see the truck. I started seeing limbs and body parts."
Just like Vietnam. Exactly like Vietnam.
Meanwhile, this is how the enemy destroys a superior adversay when that adversary is lead by mental midgets:
Army to Slow Growth and Cut 6 National Guard Combat Brigades
On recruiting, Harvey said "the future looks promising" for meeting the enlistment target in 2006 after the Army fell short by about 7,000 soldiers last year. Yesterday, the Army said it is raising the age limit for active-duty enlistees from 35 to 40, and doubling the maximum cash enlistment bonus to $40,000 for active-duty recruits who choose a high-priority skill and will serve at least four years.
Cutting back while recruiting more to the ranks of our enemies. Meanwhile, who will be leading the invasion of Iran - because we forced Iran to go nuclear by announcing its invasion. No one else in the world is destroying their economy by fighting a Cold War.
Ironic how some Americans so need enemies as to even invent and inspire them to be our enemies.
From
here.
Attorneys for Chief Warrant Officer Lewis Welshofer Jr. said he believed the general had information that would "break the back of the whole insurgency" at a time when soldiers were being killed in an increasingly lethal and bold resistance.
But prosecutor Maj. Tiernan Dolan maintained that Welshofer tortured Iraqi Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush at a detention camp in 2003, treating him "worse than you would treat a dog."
After six hours of deliberations, the panel of six Army officers spared Welshofer on the more serious charge of murder — which carries a potential life sentence — instead convicting him late Saturday of negligent homicide and negligent dereliction of duty. He was acquitted of assault.
Welshofer stood silently and showed no reaction when the verdict was announced. He could be dishonorably discharged and sentenced to a maximum three years and three months in prison at a Monday hearing.
n an e-mail to a commander, Dolan said, Welshofer wrote that restrictions on interrogation techniques were impeding the Army's ability to gather intelligence. Welshofer wrote that authorized techniques came from Cold War-era doctrine that did not apply in Iraq, Dolan said.
"Our enemy understands force, not psychological mind games," Dolan quoted from Welshofer's message. Dolan said an officer responded by telling Welshofer to "take a deep breath and remember who we are."
I wonder if GWB is going to have this guy stand up in the gallery during his next State of the Union?
Many armies have had to deal with insurgents, and all of them have had to deal with uniformed enemy. How they did so is a measure of who they were.
In WWII, elements of the German military had very brutal, and to some degree effective measures for dealing with insurgencies. Their methods were the grist for many propoganda films and even parodies for decades.
The reasons McCain is upset about stuff like this is that Welshofer's attitude was probably similar to the attitudes of the guards and officers running the 'Hanoi Hilton'. They assumed prisoners had intelligence and propoganda value. They probably felt that breaking them would be a patriotic duty and might save lives.
Up until now, we have publicly taken the high road. We could demonstrate to the world our expectations about how our soldiers were to be treated. We could argue to the United Nations before or after we punished countries who tortured our soldiers that we were holding them to our standards. By being consistent, we could make the case that we were not hypocrites.
The dead man may have been an enemy, but he was also an officer in uniform. He probably did not belong to Al-Qaeda. At the worst, he may have been tied to the insurgents, although that fact was never determined. In the end, he did not provide any useful intelligence and his death probably hurt us.
Assuming Welshofer is convicted, he will probably be pardoned in 6-12 months. It's too bad all of the Joint Chief positions are filled, because he might just be the guy the administration is looking for to retool the Army to more effectively fight terrorism. If there is ever any large scale unrest in this country, he might even get the chance to try out his skills in Virginia.
Fort Carson is located south of the city which neighbors mine. Funny thing I over heard two summers ago.
I went to Chinamart, trying to find some potting soil made in the USA. I was standing in the check out line with my 20 pounds of good American earth in my cart. The two men in front of me were soldiers stationed at Ft. Carson. They began to discuss the death of an Iraqi officer who had been strangled with an electrical cord while zipped in his sleeping bag. The two young men thought this incident was an example of some good, clean fun. They spoke as if they had personally witnessed what they were talking about.
I felt horrified to overhear this bit of conversation. I thought at the time that they were exagerating, the way young men sometimes do when speaking of war time experiences.
Last Veteran's day, the local PBS station showed a documentary about the experiences of young Air Force pilots who were graduates of the US Air Force Academy which is up north of here on the opposite end of town from Ft. Carson. The men in the documentary had been "guests" at the Hanoi Hilton. They said that under torture a man will say anything his captors demand him to say. They described what they had to endure. I had to bail from watching about half way through.
Information obtained by torture is worse than no information at all. If American soldiers are captured over in the Middle East and experience the hospitality of a "Baghdad Hilton," it will hardly be any great surprise. And the US will have no higher ground of moral outrage to express.
The Air Force Pilots who had been captured in the Vietnam War said that one of the things that kept them going was their own inner knowledge of their integrity and that of their country.
South of Colorado Springs and back east in the White House, the integrity component sees to be curiously absent these days.
On a lighter note (hey, you gotta laugh, or you're gonna cry):
All the news you need to know!Well, THAT made me feel ever so much better! Got any more good news for us? :eyebrow:
The United States spends more money on Iraqi aid then is spent to aid all African nations combined - except Eqypt. And yet still Saddam was able to provide Iraqis with more. Is it not a good thing that we have saved the Iraqi people from themselves? That our president is a business major who knows how to get things done - in Iraq as in New Orleans?
From the NY Times of 9 Feb 2006:
Iraq Utilities Are Falling Short of Prewar Performance
Virtually every measure of the performance of Iraq's oil, electricity, water and sewerage sectors has fallen below preinvasion values even though $16 billion of American taxpayer money has already been disbursed in the Iraq reconstruction program, several government witnesses said at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Wednesday.
The United States spends more money on Iraqi aid then is spent to aid all African nations combined
Every dime the US has sent to Africa has been ripped off by their leaders. It never gets to the people. Are you suggesting we should be sending more?
still Saddam was able to provide Iraqis with more.
More torture, murder, rape, sadism, etc. Zero freedom.
not a good thing that we have saved the Iraqi people from themselves?
So you really think Saddam and his sons reflected the desires of Iraqis?
That our president is a business major who knows how to get things done - in Iraq as in New Orleans?
He got Afghanistan done. He got Saddam done. He'll get NO done (once they can stop the local crooks and politicans from ripping off the levy reconstruction funds as they've all done over the years.)
From the NY Times of 9 Feb 2006:
Virtually every measure of the performance of Iraq's oil, electricity, water and sewerage sectors has fallen below preinvasion values even though $16 billion of American taxpayer money has already been disbursed in the Iraq reconstruction program, several government witnesses said at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Wednesday.
There were probably others who said just the opposite but weren't quoted. At any rate, the rate will continue to improve as democracy kicks in and the radicals, insurgents, etc. are prevented from destroying everything we build for the Iraqis.
He got Afghanistan done. He got Saddam done. He'll get NO done (once they can stop the local crooks and politicans from ripping off the levy reconstruction funds as they've all done over the years.)
So you actually believe it when he lied about "Mission Accomplished". And when did we get bin Laden? When was Afghanistan fixed?
Some Lie. Others Define a Solution.
In short, already half of Afghanistan has fallen back into 'enemy' hands. Meanwhile, just like in Vietnam, the administration denies all this.
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:
Understanding terrorism
Do you ignore news in Pakistan where the Pakistani army has been driven from regions adjacent to Afghanistan by the Taliban? How can this be if Afghanistan was solved? Or do you only listen to George Jr's repeatedly distorted and incorrect decrees.
How many Americans died or are missing limbs this week in Iraq because it is "Mission Accomplished"? What did that secret report on military readiness declare - serious degradation everywhere directly traceable to stresses created by Iraq. How can this be if Iraq was solved?
So how many prisoners in Guantanamo are being force fed in a prision where Americans practice torture? Let's see. Saddam took 10 years to kill maybe 200,000 of his people. Americans killed almost 98,000 in but two years. You tell me which is god's chosen people? Saddam was not even a threat to his neighbors. So what did we really accomplish? Saddam was not a threat to Iran - so we had to do it.
Clearly Iraq and Afghanistan have been solved. Therefore we need not illegally wiretap because Iraq and Afghanistan were solved. Therefore the military did not recruit 40% who could not pass their standards tests. Therefore the military over past three months did not lower their standards to meet recruiting quotas. Did George Jr or Rush Limbaugh forget to mention those facts?
Last month, Iraq produced less oil than ever during the entire American occupation. How can this be if Iraq has been solved? Except for one (highly touted) day, Iraq has never produced as much electricity as when Saddam ran things. Iraq is a net importer of oil which is why gasoline prices in Iraq are $4 per gallon. No problem. "Mission Accomplished".
Yes, everything will improve ... as the number of attacks increase every month, economic production has been decreasing everywhere, and where even working sewer and fresh water deliveries are all down and decreasing. But don't worry. Be happy. That proves Iraq will be getting better? Just look at all the Americans now pilfering funds because George Jr spends like a drunken sailor - without any accounting of where money in Iraq is going. Some military personal were even found in Phillippines with another $60,000 that we 'spent' to fix Iraq. Why so much corruption? Just like in Vietnam, when the president lies, then corruption is widespread.
Probably the only thing keeping Iraq out of civil war is American presence - because America is considered a common undesirable element. But no problem. The naive still promote a Rush Limbaugh myth that democracy will solve everything - as it did in Haiti and in South Vietnam. Two other nations where democracy was forced upon a people rather than earned by people who wanted it. Democracy also solved all their problems - as George Jr and Rush Limbaugh decree.
But no problem. Thanks to Bremmer, et al, an insurgency has been created from all those fired policemen and soldiers - in direct violation of military principles even taught in 500 BC. "Mission Accomplished".
Saddam and his sons did isolated evil. Thanks to Americans, now even kiddnapping in Baghdad is something greater than 300 kidnappings per month. This in a country that once had almost no kidnapping - where it was safe to walk the streets when Saddam was in power. This in a country where most kidnappings - well over 300 per month - are not even reported. This in a country where Americans cannot even leave the Green Zones without military escort. Even Vietnam was not this dangerous.
But somehow, this time, we have solved Iraq and Afghanistan. Humbug tells us so. Forget reality. Good Morning, Vietnam - only in a different country. Same mistakes. Same lies.
We have "mission accomplished" longer than it took to build armies from scratch, attack all over the world, and win WWII. Since WWII did not take this long, then Iraq and Afghanistan must be "Mission Accomplished".
TWit said "This in a country where most kidnappings - well over 300 per month - are not even reported."
If they're not even reported, how do we know?
I don't have the patience to parse and reply to your laborious rash of nonsense right now, but offer the above as only one example of your logic.
Every dime the US has sent to Africa has been ripped off by their leaders. It never gets to the people. Are you suggesting we should be sending more?
Why don't we compromise and stop doing and subsidizing evil in Africa and the Mid-East? Apparently, American commies and fascists both want an interventionist foreign policy, they just want to destroy lives in different ways. Both of you clowns are getting on my last nerve.
That was very profound Griff.
TWit said "This in a country where most kidnappings - well over 300 per month - are not even reported.
Maybe if Humbug bothered looking for other interpretations rather than using my handle for insult, then maybe Humbug would have discovered the obvious. It means he might see through lies of a mental midget president - including WMDs. it means he might become too intelligent to believe a mental midget. Instead it is easier to insult.
About 300 kidnapping every month are reported in Baghdad. Other (unreported) kidnappings is estimated as well over 300 meaning that Baghdad probably has much more than 600 kidnappings a month. But don't worry. The president said Baghdad residents like this new lifestyle - even though interviews on the BBC of Iraqi residents say otherwise.
However Iraqis are optimistic. They are looking forward to the day that Americans leave. That will happen when? Not until after the invasion of Iran - according to George Jr intentions. We need those 14+ premanent bases to stage attacks on Iran especially since a critical base in Uzbekistan was lost. Is this too much reality for you? Or are you waiting for Rush to tell you how to think?
Ok Humbug. Here is your oppurtunity to show all that you can respond like an adult. That means no insults AND that means logical thoughts. It is a challenge - like PBS fund raising. Can you do it?
Afghanistan is not done. If it were, there wouldn't be any Australian troops there anymore, but there are, so it's not.
BTW...what should the situation be in Afghanistan when it's 'done'?
Afghanistan is not done. If it were, there wouldn't be any Australian troops there anymore, but there are, so it's not.
BTW...what should the situation be in Afghanistan when it's 'done'?
Step one. Bin Laden is captured. The president could not even let American military accomplish that. Little is told of massive screw ups in Tora Bora due to micromanagement in the White House. We never even tried to accomplish Step One. Afghanistan was not on a preordained 'Axis of Evil' list.
Maybe if Humbug bothered looking for other interpretations rather than using my handle for insult, then maybe Humbug would have discovered the obvious.
I could have, but that would have been speculation.
It means he might see through lies of a mental midget president
Maybe if TWat bothered looking for other interpretations rather than using Bush for insult, then maybe she would have discovered the obvious.
it means he might become too intelligent to believe a mental midget.
Tsk-tsk.
Instead it is easier to insult.
And more amusing when it's a radical loony.
About 300 kidnapping every month are reported in Baghdad. Other (unreported) kidnappings is (sic) estimated as well over 300 meaning that Baghdad probably has much more than 600 kidnappings a month.
Bullshit.
But don't worry. The president said Baghdad residents like this new lifestyle - even though interviews on the BBC of Iraqi residents say otherwise.
More bullshit. Bush never said they like kidnappings you sick prick. But they did like their first free elections. Many great photos of them flaunting their purple thumbs. The only purple they had on their bodies under Saddddam was from amputations and beatings.
However Iraqis are optimistic. They are looking forward to the day that Americans leave.
As are we all.
That will happen when? Not until after the invasion of Iran - according to George Jr intentions.
There you go again...more mindreader bullshit hyperbole. Just how the fuck do you know his intentions? Tea leaves? Counting spider barks?
We need those 14+ premanent bases to stage attacks on Iran especially since a critical base in Uzbekistan was lost. Is this too much reality for you?
Nope, it's a land grab for luxury resorts.
Or are you waiting for Rush to tell you how to think?
Rush? Never touch the stuff.
Ok Humbug. Here is your oppurtunity (sic) to show all that you can respond like an adult. That means no insults AND that means logical thoughts. It is a challenge - like PBS fund raising. Can you do it?
Sure, infantile Bush-basher. Can you? :lol:
Try posting something rational instead of the same old lame radical left crap and you'll get a different response.
This could have also been posted in another discussion on this same topic entitled
Perverting science for politics where stem cell research, EPA and air quality, logging, Hubble Space Telescope, Union of Concerned Scientists, a Democratic summary
About Politics & Science The State of Science Under the Bush Administration (which includes lead in the drinking water is acceptable), science that contradicts Genesis (the bible), hydrogen as a fuel, a silly Man to Mars program, denial of 'over the counter' emergency contraceptives, Philip A. Cooney (a lawyer) who rewrote science papers for the White House, and
The White House’s White-Out Problem .
From the NY Times of 16 Feb 2006:
Call for Openness at NASA Adds to Reports of Pressure
Top political appointees in the NASA press office exerted strong pressure during the 2004 presidential campaign to cut the flow of news releases on glaciers, climate, pollution and other earth sciences, public affairs officers at the agency say.
The disclosure comes nearly two weeks after the NASA administrator, Michael D. Griffin, called for "scientific openness" at the agency. In response to that, researchers and public affairs workers at the agency have described in fresh detail how political appointees altered or limited news releases on scientific findings that could have conflicted with administration policies.
Press officers, who were granted anonymity because they said they were still concerned for their jobs despite Dr. Griffin's call for openness, said much of the pressure in late 2004 was placed on Gretchen Cook-Anderson. At the time, Ms. Cook-Anderson was in charge of managing the flow of earth science news at NASA headquarters. ...
In a conference call with colleagues in October 2004, the colleagues said, she said that Glenn Mahone, then the assistant administrator for public affairs, had told her that a planned news conference on fresh readings by a new NASA satellite, Aura, that measures ozone and air pollution, should not take place until after the election. ...
Dr. Griffin announced the review of communications policies after complaints last month by James E. Hansen, the agency's top climate scientist, that political appointees were trying to stop him from speaking out on global warming. After those complaints were reported in The Times, other scientists and press officers came forward with similar stories.
I wonder if the ban extended to papers submitted for publication in professional journals outside NASA's realm of influence? Lot's of nasty implications, if so. And, er, isn't freedom of the press involved here, as well? Bushco's actions come to resemble those of Hitler's pre-war Germany more every day. :eyebrow:
From The Washington Post of 20 Feb 2006:
Navy Counsel Issued Warning On Torture
The Navy's general counsel warned Pentagon officials two years before the Abu Ghraib prison scandal that circumventing international agreements on torture and detainees' treatment would invite abuse, according to a published report. ...
The July 7, 2004, memo recounted Mora's 2 1/2 -year effort to halt a policy that he feared would authorize cruelty toward terrorism suspects.
IOW torture was an agenda intended at highest levels of government. Torture was considered
two years before Abu Ghriad. This must be wrong because we all know those enlisted men brought those dog collars and leashes with them to Iraq. Clearly without officer knowledge since officers are not charged.
A U.N. report issued last week called for the United States to close its prison at Guantanamo Bay. In response, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld rejected accusations of torture or abuse and said the detention facility is well-run.
Rumsfeld is religious. He would not lie. Therefore what does he mean by 'well-run'. Well-run as defined by extremist religious leaders in America who approve of torture?
BTW, Pennsylvania residents get to vote for Sen Rick Santorum - who approved of actions that resulted in torture. He is now trying to distance himself from previous statements - statements made before those pictures from Abu Ghriad arrived. Santorum is a strong leader and representative of religious Republicans and believes in imposing his religious beliefs in American law.
BTW, Pennsylvania residents get to vote for Sen Rick Santorum - who approved of actions that resulted in torture. He is now trying to distance himself from previous statements - statements made before those pictures from Abu Ghriad arrived. Santorum is a strong leader and representative of religious Republicans and believes in imposing his religious beliefs in American law.
Ummm - I'll be voting AGAINST Rick Sanitarium. That will be regardless of whom he runs against.
If it's that moron Joe Hoeffel, please, think of the Commonwealth and vote for Santorum.
If it's that moron Joe Hoeffel, please, think of the Commonwealth and vote for Santorum.
Beg me! ;)
If it's that moron Joe Hoeffel, please, think of the Commonwealth and vote for Santorum.
Even Alfred E Neuman could not be a greater moron than Santorum. Santorum imposes his religious beliefs on others. That means he is little different from bin Laden - both who use worship of pagan gods for their political agenda.
Nothing nice should be said of any politician anywhere who uses his religious beliefs to justify his politics. Even the Catholic Church is starting to back away from that anti-American concept of having religion determine what is moral in government. Santorum is a religious extremist which is why he also endorsed policies that promoted torture. Torture demonstrates what happens when religious extremists attempt to subvert secular governments with their religion.
Voters in PA are also encouraged to vote against most every incumbent in their legislature. PA's Congressmen slipped in an 'almost secret law' that made them the second highest paid Congress in the nation. This from a government in a third to last growing state in the nation.
Unfortunately PA residents are easily brainwashed. They routinely reelect 98% of incumbents which would explain why PA residents might have something good to say even about Rick Santorum - a man who would impose his religion on all others. A man who encouraged religious extremists in Dover PA.
Even Alfred E Neuman would be a better Congressman. Notice how moral Alfred is - as demonstrated by how he sweats – which is more than we can say about Santorum:
I dunno, Santorum always seems to be in a cold sweat.
To justify wiretapping without judical review, senior administration officials declared that Americans have no expectation of privacy; that the Constitution provides no such protection. Meanwhile government, lead by a man who fears transparency, has different rights.
From the NY Times of 20 Feb 2006:
U.S. Reclassifies Many Documents in Secret Review
In a seven-year-old secret program at the National Archives, intelligence agencies have been removing from public access thousands of historical documents that were available for years, including some already published by the State Department and others photocopied years ago by private historians. ...
But because the reclassification program is itself shrouded in secrecy - governed by a still-classified memorandum that prohibits the National Archives even from saying which agencies are involved - it continued virtually without outside notice until December. That was when an intelligence historian, Matthew M. Aid, noticed that dozens of documents he had copied years ago had been withdrawn from the archives' open shelves. ...
After Mr. Aid and other historians complained, the archives' Information Security Oversight Office, which oversees government classification, began an audit of the reclassification program, said J. William Leonard, director of the office.
Mr. Leonard said he ordered the audit after reviewing 16 withdrawn documents and concluding that none should be secret. ...
Among the 50 withdrawn documents that Mr. Aid found in his own files is a 1948 memorandum on a C.I.A. scheme to float balloons over countries behind the Iron Curtain and drop propaganda leaflets. It was reclassified in 2001 even though it had been published by the State Department in 1996.
Another historian, William Burr, found a dozen documents he had copied years ago whose reclassification he considers "silly," including a 1962 telegram from George F. Kennan, then ambassador to Yugoslavia, containing an English translation of a Belgrade newspaper article on China's nuclear weapons program.
Under existing guidelines, government documents are supposed to be declassified after 25 years unless there is particular reason to keep them secret. While some of the choices made by the security reviewers at the archives are baffling, others seem guided by an old bureaucratic reflex: to cover up embarrassments, even if they occurred a half-century ago.
One reclassified document in Mr. Aid's files, for instance, gives the C.I.A.'s assessment on Oct. 12, 1950, that Chinese intervention in the Korean War was "not probable in 1950." Just two weeks later, on Oct. 27, some 300,000 Chinese troops crossed into Korea. ...
The document removals have not been reported to the Information Security Oversight Office, as the law has required for formal reclassifications since 2003.
hmmmf! Makes me wonder about the staff at the National Archives. I can't remember if it was there or at the Library of Congress that I was actually allowed to check out one of Thomas Jefferson's journels - yes, the original, written in Mr. Jefferson's own hand - for two hours. I had to give every bit of ID I had and call on professional courtesy as an academic librarian to do it. So someone is scarfing up stuff off the shelves of the archives and no one knew about it? Most odd, I must say!
I don't think they've gone missing, just classified secret and withdrawn from public view. :eyebrow:
Does this sound like a war where Americans are on the offensive?
From the Washington Post of 26 Feb 2006:
Faces of the 101st In the Battle for Baghdad, U.S. Turns War on Insurgents
Here in the area south and west of Baghdad, the push by the Army's 4th Infantry was launched in recent months to give the capital some breathing space. "My job, above all things, is to keep them out of Baghdad," said Capt. Andre Rivier, the Swiss-American commander of Patrol Base Swamp. "The important thing is to keep them fighting here. That's really the crux of the fight." By taking the battle to rural-based insurgents, the Army hopes to gain the initiative, pressuring the enemy at a time and place of the Americans' choosing, rather than simply trying to catch suicide bombers as they drive into the capital.
Despite its proximity to the city, this area was visited surprisingly sporadically by U.S. troops over the last three years. Even now there are pockets where no American faces have been seen, and there still are no-go areas for U.S. troops where the roads are heavily seeded with bombs. Following counterinsurgency doctrine, Ebel doesn't want to take areas and then leave them.
But George Jr administration spin is that the military already has sufficient troops? Why would we have to leave?
It's like trying to track down a bunch of ghosts," said Sgt. Chad Wendel, sitting on an Army cot under a window frame shielded by a blanket.
"I think it's the way we're losing more soldiers" that is most bothersome, added Spec. Frank Moore, a medic from Lynchburg, Va. "It makes you wonder, what do you gain by sticking around?"
"I don't like anything about being here," agreed Spec. Matthew Ness.
Vietnam Deja Vue.
The war here has gone through three distinct phases, each with its own feel and style of operation.
The first period, from May 2003 to July 2004, was characterized by drift and wishful thinking, military insiders say, with top U.S. officials at first refusing to recognize they were facing an insurgency and then committing a series of policy and tactical blunders that appear to have enflamed opposition to the U.S. occupation.
The second phase began in the summer of 2004, when Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr. replaced Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez as the top U.S. commander in Iraq and developed -- for the first time -- a U.S. campaign plan. That plan, which looked forward from August 2004 to December 2005, gave U.S. operations a new coherence, directing a series of actions intended to clear the way for Iraqi voters to establish a new government.
Now, after parliamentary elections held in December, the U.S. effort has entered a third stage. The current emphasis is on reducing the U.S. role in the war, putting Iraq army and police forces in the forefront as much as possible -- but not so fast that it breaks them, as it did in April 2004, when a battalion ordered to Fallujah mutinied.
Mutinied? When did the George Jr administration mention that when they also claimed by this time 30 Iraqi battalions would be capable of independent operation? Latest Pentagon assesment changes that number from one down to zero.
... noted Gentile, who holds a doctorate in American history from Stanford. "Two years ago I would have spent all my time talking to sheiks."
IOW getting public support (ie to identify their neighbors who man that mortar by daylight) is no longer an option. Americans have now fallen back on rebuilding military and police forces that the George Jr administration disbanded - in direct violation even of principles in "Art of War". The one common factor that all insurgent groups and the population agree on: Americans are undesirable. Especially repeated are comment about how American drive through towns shooting indiscriminately. Anyone gets within 300 yards can have their radiator shot out. Yes, this makes friends.
I realize the underlying concepts are repetitive. But the same concepts demonstrate how new facts only point in one direction. The Mission Accomplished war is not being won.
I am struck as how honest so many commanders were in that Frontline report "The Insurgency". One said that he cannot lose this war. But he cannot win this war either. Mission Accomplished?
... noted Gentile, who holds a doctorate in American history from Stanford. "Two years ago I would have spent all my time talking to sheiks." ...
The biggest difference in Baghdad from two or three years ago is the nearly total absence of U.S. troops on its streets. In a major gamble, the city largely has been turned over to Iraqi police and army troops. ... The streets of the capital already feel as unsafe as at any time since the 2003 invasion. As one U.S. major put it, Baghdad now resembles a pure Hobbesian state where all are at war against all others and any security is self-provided.
Army Reserve Capt. A. Heather Coyne, an outspoken former White House counterterrorism official, said, "There is a total lack of security in the streets, partly because of the insurgents, partly because of criminals, and partly because the security forces can be dangerous to Iraqi citizens too."
In their first deployment, the 101st Airborne took Mosul. Since Brennen and the George Jr administration had no plans for peace for 7 months and since American bureaucrats never came to Mosul, then this Commander commandeered other funds to start his own nation building. He knew that without such programs, all military victory would be lost. Mosul had no insurgency when the 101st left. After those 101st rebuilding programs terminated, an insurgency started in Mosul.
Ironic that the 101st is now deployed in a country that is what its commander feared. Not only did we not have enough troops. We did not have enough intelligence in the George Jr administration to understand "Mission Accomplished" had never happened yet – phase one of the war. Too little too late because George Jr said Americans don't do nation building. Mission Accomplished. We have met the enemy and he is us. Vietnam deja vue. The president says we are winning this 'Mission Accomplished' war - details be damned - just like an MBA.
How does this differ from a concentration camp? From the NY Times of 26 Feb 2006:
A Growing Afghan Prison Rivals Bleak Guantanamo
... one Defense Department official who has toured the detention center. Comparing the prison with Guantanamo, the official added, "Anyone who has been to Bagram would tell you it's worse."
... or where to move Guantanamo prisoners when the Supreme Court finally orders Guantanamo to conform to American and International laws.
C.I.A.'s effort to unload some detainees from its so-called black sites had provoked tension among some officials at the Pentagon, who have frequently objected to taking responsibility for terror suspects cast off by the intelligence agency.
But the administration says those black sites did not exist. Is somebody lying?
The Democratic process did not save S Vietnam. Deja Vue. Suddenly it will save Iraq and Afghanistan? Do these people learn from history?
From Washington Post of 1 Mar 2006:
Growing Threat Seen In Afghan Insurgency
The director of the Defense Intelligence Agency told Congress yesterday that the insurgency in Afghanistan is growing and will increase this spring, presenting a greater threat to the central government's expansion of authority "than at any point since late 2001."
"Despite significant progress on the political front, the Taliban-dominated insurgency remains a capable and resilient threat," Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples said in a statement presented to the Senate Armed Services Committee at its annual hearing on national security threats. ...
Negroponte, in his prepared remarks, acknowledged that "the volume and geographic scope of attacks increased last year," but he added, "the Taliban and other militants have not been able to stop the democratic process" being undertaken by the central government of President Hamid Karzai.
He should be up for impeachment, another example of why MBA educated executives are THE reason for failure.
Notice every news service - including international ones - are posting stream after stream of examples - George Jr is the worst American president in generations - maybe in history. Also note silence from those who had less intelligence and therefore voted for him.
Tape: Bush, Chertoff Warned Before Katrina
Bush didn't ask a single question during the final briefing before Katrina struck on Aug. 29, but he assured soon-to-be-battered state officials: "We are fully prepared."
The footage along with seven days of transcripts of briefings obtained by The Associated Press show in excruciating detail that while federal officials anticipated the tragedy that unfolded in New Orleans and elsewhere along the Gulf Coast, they were fatally slow to realize they had not mustered enough resources to deal with the unprecedented disaster.
Linked by secure video, Bush expressed a confidence on Aug. 28 that starkly contrasted with the dire warnings his disaster chief and numerous federal, state and local officials provided during the four days before the storm.
A top hurricane expert voiced "grave concerns" about the levees and then-Federal Emergency Management Agency chief Michael Brown told the president and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff that he feared there weren't enough disaster teams to help evacuees at the Superdome.
"I'm concerned about - their ability to respond to a catastrophe within a catastrophe," Brown told his bosses the afternoon before Katrina made landfall. ...
The article then quotes some adminstration bullshit that are obviously classic lies. Don't even bother to read their Rush Limbaugh spin. It only insults your own intelligence. Instead, back to reality -
Bush declared four days after the storm, "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees" that gushed deadly flood waters into New Orleans. He later clarified, saying officials believed, wrongly, after the storm passed that the levees had survived. But the transcripts and video show there was plenty of talk about that possibility even before the storm and Bush was worried too.
Oh, so he lied again. I guess his god says that lying is OK - just like his supporters in Dover PA.
Video footage of the Aug. 28 briefing, the final one before Katrina struck, showed an intense Brown voicing concerns from the government's disaster operation center and imploring colleagues to do whatever was necessary to help victims.
"We're going to need everything that we can possibly muster, not only in this state and in the region, but the nation, to respond to this event," Brown warned. He called the storm "a bad one, a big one" and implored federal agencies to cut through red tape to help people, bending rules if necessary.
Bush appeared from a narrow, windowless room at his vacation ranch in Texas, with his elbows on a table. Hagin was sitting alongside him. Neither asked questions in the Aug. 28 briefing.
"I want to assure the folks at the state level that we are fully prepared to not only help you during the storm, but we will move in whatever resources and assets we have at our disposal after the storm," the president said.
Don't forget to read that Chicago Tribune report of 4 Sept 2005 - every available resource? I bet he did not even pray to his god because that is what political extremist politicians do - lie.
"They're not taking patients out of hospitals, taking prisoners out of prisons and they're leaving hotels open in downtown New Orleans. So I'm very concerned about that," Brown said.
Despite the concerns, it ultimately took days for search and rescue teams to reach some hospitals and nursing homes.
Brown also told colleagues one of his top concerns was whether evacuees who went to the New Orleans Superdome which became a symbol of the failed Katrina response would be safe and have adequate medical care.
An aircraft carrier capable of making 100,000 gallons of fresh water every day, feeding tens of thousands every day, with six operating rooms and up to 400 hospital beds, and electric power to recharge all New Orleans emergency radios sat at sea unused for five days. Five days it was not allowed to help Katrina victims because top management - the preident - an MBA who is told what to do by god - could not be bothered to help those people. "...we are fully prepared to not only help you..." But then as usual, I don't make this stuff up. George Jr is that anti-American as are people who support this fool:
From the Chicago Tribune of 4 Sept 2005. Register to read this article for free.
Navy ship nearby underused
ON THE USS BATAAN -- While federal and state emergency planners scramble to get more military relief to Gulf Coast communities stricken by Hurricane Katrina, a massive naval goodwill station has been cruising offshore, underused and waiting for a larger role in the effort.
From the NY Times of 2 Mar 2006:
U.S. Is Reducing Safety Penalties for Mine Flaws
In its drive to foster a more cooperative relationship with mining companies, the Bush administration has decreased major fines for safety violations since 2001, and in nearly half the cases, it has not collected the fines, according to a data analysis by The New York Times.
Federal records also show that in the last two years the federal mine safety agency has failed to hand over any delinquent cases to the Treasury Department for further collection efforts, as is supposed to occur after 180 days. ...
At a House oversight hearing on Wednesday, agency officials repeatedly cited the frequency of fines against Sago in the year before the accident as proof of aggressive enforcement. Exasperated, Representative Lynn Woolsey, Democrat of California, replied that maybe those fines had little effect because many were for $60. That point set off applause from audience members.] ...
"Operators know that it's cheaper to pay the fine than to fix the problem," Mr. Addington said. "But they also know the cheapest of all routes is to not pay at all. It's pretty galling."
So while relations between government and industry get better, some trapped men in a Sago mine did not even have 55 gallon barrels storing 24 hours of emergency oxygen. Why should they? It's not required by law. They only had two hours worth of oxygen - whatever they had carried with them. Yes nobody thought the levees would be breached. That too is about good relations rather than being product oriented - solving problems.
Rush Limbaugh is also about good relations. Its called propaganda.
From the Fort Worth Star-Telegram on 1 Mar 2006:
Poll finds that most U.S. troops are in favor of withdrawal
Nearly 3 out of 4 U.S. troops serving in Iraq think U.S. forces should withdraw within a year, and more than 1 in 4 say the United States should leave immediately, according to a new poll published Tuesday.
The poll, conducted by Zogby International and the Center for Peace and Global Studies at Le Moyne College in Syracuse, N.Y., was a rare effort to determine the views of U.S. troops serving in a ground war.
Of those surveyed, 29 percent said U.S. forces should leave Iraq immediately, 22 percent said they should leave within six months and 21 percent said within six to 12 months. Twenty-three percent agreed with President Bush's call for troops to stay "as long as they are needed" and 5 percent were unsure.
David Segal, a military sociologist at the University of Maryland, said that although most service members are more conservative than society as a whole, it wasn't surprising to see them reflect attitudes similar to civilians, who increasingly oppose the war. ...
The survey was conducted without the Pentagon's permission.
So when do we start going after bin Laden?
From the NY Times of 7 Mar 2006 is a report that only repeats what every decent American has long known. Only enlisted men buy dog collars to torture prisoners. General Miller types don't institute torture first in Guantanamo, and then in two cell blocks in Abu Ghraid:
Amnesty Report on 14,000 Finds Prisoner Abuse Continues in Iraq
Amnesty International accused the United States and its allies on Monday of committing widespread abuses in Iraq, including torture and the continued detention of thousands of prisoners without charge or trial. ...
In its report, "Beyond Abu Ghraib: Detention and Torture in Iraq," Amnesty International also said the level of abuse by Iraqi forces since the transfer of power in June 2004 was increasing .
The United States and its allies, the report said, have "established procedures which deprive detainees of human rights guaranteed in international law and standards."
US routinely condones torture and outright violations of basic human rights. Nothing new here.
At the end of November 2005, the report said, quoting coalition figures, more than 14,000 prisoners were held in Iraq
We can trust George Jr to be honest - to claim these are only criminals. After all, would god's chosen president lie to us? Just look at the videotape of Katrina.
Good thing the abuse is increasing. Otherwise Americans might be at greater risk.
Ironic that N Korea kidnapped citizens from other countries and America stays silent. Instead we name it to make it legal: rendition. No nation does this more rendition than America. And nobody expected the Spanish Inquistion. Once upon a time, that was a joke. Then god selected America's president.
From the BBC of 10 Mar 2006:
Doctors attack US over Guantanamo
More than 250 medical experts have signed a letter condemning the US for force-feeding prisoners on hunger strike at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The doctors said physicians at the military prison had to respect inmates' right to refuse treatment.
The letter, in the medical journal, the Lancet, said doctors who used restraints and force-feeding should be punished by their professional bodies.
Let's see. The citizens of Oregon voted for euthanasia. But big brother - fringe extremist whose religion knows what is better for Oregon - decided that Oregaonians are too stupid to authorize euthenasia. Even the Supreme Court chastised a mental midget administration for dictatorial actions. Ironic these same dictators approve of and promote torture. So now victims of another Spanish Inquisition want to die. Again, only George Jr - champion mental midget - knows that is wrong.
When did god so hate you and me to give us George Jr? What is wrong with this logic? Well, it assumes god exists. Only satan would give us George Jr - the worst president since ... well Nixon was only a crook.
The open letter in the Lancet was signed by more than 250 top doctors from seven countries - the UK, the US, Ireland, Germany, Australia, Italy and the Netherlands.
Those prisioners may be fed by pushing tubes up their noses.
Dr David Nicholl, a UK neurologist ... told the Reuters news agency the allegations of force-feeding represented "a challenge" to the American Medical Association, which is a signatory to the World Medical Association's code of conduct.
"Are they going to obey those declarations [forbidding force-feeding], or are... [they] literally not worth the paper they are written on?" he asked.
As long time Cellar Dwellers read here, Brent Scowcroft, adviser to and close friend of George Sr, worried long about a potential for Civil War in Iraq. Most back then who read that here probably totally discounted it. Scowcroft was also one of the few among Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfovitz (they initially opposed the rescue) who correctly identified the invasion of Kuwait as a smoking gun. Scowcroft was noted by this author because he tends to see reality. Most readers probably discounted his warnings.
George Jr insists we were winning some fictitious war on terror. Now even George Jr's Sec of Defense is answering what we will do if and when an impending Civil War breaks out.
Another in a long list of citations of facts and reality, ABC News of 10 Mar 2006:
Rumsfeld: Iraqis Would Deal With Civil War
Dealing with a civil war in Iraq would be the responsibility of Iraq's own security forces, at least initially, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told Congress on Thursday.
Testifying alongside senior military leaders and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Rumsfeld said he did not believe Iraq would descend into all-out civil war, though he acknowledged that sectarian strife had worsened.
So Iraqis will deal with a Civil War that is not happening. How can this be? The president said we were winning the "Mission Accomplished" war. A latest Defense Department assessment puts the number of independently operating Iraqi battalions from one down to zero. So how will Iraqi troops alone quell a Civil War? Deja Vue Vietnam.
Gen. John Abizaid, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, said the situation in Iraq had evolved to the point where Sunni-Shiite violence was more of a threat to U.S. success there than the insurgency, ...
So an insurgency that was growing by hundreds of percents every year is not as much a threat? Clearly America is winning this "Misson Accomplished" war while threatening to attack Iran.
Someone please show us sanity in any of this. Oh.. This was god's chosen government. And nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition - except this author how many years ago? Yes I am pissed at how our leaders and so many citizens have so much contempt for America and her principles. Clearly we are not torturing people. That would not be Christian .... extremist.
Rumsfeld previously had been reluctant to say what the U.S. military would do in the event of civil war, but in an appearance before the Senate Appropriations Committee he was pressed on the matter by Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va.
"The plan is to prevent a civil war, and to the extent one were to occur, to have the from a security standpoint have the Iraqi security forces deal with it, to the extent they are able to," Rumsfeld told the committee.
Silly me. The solution was so obvious.
Deny it will happen.
From USA Today of 9 Mar 2006:
Madrid train bombings probe finds no al-Qaeda link
A two-year probe into the Madrid train bombings concludes the Islamic terrorists who carried out the blasts were homegrown radicals acting on their own rather than at the behest of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network, two senior intelligence officials said.
Spain still remains home to a web of radical Algerian, Moroccan and Syrian groups bent on carrying out attacks — and aiding the insurgency against U.S. troops in Iraq — a Spanish intelligence chief and a Western official intimately involved in counterterrorism measures in Spain told The Associated Press.
The intelligence chief said there were no phone calls between the Madrid bombers and al-Qaeda and no money transfers. The Western official said the plotters had links to other Islamic radicals in Western Europe, but the plan was hatched and organized in Spain. "This was not an al-Qaeda operation," he said. "It was homegrown."
What was the bombing of London? Homegrown. What were attacks in Indonesia? Homegrown. Or more accurately, inspired by a George Jr crusade called "War to create Terror".
How can this be? George Jr told us these are all Al Qaeda. The president would not lie. Clearly this Spanish investigator must read too much propaganda from tw.
Welcome to a lawn of dandelions - a concept called Muslim Brotherhood. What George Jr calls a cohesive, nefarious, and ever scheming Al Qaeda. Lurking in every shadow to kill us all.
Or maybe it’s really called "War to Create Terror". Funny how every orange alert arrived just in time to avert a George Jr drop in the polls.
Welcome to a concept better known as Muslim Brotherhood – and not to be confused with an Egyptian political party of same name.
Another example of what happens when hype and fear are promoted excessively. Just another reason why we are suppose to gain experience and therefore intelligence by learning from history. From ABC News of 11 Mar 2006:
DOJ Faults FBI for Fingerprinting Error
"Among other things, the examiners applied circular reasoning, allowing details visible in Mayfield's known prints to suggest features in the murky or ambiguous details … that were not really there," the report by the department's internal watchdog said.
Mayfield is a lawyer in Oregon who was accused of handling explosives in Madrid. He was locked up without judicial review or even lawyer representation for two weeks due to more hype and fear - the Patriot Act. They even confiscated his child's Spanish homework as communicatons with Madrid conspirators. It took weeks just to get someone to translate that Spanish homework - to learn what these messages really said. No, this is not a 21st Century Keystone Cops story. They were that incompentant and that hyped on some mythical Al Qaeda fears. Fears made worse when no evidence of Al Qaeda could be found.
Somehow George Jr knows Al Qaeda is lurking everywhere. Thererfore we even 'Pearl Harbor' some one only because they might be a threat. Meanwhile all those missile attacks on Al Jazzera offices in so many countries - those too were only accidents?
70% of America really should admit to being fools for letting a mental midget hype so much hype and fear - the "War to create Terror" - the Mission Accomplished war - an axis of evil - and a George Jr who does not even read his PDBs yet somehow knows that levees would not be breached. How does a politician so corrupt and with such low intelligence promote so much fear and hate? Another lesson taught in history. He was called Adolph Hitler. Hilter also promoted these emotions. Hitler also had his Rush Limbaughs to hype those fears.
Meanwhile an Oregon man sits for weeks in jail while denied his constitutional rights. This is acceptable? Do we say, "Don't worry. Be happy."? Or do we go after the extremists among us who so hate America as to encourage that hype and fear - even promote a myth called Al Qaeda.
Remember more lessons of history. Extremists are often so dumb that one could not even give himself a hot foot on an airliner. Hype from extremist rhetoric would even pervert a simple and well understood task called fingerprinting.
I was shocked when so many here advocated the destruction of world stability - pre-emption. These testosterone thinkers maintained we must attack them before they attack us. Well thank you for undermining everything America stood for in 50 years. It was a well proven concept called containment. Its principles included a Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty that George Jr wants to gut. The Economist magazine is blunt about this in a 9 Mar 2006 issued entitled Dr Strangedeal:
Congress should veto George Bush's nuclear agreement with India
Now that George Jr has declared "Pearl Harbor" diplomacy is good, countries that don't build nuclear weapons and other WMDs would be wrong. This is necessary when pre-emption is the new world order.
Worse, George Jr has decided to reward nations for not entering into a Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. India can remain out of that treaty - can market nuclear bomb technology throughout the world - and receive nuclear technology from America. That guts the entire non-proliferation treaty. Only a mental midget would have negotiated that deal. Why stop. He did as even the foreign ministre of Norway predicted - he even killed the Oslo Accords.
Turkey now needs nuclear weapons - obviously. First, George Jr will reward nations for building nuclear weapons. Second, George Jr's "Pearl Harbor" diplomacy - also called preemption - means other nations must build bombs. Turkey must defend itself. This is what the neo-cons and their pre-emption have created. The IAEA is very concerned of Turkey's new and necessary political needs. Turkey needs the bomb because Project for a New American Century has promoted pre-emption and has promoted a mental midget president who even undermines the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.
George Jr started his first threats of war on Iran. Did you think I made this stuff up so long ago when I predicted the United States was preparing for an Iran attack? Katrina may have saved the world by showing other mental midgets - George Jr supporter - how dumb this president really is -that lying is what George Jr does.
George Jr is that dangerous, that fringe religous neo-con, and that stupid as to even reward India for going nuclear. Turkey has no choice but to go nuclear. Only a mental midget could deny it.
Front cover of The Economist 9 Mar 2006:
From
here.
March 11 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush, seeking to reassure Americans about conditions in Iraq, said U.S. troops are focusing new attention on thwarting insurgents' use of car and roadside bombs.
``We are constantly adjusting our tactics on the ground to achieve a victory,'' Bush said after getting a White House briefing on roadside bombs from retired General Montgomery Meigs and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. ``We face an enemy that will use explosive devices in order to shake our will, in order to foment violence in Iraq, in order to try to convince the American people that we can't win in Iraq. That is what they are trying to do.''
I think this means that all of the vehicle and body armor was finally delivered and installed 2 years after it was requested.
Homeland security is not found in jackboot security forces patrolling ports and airports. Security starts with in our allies. America once had tremendous security because 70% of the world had positive views on America. The mental midget quickly drove American security down to 15%. Now that anti-American attitude is hardening. These examples from movies in countries that were some of America's closest friends - Egypt and Turkey - demonstrate how dangerous this world is becoming for an Americans.
From the Washington Post of 20 Mar 2006:
In Egyptian Movies, Curses! We're the Heavies
When Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited this city last month, Egyptians had an unusual choice: watch her on TV as she expounded on issues of war and peace in the Middle East, or go to a neighborhood movie theater and see her portrayed by a look-alike actress belly-dancing and placed in "adult" situations.
The film in question is "The Night Baghdad Fell," which depicts Egyptian obsessions with war, sex and the United States. Wildly anti-American, it has done a brisk business for two months, a long screen life for Egyptian-made films. In "Night," Egyptians fret about an American invasion of Egypt and the potential destruction of their capital. Americans are bullies, rapists and mindless killers.
By the way, "The Night Baghdad Fell" is a comedy.
The film is only the latest bit of Egyptian pop culture to display deep unease about Americans. Beginning two years ago, Yanks emerged as bad guys on Cairo stages....
Egyptians are not the only ones depicting villainous Americans on screen. "Valley of the Wolves: Iraq" debuted in Turkey ...
He insists he is not reflexively anti-American. His next project, he says, is a movie both about the horrors of Iraq but also the good some American doctors did recently in separating conjoined Egyptian twins. "I want to investigate how a country can do so much good and bad at the same time," he says.
Today we have another example of a complacent and irresponsible George Jr administration who demand loyalty at the expense of America. Testimony from the Moussaoui trial only confirms what has been posted in the Cellar so many times since 11 September:
Superior Says He Didn't See Agent's Report on Moussaoui
... Harry Samit, who was working in Minneapolis [FBI], had filed a long report asking for a complete investigation of Mr. Moussaoui, whom he described as a radical Islamic fundamentalist who hated the United States and was learning to fly jetliners.
Mr. Samit, ... testified, albeit reluctantly, that he had told investigators after the attacks that he believed that his superiors at the bureau in Washington were guilty of "criminal negligence" and had ignored his increasingly dire requests to obtain a search warrant in order to protect their careers.
He said that they had taken a gamble that Mr. Moussaoui was not going to have any valuable information and that they had lost a wager that proved to be a national tragedy.
Why would they gamble? Look at what the George Jr administration did to this nation's #1 anti-terrorist investigator John O'Neill. They drove him from the Bureau because a George Jr administration insisted terrorism was not a threat. Even worse is *how* they drove John O'Neill from government service. And that experience did not promote incompetence - ignore threats of terror - in all government agencies? Of course it did. Then more examples.
We have what Condoleezza Rice, et al did and proclaimed (from Against all Enemies):
Rice decided that the position of National Coordinator for Counterterrorism would also be downgraded. No longer would the coordinator be a member of the Principles Committee. No longer would the CSG [Counterterrorism Security Group] report to Principles, but instead to a committee of Deputy Secretaries. No longer would the National Coordinator be supported by two NSC Senior Directors ... Rice told me that the Principles Committee, which had been the first venue for terrorism policy discussions ... would not address the issue until it had been "framed" by the Deputies. ... it meant months of delay. The initial Deputies meeting to review terrorism policy could not be scheduled in February ... in March .... Finally in April ... The first meeting ... did not go well. ...
"Well I just don't understand why we are beginning by talking about this one man bin Laden," Wolfovitz responded.
"We are talking about a network of terrorist organizations called al Qaeda, ... and we are talking about that network because it and it alone poses and immediate and serious threat to the United States."
"Well, there are others that do as well, at least as much. Iraqi terrorism for example, " Wolfovitz replied.
" I am unaware of any Iraqi-sponsored terrorism directed at the United States, since 1993, and I think FBI and CIA concur in that judgment, right, John?" I pointed at CIA Deputy Director John McLaughlin, who was obviously not eager to get into the middle of a debate between the White House and Pentagon but nonetheless replied, "Yes that is right Dick. We have no evidence of any active Iraqi terrorist threat against the US."
Finally Wolfovitz turned to me. "You give bin Laden too much credit. He could not do all these things like the 1993 attack on New York, not without a state sponsor. Just because the FBI and CIA have failed to find the linkages does not mean they don't exist." I could hardly believe it but Wolfovitz was actually spouting the totally discredited Laurie Mylroie theory that had been ... found to be totally untrue.
It is a well proven concept. 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. In this case, made worse because top management have a polticial agenda rather than a basic concept of science and reality. The George Jr administration let it be known in uncertain terms what was THEIR reality as exampled by science perversion by lawyers for the greater glory of a political party. You can damn well be sure that FBI administrators in Washington were told what did and did not constitute a threat. They had the famous example of what was happening to John O'Neill to remind them.
Administration with a dictatorship mentality - as also demonstrated here by Urbane Guerilla - stifled at least three and maybe four separate FBI investigations that could have uncovered 11 Sept before it started. And so again we have examples of decisions based in politics - and the thousand of Americans who died because of mental midgetry. No, this is not about levees that would not be breached - another example of mental midgretry. This is about why this nation's #1 anti-terrorism investigator even died in the WTC South Tower. He knew an attack was coming and had just taken the job of security chief - after having been forced out of government by the George Jr admininstration.
Those whose politics and religion replace logical thought somehow know better. Unfortunately good Americans are simply fodder for fringe politics - which is why so many died on 11 Sept - why so many die in Iraq - why it is so danagerous for Americans throughout the world - why even our closest allies (Dubai and Canadians) can no longer be trusted - why global warming somehow does not exist - why corporations (airlines, GM, big steel) are now given $billions with no strings attached to protect their bad management.
Remember what that FBI agent said under oath:
... he believed that his superiors at the bureau in Washington were guilty of "criminal negligence" and had ignored his increasingly dire requests to obtain a search warrant in order to protect their careers.
Not only do we have his testimony. We also have other examples and the reason why the George Jr administration is so hates America - for the greater glory of their political agenda. The George Jr administration made it quite clear that terrorism was not a threat - facts be damned. They would destroy careers, if necessary, (ie John O’Neill) to demand such loyalty. This agents testimony only again demonstrates why 11 September was avoidable by people driven by logic rather than by those driven by a political agenda such as "Project for a New American Century".
From CBSMarketWatch.com on 23 Mar 2006:
U.S. pension guaranty chief resigns
The chief of the U.S. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. announced his resignation Thursday, as efforts continue in Congress to shore up the financially troubled government agency. ...
Belt's departure comes at a critical time for the agency, which is facing a massive financial shortfall thanks to bankrupt airlines and other companies shifting their pension liabilities to the government.
The PBGC reported a $22.8 billion deficit for 2005. Congress is working on legislation to shore up the agency's funds. The agency is funded through insurance premiums it collects from employers in return for the pension protection.
Who in his right mind would want the job? This is the S&L Crisis all over again. Massive government welfare to companies who for a decade and longer used Pension Funds to make their profits look high or to claim profits that really did not exist. This shortfall does not yet include GM's possible pension fund defaults. GM owes $billions to the pension fund because they intentionally (and legally) shorted that fund in the 1990s to make profits look higher. And guess who pays. You and your children.
Ahh, but Cheney told us that "Reagan proved deficiets don't matter". So screw you - is a part he forgot to mention.
Massive government welfare to companies who for a decade and longer used Pension Funds to make their profits look high or to claim profits that really did not exist.
This was billed as a program to be a safety net for the helpless workers that would be devastated by their employer going belly up.
You don't suppose the misconduct of major corporations was foreseen, or possibly prompted, by this legislation, do you?:tinfoil:
This was billed as a program to be a safety net for the helpless workers that would be devastated by their employer going belly up.
You don't suppose the misconduct of major corporations was foreseen, or possibly prompted, by this legislation, do you?:tinfoil:
Prompted more by the lack of any reasonable accounting standards. You think the S&L crisis would have given the government a heads up on watching the back door.
What's annoying is that with the new bankruptcy laws, the average citizen is held more accountable than the large corporations..
The United States only has two viable options for Iraq. One is a massive troop deployment to end the problems now - 500,000 men. If those who support this president really had balls, then they would demand same. But they instead love 'status quo' as if god will correct all. A second alternative is - and some very interesting plans have been proposed to accomplish this - is to phase out American troops now. Done so with a gauntlet thrown down to Iraqi troops and elected government leaders. They must stop pretending and get real. Iraqis know how to pretend for your benefit. They need not risk life because Americans will do al the work; pay all the bills. Only when Iraqis are told that they will be fully incharge within one year will Iraqis suddenly get serious.
A 'window of oppurtunity' for the second option is closing quickly. Once lies are eliminated from the same liars who claim Global Warming does not exist, then most all Iraqis long said that life in Iraq was worse then under Saddam and they expected life to get better. An Iraqi Parliament meets only for 1/2 hour (becasue of American orders) to swear in and then disbans - does nothing. Iraqis are now saying in greater numbers that they don't expect life to get better anytime in the near future - up to a decade. Most Iraqis say life today is even worse than last year.
Iraq is becoming a junk yard ripe for Civil War. Oppurtunity to leave something good is closing quickly because a US president does not provide the troops with what they need - especially truth and elimination of torture. Today's news only indicates how quickly that oppurtunity is closing - how close Iraq may change from underground Civil War to overt Civil War.
From the Washington Post of 27 March 2006:
Iraqi Leaders Denounce Raid on Sadr Loyalists
During a visit to the site Monday, bullet holes were visible on the inner and outer walls of the Moustafa Mosque and its floor was stained with blood. On the floor of one room was a small crater, which witnesses said was made by a sound grenade. ...
The U.S. military denied that any mosque was "entered or damaged" in the attack and said U.S. Special Forces were present "in an advisory capacity only." ...
Does the expression (from previous big dic mentalities) "we had to burn the village to save it" sound familiar? Wake up folks. Eliminate administration lies. All that remains are an overt Civil War heard breathing loudly in the dark.
The statement said ... no Iraqi or U.S. soldiers were killed during the raid, but that one Iraqi soldier was wounded in the arm. Three wounded Iraqi insurgents received medical treatment on the scene, the statement said.
So how do they explain this?
The network aired footage throughout the night of bloody bodies lying on a concrete floor and men wrapping the corpses in blankets by the light of glow sticks and carrying them away.
Maliki [Iraq's transportation minister] blamed the incident on U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, who has accused the Mahdi Army of carrying out a slew of recent killings in the wake of the bombing last month of a revered Shiite mosque in Samarra, north of Baghdad.
Yes even top Iraqi government people - American surogates - criticize Americans for this on Iraqi national TV. Do you understand how anti-American the entire country is becoming - why there are so many *Al Qaeda* (quoting another George Jr lie) supporters?
Those so enhanced by 'big dic' military solutions will never appreciate Vietnam Deja Vue. They will insist all those deaths did not happen - were staged. Or that they were clearly Al Qaeda. It is called denial of how things fail quickly - or why those with 'big dic' politics are THE most dangerous Americans to Americans.
TV carries those dead people pictures all night long as if the WTC had just collapsed in Baghdad. Do American still kiss the Rush Limbaugh ass - or do they appreciate how badly Iraq has long been falling apart? This is where an expression "never trust anyone over 30" came from - when the nation's number one liar back then was the US president.
George Jr administration says it was not a mosque - IOW George Jr lies again as even ABC News is showing us at this minute. Does not matter. It is a mosque now. Americans supervised the death of Iraqis in that mosque. Those are the facts on the street and broadcast by all electronic media - which is why Americans have little time to decide one or two solutions: 1) Give the Generals the troops they have always said they needed - up to 500,000. Or 2) announce the withdrawl that is complete in one year - so that Iraqi will either build a country or plan for an otherwise, evitable Civil War.
Those who refuse either plan are fools; are in denial. There is no other viable solution for Iraq other than a total American defeat only after uselessly bleeding American soldiers for ten years in country. Then leaving Iraq a sworn enemy of the US. The consequences of not doing one of those two options is that bad - AND inspires terrorists throughout the world to attack Americans.
Elsewhere in Iraq, army and medical officials in Diyala province, northeast of Baghdad, said 30 headless bodies were discovered at 6:30 p.m. in a deserted brush area in Tarfiya, a village outside Baqubah, 35 miles from the capital.
Isolated example because the actual number of Iraqi dead due to an underground Civil War is estimated to be in the hundreds daily - rarely reported. This does not include hundreds of kidnapping weekly that never get reported. Under Saddam, it was safer? Eliminate Rush Limbaugh propaganda, and the answer has long been an obvious *NO*.
In an unrelated case also in Diyala province, ... a security officer had been arrested about three days earlier and charged with heading a criminal gang whose members dressed as security officers to kidnap and kill people.
Well he was was a police major and that his brother is the chief of police in Diyala province. But then America has long known that those recruited to defend Iraq include large numbers insurgents. Death squads are trained by Americans. We have so little grasp of 'who is who' that America even trains insurgents.
We then lie and blame it all on the mythical Al Qaeda. No wonder these same anti-Americans also deny global warming. We only have two options in Iraq. Instead the mental midget president claims things are getting better. Vietnam Deja Vue - or outright scumbag liars. Same thing.
IOW -- and so many words! -- dear old tw doesn't want us to do anything ever that might win us the war. What a pusbrain.
Communism: the chronic infection. Red is the color of inflammation, and as a communist, tw is carefully anti-American.
Note too his erratic grammar in a foreign phrase -- something he almost never gets right.
From CBS News of 29 Mar 2006:
Arlen Specter Fed Up With White House
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter on Tuesday said the White House has "pretty much abandoned" the "preposterous argument" that the National Security Agency's warrantless-surveillance program was authorized by Congress when it passed the authorization for the use of military force in the war on terrorism. ...
"I am familiar with the program," Hatch said, "and I have to say that I agree with (the) proposition that the Congress cannot take away the president's authority under Article Two of the Constitution."
"You have been briefed," Specter said to Hatch. "You say you believe it is constitutional ... but you are not a judge."
"That's true," Hatch answered. "And I may very well be wrong."
Article Two - the justification by George Jr that he can wiretap without judicial oversight:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principle Officer in each of the Executive Departments upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices ...
Damn Commie! How dare you cite the US Constitution when "libertarians" like UG want the government to take ever more control out of the hands of the US people, and allow our highest elected officials to engage in war profiteering by lining their pockets with ill-gotten Halliburten profits?
Jeez, only a fellow traveler would have us beleive that someone should rein in the power grabbing schemes of the current executive branch of our government!
[SIZE="1"]PS I am in a very bad mood today, and if UG makes just one more of his hysterical war mongering posts or accusations, he's toast, courtesy of yours truely.[/SIZE]
Mari, you're looking rather red. Is that a fever or do I note THE CHRONIC SCOURGE OF COMMUNISM AND CAREFULLY ANTI-AMERICAN SYMPTOMS OF THAT AFFLICTION?
Nah, it just bird flu. :right:
Bird flu is a communist plot or something.
Damn Commie! How dare you cite the US Constitution when "libertarians" like UG want the government to take ever more control out of the hands of the US people, and allow our highest elected officials to engage in war profiteering by lining their pockets with ill-gotten Halliburten profits?
And you know so much about it you can't even remember how to spell "Halliburton." Yeah, riiiiight. You may believe that guff with a religious intensity, but you are bowing to a false god. It will, naturally, fail you, and leave you in the confederacy of dunces. I know you've set forth your penchant for irrational anti-Republicanism before -- which leaves me cold.
Jeez, only a fellow traveler would have us beleive that someone should rein in the power grabbing schemes of the current executive branch of our government!
Which is an interesting, if well trodden, spin on the Administration trying to have war powers in order to prosecute what is unmistakably a war, regardless of its unusual features. It might be legally simpler if we had a formal declaration of war, but with the Democratic Party unable to identify the real enemy -- his name isn't George, for a little hint -- and concentrating solely on the pseudo-battle to take Congress and the Presidency away from the party that actually can fight the war, as well as the out-of-proportion feel to a declaration of a state of war against a non-national crew of murderous shitheads, I don't see a formal declaration of war on the horizon either.
[SIZE="1"]PS I am in a very bad mood today, and if UG makes just one more of his hysterical war mongering posts or accusations, he's toast, courtesy of yours truely.[/SIZE]
It would be nicer dealing with you if you ever knew any better -- you're old enough, after all, so I really don't know what excuse you can present. We of the warmonger party are more interested in peace than you are, I should think: we seek a true, just, and lasting peace, which will only be found on the far side of victory: a democratic, open Iraq and discredited terrorists, rejected of all Islam. You and yours seek only surrender, to people America should not surrender to. For shame! And if you seek to leave me toast, I shall make of you a charcoal briquet, you dishonest and miserable antipatriot. Your wrath and hissy-fit will avail you not at all.
George Jr in 2003:
If there is a leak in my administration, I want to know who it is, and if the person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of.”
Does that mean Cheney gets a bonus? Is that not how corrupt management is rewarded? How big is the VP's golden parachute? Meanwhile, Libby says the president ordered the leaks. Does George Jr have an evil twin? Oh - he is a right wing extremist Republican. Clearly Saddam created 11 September. Clearly Iraq was a threat to somebody. Now if we could only figure out who was threatened? Silly me. That also assumes honesty. This is god's chosen president. Honestly would only get in the way of god's will. Clearly George Jr can lie all he wants. After all he is the same president who therefore can wiretap anyone he wants. Is it in nationaly security - or for the greate glory of god's religion?
Anyone else and these above statements would be foolish. Not with George. He gets the respect he deserves.
Straw and Rice (foreign ministers for UK and US) snuck into Iraq to tell Iraqi leaders that a government will stop terrorism. Right. And the elections in S Vietnam were going to stop Victor Charlie. Ironic that American leadership - totally devoid of what was happening in country (ie Vietnam) - again completely have no grasp of how bad Iraq is becoming.
Last year, some in The Cellar tried to claim Iraqi violence was exaggerated. They claimed all that reconstruction and other good works was being ignored. Well, most all projects are halted or sabotagued. BBC quote so many Iraqi this week who routinely claimed American soldiers were a greatest threat. Americans routinely fire at anyone who gets too close. Clearly Iraq is getting better. Iraq is now a net importer of oil. Somehow these and a long list of other facts get ignored in a Washington 'denial' mindset that some have even parroted here.
Well another American decrees how Iraq will get better. From the NY Times of 7 April 2006:
Suicide Bombers Kill at Least 71 at Shiite Mosque
The attack came as the American ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, said in an interview with the BBC that if a unified government was not formed soon, a sectarian war could erupt in Iraq and that such a war could engulf the entire Middle East.
The explosions at the historic Baratha Mosque, in northern Baghdad, took place right after the mosque's head imam, Sheik Jalaladeen al-Sagheir, delivered a searing speech there, demanding that the incumbent prime minister step down.
The blasts scattered bodies across the courtyard, destroyed stalls of vendors selling religious texts and ripped turquoise tiles from the walls. The mosque loudspeaker blared a message urging people to donate blood, while police commandos piled charred bodies into pickup trucks. A white blanket covering one body was so soaked with blood that someone tossed a black cloth over it.
Robin Williams starred in a movie called "Good Morning, Vietnam" where these events were also how America won the hearts and minds of the people. Mission Accomplished. Scenes literally right out of another famous book called "Ugly American".
Good Morning, Iraq. Mission Accomplished. Now all they need do is form a government. That will stop the violence. That will restore electricity (to levels that Saddam had no trouble providing). Clearly things are getting better. All they need is Americans to order the Parliament to meet again. That will solve everything according to Condi Rice and Jack Straw. Clearly only Washington knows what is best for Iraq.
George Jr's intentions to invade Iran have been subverted first by insurgents (which he lies about when he calls them Al Qaeda), and now by militias that are killing more than insurgents. As killing in Iraq increase (from levels never seen during Saddam's reign), a use of conventional forces against Iran is not viable. No problem. Since George Jr sees the world chock full of enemies everywhere, then unilateral use of nuclear weapons is completely justified. Remember, when you remained silent as the US "Pearl Harbored" Iraq, well, you only enpowered Satanic forces. From CBS News of 9 Apr 2006:
The United States is exploring plans for a military strike on Iran because of its nuclear ambitions, according to reports by the Washington Post and The New Yorker magazine.
Seymour Hersh writes in the April 17 issue of The New Yorker, that members of the U.S. military, more and more, believe President Bush is leaning toward a "regime change" in Iran as the best way to quell the country's quest for nuclear capabilities. Hersh writes that the Bush administration has "increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack," including the use of nuclear, bunker-busting bombs.
Why was the mental midget promoting bunker busting nuclear weapons? Are you so anti-American (naive) as to believe they were not built? Why are there enemies everywhere (where no enemies exist)? Even our allies are mistrusted. Clearly Idi Amin is even hiding in every closet waiting to massacre us. It is the George Jr mindset encouraged by so many Americans who so hate America as to remain silent.
Those who have been Cellar dwellers forever know that I have never been anywhere near so critical of any other politician. I have never seen so much of what others call 'evil' as exists with the current president. No one has ever observed me to be anywhere so critical of any other politician. He does nothing as people die due to an Indian Ocean tsunami, destroys the Oslo Accords, undermines or destroys international world treaties (anti-missile treaty, weapons in space treaty, nuclear non-proliferation treaty, nuclear test ban treaty), sits reading a children's book and does nothing when told "America is under attack" (and does nothing all day but hide), lies about Saddam's WMDs, outs a CIA agent to take revenge on those who would tell the truth, endorse religious extremists who would even lie in Federal Court to promote their religion on good people in Dover PA, wiretaps while saying all but "fuck you" to the courts, advocated torture and lies about it, rendition (kidnapping innocent people in foreign nations), completely destroys a negotiated settlement to bring N Korea back into the world (to justify war), spends money like only a corrupt politician would to mortgage America's future (no one else has even done this worse), lies about levees in New Orleans as Brownie all but begs on his knees for assistance (and then goes to CA for a campaign fund raiser) (keep the USS Bataan at sea while people are dying in New Orleans), destroys American science where ever he can (from satellites to even software research - yes government research on software has been cut by more than 50%), lies about the rebuilding of Iraq and Afghanistan (so that only the most naive among us could believe him), creates so much mistrust that even Canadians will need passports - clearly Canadians are more enemies of America, lies about global warming, enriches corporations that contribute money to Republicans (Halliburton, K Street, et all), other corporate welfare ($tens of billions free to airlines, protection of anti-American steel manufacturers, subverts SEC investigations of numerous companies such as Enron, AIG, Waste Management, those who intentionally created a CA energy crisis) until state Attorneys General threaten to prosecute to publically humiliate George Jr, accepting a $450,000 campaign contribution to keep a defective nuclear reactor on-line (with a potential Three Mile Island problem and a hole in its containment dome) in Toledo, promoting excessive energy consumption as a solution to stifled innovation (what happened to that $100million given to GM 12 years ago to build a hybrid?), global warming, executive incomes increase between tens and hundreds time more than all others (a precursor to a Great Depression), encourage Arab Israeli violence by even letting Israel use American weapons on Palestinians, impose right wing religious beliefs (including "intelligent design") on all others (to promote religious wars), protect that 40% additional profit for drugs at the expense of American consumers by even subverting the real costs of that government welfare program (it will cost about about $1 trillion), massive increases in government bureaucracy such as Fatherland Security, raiding the trust funds such as Highway and Social Security without leaving an IOW - then lying about why those trust funds must be reformed, lying to people in NYC about a major environment health threat, arsenic in drinking water is acceptable, making it dangerous for Americans to travel in a world that once was more than 70% friendly to America, and even bragging about how he made his first $600,000 (by doing nothing productive as only MBAs do). And this is only an abridged list. Americans will be dying for no purpose in Iraq and Afghanistan long after George Jr leaves office - because George Jr did not do his job - did not even read the PDB that warned of 11 September. Even George Jr calls this "Mission Accomplished"
So yes, a nuclear attack on a sovereign nation by this president is quite acceptable. He and other schizophrenic types see enemies every where - where once we could find friends. He will do this because so many even in the Cellar remain silent as they did when George Jr lied about Saddam's WMDs AND where George Jr all but blamed Saddam for the WTC.
Never forget a paper upon which Project for New American Century was predicated - that the US may even unilaterally attack (Pearl Harbor) India, Russia, or Germany. Clearly a unilateral nuclear attack is trivial by comparison. Same people now justify a unilateral nuclear attack on Iran. Their 'Rush Limbaugh' promoters are already spinning that acceptable - as they did to promote lies about Saddam's WMD and to blame Saddam for 11 September. But this time, we can learn, in advance, Cellar Dwellars who advocate nuclear war. They will remain silent here - which justifies unprovoked nuclear war on Iran - as they did to justify the "Mission Accomplished" war.
The US advocates using nuclear weapons. If you remain silent, then you have endorsed it - because the consequences are that severe. So severe that silence is an endorsement of nuclear war. There is no way one can remain silent about a "Pearl Harbor with nuclear weapons" and say they don't approve. Of course George Jr thinks nothing of using nuclear weapons when he even sees a new Hitler in Tehran. This, BTW, is how Hitler took power in Germany.
Still finding bodies. From the NY Times of 11 Apr 2006:
In Attics and Rubble, More Bodies and Questions
A landlord in the Lakeview section put a "for sale" sign outside a house, unaware that his tenant's body was in the attic. Two weeks ago, searchers in the Lower Ninth Ward found a girl, believed to be about 6, wearing a blue backpack. Nearby, they found part of a man who the authorities believe might have been trying to save her.
I remember George Jr standing on ocean front property while promising that Trent Lott's house would be rebuilt. Meanwhile:
"Because we haven't found our deceased. Being honest with you, in my opinion, they forgot about us."
She continued, "They did not build nothing on 9/11 until they were sure that the damn dust was not human dust; so how you go on and build things in our city?"
In October and November, the special operations team of the New Orleans Fire Department searched the Lower Ninth Ward for remains until they ran out of overtime money.
Half a dozen officials of the Federal Emergency Management Agency rebuffed requests to pay the bill, said Chief Steve Glynn, the team commander. When reporters inquired, FEMA officials said the required paperwork had not been filed.
Heard in a recent game of Password: "Incompetence." "George Bush Jr."
What did George Jr do in his first term when his popularity fell? Issue another Orange Alert. Well that does not work anymore. Better nuke another nation. War always increases the president's popularity ... and stops people from talking about New Orleans.
A competent man, having made so many gross mistakes during Katrina, would go out of his way to make sure no more fubars come from New Orleans. FEMA does not have the paper work? One decree from the president would solve that in 30 seconds. They are still looking for bodies that even remain where they died - 8 months ago. Only an incompetent (religiously selected politician) leader would let this continue – dead bodies unrecovered for eight plus months because of paper work. And again 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. They cannot recover bodies for eight months due to paper work? More bull.
George Jr's concern ended with a promise to rebuild Trent Lott's ocean front house. No problem. Fix his popularity by nuking Iran. Don't fool yourself for one minute. That is why the administration's number one guy on New Orleans after 'Brownie' was recalled to Washington was ... Karl Rove. It was a popularity problem - recovering bodies still is only secondary.
tw, you may have covered this before, but where did you find that often cited 85% figure?
tw, you may have covered this before, but where did you find that often cited 85% figure?
I have long awaited someone to ask. Number comes from teachers of management. Not the types that preach spread sheet analysis. The types that teach real management theory - often called 'Quality' - or what I call 'Product Oriented'. Many experts in quality have noted the trend. But I believe the actual number is cited by William Edward Deming - whose bead experiment, now in the Smithsonian, demonstrates the fact. I can no longer be sure which Deming publication provided the number. It has been many decades and much reading. Deming is so informative because he includes quantitative analysis.
Meanwhile, I provided another number. When top management blames everyone else, then 99% of those problems are directly traceable to top management. This from personal observations that date back to MBAs such as 1970s Henry Ford, Xerox management, the despicable Cannovino of IBM who was therefore always at war with Microsoft, head of Ashton-Tate (the largest software manufacturer in the world at that time), and even a most recent example - Carly Fiorina. I personally witnessed her all but completely lie to stockholders in the Compaq-HP merger meeting.
Eight months after Katrina and still there is no concerted effort to recover the bodies. This because FEMA does not have the paperwork? This because an organization headed by an MBA (George Jr) and a lawyer (Chertoff) need paperwork? Eight months and still no paperwork! Bull. Classic bean counter management. 99% of this problem is directly traceable to a president who went to CA for a fund raiser when Katrina bore down on New Orleans. A president whose lies are based upon the only thing important - George Jr's popularity and his party extremists. Just another example of why those numbers from W E Deming were so accurate. And probably why I saw George Jr for what he really was long before most everyone here.
CycleFrance noted another book called "The Goal". To appreciate where my perspective comes from and why that 85% number is so accurate, then maybe read that book. Once introduced to the concept, then Ayn Rand's books may say something different from what so many first assumed. It's called perspective. "The Goal" demonstrates in 'story book' format why I could long understand George Jr to be what others are finally learning four years later. The number comes from “product oriented” thinking. I believe Deming provided that number. Decades of experience has repeatedly demonstrated why those numbers are so accurate. Bottom line - that number is deeply rooted in so many fundamental principles.
And nobody expected the levees would be breeched. Even from MTV of 12 Apr 2006:
Bush's 2003 Claim Of WMDs In Iraq Had Been Proven False Days Before, Report Says
In the months leading up to the launch of the Iraq war in March 2003, the Bush administration built a case for the invasion based on what it called evidence that Saddam Hussein was in possession of weapons of mass destruction. On May 29, 2003, President Bush reacted to the capture of what were described as two mobile "biological laboratories" as proof that "we have found the weapons of mass destruction."
The Washington Post reported Tuesday that even as the administration was touting the capture of those alleged labs, U.S. intelligence officials had already been informed that the information was erroneous.
A secret Pentagon-sponsored fact-finding mission - the existence of which was not made public until Tuesday, according to the Post - had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons, based on information from a number of unnamed government officials and weapons experts who participated in the mission or had knowledge of it.
Would god's chosen president lie to you? Of course. Normal when religious extremists want to impose their religion on all others. Nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition.
When nearly a million were dying due to an Indian Ocean tsunami, George Jr did as he also did for New Orleans. Virtually nothing. George Jr believed he was god's chosen president. Wonder which god he worships. Teach your kids to be as honest as the president.
From the BBC of 10 Apr 2006:
Planning the US 'Long War' on terror
The "Long War" is the name Washington is using to rebrand the new world conflict, this time against terrorism.
Now the US military is revealing details of how it is planning to fight this very different type of war.
It is also preparing the public for a global conflict which it believes will dominate the next 20 years.
Lovely. Draft, anybody? You send your kid first! No, you! No, YOU!:rar:
From the BBC of 10 Apr 2006:
Nothing new here, from the French and British experiences, we see that terrorism can occur over decades. What pisses me off is that the adminstrations is still trying to equate the war in Iraq with the War on Terror. Noone there will admit that the War on Terror is about a worldwide network of terror cells and never had anything to do with regime change in Iraq.
Also, that as far as terror and insurgency go, the French ended up giving up in Algeria and that violence in Northern Ireland has been ongoing for 80 years.
In most cases, occupation caused more violence instead of helping to quell it.
C'mon Rich, how does the "french giving up", mean anything, anywhere. :lol:
C'mon Rich, how does the "french giving up", mean anything, anywhere.
Concepts are similar to why we have an illegal immigration problem. Eliminate a reason for a problem AND that problem goes away. As long as Britain insisted on imposing a solution on Northern Ireland rather than work for a solution, then that problem persisted. Once Sen Mitchell arrived - and the Brits were furious about having negotiations ongoing - then a diplomatic solution replaced terrorism. Once the French stopped imposing a brute force solution in N Africa, then violence was no longer necessary. Once the Israelis were talking to Palestinians (and a solution appeared promising - Oslo Accords), then all terrorism stopped.
An inverse example. Once Zionist extremists came to power - called for and even got the assasination of Peres - terminated the Oslo Accords - then Sharon got what he wanted - Intafada II - plenty of violence.
The purpose of war is to return to diplomacy. When diplomacy does not work, then war is not just possible - but essential. Exactly why we teach Americans 'lessons of history' so that American leaders can not lie and so that diplomacy gets the respect it deserves. Whooops. Maybe others besides Urbane Guerilla did not first read the Pentagon Papers.
A wonderful example of how diplomacy works was the Balkans. Containment. Negotiation. Selective use of force. Economic pressure. The problem in Serbia literally negotiated himself out of a job - without any invasion of Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia, etc. Holbrook literally talked Milosevik into surrender. It's all about identifying and then negotiating a problem out of existence. Violence - ie terrorism - only when leaders fail to perform their job.
Nations with great leaders don't need 20 years of violence and warfare to fix problems. And once the locals (Eurpoeans) could not do that job in the Balkans, only then did the Americans enter resulting in far less loss of life.
How many people had to die uselessly in Northern Ireland before the powers that be decided to stop following violent men and instead address the problem.
tw...
Political leaning isn't simple left/right. It's a circle. And you are so far left that you are coming around on the right.
Yes, the Bush administration is grossly inept. Yes, they broke the law and are getting away with it. Yes, the war is going to hell. But anyone who can arrive at that conclusion by themselves doesn't wanna hear you rant on about it for 13 pages, and anyone who can't isn't going to be persuaded by you saying 'mental midget', 'deja vue (sic)', and 'rush limbaugh' a hundred times. Give it a rest already, man.
I don't agree with you or anything, but man! 15 posts in and you already have a total understanding of he who is tw. Sharp, dude.
I have to say that I find tw's tenacity on this subject rather amazing, myself. I think we can safely say that tw is not overly fond of W. ;)
An inverse example. Once Zionist extremists came to power - called for and even got the assasination of Peres - terminated the Oslo Accords - then Sharon got what he wanted - Intafada II - plenty of violence.
Assassination of Peres? If you mean assassination literally, then you are referring to
Yitzhak Rabin. If you are referring to assassination figuratively, as in political or character assassination, I would need more details.
Shimon Peres is still alive and in the Knesset.
I have to say that I find tw's tenacity on this subject rather amazing, myself. I think we can safely say that tw is not overly fond of W.
A president earns respect. He does not deserve it especially when he lies repeatedly for a political agenda - when America is only secondary to his agenda. He undermined the Oslo Accords as a Norwegian foreign minister predicted. He almost got us in a hot war with mainland China over some silly spy plane. Where does this earn respect. Emotion has nothing to do with a president that is factually incompetent.
I meant the assiniation of Rabin - not Perez who then became Prime Minister after Rabin was assinated as called for by Israeli extremists.
A president earns respect. He does not deserve it especially when he lies repeatedly for a political agenda - when America is only secondary to his agenda. He undermined the Oslo Accords as a Norwegian foreign minister predicted. He almost got us in a hot war with mainland China over some silly spy plane. Where does this earn respect. Emotion has nothing to do with a president that is factually incompetent.
tw, I'm with you 100%. I should have clarified my comment to say that my amazement is equally divided between your tenacity and the way W continues to add fuel to the fire. Its not like W made a little mistake here or there and learned his lesson. Like the energizer bunny, he keeps going and going and adding to his debacle of a presidency. I don't think even Nixon was as bad! :eek:
60 Minutes interviews a retired CIA officer who provided the White House with its intelligence.
A Spy Speaks Out
A CIA official who had a top role during the run-up to the Iraqi war charges the White House with ignoring intelligence that said there were no weapons of mass destruction or an active nuclear program in Iraq.
The former highest ranking CIA officer in Europe, Tyler Drumheller, also says that while the intelligence community did give the White House some bad intelligence, it also gave the White House good intelligence — which the administration chose to ignore.
Of course, most are finally acknowledging what should have been obvious years ago. However that personal speculation is not sufficient. Supporting facts of even obvious conclusions must be learned. Even things obvious need detailed supportig facts.
A top CIA officer is speaking publicly about the obvious - how incompetently the White House handled intelligence. Just knowing that they did so is not sufficient. Informed Americans need these testimonies.
George Jr insisted intelligence agencies got it all wrong - an outright lie - blame others. What does an MBA then do? Create more layers of bureaucracy. George Jr's solution to stifling Federal Investigations that could have uncovered 11 Sept was Fatherland Security - more bureaucracy. To promote his myths that intelligence was flawed, he created a Director of National Intelligence - as if the CIA did not do that job. The New York Times of 19 April 2006 demonstrates what that bureaucracy has done:
In New Job, Spymaster Draws Bipartisan Criticism
The top Republican and the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee have disagreed publicly about many things, but on one issue they have recently come together. Both are disquieted by the first-year performance of John D. Negroponte, the director of national intelligence. ...
In an April 6 report, the Intelligence Committee warned that Mr. Negroponte's office could end up not as a streamlined coordinator but as "another layer of large, unintended and unnecessary bureaucracy." The committee went so far as to withhold part of Mr. Negroponte's budget request until he convinced members he had a workable plan.
Of course this is what MBAs do when they don't have grasp of how the work gets done - hire more subordinates - create more layers of bureaucracy.
Meanwhile other problems are being created by these bureacracy layers - a problem that would not exist under the previous and less bureaucratic system:
Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, who played a central role in devising the intelligence overhaul, said she was worried about what she said was Mr. Negroponte's failure to confront the Defense Department over an aggressive grab for turf over the past year. ...
In particular, she said she believed that Mr. Negroponte should have responded more assertively to a Pentagon directive last November that appeared to assert control over the National Security Agency, which does electronic eavesdropping; the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, which takes satellite and aerial photos; and the National Reconnaissance Office, which launches and operates spy satellites. All are part of the Defense Department.
"While those agencies are hosted in the Pentagon, they report to the D.N.I.," Ms. Collins said. "I think the directive confused the relationship and weakened the D.N.I."
Which comes to another thread - the agenda of Rumsfeld - his "my way or the highway" attitude. No mystery that Rumsfeld wants intelligence functions moved into Pentagon's control. But that's another story.
These reports are about a White House that distorts intelligence for political agenda, then blames others, and then builds bureaucratic structures. As if bureaucracy will solve a competence problem; a president who lies for a political agenda. There was no intelligence failure. That intelligence failure is a mental midget who would even out a CIA agent to maintain his myths.
They ask why reporters don't report on all the good things ongoing in Iraq. Who is getting the good? From the NY Times of 25 Apr 2006:
Rebuilding of Iraqi Pipeline as Disaster Waiting to Happen
A crew had bulldozed a 300-foot-long trench along a giant drill bit in their desperate attempt to yank it loose from the riverbed. A supervisor later told him that the project's crews knew that drilling the holes was not possible, but that they had been instructed by the company in charge of the project to continue anyway.
A few weeks later, after the project had burned up all of the $75.7 million allocated to it, the work came to a halt.
The project, called the Fatah pipeline crossing, had been a critical element of a $2.4 billion no-bid reconstruction contract that a Halliburton subsidiary had won from the Army in 2003. The spot where about 15 pipelines crossed the Tigris had been the main link between Iraq's rich northern oil fields and the export terminals and refineries that could generate much-needed gasoline, heating fuel and revenue for Iraqis.
For all those reasons, the project's demise would seriously damage the American-led effort to restore Iraq's oil system and enable the country to pay for its own reconstruction.
$2.4 billion no-bid contract?
But the pipeline at Al Fatah has a wider significance as a metaphor for the entire $45 billion rebuilding effort in Iraq. Although the failures of that effort are routinely attributed to insurgent attacks, an examination of this project shows that troubled decision-making and execution have played equally important roles.
The Fatah project went ahead despite warnings from experts that it could not succeed because the underground terrain was shattered and unstable.
$45 billion just for an the oil industry in 2004 that still does not export in 2006?
Meanwhile, this project in 2003 was when we were being told that the war had been won; that reports of violence and terror attacks were exaggerated:
Ms. Norcross, the KBR spokeswoman, said that no subcontractor would have been "willing to mobilize equipment and personnel to an unstable war zone" if the contract had been written more stringently.
An official in the inspector general's office saw it differently. "It was a horrible contract," the official said. "It's basically, 'Give it your best shot, spend six months doing it.' " ...
The plan called for boreholes to accommodate 15 pipelines, which would arc beneath the Tigris at shallow angles. Troubles turned up instantly. Every time workers plied the riverbed with their drills, they found it was like sticking their fingers into a jar of marbles: each time they pulled the drills out, the boulders would either shift and erase the larger holes or snap off the bits. ...
If KBR had declined to write performance clauses into the drill subcontract, the company had also included language that prevented the crews from speaking directly with the Army Corps, let alone passing along word that some of them knew that the effort was futile.
KBR is better known as Halliburton.
A geologist with a Ph.D. from the University of Oklahoma and a former oilman, ... One of the first documents he found at the site was the Fugro report, and it set off alarm bells.
"You just don't see a consultant's report like that that is totally dismissed," he said.
"That put them on notice," Mr. Sanders said. "When they didn't take that notice, they accepted what I would call culpable negligence."
KBR maintains that the report did not contain enough detailed information to raise questions about the project. ...
But as of last week, an official at Iraq's State-owned North Oil Company said, oil was still not flowing at Al Fatah.
No problem. We are paying for good - not oil. And we believe this war is being won. We pay. They tell us we are winning. No problem. Meanwhile, Iraq exports less oil than it did only two years ago - after we spent how much money? No problem. Americans are rich MBAs. We can afford the corporate welfare.
30% of us still approve of George Jr. Many will so hate America as to not read this NY Times article. And yet 30 years from now when America again forgets to learn from history, these are the articles you should have learned from - or denied. Demonstrated is how those who are most corrupt still blame others while denying reasons for failure. Described here is why things that happen next month and next year could have been avoided. From the NY Times of 21 May 2006:
Misjudgments Marred U.S. Plans for Iraqi Police
As chaos swept Iraq after the American invasion in 2003, the Pentagon began its effort to rebuild the Iraqi police with a mere dozen advisers. Overmatched from the start, one was sent to train a 4,000-officer unit to guard power plants and other utilities. A second to advise 500 commanders in Baghdad. Another to organize a border patrol for the entire country.
Three years later, the police are a battered and dysfunctional force that has helped bring Iraq to the brink of civil war. Police units stand accused of operating death squads for powerful political groups or simple profit. Citizens, deeply distrustful of the force, are setting up their own neighborhood security squads. Killings of police officers are rampant, with at least 547 slain this year, roughly as many as Iraqi and American soldiers combined, records show.
The police, initially envisioned by the Bush administration as a cornerstone in a new democracy, have instead become part of Iraq's grim constellation of shadowy commandos, ruthless political militias and other armed groups. ...
Before the war, the Bush administration dismissed as unnecessary a plan backed by the Justice Department to rebuild the police force by deploying thousands of American civilian trainers. ...
"Looking back, I really don't know what their plan was," Mr. Kerik said. With no experience in Iraq, and little time to get ready, he said he prepared for his job in part by watching A&E Network documentaries on Saddam Hussein. ...
General Garner said he and others on his staff also warned administration officials that the Iraqi police, after decades of neglect and corruption, would collapse after the invasion. ... "He didn't think it was necessary," General Garner said in an interview.
Mr. Miller, who left the government last year, confirmed his opposition. He said the assessment by the C.I.A. led administration officials to believe that Iraq's police were capable of maintaining order. Douglas J. Feith, then the Defense Department's under secretary for policy, said in an interview that the C.I.A.'s prewar assessment deemed Iraq's police professional, an appraisal that events proved "fundamentally wrong."
But Paul Gimigliano, a spokesman for the C.I.A., said the agency's assessment warned otherwise. ... A copy of the document, which is classified, could not be obtained.
What intelligence failure? Those who had been reading details knew CIA did not have major intelligence failures about 11 September or Iraq - except where Rush Limbaugh has us lying to ourselves. More from a long list of articles that demonstrate intelligence failures were from neocons who even lied about CIA failures and who said, "Americans don't do nation building." We didn't. Look what that created:
They lost the fight in Washington in March 2004. The field training of a new Iraqi police force — at this point some 90,000 officers — was now left to 500 American contractors from DynCorp. ... David Dobrotka, the top civilian overseeing the DynCorp workers, said he did not seek to hire more trainers, even though there were only 500 in Iraq, because some were not even getting out of their camps because of security concerns. ...
Were not even leaving green zones when so many back here denied that Iraq was so dangerous and getting worse. Many death squads now operating throughout Iraq are believed to be police.
Either we put 1/2 million soldiers in country and start fixing security immediately, or we should be planning to get out in 6 months. Status quo only means things will get worse, as was posted as a warning here in the Cellar back in late 2004. We did not even provide enough people to train the police. Everywhere a same refrain - not enough boots on the ground. Mission Accomplished.
A president earns respect.
He's earned mine.
He almost got us in a hot war with mainland China over some silly spy plane. . . Where does this earn respect.
No he didn't. No almost about it: all parties concerned remained calm. Read some detailed accounts of the aerial collision of the P-3 and F-9 over the South China Sea, and learn more than you knew. Somehow, your take on this continues to reinforce my understanding that you are a communist.
Punctuation is as in the original. If you cannot punctuate a simple question, tw, you cannot remotely hope for respect. You (you
idiot), refuse to earn any, so perhaps if you want public attention, you might try removing your trousers, seating yourself, deeply, atop a splintery fence post, and rotating at better than 128 rpm for over an hour.
Getting your freak on would be more constructive than the wrongheaded logorrhea you indulge in here. Good thing you make communism look stupid, though.
. . .and anyone who can't isn't going to be persuaded by you saying 'mental midget', 'deja vue (sic)', and 'rush limbaugh' a hundred times. Give it a rest already, man.
He can't. The man's mad, in addition to having his grasp of reality amputated by his communist beliefs. He's not a communist because I called him one -- the evidence, out of his own writing, is not merely clear, it is blatant.
...For every liberal wacko, there's a conservative nutjob.
He's talking trash about people who aren't present. Not that I ain't doing the same...
Originally Posted by tw
A president earns respect.
He's earned mine.
What can I say to that except that some people are bought more cheaply than others.
Rich, when are you going to get it through your head that your fleering not only is of no consequence, but that it produces disesteem for you? Open your mouth more constructively next time, and quit being such a blue-footed booby.
Or if you'd rather, a "popinjay," "truculent," or perhaps "contumelious."
Nobody thinks you're the superior one here. Sneering at the Right is the posing of the pseudosophisticate -- and you pose entirely too much, so we go under your guard and hit you. Regularly. You are a big, fat, mentally out of shape target, and we don't mind deflating you.
UG, all you're doing is making YOURSELF look pretentious. I quite respect richlevy, but every time you 'open your mouth' my respect for you drops a bit lower.
You are a big, fat, mentally out of shape target, and we don't mind deflating you.
Who is "we?" You and the mouse in your pocket?
Nobody thinks you're the superior one here.
Speak for yourself.
Happy Monkey:
To speak for oneself, it is necessary to first think for oneself.
This is why your excellent suggestion will go unheeded.
UG, all you're doing is making YOURSELF look pretentious. I quite respect richlevy, but every time you 'open your mouth' my respect for you drops a bit lower.
Now, you're catching on.:thumb:
Not catching on, Bruce, I've been 'cought on' for a while.
Who is "we?" You and the mouse in your pocket?
Oh, glatt, do you harbor anything like respect for tw? And if so, why, for crying in a bucket?
This is a communist I'm kicking ass on, remember? A communist who has no more notion of history than he does of writing. A communist who can neither spell nor edit his way out of a wet paper bag.
I'd appreciate a little more decent anticommunism and anti-idiocy and a little less "fashionable" leftism, okay? Leftism's going out of fashion these days, and good riddance.
UG, all you're doing is making YOURSELF look pretentious. I quite respect richlevy, but every time you 'open your mouth' my respect for you drops a bit lower.
Rich is not totally without intellect or learning -- but what he does with them gives me the same reaction, to a milder degree, that I had on listening to Mario Cuomo's long-defunct radio talk show:
How does someone of that obvious intelligence stay so wrong?
I seem to recall encountering a "RichLevy" in AOL Chat back when I haunted those chatrooms. I wasn't impressed then, either.
Summing up, the man's not clinically insane, and he doesn't seem grossly immature like tw, but I'm not seeing deep wisdom there either. Guys who aren't pro-gun (thus antigenocide in the real way) generally aren't blessed with wisdom.
Speak for yourself.
I speak for myself, and for everyone here who is more emotionally mature, less neurotic, and less outright communist than tw.
That means I speak for you too -- this time, at any rate. You don't have to like it, but you get it anyway, and I'll not do you wrong.
To speak for oneself, it is necessary to first think for oneself.
This is why your excellent suggestion will go unheeded.
V, in not agreeing with the leftists who jabber on this board, I think for myself rather than become some chatterclone. I think for myself whether you can believe that or not -- your belief or unbelief isn't exactly going to tip the scales, is it? I've read almost everything Heinlein ever wrote, and I think you could stand to do the same. I read
American Spectator pretty regularly, and sample
National Review from time to time. Those people really do think, and I think they think better than even the Left's leadingest lights. I'm pro-gun -- and therefore, as the
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership teaches us, more antigenocide, in realer ways, than anyone here who is antigun or even anti-NRA -- and pro-abortion, though recognizing, through experience, that it carries an emotional cost. I've been around the world, and seen autarchy -- and seen the price of autarchy, what it does to the human spirit and to the wealth of nations; neither is well treated.
Let these few examples stand for many. I'm reading a lot of nonfiction these days -- history and current events, history's second draft. Therefore, I just say that the "excellent suggestion" isn't being heeded any more now than it was previously; I've already got that covered.
So, BigV, show me that you've learned, and that you understand. Bear in mind that you cannot push me into defensiveness.
What's wrong with being a communist?
I concede that communism is flawed, most notably in that it in practice fails; but it seems as though you're saying 'communism' instead of 'wrong' or 'doesn't agree with me.' It seems silly to dismiss a person's ideas because they are a communist; or for any other reason, really, except perhaps a historical tendency to have bad ideas. It seems that to dismiss an idea for any reason which doesn't directly pertain to the idea in question is a failure of discourse & debate. The 'communist' lable seems to be another knot on a long string of failed communication that, of late, has tangled itself around this forum.
To quote a coffeeshop friend of mine, meaning is hard. It takes work. I see a lot of people working very hard for cheap thrills: cheap shots & a warm fuzzy feeling for 'being right.' I have come to believe that too many vocal characters hereabouts care more about their opinion than in changing it; and to my mind that is fundamentally the wrong perspective from which to debate. It is the right opinion for a talkshow, a soapbox, a yelling match, or masturbation. But if you are interacting with someone else, someone with whom you do not agree, and are from the beginning convinced that you are more correct than they, then you are wasting your time & theirs & mine for reading it. It sets the tone of lecturing, condesension, & closemindedness, from which meaning & understanding rarely come.
This is a communist I'm kicking ass on, remember? A communist who has no more notion of history than he does of writing. A communist who can neither spell nor edit his way out of a wet paper bag.
I'd appreciate a little more decent anticommunism and anti-idiocy and a little less "fashionable" leftism, okay?
So declaring someone a communist gives you free right to say or do what you like to them? Likewise, anti-anybody is
decent? That seems to be your logic...
I'm probably the biggest communist sympathiser here, INCLUDING tw. I think Karl Marx has a downright BIRLLIANT idea, the only problem with which is that nobody has ever actually executed it without changing it enough to make themselves supreme ultimate dictator, free to do whatever the hell they want. THAT is the problem with Communism. Nobody's ever done it.
Leftism's going out of fashion these days, and good riddance.
...I'm not even gonna comment.
Guys who aren't pro-gun (thus antigenocide in the real way) generally aren't blessed with wisdom.
A.) What does that have to do with the fact that richlevy is obviously more
mature than you, mature enough to not sink to petty attacks like you are? Nothing. As with most things you say (TW IS A COMUNST!!!one!!eleven) (LOLZ U R FAT AND STOOPD), it has no bearing on the argument at hand.
B.) How is being anti-gun a bad thing, pray tell? Your, uh, 'explaination' wasn't very clear, to say the least. If nobody has a gun, nobody gets shot. Pretty simple.
I speak for myself, and for everyone here who is more emotionally mature, less neurotic, and less outright communist than tw.
Lets have a show of hands, how many people think richlevy was the 'superior one' in that argument?
From the NY Times of 1 Jun 2006:
Bush's Realization on Iran: No Good Choice Left Except Talks
After 27 years in which the United States has refused substantive talks with Iran, President Bush reversed course on Wednesday because it was made clear to him — by his allies, by the Russians, by the Chinese, and eventually by some of his advisers — that he no longer had a choice.
During the past month, according to European officials and some current and former members of the Bush administration, it became obvious to Mr. Bush that he could not hope to hold together a fractious coalition of nations to enforce sanctions — or consider military strikes on Iranian nuclear sites — unless he first showed a willingness to engage Iran's leadership directly over its nuclear program and exhaust every nonmilitary option.
Good news, Foreign allies, Russians, and Chinese have conspired to stop the invasion of Iran. Have conspired to save American soldier lives from the evil 'do gooder' George Jr.
And while the Europeans and the Japanese said they were elated by Mr. Bush's turnaround, some participants in the drawn-out nuclear drama questioned whether this was an offer intended to fail, devised to show the extent of Iran's intransigence.
That they are asking suggests they now understand who the George Jr administration really is. That they are asking says it will be difficult to unilaterally attack Iran only because god told George Jr to do so.
In the end, said one former official who has kept close tabs on the debate, "it came down to convincing Cheney and others that if we are going to confront Iran, we first have to check off the box" of trying talks.
Got to remember who really makes the decisions. George Jr still does not read his PDBs which was one of Potter Goss's big complaints. A complaint that helped get him fired. Reality is not always appreciated in this White House.
Whoa, I just realized that Skunks posted while I was typing... Great minds, huh?
Don't support Communism just because UG says he opposes it. In this case the stopped clock is correct. It is the single most murderous philosophy ever developed by man. The Neo-Con body count will never approach it, although it does have great potential for slaughter.
Oh, glatt, do you harbor anything like respect for tw? And if so, why, for crying in a bucket?
I'm not glatt, but I can answer this. First, I do respect tw more than you. Second, you were talking about richlevy, not tw, and I respect richlevy more than you, too.
Rich,
...
quit being such a blue-footed booby.
Or if you'd rather, a "popinjay," "truculent," or perhaps "contumelious."
Nobody thinks you're the superior one here.
This is not true.
Don't support Communism just because UG says he opposes it.
*snort* You think UG has any sway on me? I support the basic
theory of communism, but I agree with both skunks and you, that it is the IMPLEMENTATION that is its downfall, and that, because it is always implemented horribly wrong, ENDS UP being the most murderous philosophy ever developed by man. Its core ideal isn't to kill people, it's to help. But Karl Marx himself said that it could never happen in this world unless every nation decided to implement it together (and, obviously, correctly), because... well, we've seen the outcome.
Just some food for thought: Cuba has a higher literacy rate and lower infant mortality rate than the US, but is dirt poor because of the US, mostly. Not that I'm defending Castro, he's about as evil as Mao or Pol Pot.
The world-wide debate on Communism is over and the Communists lost.
Sure, they killed around 100,000,000 people, and that's kind of bad.
Worse than that, they encouraged the notion that central planning is a productive way to manage an economy. In doing so they guaranteed that the work and lives of 2,000,000,000 people would be less productive.
It's unlikely that all nations of the world could be as productive as the US, which is a pretty productive culture. But look at what the last fifty years have done for Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong. Imagine what the world would be like today if the people of China and India saw a similar increase in productivity. Imagine if their ideas, their energy, their work was put into a productive system and not just wasted.
Yes, we'd have a lot more problems... but we'd also have a lot more solutions, a lot less hunger, a lot more medicine, a lot more culture, a lot more education, a lot less desperation.
About 20 years ago the Chinese leaders took notice that their economy had fallen so far behind the West that something had to be basically wrong with their approach, and since then they have introduced capitalistic reforms and the result is a booming China like nobody can believe.
And to make claims for Cuba today is to ignore the vital Cuba that was before Castro came along. The Cuba that wound up supported by the former USSR for decades, and the hundreds of thousands of people who survived being infants in the system long enough to desperately want to escape as adults.
Communism works in a commune, and it might work in a Star-Trek-like future where energy and production are all but free. On a large scale, with limited resources, it is not self-sustaining, and requires an increasingly autocratic central authority, which destroys the point of communism in the first place.
*snort* You think UG has any sway on me? I support the basic theory of communism, but I agree with both skunks and you, that it is the IMPLEMENTATION that is its downfall, and that, because it is always implemented horribly wrong, ENDS UP being the most murderous philosophy ever developed by man. Its core ideal isn't to kill people, it's to help. But Karl Marx himself said that it could never happen in this world unless every nation decided to implement it together (and, obviously, correctly), because... well, we've seen the outcome.
Just some food for thought: Cuba has a higher literacy rate and lower infant mortality rate than the US, but is dirt poor because of the US, mostly. Not that I'm defending Castro, he's about as evil as Mao or Pol Pot.
I love it when people say Cuba is poor because of the US. How many other nations could and do trade with Cuba? Well, not Cuba do they? Because you don't trade with anyone but Castro and his corrupt cronies do you?
That is why Cuba is poor and why no one wants to have anything to do with them.
The US is only one nation.
Castro stole land that US companies legitimately paid for, we don't want to do business with him, it is a no-brainer.
How many other nations could and do trade with Cuba? Well, not Cuba do they? Because you don't trade with anyone but Castro and his corrupt cronies do you?
Not exactly. Canada and Mexico (among others) trade with Cuba. It depends what is traded. If trading food, Castro (and his cronies) have little influence on that trade other than to permit it.
You work in a factory. Is that factory free market or communist? Well you break a drill bit. If a communist operation, then you must get a boss (and maybe his boss) to approve a new drill bit. Communism. In a free market operation, you make the decision to buy and order a new drill bit. The company automatically pays without question because you are now responsible.
That is the difference between a communist and non-communist operation. And yes, in onecustom design firm, any part that costs more than $5 (their costs) meant two managers must approve the request. A 2732 Eprom (that was obsolete technology) was still listed at more than $5. Since this was a communist operation, then almost one half hour was required to get appropriate signatures. So I demanded 3 - only needed one; just in case. Communism or cost control management - no difference. Both stifle innovation and productivity for same reasons.
& we should extend the embargo to those companies & their products from Mexico and Canada that purchased the stolen land and property that is rightfully owned by US companies.
If they are having such success trading without the US they have nothing to complain about.
Rich is not totally without intellect or learning -- but what he does with them gives me the same reaction, to a milder degree, that I had on listening to Mario Cuomo's long-defunct radio talk show: How does someone of that obvious intelligence stay so wrong?
I seem to recall encountering a "RichLevy" in AOL Chat back when I haunted those chatrooms. I wasn't impressed then, either.
Summing up, the man's not clinically insane, and he doesn't seem grossly immature like tw, but I'm not seeing deep wisdom there either. Guys who aren't pro-gun (thus antigenocide in the real way) generally aren't blessed with wisdom.
Gee, thanks. BTW, my AOL chat is not RichLevy and I never really used the ID I did have. I am also sure that whoever this RichLevy in AOL was, he probably formed an equally interesting opinion of you.
I think the major difference in us is that as a liberal, I actually try to see your point. I make a concious effort to do so. In fact, sometimes the feeling I get trying to follow your logic is a lot like the one I get when I really have to take a crap and spend the first minute passing a huge log. It's uncomfortable as heck, but I know that the effort is important and that getting past it will allow me to get on with other things.:D
Still, as a liberal I have to consider your opinion, so I do. As a conservative, you have the advantage of being able to be true to your principles by deliberately not considering any other point of view.
BTW, I'm not anti-gun or pro-gun, anymore than I am anti-car by agreeing that people should have drivers licenses before commanding the ability to cause a catastrophe.
As for my sanity, you can probably ask Wolf. She has seen me in person enough times to probably make a clinical observation. Since this has never resulted in my making her acquaintence in a professional capacity, I must have met at least some minimal standard of sanity.:nuts:
Maybe you should meet her. Just make sure she has time to pack the long sleeves 'just in case'.
From ABC News of 1 Jun 2006:
DOJ Officials Will Testify Says Judge
In a new twist, a federal judge in Washington today ordered that senior DOJ officials, including Associate AG Robert McCallum, be deposed in a lawsuit seeking information about why the department drastically reduced the amount of damages it was seeking in a suit against the big tobacco companies.
Last June, following a lengthy trial, DOJ officials announced they were cutting the amount of damages they were seeking from tobacco companies, from $130 billion to $14 billion.
That decision prompted the lead attorney in the government's case, Sharon Eubanks, to quit saying that Bush political appointees undercut the government's case against big tobacco.
SNIP~As for my sanity, you can probably ask Wolf. She has seen me in person enough times to probably make a clinical observation. Since this has never resulted in my making her acquaintence in a professional capacity, I must have met at least some minimal standard of sanity.:nuts:
Be honest, Rich....you don't live in her jurisdiction.:lol:
When did the US decide an attack on Iran was not possible? The Economist suggest that German Chancellor Angela Merkel may have finally persuaded George Jr to stop his attacks on Iran; to actually solve the problem without military conflict. This may have averted (or delayed) an American 'Pearl Harboring' of Iran. Interesting insight from the Washington Post of 4 Jun 2006:
Rice Key to Reversal on Iran
At the end of March, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice flew to Europe and had unusual, one-on-one conversations with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Jacques Chirac and British Prime Minister Tony Blair. She also attended a meeting in Berlin on Iran at which the Russian and Chinese representatives denounced the idea of sanctions to halt Tehran's drive toward a nuclear weapon.
Rice returned to Washington with a sobering message: The international effort to derail Iran's programs was falling apart. Her conclusion spurred a secret discussion among Rice, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley: Should the United States finally agree to join the Europeans at the negotiations with Iran?
Some are still asking if this new policy is simply an attempt to win back momentum by requiring Iran to meet unilateral preconditions before any talks can occur. Did the Washington Post get it right or is the Washington Post being uses as part of a new anti-Iran campaign?
When did the US decide an attack on Iran was not possible? The Economist suggest that German Chancellor Angela Merkel may have finally persuaded George Jr to stop his attacks on Iran;
I think what persuaded him was the idea that to support a war in 3 countries would mean reinstating the draft, which would have finally brought the cost of war home to the American people.
It's easier to be an armchair patriot when your kids are safe at home.
Okay, Ibram, I see you and I are going to be at loggerheads for a bit. Thought it might be coming.
The "basic theory of communism" is not supportable because it does not mesh with human nature. To mesh with human nature, you must harness the profit, or self-interest, motive. The basic theory is so systemically flawed that no implementation by any human agency can make it work beyond the farm kibbutz scale, and I have my doubts about even any agriculture so lightly collectivized as a kibbutz.
And since when is being anti the indecent itself indecent??? Is it not better to understand evil and to not merely oppose it but to prevail over it, in pursuit of its annihilation? Think, youngster, think! I've lived inside a totalitarian social order and I've seen communism. No one with experience of these has anything nice to say about Marx's prescription for genocide, waste, poverty, and ideologically driven idiocy. Exposure to these is what makes me a libertarian. Communism is a horror and nothing but. It can bait the naive in, and often as not directly slays them too, in service of the nightmare. Unlike you, I l never took that bait at any point in my life, and never will. It's not too late for you to reject it also.
Okay, to exhaust this part of the topic:
Gee, thanks. BTW, my AOL chat is not RichLevy and I never really used the ID I did have. I am also sure that whoever this RichLevy in AOL was. . .
I suppose the coincidence would simply have been too much.
Still, as a liberal I have to consider your opinion, so I do. As a conservative, you have the advantage of being able to be true to your principles by deliberately not considering any other point of view.
This is not well thought out. What is here instead is an expression of prejudice -- your unjustified belief that conservatives must somehow never be intellectuals.
Commentary,
The World Jewish Review, and
National Review all demonstrate just how unjustified that view is, monthly or quarterly.
Now there is the situation that in this forum what is written and read is the end product of years if not lifetimes of thought, and not the process or the development; you don't see any of the points at which a given idea was weighed and then accepted or rejected. This produces spaces between positions and philosophies, and some careless accusations of closedmindedness get thrown around, sometimes rightly, sometimes not.
BTW, I'm not anti-gun or pro-gun, anymore than I am anti-car by agreeing that people should have drivers licenses before commanding the ability to cause a catastrophe.
Tolerable, but less strongly anticrime or antigenocide than my approach to it.
As for my sanity, you can probably ask Wolf. . . Since this has never resulted in my making her acquaint[a]nce in a professional capacity, I must have met at least some minimal standard of sanity.:nuts:
Well, yeah, you have -- I can tell as much by reading your posts, you know. :cool: I really don't think I'd have to check with Wolf. Wolf likes me, btw.
Maybe you should meet her. Just make sure she has time to pack the long sleeves 'just in case'.
Hee hee hee -- I'm a good sport. :p
WOLF likes YOU? I know Wolf is a right winger, but give me a break! So are you two going steady?
UG, its not worth my time to answer your hysterical posts with well thought out replies. The last time I did that, you ran and cowered in the woodwork for weeks until the thread was long cold. Big waste of time.
Congrats on your engagement with Wolf, the poor girl.
Nah, we're both married, to other people. ;) :p IIRC.
Now Mari, since when do I give you a break? C'mon. Out here where everybody can see, anyway. (PM's are a different story; as soon as I write it, I'm going to shoot you a short essay I've been crystallizing in my fevered RW-Lib brain. ;) )
UG, its not worth my time to answer your hysterical posts with well thought out replies. The last time I did that, you ran and cowered in the woodwork for weeks until the thread was long cold. Big waste of time.
Speaking of, are you planning on stopping by
this thread anytime soon,
UG? I believe you owe someone an apology. Or at least a blustering, handwaving dismissal.
As you see. And I never bluster, but pop heads like zits, in those instances where they only contain pus.
Marichiko, whatever her virtues may be, is older than I am, which is old enough to know better -- and she doesn't.
This is not well thought out. What is here instead is an expression of prejudice -- your unjustified belief that conservatives must somehow never be intellectuals. Commentary, The World Jewish Review, and National Review all demonstrate just how unjustified that view is, monthly or quarterly.
I didn't make any claims about intelligence, just about open-mindedness. There are perfectly rational intellectuals who believe that the world is less than 6000 years old.
I think what persuaded him was the idea that to support a war in 3 countries would mean reinstating the draft, which would have finally brought the cost of war home to the American people.
There appears to be other factors that recently changed George Jr's attitude. We heard it in comments about learning humility. Forgot the exact text, but he almost apologized for the "Bring it on" statement and then moved on to express how he needed to become more mature.
But I think there are some other factors here. Some of Cheney's responses lately may be put him at loggerhead with Karl Rove. George Jr may not be taking orders from Cheney anymore. I also got a very distinct impression that Laura laid into him about his cowboy attitudes. I think maybe his low popularity ratings finally got Laura to tell George off - to get him to take stock of his attitude.
And finally, I believe Condi Rice is getting educated by State Department veterans and world leaders. This too would be influencing how George Jr reacts. Condi is saying things she would have never said three and four years ago.
Of course underlying all this are the lowest popularity polls in recent history. It's hard to believe that Richard Nixon all but openly tried to pervert this nation's government and still did not have such low numbers. Apparently that may have finally caused George Jr to take a realistic world perspective.
If a communist operation, then you must get a boss (and maybe his boss) to approve a new drill bit. Communism. In a free market operation, you make the decision to buy and order a new drill bit. The company automatically pays without question because you are now responsible.
I don't know what kind of company you work for -- my boss' boss does sign for the 50-cent purchases. Actually, most of the time, he vetos them. Bastard. :rar:
Nah, we're both married, to other people. ;) :p IIRC.
UG is married, I am on the market.
But I
do like him, in a way that cannot be used against him in a divorce proceeding, AFAIK.
Stock brokers are crying that interest rates are too high; will create recession. Fools. Recession in inevitable due to an administration that spends money on wars, tax cuts, a corporate welfare like the top man was an alcoholic. Too much money overseas. Unacceptable trade imbalances. But worst of all, a government so fiscally irresponsible as to not even put the Mission Accomplished war in the budget - because you might really see those costs.
Ahh, but Cheney told us that "Reagan proved deficiets don't matter".
Top 10 PBGC (government) rescues of corporations and their dates. Notice who is doing most of it - and larger *rescues* are coming:
1. United Airlines $6.6 bln 2005
2. Bethlehem Steel $3.7 bln 2003
3. US Airways $3.0 bln 2003, 2005
4. LTV Steel $2.0 bln 2002
5. National Steel $1.1 bln 2002
6. Pan American Air $841 mln 1991
7. Weirton Steel $689 mln 2004
8. TWA $668 mln 2001
9. Kaiser Aluminum $566 mln 2004
10. Eastern Airlines $553 mln 1991
But it has only started. A government that does believe deficits don't matter. Financial responsiblity is for the foolish? From CBSMarketWatch of 20 Jun 2006 are some interesting quotes:
U.S. pension peril grows with bankruptcies
Originally the PBGC aimed to protect workers' pensions from corporate meltdowns. Thirty-two years later, it has become a tool for executives trying to ease long-term burdens on companies working to get out of bankruptcy. ...
Created in 1974 by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, the PBGC gets most of its money from premiums paid by companies supporting pension plans. But there are no accounting rules requiring those plans be fully funded. ...
"The PBGC was put together to handle normal risks," said Olivia Mitchell, a professor at The Wharton School and director of the Boettner Center for Pensions and Retirement Research at the University of Pennsylvania. "I don't think anybody really expected ... there would be entire swathes of American industry that would have the bottom fall out."
Which is precisely what happened to the steel and airlines industries. There are now fears a similar fate might befall the struggling U.S. auto industry, another huge employer. ...
"The bottom line here is we're talking about a taxpayer bailout," said David John, a Heritage Foundation researcher. "It's inevitable."
Remember this is the same president who wanted to change Social Security on some myth that SS has problems. In reality, the only problem with SS is that George Jr's administration takes money out of SS to pay for things like a Mission Accomplished War, and leaves no IOU.
Why then was he not concerned about a far more serious problem - PBGC? The solution was simple if performed years ago. Require PBGC corporations to fully fund their pension funds. But then GM would have to admit financal problems long before those problems became worse. Its easier when a public believes myths of WMDs; to also pretend a PBGC problem does not exist. Then when resulting recessionary forces strike, others will be blamed. Mental midget is not so dumb; is he? He knows who remains in denial - and it's not the president.
There are perfectly rational intellectuals who believe that the world is less than 6000 years old.
Perfectly rational? No, sir. "Not clinically insane" is about as far as I can go. "Uninformed" is another adjective that comes to mind.
From the Washington Post of 24 July 2006:
'It Looked Weird and Felt Wrong'
From its first days in Iraq in April 2003, the Army's 4th Infantry Division made an impression on soldiers from other units -- the wrong one.
"We slowly drove past 4th Infantry guys looking mean and ugly," recalled Sgt. Kayla Williams, then a military intelligence specialist in the 101st Airborne. "They stood on top of their trucks, their weapons pointed directly at civilians. . . . What could these locals possibly have done? Why was this intimidation necessary? No one explained anything, but it looked weird and felt wrong."
Today, the 4th Infantry and its commander, Maj. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, are best remembered for capturing former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein, one of the high points of the U.S. occupation. But in the late summer of 2003, as senior U.S. commanders tried to counter the growing insurgency with indiscriminate cordon-and-sweep operations, the 4th Infantry was known for aggressive tactics that may have appeared to pacify the northern Sunni Triangle in the short term but that, according to numerous Army internal reports and interviews with military commanders, alienated large parts of the population.
Actions by the 4th ID were on paper (the short term perspective) some of the best in Iraq. However the article demonstrates why the 4th ID may have done more than any other unit to create the insurgency. Also called a 'big dic' attitude.
Officially, the insurgency probably started 7 Aug 2003 with a bombing of the Jordanian Embassy. Recently, the civil war may be defined when Sunnis entered a Shi'ite town, lined up all the residents, and massacred them. Currently about 3000 Iraqis are being murdered this way - more the instability directly traceable to an American that even insisted there was no looting.
This was how Lebanon's civil war started. This is but again what America created by violating basic military doctrine from 500 BC. We disbanded the police and army because Bremmer and White House extremists did not even understand basic military science principles. But then where was the president when basic military doctrine was being taugh to his National Guard unit?
This and following Washington Post articles cite confidential military studies that demontrate why we are losing a "Mission Accomplished" war. I will not even attempt to highlight this article because it contains numerous fundamental points that every citizen should understand - some concepts having been posted previously even in The Cellar.
Military experts now say we will probably need at least 100,000 troops in Iraq even 10 to 15 years from now. Deja vue Vietnam.
From the Washington Post of 23 July 2006:
In Iraq, Military Forgot Lessons of Vietnam
On May 16, 2003, L. Paul Bremer III, the chief of the Coalition Provisional Authority, the U.S.-run occupation agency, had issued his first order, "De-Baathification of Iraq Society." The CIA station chief in Baghdad had argued vehemently against the radical move, contending: "By nightfall, you'll have driven 30,000 to 50,000 Baathists underground. And in six months, you'll really regret this."
He was proved correct, as Bremer's order, along with a second that dissolved the Iraqi military and national police, created a new class of disenfranchised, threatened leaders.
Exacerbating the effect of this decision were the U.S. Army's interactions with the civilian population.
Some here in the Cellar insisted that Iraqis welcomed Americans. When that Saddam statue was brought down, those in denial refused to acknowledge a damning fact - almost no Iraqis in the street because Americans were not welcome. The fact did not jib with their propaganda. So they falsely insist the majority of Iraqis still feared to be in the streets. Instead they believed the George Jr / Rush Limbaugh lies. Few Iraqis were in that plaza pulling down Saddam's statue because:
Few U.S. soldiers seemed to understand the centrality of Iraqi pride and the humiliation Iraqi men felt in being overseen by this Western army. Foot patrols in Baghdad were greeted during this time with solemn waves from old men and cheers from children, but with baleful stares from many young Iraqi men.
How deep is denial of reality then as it remains today within the mental midget president?
Complicating the U.S. effort was the difficulty top officials had in recognizing what was going on in Iraq. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld at first was dismissive of the looting that followed the U.S. arrival and then for months refused to recognize that an insurgency was breaking out there. A reporter pressed him one day that summer: Aren't you facing a guerrilla war?
"I guess the reason I don't use the phrase 'guerrilla war' is because there isn't one," Rumsfeld responded.
Senior U.S. intelligence officers in Iraq later estimated that about 85 percent of the tens of thousands rounded up were of no intelligence value. But as they were delivered to the Abu Ghraib prison, they overwhelmed the system and often waited for weeks to be interrogated, during which time they could be recruited by hard-core insurgents, who weren't isolated from the general prison population.
How easy do we recruit for the insurgency? We even tortured and called that good. Some in the Cellar even deny anything wrong with toture. Deja vue. We now see what torture caused - another problem directly traceable to the George Jr administration that openly advocates both torture and extraordinary rendition. These are crimes worthy of impeachment.
That summer, retired Marine Col. Gary Anderson, an expert in small wars, was sent to Baghdad by the Pentagon to advise on how to better put down the emerging insurgency. He met with Bremer in early July. "Mr. Ambassador, here are some programs that worked in Vietnam," Anderson said.
It was the wrong word to put in front of Bremer. "Vietnam?" Bremer exploded, according to Anderson. "Vietnam! I don't want to talk about Vietnam. This is not Vietnam. This is Iraq!"
This was one of the early indications that U.S. officials would obstinately refuse to learn from the past as they sought to run Iraq.
Deja Vue Vietnam. I was posting it how long ago? Long before we 'Pearl Harbored' Iraq. Anyone want to acknowledge how predictable this all was because someone first learned history - ie read the Pentagon Papers?
Is Iraq in civil war? Priniciples from previous civil wars to define when that war started now exist in Iraq. Only time will tell whether Iraq gets worse because we invaded iraq as Israel invaded Lebanon. An invasion justified by lies at the highest level of government, without a strategic objective, and therefore has no exit strategy. Deja vue Vietnam.
The insurgency dwindles as it is hit, but it is replaced with sectarian violence which kills many more people. This is the civil war that Michael Yon predicted... not very pretty.
Clearly we are winning hearts and minds in Afghanistan - every night. From the Washington Post of 8 Aug 2006:
Kabul Wilts Under Power Cuts
The energy crisis has focused growing anger at the government of President Hamid Karzai, who last year appointed a former militia leader and governor with no technical experience as minister of energy and water. Many Kabul residents say they do not understand why, nearly five years after the overthrow of Taliban rule, and with the influx of millions of dollars in foreign aid, the government cannot even light the capital.
Even in more affluent neighborhoods, city-supplied electricity has been reduced this year from about 23 hours a day to five hours every other night. Families cram all their cooking, washing and studying into short, frustrating stints under a couple of dim bulbs.
Officials here say the cause of the shortage is an antiquated urban infrastructure, damaged by years of war, that has failed to keep up with the power demands of a city population that has swelled from half a million when the Taliban were overthrown to nearly 4 million today ...
"I remember before the civil war, we had power 24 hours a day. Now we can't even make tea or keep the clothes clean, and I have to send my daughter out for gas so we can cook dinner on a burner," said Faiz Murza, 62, a retired importer who lives in Kabul's Old City, a district of once-elegant homes ruined by war.
Saddam could provide electricity 24 hours every day in Iraq with antiquated infrastructure and while under a decade long embargo. Taliban could provide electricity 24 hours in Afghanistan. George Jr administration - after five years of 'reconstructiion' - those hours of electricity have dropped from 24 to only five hours.
Just another way to recruit centrists into the ranks of extremists - also called nationalists. No wonder so many American troops must stay another four months in Baghdad - where we are winning the war - just like in Vietnam.
Not only did we not bring in enough troops and do virtually no reconstruction. We cannot even provide enough kilowatts. But kilowatts are so easily produced even with antiquated equipment. Saddam could do it. Taliban could do it. God's chosen president could not?
From EE Times of 31 July 2006
Quashed report tracks design exodus
A controversial report suppressed for two years by the Bush administration provides what critics claim is the most exhaustive look yet at the outsourcing of U.S. high-tech jobs. The congressionally mandated report, compiled by the Commerce Department's Technology Administration, also contains stark predictions about the future of U.S. chip design as many more U.S. engineering jobs emigrate to low-cost locations like India.
The 356-page report--details of which were first reported last week by the newsletter Manufacturing & Technology News--was written in July 2004. But it was withheld during a presidential election year, after political wrangling between the White House and Democrats on the House Science Committee failed to reach a compromise on terms of its release. A 12-page summary published at the time omitted many of the final report's controversial findings. This spring, Science Committee members finally reached a deal to pressure the Bush administration to release the full report.
Ending the Neocon Nightmare
Witnessing the near-perfect symmetry of Israeli and American policy has been one of the more noteworthy aspects of the latest Lebanon war. A true friend in the White House. No deescalate and stabilize, honest-broker, diplomatic jaw-jaw from this president. Great. Except that Israel was actually in need of an early exit strategy, had its diplomatic options narrowed by American weakness and marginalization in the region, and found itself ratcheting up aerial and ground operations in ways that largely worked to Hezbollah's advantage, the Qana tragedy included. The American ladder had gone AWOL.
More worrying, while everyone here can identify an Israeli interest in securing the northern border and the justification in responding to Hezbollah, the goal of saving Lebanon's fragile Cedar Revolution sounds less distinctly Israeli. Perhaps an agenda invented elsewhere. As hostilities intensified, the phrase "proxy war" gained resonance.
Israelis have grown used to a different kind of American embrace - less instrumental, more emotional, but also responsible. A dependable friend, ready to lend a guiding hand back to the path of stabilization when necessary.
Beyond that, Israel and its friends in the United States should seriously reconsider their alliances not only with the neocons, but also with the Christian Right. The largest "pro-Israel" lobby day during this crisis was mobilized by Pastor John Hagee and his Christians United For Israel, a believer in Armageddon with all its implications for a rather particular end to the Jewish story. This is just asking to become the mother of all dumb, self-defeating and morally abhorrent alliances.
Internationalist Republicans, Democrats and mainstream Israelis must construct an alternative narrative to the neocon nightmare, identifying shared interests in a policy that reestablishes American leadership, respect and credibility in the region by facilitating security and stability, pursuing conflict resolution and promoting the conditions for more open societies (as opposed to narrow election-worship). The last two years of the Bush presidency can be an opportunity for progress or an exercise in desperate damage limitation. It sounds counter-intuitive, but Israel should reflect on and even help reorient American expectations.
Israel does have enemies, interests and security imperatives, but there is no logic in the country volunteering itself for the frontline of an ideologically misguided and avoidable war of civilizations.
Ideologically misguided??:eyebrow: You won't find the ideology coming from Israel, they just finally hit their braking point. Would you really prefer to see Israel forced to retreat and the whole process to begin all over? If they did that all that would happen would be that Hezbollah would be screaming about how powerful and great they are to have defeated the Israeli infidels. That entire 20 mile region should be turned into an uninhabitable wasteland, a proper retribution for all these years of bombings. Next time a group of terrorists starts getting any ideas about strapping on the explosives again all Israel needs to do is run some photos of the devastation on the news with the caption "think hard first".
You won't find the ideology coming from Israel
That ideology is called "Zionism".
Perhaps three-quarters of Israelis and Palestinians are eager for peace and compromise, while a quarter on each side – often fueled by extreme religious zeal – wants a complete victory over the other. Radical Palestinians want to destroy Israel, while radical Israelis demand control over the entire West Bank, through either continued occupation or even (according to a tiny minority) a forcible removal of the Palestinian population.
Every time when peace appears to be close at hand, radicals on one side of the conflict or the other provoke an explosion to derail it. Sometimes this involves overt conflict between moderates and radicals within one side, such as when an Israeli religious zealot assassinated Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin when peace negotiations were making progress. Sometimes this involves a terrorist attack by radical Palestinians against Israeli civilians, in the hope of provoking an exaggerated violent response from Israel that breaks the process of trust building among moderates on both sides.
Both sides should agree to the pre-1967 boundaries in principle, and then swap small land parcels and definitions of control (especially regarding Jerusalem) in slight and mutually convenient deviations from the 1967 boundaries.
In other words, quibbling over details should come after both sides agree on the principle of respect for the pre-1967 borders, which are recognized by key countries throughout the region and around the world, and are enshrined in numerous UN resolutions.
N-Ireland somehow found a way out of the quigmire. Not by bombing Ireland or the UK, but by negotiation, even if that means that one need to talk to (former) terrorists..
A vast majority of Israelis are in favor of the current action, which has little to do with Palestinians except when Hez missiles land in the West Bank. I've read that the Israeli peace movement that favors that approach to the Pals, is in favor of the current approach to Hezbollah.
Yes, in the current fog of war, all reason is lost. Hezbollah is getting more and more support for being the icon in the war against Israel just by not losing and Nasrallah being the new created Muslim hero.
There had been a chance of peace in the 90's but unfortunately got blown away by religious fanatics.
“Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” (Hermann Goering)
A vast majority of Israelis are in favor of the current action,
Depends on which action. Also the vast majority of Israelis don't want another invasion of Lebanon. Viewing from an informed Israeli perspective, that war without invasion is stupid. Either invade with troops on the ground OR do the only thing that was ever going to create peace. Hippikos has repeatedly made the important points. For example, too many in The Cellar want to view everything in terms of them and us. But as Hippikos demonstrates, it is mostly the fringe groups - the minority - that destroy peace often due to total ignorance and 'big dic' mentalities. So many of 'they' have different perspectives.
Currently we have Israel with a right to defend itself. Having a right means it should be exercised? Exercising that right means it is a solution. Yes according to extremists who always want war (despite what they claim). Extremist 'need for revenge' is accurate as long as the viewpoint is 'them and us' / 'black and white'. Today Israeli warplanes attacked the city of Tripoli. Do you know where Tripoli is? It is in the most northern part of Lebanon. Like Tyre in the south, these cities have nothing to do with Hezbollah. Attacking innocents makes no sense if peace is the objective. Why are innocents (not Hezbollah) being attacked? Just another example of 'Them verses us' / 'good verses evil' / 'black and white' thinking that only pushes everyone into the ranks of extremists. The 'big dic' mentality is alive and well.
Attack on Tripoli only makes more people want war. Attack on Tripoli only justifies more attacks on Israel. Israel attacked Tripoli. That alone justified 1000 more missiles against Israel. And yet Israelis are not so deceived by the 'fog of war' as to not even understand that they are only making more future wars necessary. The 'fog of war' or people too caught up in their rights to seek intelligent thought means more war and peace never possible. This is the situation that extremists love because it empowers extremists and recruits for extremists.
The problem: Israel responded to a kidnapping by attacking innocent Lebanese. Hezbollah, whose mission was defined by the defense of Lebanon, then did what they must do - as defined by their reason to exist. Hezbollah fired unguided missiles into Israel doing almost no damage. This leads to more innocent Lebanese murdered by the hundreds and a few Israelis killed by unguided missiles. Nothing useful accomplished if peace is the objective. More hate created - more extremists recruited - and all is fully justified in rights and the 'big dic' mentality of revenge. Israeli attacks on the innocent are exactly what extremists want.
Who are these extremists? Anti-humanity Israelis and Christian Zionists (also called American evangelicals) are some of those who want to destroy the world, if for no other reason, because they are dumbed down by a 'big dic' mentality - the fog of war. Yes, what Israel is doing is even what Osama bin Laden wants.
How does the informed Israeli instead react? First, the problem is not the 90% of Lebanon who are being attacked, made homeless, and are attacked only because they are all dirty Arabs. The tactical objective is only those Hezbollah missile. Therefore the Israeli army should move in up to the Letani River and expect Israeli casualties in the thousands. IOW either you confront the problem now - or live with it. Second, number of dead Israeli army troops becomes irrelevant once that tactical objective is necessary. An informed Israeli that wants to end this missile problem orders cannon fodder forward to take out those missiles with the only weapon that can do it - ground troops. Massive Israeli deaths in are totally acceptable because the objective is that important.
Don't like the thinking? Sorry. But if the objective is important, then a few thousand Israel dead is justified. Welcome to what extremists would create. Instead attack other innocents with airplanes. It will not solve anything but recruits and empowers the extremists.
Even Likud types fear that invasion because it will then drive centrists back to centrist positions - intelligent thought. Intelligent Israelis would then wake up and appreciate why the 'big dic' mentality only means more war - will never create peace and will always keep extremists in power.
Which brings us to the other solution. Negotiation. Only way to reduce violence - to stop recruiting for the enemy - is to negotiate. Arab league has the only viable offer to settle this - Seven points. And then 20 years of Hezbollah missiles in diminished numbers eventually means peace. Yes, 20 years of extremists trying to create more war - and war not created because no smoking gun exists. Notice that is completely contrary to the 'big dic' mentality. They are only trivial unguided missiles. Ignore them. Only then can peace be at hand. 20 years of minor violence necessary to undo what the 'big dic' mentality - attacking innocent Lebanese - has created.
But again, the 'big dic' mentality of "they killed one of us" will not let this happen. You want to live in Northern Israel? Fine. Expect some to be killed by trivial Hezbollah missiles and eventually Hezbollah has no more purpose because Israel still does not invade. Those unguided missiles are a threat like traffic accidents. Don't respond with a 'big dic' and the problem goes away. Negotiate and eventually the region becomes safe even for an international peace force and for people who would then remove Hezbollah.
That is the informed Israeli position. It will not happen. Too many just don't understand that a few dead neighbors is 'life normal' and is not a 'smoking gun' to justify war. Eventually, peace can happen as the ranks of centrists grow and the ranks of extremists diminish. This begins the only way to create peace. Negotiation complete with periodic and acceptable extremist violence is the only way peace is going to happen. Too many - and that especially includes American Christian Zionists - instead are enthralled by a 'big dic' mentality. To them, the right of revenge means revenge must alway be taken. That extremist 'big dic' agenda means more extremistis in power and more recruits to extremist ranks - and constant war.
Why was Tipoli attacked? Clearly not to stop Hezbollah. And if you don't know where Tripoli is, then that attack was acceptable. Extremism is alive and well - and murdering the other 90% of innocent Lebanese.
Well
they're ready to go, so start counting.
But again, the 'big dic' mentality of "they killed one of us" will not let this happen. You want to live in Northern Israel? Fine. Expect some to be killed by trivial Hezbollah missiles and eventually Hezbollah has no more purpose because Israel still does not invade.
Yeah, that's what they've been doing and that's why over 90% of Israel is fed up and in favor of the current operation and the next one too.
Hizbollah attacks along Israel's northern border May 2000 - June 2006
You keep not mentioning these attacks. It's like you don't know about them, or they don't count, or something. Maybe it's a filtering problem on your part, or maybe it's your lousy biased sources.
Other words not appearing in any tw posts: 1559, Syria, assassination, Lebanese Christians.
Ah, take back the ready to go... they just turned around and the cease-fire is on.
You keep not mentioning these attacks. It's like you don't know about them, or they don't count, or something. Maybe it's a filtering problem on your part, or maybe it's your lousy biased sources.
Those missile attacks are a threat like aggressive drivers on a highway. Unguided missiles are not a 'smoking gun'. Apparently some confuse trivial threats as if these were massive 155 mm artillery attacks. Need I again cite hundreds of ships sunk off the US East Coast - and that still was not sufficient to justify war? Grasping this concept - the 'smoking gun' -remains elusive to UT.
Meanwhile, basis of a negotiated settlement is currently found in the Arab League's seven points that even include Sheeba Farms.
Peripherals such as Syria are relevant to those so biased as to see evil even in Syria. Syria has no camel in this conflict. If Syria was so evil, then so was the US for arming and financing the IRA in Britain? As soon as one says Iran and Syria are involved, then I know George Jr brainwashing has taken hold again.
Neither Hezbollah nor Israel are victims here. Both are the only two combatants; both acting with 'big dic' mentalities. Victims are an innocent 90% of Lebanon who were outrightly attacked only because some Israeli soldiers were kidnapped. That was the action that turned daily 'face slapping' into a dangerous and undeclared war on innocent Lebanon civilians.
So why is Israel attacking Tripoli? Why has Israel attacked Tyre, Beirut, and Sidon - cities devoid of Hezbollah? My bias is against anyone driven blindly by their 'big dic' mentality. Only the morally bankrupt could justify attacks on innocent civilians in Beirut and Tripoli.
Which bring us to predictable bias. UT, when did you even cite Israel for doing wrong; being the aggressor; even arranging a massacre? Never. Your pro-Israeli bias has been excessively obvious and consistent. When Israel foolishly tries to solve problems with war, you encourage it. I am often appalled at your approval of violence as a solution for everything.
This Lebanon situation is a classic case. You even approve of intentionally aggressive and unjustified attacks on Lebanese - as if they are all evil. When did you criticize Israel for intentionally killing innocent Lebanese? I am so often appalled at your blind approval of anything Israel does when 50% of the time Israel is the reason for destruction of peace. In this case, Israel is so much the aggressor at to routinely kill innocent Lebanese - and declare that an attack on Hezbollah. To agree with them, in this case, is blatant bias; implies moral bankruptcy.
Even more embarrassing is that Israel's own government is so confused as to not even invade with ground troops. Instead Israel declared anyone in Lebanon as Hezbollah and attack everyone in Lebanon - including intentional attacks on well marked Red Cross ambulances. Not just Red Crescent. Israel also routinely attacks well marked Red Crosses. This because Israel does not have the balls to invade the border with ground troops - lose a few thousand soldiers attacking their only enemy.
That's the TW world - there are dead and wounded bodies, but no smoking gun.
See according to you, Israel has performed some sort of "original sin" which makes it Perfectly OK for Israel to be attacked for years and years. A few dead soldiers, a few missiles here and there - oh, THAT is not some sort of "big dic" situation. The other side can do whatever they like and it is never a "big dic" situation. They can openly declare their intent to wipe it off the map and it is just normal diplomacy to tw. No big dic here.
Bias? Only in the other fellow.
Bias in favor of modernity, the free world, or truth? Not permitted.
Bias against Islamic Fascism? I'm not going to finish this thought.
Other cities devoid of Hizbollah? REALLY? Is that what you believe? No Hizbollah in Beruit? Uh, are you sure about that? Iran and Syria not involved? The other day they CAPTURED IRANIAN SOLDIERS, did you miss it?
My friend you have failed to read up on this situation, and are just going on instinct.
You are UNINFORMED and SPEAKING FROM IGNORANCE. And THAT is the WORST form of bias.
You think this whole situation is analgous to the Palestinian situation. You apply the same thinking to Israel on this stuation as you do to the Pal situation. That is wrong.
If you can answer this without bringing up Al*m*n*m t*b*s, I'll respond by not asking for your definition of "massacre" which we can then apply to all future discussion and beat you over the head with it like a stick.
That's the TW world - there are dead and wounded bodies, but no smoking gun.
UT, for someone so bound and determined to show 'hurt Arab pictures' as a fraud, why do you have anything but bias.
When the number of dead Israelis approaches anywhere near to number of dead and totally innocent Lebanese, then we have a number greater than zero. One dead Israeli body - because of numbers of dead Lebanese - is zero. That is how reality without emotion views life in a war. The minute you worry about the so few harmed Israelis, then I know your bias is reason for your post.
Basically I am looking forward to a thousand dead Israelis and a thousand dead Hezbollah. Only then will anyone start talking peace. You are not. Your view is every dead Israeli justified something like ten dead Arabs.
A man pulls a knife to rob another. The second calls for three batteries of heavy artillery and levels the entire neighborhood. Those neighbors were guilty because they protected the robber? That is a justified response? No it is how one encourages Armageddon. UT. Others accused you of complaining about pictures only because they made Israel look bad. You never note the same counterfeit pictures that promote an Israeli position. You are that biased. You don't act honestly. You don't treat all parties with equal praise or equal contempt.
Final point. Israel started this when they attacked Beirut airport. Your response is to decline to comment because you cannot dispute it. Sometimes an Arab group starts the conflict. This time, Israel did. Israel is historically responsible for about 50% of the unjustified aggression. You can't deal with that reality due blind bias - suggesting a racist mindset.
At least in TW’s world, we have equal contempt for all aggressors – including the mental midget George Jr. UT worries about a few dead Israelis – and conveniently forgets about hundreds of dead American sailors off the US East Coast back in 1940. Yes I don’t give a damn about a few dead people. I instead care about the millions of living – which again is why I care about the smoking gun.
It was no accident that the people UT favors also called for and got the murder of Rabin - because they so hate peace.
You never note the same counterfeit pictures that promote an Israeli position.
Happy to.
Please direct me to one.
Perhaps
here? This supposed comedy website featuring the freedom-hating Bob and David of Mr. Show fame (if you could call it that) lets slip a nasty secret... Scroll to the bottom of the page for this damning evidence:[COLOR="Blue"]
Copyright ©2006 Liberal Jew-Run Media [/COLOR] . . .
Hebrew Box Office - indeed! I believe that answers your question.
Happy to.
Please direct me to one.
So you are saying Isrealis are always honest and Arabs are always liars? You make my point.
Until you regard both sides as both good or both evil, well, then you remain biased. This is a conflict where every side has justification for their actions. Israelis under Likud remain as bad or worse than those other sides. Those who recognized this and were in position to do something could then create the Oslo Accords. When the claims of all sides were found justified, then peace almost happened.
Why did the Oslo Accords breakdown? Extremist even had to call for and create the murder of Rabin just so that logical thought - the ability to see all perspectives - was undermined. Peace was at hand only because there was no good and evil. There were only many conflicting perspective - and all were correct and justified. Your one-side bias in favor of Israel is is necessary to guarantee more war. It is the same attitude that Christian Zionists want to create Armageddon.
"good" and "evil" are terms I don't recognize, tw.
Israelis,
including Israeli arabs, are more likely to be honest than most people living in Arabic cultures, because they live in a modern culture where truth is considered more important than honor.
Here is the awesome backgrounder on shame-culture versus guilt-culture. Required reading to understand the whole thing. If you're lazy like me and don't want to read the whole thing, at least scroll down to the colored tables that summarize the differences.
I first pointed to it in
this thread.
But don't ask me, just ask this guy.
Of course, if I'm wrong, you can surely point me to one single example of a doctored photo supporting the Israeli side.
By tw:
...Christian Zionists want to create Armageddon.
...it is how one encourages Armageddon
...George Jr also wants Armageddon. Do you?
...George Jr even got you to view the world in 'black and white' / 'good and evil' AND to want Armageddon.
...Who are these extremists? Anti-humanity Israelis and Christian Zionists (also called American evangelicals) are some of those who want to destroy the world
Is this starting to weird out anyone else here?:crazy:
Also,
...Viewing from an informed Israeli perspective
...That is the informed Israeli position.
when did tw move to Israel?:cool:
Hey maybe you could check on
Flickr for faked photos, there are a lot of photos on there.
"good" and "evil" are terms I don't recognize, tw.
Israelis, including Israeli arabs, are more likely to be honest than most people living in Arabic cultures, because they live in a modern culture where truth is considered more important than honor.
In a culture where crimes can cost a hand - Arabs are more dishonest? Bull. Dishonesty and lying is exists and equal on both sides. Both sides are equally human. Both sides now have equal disrespect for human life. That disrespect is fundamental to why conflict exists.
One need only watch how Israelis confiscate Palestinian land illegally and in outright violation of laws to appreicate how lying, criminal deceit, and other crimes against humanity are acceptable in Israel. After all, which nation arranged for and achieve the massacre of 5000 Palestinian women and children? And yet even in the Cellar, so many posters don't remember how corrupt Israel also is. Israelis are no different from their Arab peers which is why even the Oslo Accords were destroyed.
Remember why I could doubt those accusations of aluminum tubes and other claims of WMDs. Why I saw early on the lies of Iraq, outright and obvious violations of Military Science 101 by the George Jr administration, and the potential for civil war directly traceable to American ignorance. I grew up watching propaganda created. I demand the irrefutible fact. Facts remain that Israel is no more moral than so many of their Arab adversaries. They even routinely attack Red Cross and Red Cresent ambulances. This is the same Israel that murdered their own prime minister because he was actually negotiating peace. This is a moral Israel? Facts say otherwise. But as Rabin demonstrated, Israel can also be honest - if ....
Extremist Israelis will routinely lie - are the most immoral. Remember why the US and USSR came closest to nuclear war - because Israelis lied. But again, this is the same honest Israel that 'accidently' attacked USS Liberty. Eliminate the obvious biases, then Israelis as a nation are no more honest or moral than their Arab peers.
They even murdered their own prime minister only because he was working for peace - the Oslo Accords. What Arab nation did that? Many Israelis are so dishonest as to even deny that fact.
Israelis are about as dishonest and immoral as their Arab neighbors. History demonstrates that fact. Only personal biases would deny it.
All I ask is for one doctored or stage-directed photo.
It would be spectacular proof of your point, and a remarkable disproving of mine.
Just one.
Truth is the first victim in war, on all sides.
Extremist Israelis will routinely lie - are the most immoral. Remember why the US and USSR came closest to nuclear war - because Israelis lied. But again, this is the same honest Israel that 'accidently' attacked USS Liberty. Eliminate the obvious biases, then Israelis as a nation are no more honest or moral than their Arab peers.
Iraq war was directly caused by the Jewish cabal in the neocons (Feith, Abrams, Ledeen). AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) is the biggest example of that.
"I think the administration has had a rather militant and absolutist notion of how to achieve peace in the Middle East, laced with overtones of black-and-white morality," said former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Few countries have become so anti-Arab as the United States. From the Economist of 5 Aug 2006:
Opinion polls confirm that Americans are solidly on Israel's side. A USA Today/Gallup poll conducted on July 28th-30th showed that eight in ten Americans believed that Israel's action was justified—though a majority were worried about the scale of the action. A plurality (44%) thought that America was doing “about the right amount” to deal with the conflict. An earlier USA Today poll found that 53% put “a great deal” of the blame for the current crisis on Hizbullah, 39% put the blame on Iran and only 15% blamed Israel.
These numbers are what the administration mouthpieces have been telling Americans how to think - and are opposite of reality. Meanwhile, The Economist defined reasons for America's emotionally based response:
A Pew Global Attitudes survey taken between March and May found that 48% of Americans said that their sympathies lay with the Israelis; only 13% were sympathetic towards the Palestinians. By contrast, in Spain for example, 9% sympathised with the Israelis and 32% with the Palestinians. ...
Why is America so much more pro-Israeli than Europe? The most obvious answer lies in the power of two very visible political forces: the Israeli lobby (AIPAC) and the religious right. AIPAC, which has an annual budget of almost $50m, a staff of 200, 100,000 grassroots members and a decades-long history of wielding influence, is arguably the most powerful lobby in Washington, mightier even than the National Rifle Association.
“Thank God we have AIPAC, the greatest supporter and friend we have in the whole world,” says Ehud Olmert, Israel's prime minister. The lobby, which is the centrepiece of a co-ordinated body that includes pressure groups, think-tanks and fund-raising operations, produces voting statistics on congressmen that are carefully scrutinised by political donors. It also organises regular trips to Israel for congressmen and their staffs. (The Washington Post reports that Roy Blunt, the House majority whip, has been on four.)
The Christian right is also solidly behind Israel. White evangelicals are significantly more pro-Israeli than Americans in general; more than half of them say they strongly sympathise with Israel. (A third of the Americans who claim sympathy with Israel say that this stems from their religious beliefs.) Two in five Americans believe that Israel was given to the Jewish people by God, and one in three say that the creation of the state of Israel was a step towards the Second Coming.
Religious-right activists are trying to convert this latent sympathy into political support. John Hagee, a Texas televangelist who believes that supporting Israel is a “biblical imperative”, recently founded Christians United for Israel. Last month he brought 3,500 people from across the country to Washington to cheer Israel's war against Hizbullah. Mr Hagee's brigades held numerous meetings on Capitol Hill; both Mr Bush and Mr Olmert sent messages to his rally.
These pressure groups are clearly influential. Evangelical Christians make up about a quarter of the American electorate and are the bedrock of Mr Bush's support. Congressmen take on AIPAC at their peril. But they deal with well-heeled lobbies every day. And the power of the religious right can hardly explain why Democrats are so keen on Israel. Two other factors need to be considered: the war on Islamic radicalism, and deep cultural affinities between America and Israel.
Seeing themselves in Israel
Americans instinctively see events in the Middle East through the prism of September 11th 2001. They look at Hizbullah and Hamas with their Islamist slogans and masked faces and see the people who attacked America—and they look at Israeli citizens and see themselves. In America the “war on terror” is a fact of life, constantly reiterated. The sense that America is linked with Israel in a war against Islamist extremism is reinforced by Iranian statements about wiping Israel off the surface of the earth, and by the political advance of the Islamists of Hamas in Palestine.
But the biggest reason why Americans are so pro-Israel may be cultural. Americans see Israel as a plucky democracy in a sea of autocracies—a democracy that has every right to use force to defend itself. Europeans, on the other hand, see Israel as a reminder of the atavistic forces—from nationalism to militarism—that it has spent the post-war years trying to grow beyond.
Americans are staunch nationalists, much readier to contemplate the use of force than Europeans. A German Marshall Fund survey in 2005 found 42% of Americans strongly agreeing that “under some conditions, war is necessary to obtain justice” compared with just 11% of Europeans. A Pew survey found that the same proportion of Americans and Israelis believe in the use of pre-emptive force: 66%. Continental European figures were far lower.
Why are Americans so 'out of touch' with what the rest of the world knows? Propaganda is alive and well in America. I am amazed how many Americans somehow know what must be done and yet - this question again - don't even know the difference between Hezbollah and Hamas.
You really show your [COLOR=Sienna]t[/COLOR][COLOR=DarkOliveGreen]r[/COLOR][COLOR=Red]u[/COLOR][COLOR=Navy]e[/COLOR] [COLOR=DeepSkyBlue]c[/COLOR][COLOR=Indigo]o[/COLOR]l[COLOR=SandyBrown]o[/COLOR][COLOR=DarkRed]r[/COLOR][COLOR=DarkSlateGray]s[/COLOR] when you say being pro-Israel is being anti-Arab.
I'm pro-Israel, pro-Lebanon, very anti-Hezbollah. A year ago I started the thread
I love the Lebanese. A month later I wrote
Free Lebanon.
I'm pro-Israel, pro-Lebanon, very anti-Hezbollah.
Then why were you so quite when Israel was murdering Maronites and Druze by the hundreds? Why were you so quite when Israel was routinely attacking other Lebanese (rather than Hezbollah) in Tyre, Sidon, Beirut, and Tripoli. You are not pro-Lebanese - except when it is consistent with a pro-Israeli attitude. I posted repeatedly about Israel attacks on Tripoli. UT remained silent because UT approves of anything that Israel does. An honest pro-Lebanese person would be screaming from the rafters about the murder of Lebanese in Tripoli - the most northern port in Lebanon. UT remained silent.
You believe Hezbollah is not in Beirut?
I asked that yesterday. Got no answer. TW remained silent. There are only two possibilities. One possibility: TW does not know Hezbollah controls large areas of Beirut. Which would be unthinkable to someone who claims to know so much about the region.
No, TW remained silent because he knows damn well there are Hezbollah in Beirut, and in Tripoli and Tyre and Sidon as well. TW wanted those attacks to be attacks on innocent Lebanese, and so he made them such. Because he disapproves of anything that Israel does and wants to paint the worst possible picture.
You believe Hezbollah is not in Beirut?
I answered your question long ago, UT. There were no Hezbollah terrorist operations in Beirut's airport. So why was that one of the first targets of Israel? Where are all this Hezbollah in Tyre or Sidon? Does not exist. Where is all this Hezbollah in Tripoli, Hermet, Galieh, Baalbek, or Halba? None. These are also northern cities attacked by Israel only because Hezbollah was in the south.
Why do you ignore these murders of Lebanese by israel when you claim to be pro-Lebanon?
No, the Hezbollah militia is in the south. Since Israel could not get them, then Israel instead murdered innocent Lebanese - and UT (Brianna and MaggieL) says this is good.
You believe Hezbollah is not in Beirut?
I asked that yesterday. Got no answer. TW remained silent. There are only two possibilities. One possibility: TW does not know Hezbollah controls large areas of Beirut. Which would be unthinkable to someone who claims to know so much about the region.
No, TW remained silent because he knows damn well there are Hezbollah in Beirut, and in Tripoli and Tyre and Sidon as well. TW wanted those attacks to be attacks on innocent Lebanese, and so he made them such. Because he disapproves of anything that Israel does and wants to paint the worst possible picture.
Of course there were Hezbollah in Beirut. The question is whether leveling the city to get to them is reasonable. It's not like the Lebanese can turn them in to the police. If someone carpet bombed my neighborhood to flush out the Republicans, I'd be pretty pissed.
Bush has already stated that
Israel defeated Hezbollah. This of course is wonderful news to anyone who doesn't know any better. I'm really hoping he will declare a coalition victory in Iraq tomorrow so we can bring everyone home.
On Bush's first day back from vacation, his motorcade traveled between the White House and State and Defense departments for meetings on transforming the U.S. military, on homeland security and on the warfare in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Sectarian violence has surged in Iraq and created what some consider the greatest threat to stability there since Saddam Hussein's government was toppled three years ago. Meanwhile, efforts to get North Korea and Iran to restrict their nuclear ambitions remained stalled.
I'm so very glad he's back from vacation. Maybe Condi left a few 'while you were out' post-its on his desk.
BTW, Israel does have a right to exist and does have the right to defend itself. But instead of trying to hit the rocket sites they started an invasion which ended in a cease fire. A cease fire with an opposition force that they would have not had to acknowledge if they had simply reacted to the immediate threat.
The first thing one does in war, especially a war with Arabs, is to cut the command and control lines, so that the people in the field can't get good orders from their leaders. Thus, the airports and communications facilities.
The second thing one does is to cut supply lines so that the people in the field can't be resupplied. Thus, the bridges and roads to Syria.
From Wikipedia. Areas you have specified as not containing Hezbollah are actually pwned and operated by them.
The first thing one does in war, especially a war with Arabs, is to cut the command and control lines, so that the people in the field can't get good orders from their leaders. Thus, the airports and communications facilities.
And then we look at UT's map. The attacked targets are not even Hezbollah command and control areas. Again, he completely ignored Tripoli that is about as far from Hezbollah as one can get in Lebanon. The Economist lists Tripoli as attacked somewhere between 16 and 30 times.
Again, and that was so obvious. The Beirut airport had nothing to do with Hezbollah. But it was the crown jewel of the Lebanese people - having been built as a trophy to the end of their civil war.
Why would Israel attack Beirut Airport? Apparently Olmert's government actually thought if they attacked Beirut, then the Lebanon army would somehow disarm the only miltia with a history of expelling Israel from Lebanon.
Don't forget why Israel left Lebanon: Hezbollah. Israel is the reason Hezbollah was created. Hezbollah is in south Lebanon because that is where Lebanon's enemy is.
So instead Israel attacks cities where Hezbollah is not: Sidon, Tyre, Beirut, Tripoli, Halba, Hermel, and so many cities far north of Beirut and without any Hezbollah. Again, UT calls this justified - and yet claims to be a friend of Lebanon?
Look at the targets they are hitting. Any large airport in Lebanon is a stratigic target, as well as seaports and industrial cities. With these targets there doesn't have to be Hezbollah in the building, if it weakens them by denying them weapons, food, or orders it's a legitimate target.
The only way I can see this ending for any length of time is the complete disarmament of Hezbolla and the reinstation of Lebanons official army.
Look at the targets they are hitting. Any large airport in Lebanon is a stratigic target, as well as seaports and industrial cities.
These are strategic
Lebanese targets. By attacking them, supplies to the entire population are cut off. This is known as collective punishment. We tried it in Iraq in order to get the Iraqis to overthrow Saddam. It didn't work.
Look at the targets they are hitting. Any large airport in Lebanon is a stratigic target, as well as seaports and industrial cities. With these targets there doesn't have to be Hezbollah in the building, if it weakens them by denying them weapons, food, or orders it's a legitimate target.
Now you have justified the illegal invasion of Cambodia, Laos, the Gulf of Tonkin, etc. For that matter why not attack Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia since that also are sources of Hezbollah support.
Meanwhile, TW instead wants honesty and facts. So much so that if anything posted emotionally bothers anyone (Brianna), well grow up. Since so many are openly lying - more egregiously then when hyping lies about WMDs - instead we have facts with supporting documentation:
Let's look at the map that UT posted. Listed is a province not in Hezbollah control (according to UT) and at least one city in that province attacked by Israel - as best I can tell using maps, news reports, etc. In most every case, the number of attacks are far more numerous; especially in provinces listed with two or more towns:
Akkar: El Aabboudieh, Aandaqt, Halba
The Hindu
Jets struck before dawn a bridge near the northern town of Halba in the remote Akkar region
Tripoli: Tripoli, El Beddaoui
Israeli Bridge Attack Kills Eleven In Lebanon
A third attack fell on a village some 12.43 miles northeast of the northern city of Tripoli, reports The Australian.
Bartroun: Al Batrun, Selaata
Aley: Ain Zhalta, Damour
Chouf: Chehim, Jiyeh
Israel's Outrageous Attacks
Israel has killed Christians, Sunnis and Shiites, old and young, men and women, from the great Phoenician cities of Sidon and Tyre to more humble towns — Chtoura and Juniyah, Damour and Naame, Jiye and Baalbek, Khiam and Batrun.
It has wrecked roads, bridges, a lighthouse, ports, tunnels, electrical pylons, water mains, fuel depots, gas stations, power plants, houses, shops, schools — and even a milk factory. It has repeatedly blasted the international airport that was the symbol of Lebanon's rebirth from 15 years of war.
Kaerouan: Jounieh, Aayoun elSimane
Lebanon's Day 6: Lebanon Death Toll Rises!
Three missiles hit an LBCI transmission station at Fatqa in Kesrouan, killing the chief employee there.
Minleh-Dinnieh: Marjahin
Koura or Bacharre : Ehden
El Metri: Sannine
Baabda: El Mdairej
According to UT logic (that has no Israeli bias?), these are Hezbollah cities only because they are Lebanese cities? They are outside of what UT says is Hezbollah areas. Therefore the poplulation must be killed by Israeli warplanes.
By my count, Akkar province alone had eight attacked cities. Who did the Akkar people elect in their 2005 elections? 3 Sunnis, 1 Alawite, 1 Maronite, and 2 Greek Orthodox. So why is Israel bombing eight Akkar cities? UT tells us this is a Hezbollah stronghold? Or maybe UT never learned how often Israel lies? Clearly fake photographs demonstrate that only Arabs lie.
One can again believe a lying American president because one feels the truth. Same president that also lied about weapons of mass destruction even after he knew those weapons did not exist. Or one can again first learn facts. There was no Hezbollah in Beirut Airport no matter what UT claims. Even UT's own maps show no Hezbollah in cities that Israeli warplanes attacked. Provided are news reports of some Israeli attacked Lebanese towns in areas even UT says are not Hezbollah strongholds. But this cannot be. Israelis don't lie - if you believe George Jr and Israeli propaganda.
Again, and that was so obvious. The Beirut airport had nothing to do with Hezbollah. But it was the crown jewel of the Lebanese people - having been built as a trophy to the end of their civil war.
If it was
tactical, they cratered the runways and took out some of the infrastructure needed to get people in and out, such as roads leading to the airport.
If it was
punative, they reduced the entire thing to rubble.
Ya follow?
Beirut airport can be 'reopened partly' in a week: ministers
Public Works and Transport Minister Mohammed Safadi, for his part, said the airport needed two and a half months to be fully operational but it could open 'partially within a week.'
If it was tactical, they cratered the runways and took out some of the infrastructure needed to get people in and out, such as roads leading to the airport.
There was no tactical value to cratering the Beirut airport. Israel expected to drive out Hezbollah in two weeks. Massive military equipment from that airport and carried south was not going to resupply Hezbollah. Airport was attacked probably for same reasons that even cities northern Lebanon were attacked. For some strange reason, Israel was bombing innocent Lebanese while publicly demanding that Lebanon's army displace Hezbollah. Somehow Israel thought this would make the Lebanon army move on Hezbollah? Yes, if Lebanon blamed Hezbollah for the war. Apparently Israel actually thought that Lebanese people would blame Hezbollah.
Sounds like a decision in Israel made by a compromising committee. Well it did get Fouad Siniora's and the world's attention in a war that otherwise might have otherwise received less attention. But attacking the airport had little if any tactical purpose other than stop all commercial flights and getting attention of all in Lebanon - the airport being a crown jewel and so critical to almost all Lebanon's economy. Israel was attacking innocent Lebanese; done for a purpose. It also caused so many centrists throughout the world to start discussing "Guns of August".
The airport is open.
And that says Israel did not attack it 15 times?
No, it means they didnt carpet bomb it out of existance, and allowed them to open it back up.
No, it means they didnt carpet bomb it out of existance, and allowed them to open it back up.
Name one plane or one weapon in Israel that can do carpet bombing? In short, none exist. Israel attacked Lebanon's airport (not Hezbollah's airport) at least 15 times with fighter bombers. Therefore it took a few days to clear the rubble, probably get some new fuel sources (because Israel attacked Lebanon's jet fuel facilities - Hezbollah has no jet planes but Lebanon does), and get an 'airport that does not threaten Israel' reopened.
Didn't they just ask for them?
Did I say they COULD carpet bomb it? No. I said they didn't.
US prohibits flight of Iranian missiles to Syria
•
July 15: Three days after the war began, a source tipped off U.S. intelligence about an imminent shipment of missiles from Iran to Hezbollah.
•
July 19: A spy satellite photographed Iranian crews loading three missile launchers and eight crates, each normally used to carry a Chinese-designed C-802 Noor missile, aboard a transport plane at Mehrabad air base near Tehran. Israel says Hezbollah fired a C-802, a precision-guided anti-ship cruise missile, at an Israeli warship off Lebanon's coast on July 14.
•
July 20: The Ilyushin Il-76 transport plane left for Damascus, but Iraqi air-traffic controllers denied it permission to enter Iraq's airspace. The Iranian flight crew then requested permission to fly over Turkey. Turkish controllers granted permission — but only if the plane would land for an inspection. The plane returned to Tehran, where the military cargo was unloaded.
•
July 22: The plane flew humanitarian aid to Damascus after stopping for inspection in Turkey.
Israel expected to drive out Hezbollah in two weeks. Massive military equipment from that airport and carried south was not going to resupply Hezbollah.
Riiight, because there are no Hezbollah in Beirut, so nobody would be available to transfer the weapons to trucks.
Closer to the coastal war zone: Damascus or Beirut?
Well maybe they only had aluminum tubes in those crates.
"Illegal invasions of Cambodia, Laos..."
Communist propaganda trope alert. The Gulf of Tonkin was not, of course, an invasion, but a skirmish. Something put a hole in the C. Turner Joy, and I doubt any and all conspiracy theories about it. Communists shoot at Americans so routinely it's practically a stereotype.
"Murdering Maronites and Druze?" First I've heard of it. Nah, tw, you'll prostitute your integrity to any imaginable degree, just because you don't believe democracies are an improvement over nondemocracies. That is why your brain is sick, and you exhibit your symptoms in all your posts. You live in a democracy, you jerk.
Actually, any ground-attack platform can carpet-bomb. It's a mere matter of piling enough explosives densely enough onto a target position. Submunition weapons, which are to carpet bombing what a throw rug is to wall-to-wall, are a more weapon-efficient tool for carpet bombing, and you can find references to trying to clear unexploded submunitions out of the battle areas in today's newspapers -- an AP wire, for instance, headlined "Explosives pose danger to refugees returning to south Lebanon."
The Gulf of Tonkin was not, of course, an invasion, but a skirmish.
The Gulf of Tonkin was a hoax...:rolleyes:
Carpet bombs are old fashioned, it´s cluster bombs today.
N-Ireland somehow found a way out of the quigmire. Not by bombing Ireland or the UK, but by negotiation, even if that means that one need to talk to (former) terrorists..
I agreed with most of what you said, but in fairness, I really don't think we'd have gone to the table had they not lobbed the odd bomb in our direction.
I remember every Christmas we'd get a tad worried on the mainland. The IRA usually phoned through warnings to give a chance for evacuation, but occassionally things went wrong. Several times, when I was working in a shopping centre we were evacuated due to bomb threats (false). It was damnably inconvenient and hurt the Christmas trade quite badly.
Hippikos, one thing I do as a matter of policy is disbelieve conspiracy theories, especially conspiracy theories wrt wars between the United States and the unfreeworlders.
Conspiracy theory by nature is never the simplest nor the most coherent explanation of events. It's a product of frustrated romanticism, and habitually attributes to ongoing malice what is more simply accounted for by, well, stupidity. Remember that in politics, sometimes all that is presented is a choice of blunders.
Occam's Razor can't always be applied, especially in the Middle east. It's way more complicated than white hats/black hats. Just ask a painter how many whites and blacks there are, to get a feel for it. :lol:
unfreeworlders
Approaching Unfreeworld. Raise shields and open a communications channel!
The theory lies in the revelation that LBJ said to McNamara "When we got through with all the firing, we concluded maybe they hadn't fired at all." Kind of Swift Boat Lies avant la lettre.
Remember that in politics, sometimes all that is presented is a choice of blunders.
Which is painfully visible in the ME currently .
I've never met a conspiracy theory that wasn't cut to shreds by Occam's Razor.
I believe the Swifties, for I have not heard they have been refuted on any point of fact. And nobody remembers processing Kerry's Purple Heart citations, either.
Dana, just where do you come off sneering and smartassing? Have you ever lived in a totalitarian society, sister? I have. I didn't like it, and count myself fortunate that I had the option to quit. The lesson it taught me was that while there are places for totalitarian organizations within a society -- armies, whose totalitarian organization permits them to function even when heavily damaged -- that it is absolutely no way to organize a nation that's worth living in.
Too many people around here have never even tried to discover this for themselves. The least you could bloody do is reread 1984.
I believe the Swifties, for I have not heard they have been refuted on any point of fact. And nobody remembers processing Kerry's Purple Heart citations, either.
Well, here ya goIn two posts in this thread, and one post in another thread, tw suggests that Israel bombs Red Cross ambulances.
In #276 he said
Instead Israel declared anyone in Lebanon as Hezbollah and attack everyone in Lebanon - including intentional attacks on well marked Red Cross ambulances. Not just Red Crescent. Israel also routinely attacks well marked Red Crosses.
Well marked, he says twice. That suggests that he saw this
widely-circulated picture, which the IDF missile hit right smack in the middle of the cross:
Unforgettable, no?
Guess what.
http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/
The Red Cross Ambulance Incident was perhaps the most damning of all the evidence against Israel, and the most morally indefensible. Other incidents were open to debate: in those cases where Israel bombed buildings that turned out to have civilians inside, Israel claimed either that it didn't know the building was occupied, or that it was trying to hit a Hezbollah stronghold elsewhere in the same building; or that the strike was a mistake, an errant missile. But targeting clearly marked ambulances, and hitting them directly -- there's no possible excuse for that. So this specific incident contributed to the outrage over the war, eventually causing Israel to stand down.
Which makes it all the more shocking to learn that the attack on the ambulances most likely never occurred, and that the "evidence" supporting the claim is in fact a hoax.
Read the original article and you will not doubt what they say.
Once again the entire thing is a setup.
I love the internet. Good find UT.
As they said, all the death were actors and the destroyed buildings probably had gas leaks. UT, could you pls find any blog to prove that?
Also these cluster bombs stories are a hoax, they're just tennis balls for the kids to play with.
Actually these Hezbollywood stories reminds me of all the holocaust denial websites.
The difference?
Hezbollah (and associated anti-israel groups), as a terrorist organization, has the goal, not of killing every enemy, but of pressuring the enemy into surrendering... or tricking/persuading every neutral party into pressuring the enemy into surrender.
Actually these Hezbollywood stories reminds me of all the holocaust denial websites.
The ones you started, or just the ones you regularly visit?
You don't suppose Karl Rove has flipped do you? He's been pretty low profile lately and this Islamic spin machine resembles his work. :eyebrow:
The ones you started, or just the ones you regularly visit?
Innuendo is not an answer to my questions UT. Denial is denial. The pattern is obvious. I'm looking forward to your blogsites refuting the Lebanon destruction.
Innuendo is not an answer to my questions UT. Denial is denial. The pattern is obvious. I'm looking forward to your blogsites refuting the Lebanon destruction.
You're completely right, denial is denial. The thing is, nobody's denying that lebanon's getting (was getting) pummelled. People ARE exposing hisballah's fake pictures and staged photo ops. The fact that hisballah is faking and staging DOES detract from the enormity of the destruction, because since so many fakes have been exposed, people are starting to view all photos from the conflict suspiciously. Yes, shit is (was) happening. But that doesn't mean hisballah isn't faking and staging pictures. The task is to seperate the fakes from the reality.
You're completely right, denial is denial. The thing is, nobody's denying that lebanon's getting (was getting) pummelled. People ARE exposing hisballah's fake pictures and staged photo ops. The fact that hisballah is faking and staging DOES detract from the enormity of the destruction, because since so many fakes have been exposed, people are starting to view all photos from the conflict suspiciously. Yes, shit is (was) happening. But that doesn't mean hisballah isn't faking and staging pictures. The task is to seperate the fakes from the reality.
I would add that the shit that was happening to Lebanon was entirely because Hezbollah was hiding behind women and children in residential neighborhoods. That proves they are cowards.
The faked photos prove they are liars.
I'm not a fan of Israel's disproportionate response to having two men captured, but Hezbollah is far worse than Israel.
Fox News' Brit Hume mentioned that Fox found the hole in the middle of the cross to have been previously occupied by a roof vent.
And ol' tw got caught with his anti-Semite pants down, did he? Glee. One is shocked, shocked.
Headsplice: it's an okay recounting of the Left's anti-Swiftie propaganda effort, but something is conspicuous by its absence: any indication that anybody besides John Kerry processed those Purple Heart Citations. Vapor-cites, no? Glossed over, at any rate. It's not going to persuade those skeptical of Kerry, and really suffices only for people who spell "Republican" as D-E-V-I-L.
but something is conspicuous by its absence: any indication that anybody besides John Kerry processed those Purple Heart Citations.
That's because that has never been in question. It's not worth refuting something that was never even raised.
I would add that the shit that was happening to Lebanon was entirely because Hezbollah was hiding behind women and children in residential neighborhoods. That proves they are cowards.
They are just "Family Oriented". :lol2:
Fox News' Brit Hume mentioned that Fox found the hole in the middle of the cross to have been previously occupied by a roof vent.
We now know that UG does not rewrite history when it is convenient. Apparently someone else does it for him.
Meanwhile, Red Cross and Red Crescent workers who were shot at by Israeli planes are also lying? That is UT's bottom line. Israelis wearing white yarmulke would not do that. Therefore UT searched extensively for counterfeit pictures - always counterfeited by evil Arabs.
Next question is whether cluster bombs were used on civilian populations in hundreds of locations – or will we have another Valerie Plame incident where honest investigators instead are accused. BTW, this is how McCarthyism started - where honest people are attacked by extremists. Where many citizens blindly look for proof of their opinons rather than learn realities. A Nixonian crime spun into innocence and the majority of Americans back then denied it repeatedly. Amazing. George Jr can even promote torture and no one cares. This is how great powers become pariah. Step by step the government becomes more like UG – history routinely rewritten when convenient.
Dana, just where do you come off sneering and smartassing? Have you ever lived in a totalitarian society, sister? I have. I didn't like it, and count myself fortunate that I had the option to quit. The lesson it taught me was that while there are places for totalitarian organizations within a society -- armies, whose totalitarian organization permits them to function even when heavily damaged -- that it is absolutely no way to organize a nation that's worth living in.
Too many people around here have never even tried to discover this for themselves. The least you could bloody do is reread 1984.
First off
brother I don't need to live in a totalitarian society in order to have a viewpoint. Secondly, I don't recall ever advocating a totalitarian society as a good place to live think you may be referring to my wanting not to live in a totalitarian world where only American values were deemed acceptable. And last but not least, I've read 1984 very recently thankyou. I could recite much of it to you verbatim. Animal Farm too. I'm a huge George Orwell fan. Might I remind you that it was a piece of fiction. Well written an with some very good points to make, but fiction nonetheless.
Of course I suspect old Georgey Boy may well have recognised his tale in our current permanent enemy and permanent war. We have always been at war with Saddam. We have always been at war with Islam. Giving up civil liberties will protect our freedom. The victim is the perpetrator. bb speak malreported Iraq rectify. Miniplenty malquoted chocolate rectify. Welcome to new speak.
The task is to seperate the fakes from the reality.
The task: view the big picture. Do not be sidetracked - as UT would have us all do - by a staged or suspect picture. Reality is that Israelis attacked all of Lebanon including Red Cross and Red Crescent convoys. Anyone anywhere in Lebanon was threatened by Israeli attack - even in Akkar province. Notice how UT ignores that
post which contradicts his speculations. A post that addresses the big picture; is ignored by hyping a faked picture as proof that Israelis wear white.
Pathetic leadership from Olmert’s government should have been obvious to every Israeli weeks ago. Those looking at a big picture would have discussed same here in The Cellar. Israelis citizens are only just starting to question; returning troops reporting poor strategic decision making. So poor that even infantryman knew it. So pathetic that Israel even attacked 90% of Lebanon that was not Hezbollah as if that would liberate two kidnapped soldiers. Oh. We forgot about those soldiers – and we forget reasons why Hezbollah exists. This again because we let minutia sidetrack us. Minuta and myths such as Hezbollah want to kill Americans AND photoshopped pictures. Clearly all Arabs are evil – when we ignore facts from the big picture.
An agenda justified by minutia; created because reality –
the big picture – is completely ignored. Israeli attacked all of Lebanon – for reasons that just don’t make sense and that may bring back extremist Likud.
The task: view the big picture. ~ big snip
I can't see the "big picture", because it's too big, too complicated, not to mention changing too fast, for even people dedicating their life to it to understand.
You think you see it but all your seeing is Cliff's Notes....and hoping Cliff sees the big picture. I'm betting he doesn't either.
People who have a life, people who work for a living, people who have responsibilities, don't have the time to dedicate to the big picture. That's why we hire people to take care of international affairs.
The stories about the faked media reports is an important caution to eye all news reports with a discerning eye.....even Cliff's. ;)
The stories about the faked media reports is an important caution to eye all news reports with a discerning eye.
So you believe UT who insists Israelis were not attacking any ambulances. So you believe those Red Cross and Red Crescent workers were lying about being attacked? So that convoy of hundreds of Israeli attacked refugees north of the Latani River did not happen?
The big picture: Israeli attacked all of Lebanon right up to the most northern province of Akkar, for reasons that just don’t make sense and that may bring back extremist Likud. What is so complicated about? Are you saying Israel did not attack all Lebanon? Are you suggesting that all pictures of Lebanon damage are photoshopped forgeries? Are you claiming the investigation of cluster bombs used in hundreds of locations never existed?
Big picture is not complex. Hezbollah kidnapped two Israeli soldiers as done previously to liberate prisoners. But this time, Israel attacked all of Lebanon for confused reasons. Details and reason why may be confusing. But a big picture is straight forward - and irrelevant to some fraudulent pictures. Israeli attacked all of Lebanon – for reasons that just don’t make sense and that may bring back extremist Likud.
Some photos are photoshopped. It happens as will always happen. Does that mean all or even most pictures are photoshopped? Not for one minute. All sides promote propaganda. Photoshopped pictures are important to Rush Limbaugh types - because fakes and frauds are promoted everyday even on your TV. That does not change the big picture: Israel attacked all of Lebanon for mysterious and confused reasons. Israeli leadership was so confused and indecisive that Olmert's government may fall.
Oh calm the fuck down, and stop accusing me of not believing this and that.
You really don't think this little shoot out in Lebanon is the "big picture", it's just a piece, but you know that. You haven't forgotten the Brotherhood, so soon. A satellite couldn't see the area the big picture encompasses.
Saying Israel attacked for "mysterious and confused reasons" just helps make my point, it's too big, too complicated and changing too fast, for anyone to understand it all.
Bringing to light any manipulation of the "free" press is important, because you can't tell the players without a program. If they're messing with the program then we have to be cautious of everything reported.
Nobody with half a brain is going to dismiss all reports and photographs, because of those faked and photoshopped ones, but it gives us a better picture of which news sources are more or less trustworthy. :chill:
{UT}who insists Israelis were not attacking any ambulances.
See how tw has characterized what I've presented; apply that to how tw has characterized the entire situation.
Oh calm the fuck down,
I asked your adult brain a question. Why did I get your childish and abusive side? Answer the question - a straight and logical question - without childish emotions. Answer the question as it was posted - logically.
Meanwhile you owe everyone an apology for posting perverted and irrelevant language, and for replying emotionally.
See how tw has characterized what I've presented; apply that to how tw has characterized the entire situation.
A logical response is to offer corrections. Where is the fault? And why do you routinely avoid the big picture? Israel attacked all of Lebanon for mysterious and confused reasons. Israeli leadership was so confused and indecisive that Olmert's government may fall.
Instead UT posts examples of propaganda. My goodness. They advertised hair tonic on TV and it was a lie. That clearly makes Israel's actions irrelevant? A picture was photoshopped. That means those Red Cross and Red Crescent testimonies of being attacked are lies?
UT - why do you post in black and white? Why do Israelis in your world always wear white? Characterize? Show me where you once acknowledge, for example, the Israeli arranged massacre of 5000 Palestinian women and children?
Nobody with half a brain is going to dismiss all reports and photographs, because of those faked and photoshopped ones, but it gives us a better picture of which news sources are more or less trustworthy.
Those fakes and photoshopped pictures only tell us that propagandists are still alive and doing well. Meanwhile, UT denies that Israelis attacked 90% of innocent Lebanese. And that is the big picture. Why did Olmert's government think for one minute that it would accomplish something useful? A decision so flawed that it might mean an end of Olmert's government and the return of Likud. That is the big picture. Photoshopped pictures? An interesting sidebar and not relevant to what and why Lebanon (ie Beirut Airport) was attacked by Israel. That is the big picture. What Israel did to Lebanon, and questions that ask why.
I asked your adult brain a question. Why did I get your childish and abusive side? Answer the question - a straight and logical question -without childish emotions. Answer the question as it was posted - logically.
I said...
The stories about the faked media reports is an important caution to eye all news reports with a discerning eye.
Which you completely twisted to...
So you believe UT who insists Israelis were not attacking any ambulances. So you believe those Red Cross and Red Crescent workers were lying about being attacked? So that convoy of hundreds of Israeli attacked refugees north of the Latani River did not happen?
Can you get it through your adult brain that I didn't say, or infer, or imply, or suggest, any of those things. I said the provable, faked media reports are a warning to be discerning of all reports. That's all, nothing more.
Meanwhile you owe everyone an apology for posting perverted and irrelevant language, and for replying emotionally.
Abusive? You ain't seen nothing yet, so don't push it.
Apology? When you trek the frozen wastes of Hell to build a shrine MBAs and George Bush, you'll get a fucking apology.:rtfm:
The stories about the faked media reports is an important caution to eye all news reports with a discerning eye.
To which I replied
All sides promote propaganda. Photoshopped pictures are important to Rush Limbaugh types - because fakes and frauds are promoted everyday even on your TV.
and
An interesting sidebar and not relevant to what and why Lebanon (ie Beirut Airport) was attacked by Israel.
Apparently while using four letter words, you ignored replies. Use of four letter words suggests you were being foolishly emotional during that reply. The four letter word provides no useful content other than to say you are angry – a totally useless and emotional response common to those who cannot defend their opinion.
Photoshopped and fake pictures are only propaganda - nothing more. Propaganda is not for one minute relevant to the big picture.
Of course, we also treasure staged photographs. That picture of Marines raising a flag over Iwo Jima was staged. No photograph exists when the real event happened one day earlier. Why is that 'fraud' not important? Because the fraud - a faked photo - is totally irrelevant to what happened on Iwo Jima. The fraud represents the big picture.
Worry about such trivia (fraudulent pictures) only to avoid the big picture. Hyping nonsense about a staged picture is a Rush Limbaugh technique to spin away from embarrassing reality – the big picture.
The big picture: Israel attacked all of Lebanon for mysterious and confused reasons. Israeli leadership was so confused and indecisive that Olmert's government may fall.
Those fakes and photoshopped pictures only tell us that propagandists are still alive and doing well. Meanwhile, UT denies that Israelis attacked 90% of innocent Lebanese. And that is the big picture. ~snip
If that's your big picture, your camera is too small. Either open your aperture or stand further back because there's a hell of a lot more actors in the play, than Israel and Hezbollah doing their dance, center stage.
You, yourself, said The White House ordered Israel to attack. We know Iran and Syria are part of the picture and probably many more we don't know for sure.
Everyone in the World has a stake in the Middle East turmoil.... some of them choose to drive that stake into the flesh of whomever they perceive as being against their own interests. :2cents:
If that's your big picture, your camera is too small. Either open your aperture or stand further back because there's a hell of a lot more actors in the play, than Israel and Hezbollah doing their dance, center stage.
You, yourself, said The White House ordered Israel to attack. We know Iran and Syria are part of the picture and probably many more we don't know for sure.
Everyone in the World has a stake in the Middle East turmoil.... some of them choose to drive that stake into the flesh of whomever they perceive as being against their own interests. :2cents:
I did not say America ordered the attack. But Israel needed (or at least desired) American permission to conduct the seventh invasion of Lebanon. American support would be essential to running interference in the UN and elsewhere. But even the US is but a sidebar to the big picture.
Syria and Iran are about as relevant to the Israeli Hezbollah conflict as the US was to the IRA / UK war and "Bloody Sunday". This latest conflict was a battle between Hezbollah - a militia created to drive Israel out of Lebanon - and Israel. Israel, for confused and mysterious reasons tried to drag the Lebanon Army into the conflict by attacking all of Lebanon.
Propagandists have spun myths of Syria and Iran pulling strings on a puppet called Hezbollah. Nonsense. Total nonsense. Valid only if the US sponsored IRA terrorism in the UK. Again, Syria and Iran exist only in propaganda to divert attention away from a big picture. The big picture is Hezbollah and Israel where the latter tried to drag others into a quagmire.
You are letting propaganda keep you from the complex issue. What was Israel doing attacking all of Lebanon with airplanes when their problem was only in 20 miles south of the Latani river? Why did Israel violate good military doctrine and not send in ground troops for so long? Those questions are complex. Peripheral issues such as Syria, Iran, etc are nonsense only promoted by propagandists who are alive, well, and very active.
To which I replied and Apparently while using four letter words, you ignored replies. Use of four letter words suggests you were being foolishly emotional during that reply. The four letter word provides no useful content other than to say you are angry – a totally useless and emotional response common to those who cannot defend their opinion.
Yes, I ignored the part of the post where you agreed that the news media should not be believed as the absolute truth. Why would I?
I only responded to your accusations of positions I'd never expressed.
Are you aware calling people "childish" and "emotional", had labeled you as a bullshit artist, trying to discredit anyone that disagrees, Mr Limbaugh? :eyebrow:
I did not say America ordered the attack.
:rotflol: You're a lying motherfucker.
:rotflol: You're a lying motherfucker.
Your right. I said you were using four letter words. Twelve letter words just don't qualify as an accurate statement. I erred by a factor of three. Seek numerical facts.
Nasrallah has stated that he was completely surprised by the reaction of Israel to the kidnapping of the 2 soldiers. In fact if he knew he would have never done it. So the conspiracy of Iran being behind the attack is utter bull and the usual spin neocons want to give it on their road to Tehran.
Negotiation through Italy is now taken place for the exchange of the 2 kidnapped Israeli soldiers and Lebanese prisoners. Back to basics again.
Result of Olmerts and Peretz ridiculous, disproportional and irressponsible pre-emptive war?
1) The orginial trade of prisoners will take place aftr all (also in Gaza).
2) Lebanon is bombed back to stone age
3) More than 1000 Lebanese and 47 Israeli civilians die
4) Nasrallah is da man in the ME now and winning the hearts of the Lebanese
5) The Cedar revolution is in shedders
6) Olmert and Peretz may well fear for their position
7) Again, we see here another failure of a neocon pre-emptive war
Nasrallah has stated that ...
Think that maybe he's trying to smooth things over with his countyrmen for political gain?
He's the head of the organization that stages and fakes photos. They are proven liars. He may very well be telling the truth, but the problem with liars is that you can't trust anything they say.
Nasrallah has stated that he was completely surprised by the reaction of Israel to the kidnapping of the 2 soldiers. In fact if he knew he would have never done it. So the conspiracy of Iran being behind the attack is utter bull and the usual spin neocons want to give it on their road to Tehran.
I can't see that conclusion. It's more like "Sorry Tehran, I really blew it." WSJ editorial from (the very biased) Amir Taheri:
Hezbollah Didn't Win: Arab writers are beginning to lift the veil on what really happened in Lebanon:
The Green Flood {of reconstruction money} has been unleashed to silence criticism of Mr. Nasrallah and his masters in Tehran. But the trick does not seem to be working. "If Hezbollah won a victory, it was a Pyrrhic one," says Walid Abi-Mershed, a leading Lebanese columnist. "They made Lebanon pay too high a price--for which they must be held accountable."
Hezbollah is also criticized from within the Lebanese Shiite community, which accounts for some 40% of the population. Sayyed Ali al-Amin, the grand old man of Lebanese Shiism, has broken years of silence to criticize Hezbollah for provoking the war, and called for its disarmament. In an interview granted to the Beirut An-Nahar, he rejected the claim that Hezbollah represented the whole of the Shiite community. "I don't believe Hezbollah asked the Shiite community what they thought about [starting the] war," Mr. al-Amin said. "The fact that the masses [of Shiites] fled from the south is proof that they rejected the war. The Shiite community never gave anyone the right to wage war in its name."
There were even sharper attacks. Mona Fayed, a prominent Shiite academic in Beirut, wrote an article also published by An-Nahar last week. She asks: Who is a Shiite in Lebanon today? She provides a sarcastic answer: A Shiite is he who takes his instructions from Iran, terrorizes fellow believers into silence, and leads the nation into catastrophe without consulting anyone. Another academic, Zubair Abboud, writing in Elaph, a popular Arabic-language online newspaper, attacks Hezbollah as "one of the worst things to happen to Arabs in a long time." He accuses Mr. Nasrallah of risking Lebanon's existence in the service of Iran's regional ambitions.
8)
Siniora wants a peace treaty with Israel. This has never happened before.
I can't see that conclusion. It's more like "Sorry Tehran, I really blew it."
Tone and intent of these sentences are Deja Vue Vietnam. A tone so similar that I am having flashbacks to that time. Ho Chi Minh was also a puppet of Moscow and Peking. Fools also blindly believed that propaganda - religiously. Religiously because, just like with Hezbollah, no facts justify that conclusion. Rush Limbaugh types tell them how to think. Propaganda or the Gospel – it must be blindly believed without question. They blindly believed the party line. Those who believe propaganda also will hype nonsense that Hezbollah (or the XYZ Liberation Front) is clearly a puppet of the evil Syria and Iran – as ordered by propagandists.
American propagandists are directing mental midgets among us to hate - just like Nam – just like in Nazi Germany. Reality. There never was a united evil front back in Nam. It was all created by 1960/70s propagandists. There was an American government that was lying to itself and all Americans - inventing and creating enemies everywhere. There is an American government today that is lying to itself and all Americans - inventing and creating enemies everywhere. Just like in Nam, we have this ‘united evil front’ - this time called Iran and Syria. It still amazes me how easily some are manipulated by classic lies and propaganda. But then so many also worship what they are told by Listerine ads.
It is not possible for propagandists to pervert thought if one views the world in terms of perspective. Propagandists are preaching to those who only see a world in 'black and white'. Who cannot read long posts, reports, books, etc - and yet somehow know because soundbyte logic is so simple. It is simplistic – therefore it must be the truth? Deja Vue Vietnam.
Still amazes me how easily some are easily perverted into conclusions without first learning facts. Classic Rush Limbaugh logic defines Hezbollah as a puppet of Iran and Syria. Classic Rush Limbaugh logic directed only to those who know - use sound byte reasoning - facts and logic be damn. Deja Vue Nam. Only the 'easy to manipulate' assume Iran and Syria are united and in agreement. The informed know that also could never exist between China and the USSR. Only the anti-Americans blindly believed N Viet Nam was a puppet of China and USSR – reality be damned. Blind is what one must be and must do to parrot the 'united evil front' called Syria and Iran. Classic Deja Vue Vietnam – with sentence that took me right back to that time. Exact same sentences are being rewritten by UT to promote a 'united evil front'. Classic 'black and white' / 'good verse evil' rationalization.
We were supposed to learn from history and Vietnam. Apparently not. Some blindly believe those same Vietnam era lies. Some blindly believe propaganda. Only the countries names have changed.
It's more like "Sorry Tehran, I really blew it."
Looking at what's currently going on Israel, it's rather Olmert who blew it...
With the same logic one can say that Olmert fought a proxy war for the US in Lebanon. Fact is that Bush and Rummy were very disapppointed about the performance of the IDF in Lebanon and eventually had to call it a truth when civillian death became too much of a PR burden...
Think that maybe he's trying to smooth things over with his countyrmen for political gain?
He's the head of the organization that stages and fakes photos. They are proven liars. He may very well be telling the truth, but the problem with liars is that you can't trust anything they say.
It takes two to tango...
Note that tw is unable to refute or even address the facts and information I've laid out. All he can address is the "tone" -- an entirely subjective aspect, addressing HOW I've said something but not WHAT I've said.
The rest of tw's post is directly pointed at me and not my argument, even though it was presented by a non-American, non-UT person in the Wall Street Journal and my part was a three-sentence introduction.
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument against the person") involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. It is a logical fallacy.With the same logic one can say that Olmert fought a proxy war for the US in Lebanon.
It's always instructive to see who says that and then hopes against hope for a punishing Israeli loss.
As Instapundit always says,
you're not anti-war... you're on the other side.Note that tw is unable to refute or even address the facts and information I've laid out.
What facts? You are doing exactly what was done to justify Vietnam. Replace Hezbollah with N Viet Nam. Replace Syria and Iran with China and Russia. Then we have the exact same sentences. Deja Vue. Your sentences are so Deja Vue that I was literally snapped back to that time when government and those who blindly supported it were liars.
Nothing about that is a personal attack on UT. Demonstrated is that UT is doing exactly what extremists did to promote the Vietnam war. It's called learning from history. Your logic demonstrated same mistakes that wasted so many of my generation.
Spin it all you want, UT. Fact remains those posts use exact same logic use by a US president to kill so many of my generation in a war where only America was the enemy. In a war where our allies roundly and accurately were critical of the American war. Again, Deja Vue. Hype and evil defined by myths about puppet organizations and a 'united evil front'. You are again dong 'black and white' reasoning. You have again failed to see the world in terms of perspectives.
If someone can tell me who one this by giving definitive gains over the losses incurred, I'll color myself impressed (which is sort of like paisley, only more so).
Oh now Lebanon is Vietnam! I thought Iraq was Vietnam.
They both can't be Vietnam.
You called Afghanistan Vietnam
here, after one day of bombing
Three very different situations with different types and levels of involvement. Take off your Nam-colored glasses.
Iraq is probably closest in that analogy. US boots deployed under false pretenses and thrown into combat conditions they're wildly unprepared for. Maybe.
Afghanistan is not AT ALL close. And the Israel/Lebanon thing? You might make the case that if the US had boots on the ground, it maybe would be sort of analogous to Korea, but Viet Nam? Pshaw.
And the fact is, Hezbollah is an Iranian creation. The were trained and funded by Iranians, and support and material are funneled through Syria. Actually, the most interesting argument that I've heard is that Iran uses Hezbollah as a counter to US interests in the region. If the US attacks Iran (and the wardrums are already rolling), Hezbollah launches a counter-attack against a US ally.
Oh now Lebanon is Vietnam! I thought Iraq was Vietnam.
They both can't be Vietnam.
You called Afghanistan Vietnam here, after one day of bombing
Three very different situations with different types and levels of involvement. Take off your Nam-colored glasses.
They can all be Vietnam. Just not in the same way. Not that I think that they all are, but they certainly can be.
And he was pretty prescient in that Afghanistan post.
It's always instructive to see who says that and then hopes against hope for a punishing Israeli loss.
Totally irrelevant reasoning. I'm just elaborating the current political situation in Israel and in Lebanon. I do not even stated an opinion on that, just observing. Instructive to see you're twisting in every possible way to spin even the obvious. Houdini could learn from you.
As Instapundit always says, you're not anti-war... you're on the other side.
Yep, the same biggot-minded quote as Junior's "You're either with us or against us".
Iraq has all the symptoms of the Vietnam quigmire. Only diehards won't see that.
We were talking about Lebanon.
Instructive to see you're twisting in every possible way to spin even the obvious. Houdini could learn from you.
Yep, the same biggot-minded quote as Junior's "You're either with us or against us".
Damn it. I really hate the way you argue, Hip.
Those two sentences make me want to argue against you even when I agree with you, simply because you steer away from what are good points into name-calling.
Sorry to have ruffled your feathers head, but as they say you can't please em all... ;)
We were talking about Lebanon.
I was referring to an earlier message, probably should have quoted that.
Lebanon is Israels Vietnam, that's why they pulled out in 2000.
Afghanistan war was totally justified, the whole world was behind the US. Most unfortunate the US fumbled the ball in Afghanistan and let all the major players escape. If the US had investigated even a quarter of the Iraq recources into Afghanistan than the world probably would be a safer place.
You called Afghanistan Vietnam here, after one day of bombing
UT, you amaze me with how your eyes glaze over when thoughts are longer than a soundbyte. You even confuse 'lessons from Vietnam' with 'what is Vietnam'. Or do you do this only to argue?
You cite a post that accurately warned of consequences in Afghanistan as learned in Vietnam and as Colin Powel was so careful to avoid in Kuwait. One overlooked point is soundbyted:
However now that we went in with all guns blazing, we ... have a very limited time to get those murders. We must now succeed in weeks or suffer long term consequences.
Well we are now suffering those long term consequences. For example, bin Laden lives because - well it was predicted back in Oct 2001. Taliban has retaken half of Afghanistan and is growing in popularity. And somehow we even ignored the strategic objective - and are therefore bogged down in two wars that we cannot win (using current leadership that ran from rabbit hole to rabbit hole).
How sophisticated were we? We entered with guns blazing and then stopped when it was time to commit.
What matters now is how quickly we resolve our objectives - either the capture of Al Qaeda or the replacement of the Taliban government by responsible, third party Afghanistans.
Having used a conspicuous and flagrant response, we have now severely limited time to resolve the crisis. That big show better have solve[d] the problem up front. Unfortunately the response reeks too much of a VietNam type mentality - where every intelligence service said there were no targets worth attacking - but we bombed anyway.
So instead we bombed Tora Bora rather than send in troops. Bin Laden was saved by Washington politicians who used bombing rather than send in ground troops. Just another Vietnam lesson lost. Leaders who would not even send in Americans to get bin Laden until some CIA agents did it on their own initative - without orders. Deja Vue Vietnam.
UT, did you even understand what was posted there? Even in Afghanistan, we violated lessons from Vietnam. Therefore bin Laden lives.
Perspective without PicturesOur leadership cannot see the bigger picture or even provide leadership. A leader would have returned to Washington rather than fly from rabbit hole to rabbit hole, indecisive, until suddenly while safely in Nebraska, he realized he was not being presidential. This is a decisive leader? No. This is also the leadership that drives moderates to support extremist positions.
Posted on 11 September and referenced in your citation. Notice the accuracy of that five year old post.
Emotion, especially right now, will create disasters larger than anything small like a WTC collapse. It is time to start taking stock of who are the extremists, who are the moderates, and who really is the enemy. IOW now more than ever is the time to start thinking dry, boring, and logical. Now is the time for leaders to act more as leaders.
Instead bin Laden lives simply because we did not have the leadership to get in, get the job done, and get out. Somehow the strategic objective got lost and therefore so did an exit strategy. Above quote was posted 12 September 2001. Somehow we instead blamed and attacked Saddam a year later because, even in The Cellar, too many did not take a "dry, boring, and logical" approach. Review responses back then. Posted was not popular. But the warnings were accurate.
"Mission Accomplished". Notice how early on the leadership vacuum in America was identified by simply using facts. Notice warnings traceable to the lessons from Vietnam. Deja Vue Vietnam because the lessons of history were not learned - including an essential need for a strategic objective.
The lessons of Vietnam were violated in Afghanistan. Tora Bora is a classic example of lessons not learned and that "85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management".
Sorry to have ruffled your feathers head, but as they say you can't please em all... ;)
Afghanistan war was totally justified, the whole world was behind the US. Most unfortunate the US fumbled the ball in Afghanistan and let all the major players escape. If the US had investigated even a quarter of the Iraq recources into Afghanistan than the world probably would be a safer place.
One, if you're actually trying to convince someone, calling them names probably isn't going to work.
Two, agreed. Afghanistan got boned by us redeploying to Iraq. I'm pretty embarrassed about that one, as should most Americans.
EDIT: Damnit, I'm irritated and I'm going to completely go grammar/spelling police:
It's deja vu, not Deja Vue. It's French and not a proper noun.
2nd EDIT: Calling something Vietnam and saying that we violated lessons that should have been learned in Vietnam are two totally seperate things, tw. Switching arguments mid-stride is a nincompoop move.
I agree with most of that tw, and you were right and I was wrong about a lot of things, but the Vietnam analogy is tired and thin now, having been stretched by you to apply to all of the M.E. and most of middle Asia.
There were lessons to be learned from all of history.
This piece points out the question: what year is it in the war on terror? Let's see if I can summarize it:
[FONT=Georgia][SIZE=2][SIZE=2]-- There are five major schools of thought on this question, beginning with the "1942ists," who believe that we stand in Iraq today where the U.S. stood shortly after Pearl Harbor: bogged down against a fascist enemy and duty-bound to carry on the fight to victory.
[/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Georgia][SIZE=2][SIZE=2]-- Over the last year, though, many conservatives have been peeling away from '42ism, joining the "1938ists" instead, for whom Iran's march toward nuclear power is the equivalent of Hitler's 1930s brinkmanship.
[/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Georgia][SIZE=2][SIZE=2][SIZE=2]-- Most of the liberal ex-'42ists have joined up with the "1948ists," who share the '42ist and '38ist view of the war on terror as a major generational challenge, but insist that we should think about it in terms of Cold War-style containment and multilateralism, not Iraq-style pre-emption.
[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Georgia][SIZE=2][SIZE=2][SIZE=2]-- What unites the '48ists, too, is a desire to avoid being tarred as antiwar leftists. This is precisely the position that the "1972ists" embrace. '72ism has few mainstream politicians behind it, but a great many Americans, and it holds that George Bush is Nixon, Iraq is Vietnam, and that any attack on Iran or Syria would be equivalent to bombing Cambodia.
[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT][SIZE=2][SIZE=2][SIZE=2][FONT=Georgia]-- As 1972ists are to mainstream liberalism, the "1919ists" are to the political right: The old-guard faction that damns its own party's leaders as sellouts to the other side.
[/FONT]
Article has more detail. And ends with a sixth possibility:
[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][FONT=Georgia][SIZE=2][SIZE=2][SIZE=2]-- But as our crisis deepens, it's worth considering 1914ism, and with it the possibility that all of us, whatever year we think it is, are poised on the edge of an abyss that nobody saw coming.[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT]
Of course, the problem with historical analogies are that they are just that: analogies. The situations aren't identical and need to be dealt with in completely different fashions.
Most blatantly: we aren't fighting a nation-state.
... the Vietnam analogy is tired and thin now, having been stretched by you to apply to all of the M.E. and most of middle Asia.
The Vietnam analogy is really lesson after lesson about how not to conduct a war. I can think of no war where every major principle was violated starting with no strategic objective, no smoking gun, no exit strategy, Domino theory, propaganda, whistleblowing that exposed that propaganda (Pentagon papers), etc. I cannot think of another war where the attacking nation was so much its own worse enemy ("We have met the enemy and he is us")
Latest issue of The Economist demonstrates a same problem in Israel's leadership:
Victory is not a matter of seizing territory, Dan Halutz once explained. It is a matter of “consciousness”. And air power, continued Israel's chief of staff, affects the adversary's consciousness significantly. Indeed, the very concept of the land battle is "anachronistic". Lieut-General Halutz, an air-force man, is said to have persuaded Israel's militarily inexperienced prime minister, Ehud Olmert, that the task of destroying Hizbullah in Lebanon was the perfect job for aircraft.
It did not quite work out that way. Yet the seductive idea that air power can provide swift victory with light casualties has been around almost as long as the aeroplane itself. ...
But when it comes to rooting out guerrillas and insurgents, wishful thinking still tends to outweigh technological capabilities. A study of the use of air power in small wars over the past century by James Corum and Wray Johnson, two former professors at the American air force's School of Advanced Airpower Studies, concluded that insurgents and terrorists "rarely present lucrative targets for aerial attack". Air power has been used to greatest effect in such campaigns only indirectly: to gather intelligence, move troops or maintain communication.
And as others besides the Israelis have found, trying to wage an air campaign against irregular forces is especially vulnerable to the backlash that invariably arises as civilian casualties mount.
Vietnam most demonstrated the fallacy of Air Power as a primary weapon. But The Economist goes back even to 1920 and Somaliland to demonstrated the myth. Vietnam, a war where fallacy after fallacy was promoted, is also the perfect example of why Air Power is only a support function. IOW those lessons (along with so many others from that war) are so important that Pentagon Papers is required history reading. Lessons so important as to even define Colin Powell's strategy for a Kuwait Liberation.
And so we have above but one in a long list of lessons from Vietnam.
What Year Is It? Is it 1918? Or 1972? Or 1948? is a most interesting article. Maybe only entertaining. Or like The Economist’s Big Mac Index, it contains a strong thread of reality. However one sentence struck me curiously.
Saddam and Zarqawi are the Hitlers and Tojos of our era
Problem is that Hitler and Tojo were real enemies. Saddam and Zarqawi were enemies hyped and promoted only by propaganda. Neither (of the latter) were the centralized leaders of a coordinated enemy - except where propaganda said otherwise. Both were promoted because propagandists could not even identify a real enemy. (Another problem created when a strategic objective does not exist). IOW the current war is chock full of mythical enemies as both China and USSR were the enemies in Vietnam, or as Gandhi was considered an enemy by the colonialist Churchill.
IOW where in that article are the 'year' when the enemy does not really exist? Where an enemy is really a mythical creation of the aggressor?
Returning to the Economist's 26 Aug 2006: "Air power An enduring illusion" :
General Halutz was said to have been strongly influenced by NATO's war of psychological pressure against Slobodan Milosevic, which aimed to force the Serb dictator to take a specific action - pull out of Kosovo and halt his ethnic cleansing - through an air campaign that kept ratcheting up the costs by destroying power plants, bridges, factories and other bits of infrastructure.
If he really believed this, then the Israeli general never learned why that use of air power by Richard Holbrook was so successful. Air power was not a principle tool. Military victory was only secondary. Air power only operated in a support function to something far more important than war or victory: the negotiations. Air power was a tool used by Holbrook to have Milosevic negotiate himself out of a job.
OK. This takes but one lesson from Vietnam one step farther. It demonstrates another useful support function of air power: how air power can be used in a tool in negotiation; 'carrot and stick' or 'Bugs Bunny' diplomacy. This because the negotiations - not victory - are more important (something that those with a 'big dic' mentality so often never learn).
Return to THE most critical aspect of all war - negotiations. In Hezbollah / Israel conflict are no negotiations. Even America does not talk to Hezbollah. In Iraq, America created enemies that America does not even talk to as that war is slowly being lost to an enemy that most Americans don't even understand (and not easily defined). In Iran, President Ahmadinejad, as even defined by a Wall Street analyst on this subject, is desperately asking (almost begging) for direct talks with the US on everything from pistachios to nuclear energy. We have that much to negotiate and still avoid negotiation; which makes war inevitable. In North Korea, we completely destroyed what negotiations were slowly achieving (defusing). And even in Vietnam, Nixon literally undermined Johnson's secret offer to N Vietnam for a truce. Nixon sent a message to Ho Chi Minh to not accept a truce since Nixon would offer him a better deal. Again, war inevitable because conflicting parties did not talk; did not even understand what the other side really wanted.
So where in that article does it define the 'year' where war is created by ignorance of the other, propaganda promoting the other as evil, and stupid insistence that negotiations cannot occur?
The stupid use of air power was one lesson from Vietnam. Reasons why wars are created - especially a refusal to talk - is but another reason. Propaganda where 'they must be evil' is but another lesson. Vietnam is chock full of example of why wars happen; when wars are futile; how wars become perverted and corrupted by propaganda, hate, and emotions; how wars using the world's strongest militaries and best weapons are lost (the strategic objective, a smoking gun, and an exit strategy); and especially the importance of negotiation.
I don't fool myself for one minute. I suspect this post went right over the heads of most readers. However it should, at minimum, introduce the lurker to how sophisticated an analysis should be long before war is advocated or even considered. By not having viewed war with such complexity, we had Vietnam, we have Iraq, we have a now losing effort in Afghanistan (a war where the smoking gun did exist), and we have the totally useless and wasteful seventh invasion of Lebanon by Israel.
In each case, these wars were avoidable, and the outcomes statistically predictable once an analysis gets this complex - using nothing more than basic geo-political-military lessons from history - especially Vietnam.
Again, it is why having not read the Pentagon Papers is akin to not yet learning why war is created and how war is so easily avoided (when a smoking gun does not exist). 1919ers, 1938ers, 1942ers, 1948ers, and 1972ers do not exist with this more complex perspective. I find that article amusing. But, as best I can tell, it does not define what does and does not justify war AND it does not even define simple principles from Vietnam (et al) including fallac uses of air power.
Vietnam is simply the best example of so many failed geo-political-military strategies and myths. Vietnam is chock full of why wars are promoted by the naive for rediculous, foolish, and wrong reasons.
One, if you're actually trying to convince someone, calling them names probably isn't going to work.
Agree. OK last thing abt this. If you look back, I was merely mirroring the message in kind, i.e. name calling is usually not my game.
Vietnam most demonstrated the fallacy of Air Power as a primary weapon.
Kosovo was the latest example. Serbia pulled out only when Russia took their hands of them, not the NATO air strikes made them. NATO military top brass were completely embarrassed when they saw Serbia's almost complete army pulling back.
Both Iran and NKorea want bilateral negotiations. It would make the world a much safer place. Iran actually would benefit from a stable ME. Khamenei has founded a special foreign committee in June 2006 besides Ahmadinjihad...oops Ahmadinejad in order to negotiate with the US. In fact with their nuclear program Iran is performing the carrot-and-stick policy now and not the US, because they are tied up in a strategical disastrous war in Iraq.
Lessons from every war is that the victor must plan for the peace long before war is over AND that the first year so determines how that peace will befall all parties. Well, because American leadership is based in mental midgets who did not even know basic concepts from 500 B.C. , Afghanistan is now obviously what was reported even here in the Cellar on November 2005 in
Morality and February 2006 in
Bush's Shrinking Safety Zone
From the BBC of 8 September 2006:
Afghan force 'needs more troops'
Brigadier Ed Butler said his troops were being attacked up to a dozen times a day but their morale remained high.
"The intensity and ferocity of the fighting is far greater than in Iraq on a daily basis," Brig Butler told the UK's ITV News programme.
He said British forces had been involved in "fighting that is up close and personal" that at times included hand-to-hand combat.
Earlier, Nato's top commander, Gen James Jones, said the alliance had been taken aback by the scale of violence in the region.
But he predicted that the coming weeks would be decisive in the fight against the insurgents.
Commanders on the ground had asked for several hundred additional troops and more helicopters and airlift, he said.
"We are talking about modest reinforcements," he told reporters at Nato European headquarters in Belgium.
20,000 NATO troops and it is no longer sufficient. BBC reporters traveled only 10 miles outside Kabul to interview large Taliban forces. "Mission Accomplished" is going that badly.
Are they Al Qaeda? Well if I opened a hardware store and wanted others to join my business, then I would call myself Sears Hardware, Home Depot, or Lowes. Everybody loves a winner - especially when George Jr fears to go after its leader five years later. Anyone who wants to hate America would call themselves Al Qaeda for obvious reasons. (Then a mental midget president lies; call them an international terrorist network.)
Afghanistan is now moving towards anything that is anti-American. Years after Afghanistan was conquered, the US did not even begin promised upgrades to Kabul's water system. Situation normal for a George Jr that sees all solutions only in military conquests. Welcome to another quagmire. And this time we dragged Europe and Canada into our mess.
"Misson Accomplished" or just another reason why 500,000 troops were needed. From the Washington Post of 11 Sept 2006:
Situation Called Dire in West Iraq
Anbar Is Lost Politically, Marine Analyst Says
The chief of intelligence for the Marine Corps in Iraq recently filed an unusual secret report concluding that the prospects for securing that country's western Anbar province are dim and that there is almost nothing the U.S. military can do to improve the political and social situation there, said several military officers and intelligence officials familiar with its contents.
The officials described Col. Pete Devlin's classified assessment of the dire state of Anbar as the first time that a senior U.S. military officer has filed so negative a report from Iraq.
One Army officer summarized it as arguing that in Anbar province, "We haven't been defeated militarily but we have been defeated politically - and that's where wars are won and lost."
The "very pessimistic" statement, as one Marine officer called it, was dated Aug. 16 and sent to Washington shortly after that, and has been discussed across the Pentagon and elsewhere in national security circles. "I don't know if it is a shock wave, but it's made people uncomfortable," said a Defense Department official who has read the report. ...
Another person familiar with the report said it describes Anbar as beyond repair; a third said it concludes that the United States has lost in Anbar.
Devlin offers a series of reasons for the situation, including a lack of U.S. and Iraqi troops, a problem that has dogged commanders since the fall of Baghdad more than three years ago, said people who have read it. These people said he reported that not only are military operations facing a stalemate, unable to extend and sustain security beyond the perimeters of their bases, but also local governments in the province have collapsed and the weak central government has almost no presence.
Those conclusions are striking because, even after four years of fighting an unexpectedly difficult war in Iraq, the U.S. military has tended to maintain an optimistic view: that its mission is difficult, but that progress is being made. Although CIA station chiefs in Baghdad have filed negative classified reports over the past several years, military intelligence officials have consistently been more positive, both in public statements and in internal reports.
Remember what Rumsfeld said repeatedly. US commanders had not asked him for more troops. So who do we beleive. A principle in the George Jr administrations - or commanders in the field.
Remember every General that had serviced in Iraq and then had retired had spoken out against this administration last year. Those who deal in reality took special note of that fact. Those who blindly worship extremists rhetoric from Rush Limbaugh, et al denied reality.
Let's see. Was it late 1967 that Vietnam's nothern provinces had been lost "and that there is almost nothing the U.S. military can do to improve the political and social situation". Making of a Quagmire.
From the NY Times of 14 Sept 2006:
An Unexpected Collision Over Detainees
At issue are definitions of what is permissible in trials and interrogations that both sides view as central to the character of the nation, the way the United States is perceived abroad and the rules of the game for what Mr. Bush has said will be a multigenerational battle against Islamic terrorists.
... stern opposition to the president being expressed by three Republicans with impeccable credentials on military matters: Senators John McCain of Arizona, John W. Warner of Virginia and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. The three were joined on Thursday by Colin L. Powell, formerly the secretary of state and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in challenging the administration’s approach. [Also joining to lead opposition is Susan Collins of Maine.]
It is one of those rare Congressional moments when the policy is as monumental as the politics.
On one side are the Republican veterans of the uniformed services, arguing that the president’s proposal would effectively gut the nearly 60-year-old Geneva Conventions, sending a dark signal to the rest of the world and leaving United States military without adequate protection against torture and mistreatment. ...
Brushing aside the objections of Mr. Bush and most of his Republican colleagues in Congress, Mr. Warner led the Senate Armed Services Committee to produce legislation on Thursday that would provide detainees with protections beyond those sought by Mr. Bush, setting up a collision with the House, where a measure approved by the administration is advancing.
House Republicans say the Senate plan is misguided and will hobble the American military. Representative Duncan Hunter, Republican of California and chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said it would lead to “the lawyer brigade” being attached to combat troops to counsel detainees.
Powell Breaks With Bush on Torture Issues
In a brief letter to Senator McCain objecting to the president’s call for tougher interrogations of suspected terrorists, General Powell not only stated his opposition but also took a swipe at the administration’s standing around the globe. “The world is beginning to doubt our moral basis for the war against terrorism,” he warned, recalling his support for the McCain amendment on detainee treatment last year.
Beginning?
Colin Powell's letter to John McCain.
Well understood, retired generals tend to voice the opinion of active duty generals (who obviously cannot say anything). Every General who had servied in Iraq and since retired has spoken out against this Administration's war. 26 Generals in a public letter said
We believe that the language that would redefine Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions as equivalent to the standards contained in the Detainee Treatment Act violates the core principles of the Geneva Conventions and poses a grave threat to American service-members, now and in future wars.
Of course. George Jr suddenly advocates this change (to define more aggressive torture) when the US Supreme Court on 29 Jun 2006 in a case involving bin Laden's chauffer, Hamdan, threw a slap into George Jr's face. This case and George Jr's response was summarized in
Has the Bush Doctrine failed? .
To continue torture, George Jr must define what torture is now legal and to provide CIA agents with even greater leeway to both torture and to restock those still not closed secret overseas prisons.
Senators Defy Bush On Terror Measure
McCain told reporters that Hayden wants Congress to give the CIA a virtually free hand to treat detainees as it wishes so that he and his agents will be immunized against accusations of unlawful conduct. "He's trying to protect his reputation at the risk of America's reputation," McCain said. The senator noted that other nations would be more likely to abuse U.S. captives if Americans appeared to sanction such conduct.
CIA agents can buy insurance from the government to cover prosecution from on-the-job activities. At about $2000 per year, the number of requests for such insurance has significantly increased as a result of this Supreme Court decision. Notice how torture prevented attacks on the Golden Gate Bridge and Prudential Insurance building. Typical of the many orange alerts when information was obtained by torture.
Bottom line: George Jr wants what any anti-American president wants. He wants torture made legal now that the Supreme Court said torture is not legal. He also wants laws passed so that the Supreme Court cannot rul on torture again. This is god's chosen and moral president - or "Nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition"?
Senators John McCain of Arizona, John W. Warner of Virginia and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. damn hippies! ;)
CIA agents can buy insurance from the government to cover prosecution from on-the-job activities. At about $2000 per year, the number of requests for such insurance has significantly increased as a result of this Supreme Court decision.
I read somewhere (Wash. Post?) recently that the $2000 per year for that insurance is reimbursed by the government. I was surprised by that fact. If it's true, then there's no wonder that the number of requests has increased. I'd get that insurace too if it was "free," and I don't torture anyone.
I read somewhere (Wash. Post?) recently that the $2000 per year for that insurance is reimbursed by the government.
I kept rereading the reports. It was not entirely clear who paid for the insurance. The articles said it was paid for by employees. There was no specific reference to reinbursement or other details.
But then why would the government reinburse a CIA agent for an insurance policy sold CIA employees only by the government?
I kept rereading the reports. It was not entirely clear who paid for the insurance. The articles said it was paid for by employees. There was no specific reference to reinbursement or other details.
But then why would the government reinburse a CIA agent for an insurance policy sold CIA employees only by the government?
It didn't make sense to me either, that's why it stuck out and I remembered it.
I just did a search on the Post's webpage and found the
article I read.
Worried CIA Officers Buy Legal Insurance
Plans Fund Defense In Anti-Terror Cases
By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 11, 2006; A01
CIA counterterrorism officers have signed up in growing numbers for a government-reimbursed, private insurance plan that would pay their civil judgments and legal expenses if they are sued or charged with criminal wrongdoing, according to current and former intelligence officials and others with knowledge of the program.
And buried deeper in that article (I didn't read that far because I had to catch a train) is this:
The insurance, costing about $300 a year, would pay as much as $200,000 toward legal expenses and $1 million in civil judgments. Since the late 1990s, the CIA's senior managers have been eligible for reimbursement of half the insurance premium.
So only 50% is reimbursed. I wouldn't buy it after all, since I don't torture anyone.
From Washington Post of 15 Sept 2006:
GOP Infighting on Detainees Intensifies
President Bush warned defiant Republican senators yesterday that he will close down a CIA interrogation program that he credited with thwarting terrorist attacks if they pass a proposal regulating detention of enemy combatants, escalating a politically charged battle that has exposed divisions within his party.
An irritated Bush, raising his voice and gesturing sharply at a Rose Garden news conference, excoriated legislation passed by a Senate panel Thursday that is intended to conform U.S. detainee practices with the Geneva Conventions. Bush insisted on legislation more specifically defining what is banned so intelligence officers would not worry about being charged with war crimes. ...
"Weakening the Geneva protections is not only unnecessary, but would set an example to other countries, with less respect for basic human rights, that they could issue their own legislative 'reinterpretations,' " McCain said in a written statement. "This puts our military personnel and others directly at risk in this and future wars."
From history, we know that McCain puts America before a political agenda. George Jr would even lie about WMDs - get America into wars - to promote a political agenda rather than America. Just another lesson from history. So which Republican should be believe?
Meanwhile, professional interrogators say torture does not provide useful information - no matter how George Jr spins it. Professional interrogators say being nice causes them to open up - sometimes intentionally and sometimes accidentally - to provide *accurate* information. Don't tell that to George Jr supporters who insist that torture is good - only because they know. Accurate information? Where are all these bombs in shipping containers? What happened to
latest terrorism alert was based primarily on information that is three to four years old, but they aggressively defended the decision to warn financial sectors in Washington, New York and Newark because of the continuing threat posed by al Qaeda. ... The alert Ridge issued on Sunday, ... that al Qaeda operatives had surveilled five buildings: the International Monetary Fund and World Bank headquarters in Washington; the New York Stock Exchange and Citigroup Center in New York; and the Prudential Financial building in Newark.
Yes torture is so effective if its purpose is to increase a president's popularity rating. Screw the Geneva convention. Its not even an American town. We must reelect Republicans with an approved attitude. Not those who forget and instead work for America.
George Jr knows that torture, secret prisions, international kidnapping, and no judicial review is essential to protection. But who is he protecting? The man who works for America or the one who would screw America for a political agenda? George Jr promotes torture.
I think Bush is dead wrong and we shouldn't be torturing anyone....period. But we may not agree on what constitutes torture.
We believe that the language that would redefine Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions as equivalent to the standards contained in the Detainee Treatment Act violates the core principles of the Geneva Conventions and poses a grave threat to American service-members, now and in future wars.
I feel that statement should be amended to say, ........and in future wars against regular uniformed armies representing real countries.
I don't believe these Islamic Militants give a tinkers damn about the Geneva Convention, rules of war or basic humanity.
That doesn't mean I endorse torturing them, only that we should expect it from them.:whip:
Every intelligence officer knows or should know that torture does not produce correct information, on the contrary, torture is counterproductive.
How many "intelligence officers" do you think the average terrorist/insurgent cell has? ;)
How many "intelligence officers" do you think the average terrorist/insurgent cell has? ;)
Plenty!
You must be including the the torturers and executioners.
Michael Yon tells us that intelligence between cells in Iraq is a problem for the insurgents. This causes overlap in effort and lack of information planning attacks, so they often hit the wrong target.
But I suppose it doesn't matter as long as they blow somebody up, anybody up.
Now there are so many cells in Baghdad they can use two tin cans and a string, but that said, I doubt if many of the cells have what the US Army would call "intelligence officers".:right:
George Jr said “Americans don’t do nation building”. And so three year later, America still provides less electricity than Saddam. Is this a nation that welcomes Americans? Americans always have electricity. But you would think things are so good based upon posts from others here.
Iraqi lives were getting better now with all this freedom. Freedom without basic services and with massive insecurity (street death and kidnapping) that did not occur when Saddam was in power. Clearly they welcome the invaders - as violence spreads even in Baghdad after even the striker brigade - abandoning Anwar province - was added to Baghdad occupation forces.
Described is what Iraqis are supposed to call ‘the good times’. From the NY Times of 25 Sept 2006:
As Iraqi Lights Flicker, ‘Generator Man’ Feels Heat
Iraq has three sources of electrical power. At the low end is the frail national grid, which provides only about one hour of electricity every four hours — a total of six hours a day — and sometimes less.
At the top is the small, personal-size generator, a feature in many homes, though the steadily rising cost of fuel now makes it a luxury for most families.
Filling the gap, and carrying the load for much of urban Iraq, is the generator man, owner and operator of the neighborhood power plant. Throughout Baghdad, for example, there is at least one generator every few blocks to help power nearby homes and businesses. …
In theory, the generator man provides 10 to 12 hours of power a day during periods of peak demand, seamlessly switching on when the national grid switches off.
And then we look at the numbers.
A subscription for about 10 amperes from the generator man — typical for an average middle-class family here in the capital — costs about $65 a month,
$65 means the richest Iraqis can afford this luxery. A country dependant on air conditioners. Ten amps will barely run a typical air conditioner - and nothing else.
Meanwhile American extremists have been telling us how Iraq has been getting better. They do this by forgetting to provide numbers. Under Saddam, air conditioners worked. Electricity even from obsolete equipment was provided.
Iraqis should be so happy. We installed new genarators. That was the propaganda. Reality - they have even less electricity. "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to loose."
Some in The Cellar have repeatedly said for years, "Iraq is getting better" - even though American do not do nation building. Somehow, a democratic government has made everything better. Deja Vue Vietnam. Where things did not start getting better until the Americans were driven out.
tw, you just got big points for Bobby McGee there.
From the International Herald Tribune on 5 Oct 2006:
China joins with critics of N. Korea
The Bush administration sent a direct message to North Korea on Wednesday, warning it not to set off a nuclear test, and later declared the United States was "not going to live with" a nuclear-armed North Korea.
The later statement came in a speech Wednesday by Christopher Hill, the assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs.
"We are not going to live with a nuclear North Korea, we are not going to accept it," he said, Reuters reported. Hill did not suggest what the U.S. response would be and gave no hint of an economic or military response. But in the speech on North Korea, he said: "It can have a future or it can have these weapons. It cannot have both."
How many times does George Jr draw a line in the sand, watch the line be crossed, do nothing, and then draw another line? North Korea claims to have conducted a nuclear test. George Jr only draws another sand line - empty threats.
Bush Says N. Korea Nuclear Test a Threat
Once again, North Korea has defied the will of the international community and the international community will respond," Bush said. ...
"The transfer of nuclear weapons or material by North Korea to states or non-state entities would be considered a grave threat to the United States," Bush said.
Another threat without consequences results in a term called 'paper tiger'. A smart leader would not make threats he obviously cannot backup with action. That is not even a bluff. A dumb leader bluffs so often that no one believes him. It says but again how toothless George Jr has made America. It says so much about the man's intellgence, his inability to even play poker, and that lying is so usual for George Jr.
It is a democracy. No intelligent person would say "I don't like the idea of NK having nuclear weapons, but I don't think I will really do anything about it" and expect to get elected. Even if he is severely against NK having nuclear arms, now would not be a good time since all the US troops are in Iraq.
Bush is a corrupted liar that is working to make the US a completely fascist country but he is in no way unintelligent.
Any non-American citizen even inside the US can be kidnapped, taken to secret prisons, torutured, and cannot even appeal for judicial review. It is now legal. Writ of Habeas Corpus was a cornerstone of American judicial review as defined by the Constitution. Because the Supreme Court, on 29 Jun 2006, made George Jr admit to torture, secret prisons, and kidnapping, then the mental midget got Congress to make kidnapping and torture legal. Bill S3930, that people such as MaggieL avvidly endorsed, now bans the US Supreme Court from protecting Universal Human Rights. Its open season on all non-Americans. MaggieL is not alone in avvidly loving torture.
From the Washington Post of 20 Oct 2006:
Court Told It Lacks Power in Detainee Cases
Moving quickly to implement the bill signed by President Bush this week that authorizes military trials of enemy combatants, the administration has formally notified the U.S. District Court here that it no longer has jurisdiction to consider hundreds of habeas corpus petitions filed by inmates at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba.
In a notice dated Wednesday, the Justice Department listed 196 pending habeas cases, some of which cover groups of detainees. The new Military Commissions Act (MCA), it said, provides that "no court, justice, or judge" can consider those petitions or other actions related to treatment or imprisonment filed by anyone designated as an enemy combatant, now or in the future.
Beyond those already imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay or elsewhere, the law applies to all non-U.S. citizens, including permanent U.S. residents.
How many in Guantanamo Bay are probably guilty? Eight definitely. Maybe as many as 40. And yet hundreds are held in direct violation of the Universal Declaration for Human Rights without even judicial review. Furthermore, hundreds more were finally released because of international pressure - and are not in prison anywhere because they were not guilty. One was a 13 year old boy. They were Muslim - nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition. Imprisoned for years because America now loves kidnapping and torture of anyone who is not an American citizen ... without judicial review.
...the law applies to all non-U.S. citizens, including permanent U.S. residents.
What are non-US citizen permanent residents? :confused:
You guys really should have gone to the programs at the Constitution Center last year when I
invited everyone.
Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus during the Civil War.
Bush thinks that he is Lincoln.
Logically, it makes sense that he would suspend HC.:(
Did anyone see a TV movie called 'The Second Civil War'. Phil Hartman plays a president who can't make his own decisions. At the very end of the movie he channels Lincoln and starts the war.
Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus during the Civil War.
Bush thinks that he is Lincoln.
Logically, it makes sense that he would suspend HC.:(
He who, white man? Bush or Lincoln? As I recall, Lincoln was not a power-mad psycho and the Civil War was one that was actually officially declared. Also, in the Civil War, there was little question of who the enemy was - it was either those damn Confederates or those damn Yankees, depending on your point of view.
Now we have a "war on terror" which seems to include the entire world.
Bush is just doing whatever he can to gather power in the executive office. Big diff.
As I recall, Lincoln was not a power-mad psycho...
I'm not old enough to remember, but if you read up on Lincoln ignoring what you were fed in elementary school, a good case could be made for nutjob. Remember that the whole mystical "Union" thing was pretty much made from whole cloth. It was a new idea that looks worse as time goes on.
What are non-US citizen permanent residents? :confused:
There isn't another word for it, I don't think. Neil Gaiman is one, IIRC, though.
OK, Gaiman is married to an American and has two American children, so that would make sense. :cool:
[LEFT]
The White House, meanwhile, announced that George Bush had stopped using the slogan, "Stay the course", while the president himself hammered a new buzzword: "Change". "We're constantly changing. The enemy changes, and we change. The enemy adapts to our strategies and tactics, and we adapt to theirs. We're constantly changing to defeat this enemy," he said, after visiting a Florida company making a device for sniffing out roadside bombs.
We've officially got a new slogan. The war is as good as won.:right:
He can't use "We have nothing to fear but fear itself" because
a)It's already taken.
b)He'e pretty much counting on fear to maintain his power base.
[/LEFT]
For historical record - with 13 days to an election - George Jr has put forth new slogans. For example, he is now demanding benchmarks that Maliki (leader of Iraq) must meet. But he says he has no timetable. How is that so? Benchmarks without a timetable are useless.
Of course, even programmers learn about exceptions. What happens when the benchmark is not achieved? A programming writes error processing routines. But George Jr has no criteria for a missed benchmark. IOW that benchmark will never be missed because there is no timetable. Why no 'exception routines'? That answer is found in the last three paragraphs.
Clearly details in George Jr's logic are so flawed as to be a lie. But he is not preaching to those with enough intelligence to ask damning questions. He is not preaching to those who always demand what, why, and the numbers. He is preaching to those who know only because they were told by Fox News and Rush Limbaugh.
"Stay the course", "Way forward", or "Mission Accomplished" are all soundbytes because a political agenda is more important that advancement of America. No wonder an insurgency was created when we disbanded the military and police. No wonder he still blames a mythical enemy called Al Qaeda. George Jr now admits Iraq has become worse (so that Urbane Guerrilla can say George Jr is not loopy). George Jr essentially admits "Mission Accomplished" will continue to get worse if we "Stay the course". What does George Jr (Cheney) propose?
We have three options. 1) 500,000 troops in-country immediately and for one year. 2) "Stay the course". Or 3) withdrawal. There are no other options. What George Jr has done: spin so that you don't notice. He is simply advocating "Stay the course" using different soundbytes.
That 500,000 troop option is quickly diminishing. Once that option is gone, there will be only one option. Withdrawal now or withdrawal after we have killed another 2,800 troops (as Urbane Guerrilla advocates). There is no other option ... if you reject sound byte logic and if you admit to reality. Deja vue Nam. So stunningly similar that we should be asking what they taught the 'under 40 year olds' in history class.
What are you being setup for? President made a solution impossible when he proclaimed that Americans don’t ‘cut and run’ (just like Americans don't do nation building). Henry Kissinger told this president, bluntly, that no exit strategy exist. Duh-h-h-h. George Jr has publicly stated that American troops will still be in Iraq when he leaves office (in2008) Why? George Jr's strategy – and those who rationalize using soundbyte logic would never realize this – his strategy is ‘blame and run’.
This from same person who obviously identified Iraq as not a threat by using logic. George Jr’s strategy is about his legacy - America be damned. Don't fool yourself. His contempt (like Urbane Guerrilla's) for the troops is that extreme.
George Jr needs a ‘blame and run’ option – which is ‘cut and run’ only after another thousand American soldiers have died. Deja vue Nixon and Vietnam. This posted for historical record because our future in Iraq is that bleak and because so many (ie Brianna and headsplice) do not yet understand.
500,000 troops is impossible without a draft. And we all know a draft in the US is political suicide...
500,000 troops is impossible without a draft. And we all know a draft in the US is political suicide...
Yeppers. So we really only have two choices: "Stay the course" or leave. We have backed ourselves into a demoralizing war of attrition that could last for years.
I'd give anything for a return of the draft. The pol's wouldn't be able to get us out of Iraq quickly enough.
I'd give anything for a return of the draft.
Easy for you to say. You wouldn't be drafted.
What are non-US citizen permanent residents? :confused:
U.S. PERMANENT RESIDENTS AND OTHER ELIGIBLE
NONCITIZENS
A lawful permanent resident (LPR) is a noncitizen who is legally
permitted to live and work in the United States permanently. Other
eligible noncitizens:
• Refugees are given indefinite employment authorization. Their
status continues unless revoked by DHS or until lawful
permanent resident status is granted, which refugees may apply
for after one year.
• Persons granted asylum in the United States are also authorized
for indefinite employment, and they can apply for permanent
residence after one year. Asylee status continues unless revoked
by DHS or until permanent resident status is granted.
• Conditional entrants are refugees who entered the United States
under the seventh preference category of P.L. 89-236 or whose
status was adjusted to lawful permanent resident alien under
that category. Note that the DHS stopped using this category on
March 31, 1980.
• Persons paroled into the U.S. for at least one year must provide
evidence (such as having filed a valid permanent resident
application) from the DHS that they are in the U.S. for other
than a temporary purpose and intend to become a citizen or
permanent resident.
• Cuban-Haitian entrants.
Some non-eligible statuses are:
• Family unity status. Such individuals have been granted relief
from deportation under the Family Unity Program. Previously
they were eligible for FSA funds.
• Temporary residents are allowed to live and work in the U.S.
under the Legalization or Special Agricultural Worker program.
Previously they were eligible for FSA funds.
• Persons with non-immigrant visas, who include those with work
visas, students, visitors, and foreign government officials.
From the Dept of Education Student Eligibility Guide
Does this answer the question or am I totally off base?
Easy for you to say. You wouldn't be drafted.
There, there. I'll send you and your outfit a Care Package when you go. ;)
Does this answer the question or am I totally off base?
Yes, thank you. :thumb:
From the NY Times of 3 Nov 2006:
Congress Tells Auditor in Iraq to Close Office
Investigations led by a Republican lawyer named Stuart W. Bowen Jr. in Iraq have sent American occupation officials to jail on bribery and conspiracy charges, exposed disastrously poor construction work by well-connected companies like Halliburton and Parsons, and discovered that the military did not properly track hundreds of thousands of weapons it shipped to Iraqi security forces.
And tucked away in a huge military authorization bill that President Bush signed two weeks ago is what some of Mr. Bowen’s supporters believe is his reward for repeatedly embarrassing the administration: a pink slip.
The order comes in the form of an obscure provision that terminates his federal oversight agency, the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, on Oct. 1, 2007. The clause was inserted by the Republican side of the House Armed Services Committee over the objections of Democratic counterparts during a closed-door conference,
When god says to steal from America, then clearly god does not want lawyers being more honest than god's chosen political party. Apparently god put that provision is the committee report. It just doesn't look good for god or for Republican extremists. God even wanted you to not read this post - or was that just another presidential lie.
Clearly god wanted this. Therefore it should not affect how you vote next week.
Therefore it should not affect how you vote next week.
That is ugly. Unfortunately, Dude, the fix is in, just like last time.
I think I'll take my camera to the polls. :eyebrow:
From the NY Times of 17 Nov 2006:
In Visit to Vietnam, Bush Cites Lessons for Iraq
In his first day in the capital of a country that was America’s wartime enemy during his youth, President Bush said today that the American experience in Vietnam contained lessons for the war in Iraq. Chief among them, he said, was that “we’ll succeed unless we quit.”
{italics mine}
Someone send me some poison to drink.
An ongoing analysis of Iraq has three options: "Go big, go long, or go home". The analysis of these options (including one by three highly regarded Colonels) is leaking all over the news services. "Go long" is a new expression for 'stay the course' which means troop number changes (up or down) by some tens of thousands. “Go long” is an obvious and complete loser’s strategy.
"Go Big" means hundreds of thousands of troops deployed now. Next year means hundreds of thousands will not accomplish anything. Iraq is that close to a cliff.
Hope for a successful application of 500,000 troops for one year is currently about 50-50 and diminishing each month. Henry Kissinger has already declared the Iraqi war is not winnable – because Iraq has been that bad for that long. That should have been your obvious concern over a year ago - long after Scowcroft defined what is now an ongoing Iraqi civil war.
Meanwhile no one is talking about that other war that still can be saved but is also being lost - Afghanistan. British leaders only provided about 10% of the troops that British military commanders in Afghanistan desperately requested.
Leaders are supposed to know when to cut their losses long before everything is lost. American leaders will be telling George Jr what to decide within a month.
"Cut and Run" will not be acceptable to those in power because it admits something glaring obvious - "Mission Accomplished" was lost when the looting began. So these same analysts will be looking for "Blame and Run" - which is really "cut and run" with a propaganda spin. Unfortunately for American soldiers, that may be more of "Go long".
From the Washington Post of 22 Nov 2006:
Report Finds DHS Lax on Contracting Procedures
Private consultants hired by the Department of Homeland Security have found widespread problems with its contracting operation, including nearly three dozen contract files that could not be located.
Files that could be found often lacked basic documentation required under federal rules, such as evidence that the department negotiated the best prices for taxpayers, ...
The assessment underscores complaints by department auditors and outside experts that procurement officials persistently neglected contracting responsibilities as they spent billions of dollars after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks -- much of it on security systems that do not work as planned.
Cut taxes and spend on Halliburton, et al with reckless abandon. No problem. We have Rush Limbaugh to blame it all on 'tax and spend' Democrats. Are you an independent or do you have a political agenda that justifies this?
The confidential report, delivered to department officials in March, ...
If we told you this, we would have to kill you? Thank god for the patriotic Americans - also called leakers and whistle blowers. Just another reason to hate Democrat and Republican extremists.
At the outset, the team of acquisition specialists could not locate 33 of the 72 contract files it had selected for the review, ...
No wonder George Jr could not find Saddam's WMDs. Government is now just as consistent and organized as George Jr's autobiography. 85% of all problems are directly traceable to whom?
OJ Simpson only killed two people.
You may not have noticed. Troops would never publically contradict the president; say "Mission Accomplished" is flawed and wrong. Retired Generals were doing that talk many years ago when "Mission Accomplished" was justified using wacko conservative political righteousness. Some years later, every General that served in Iraq and then retired were warning of a failure we know as "Mission Accomplished". Finally, active duty troops are now talking - actually leaking. They are leaking intelligence assessments that apparently are not shared even with the Iraqi army or puppet government.
Marine Corp intelligence assessment for Anbar province last March has been updated - and leaked. Active duty troops telling you how much extremist conservatives and this president hate the troops. From the Washington Post of 28 Nov 2006:
Anbar Picture Grows Clearer, and Bleaker
The five-page report -- written by Col. Peter Devlin, a senior and seasoned military intelligence officer with the Marine Expeditionary Force -- is marked secret, for dissemination to U.S. and allied troops in Iraq only. ... Devlin suggested that without the deployment of an additional U.S. military division -- 15,000 to 20,000 troops -- plus billions of dollars in aid to the province, "there is nothing" U.S. troops "can do to influence" the insurgency.
No decent American or president would have put American soldiers into another Vietnam. Especially when the facts were so obvious that ... well in another post are examples of how long ago a loyal administration would have seen this civil war coming:
Knowing Civil War is Coming if only in The Cellar . A loyal administration would never have put troops in this situation. A loyal administration - which means not extremist conservative choosen by god - would have gone after bin Laden.
Active duty troops provide numerical estimates - tens of thousands of troops and $billions just for one of Iraq's 18 provinces. Extremist conservative's hate for the troops has become so obvious that even active duty troops must leak reality and intelligence assessments. Go big or go home? George Jr's contempt for the American soldier was expressed today. He said American troops will not pull out. Does that mean 500,000 troops? No. George Jr will do anything to American soldiers so that defeat does not occur under his watch - just like Nixon. His legacy is more important than some dead soldiers. Active duty troops are now demonstrating how much contempt this president has for the American soldier.
From the NY Times of 28 Nov 2006:
Bush to Pursue Fresh NATO Commitments
President Bush called on NATO countries Tuesday to boost their ability and willingness to battle Islamic extremism in Afghanistan and across the Middle East, ...
"We're in a long struggle against terrorists and extremists who follow a hateful ideology and seek to establish a totalitarian empire from Spain to Indonesia," Bush said in a speech at Latvia University as part of a meeting of the NATO members.
At this point, is there anyone with minimal junior high school science education that still believes those lies? In order to win the AFghan war, first, an enemy must be defined. Where is this Taliban that would attack Spain and Indonesia. It is called an insurgency. If a president cannot even define the enemy, well, this is a threat to the stability of NATO. A leader that cannot even define the enemy cannot create a strategic objective. An army without a strategic objective cannot win and has no exit strategy. What NATO country, other than one with an extremist conservative government, would deploy troops without a strategic objective? How does one define a strategic objecgtive if the enemy is not even correctly defined?
From the Washington Post of 3 Dec 2006 Page B01:
Move Over, Hoover
Shortly after Thanksgiving I had dinner in California with Ronald Reagan's best biographer, Lou Cannon. Like many historians these days, we discussed whether George W. Bush is, conceivably, the worst U.S. president ever. Cannon bristled at the idea.
Bush has two more years to leave his mark, he argued. What if ...
He has almost two more years. A list of atrocities George Jr has performed only in his first two years. Destroy the Oslo Accords. Destroy the anti-ballistic missile treaty. Violate promises made to Russia thereby making Russia very nervous and slowly backing away from democracy. Stifled anti-terrorist abilities in America. Destroyed America's fabulous reputation and popularity throughout the world - see Turkey as a perfect example. Sat in a FL classroom reading a children's book and never once even authorized American fighter jets to protect America after being told "America is under attack". All but declared unilateral and unjustified war on Iran, Iraq, and N Korea. $billions on an anti-ballistic missile system that just does not work - as predicted. Learned the names of countries adjacent to Israel. A missile defense system predictated on threats that don't exist while completely ignoring warning of real threats (see Counterterrorism Security Group). Let Osama bin Laden go free. Invaded a country that was a threat to no one - Iraq. Proved what happens when American does not do nation building. Advocated government support and money to religion. Ecouraged the hatred and vicisousness never before seen in Washington complete with a ten fold increase in legalized bribery (ie K Street project). $450,000 'legalized bribery so that First Energy could continue operating a nuclear reactor with a potential 3 Mile Island problem and a hole in its containment dome.
... after six years in power and barring a couple of miracles, it's safe to bet that Bush will be forever handcuffed to the bottom rungs of the presidential ladder. The reason: Iraq.
... He has joined Hoover as a case study on how not to be president.
And this is what tw believes is true.
No wonder I can sandbag the man on history; the more he rants, the better I look.
More and better nuclear defense than MAD is simply less mad, hm? I've lived around good nuke targets the better part of my life. I agree that the ABM as written was obsolescing fast enough to be a dead letter in a very short period, and I say that the better way to defend against ballistic missiles is to make their use too fraught with problems, too limited as to success. Tw's view on this is of course, precisely not in the interest of the nation of which he is a citizen, but precisely in the interest of certain other nuclear, ballistic-missile powers. Once again, he exposes his Communist underbelly and other unmentionables. You're a fuckup, boy!! You make your commie buddies look bad.
I think I've found another way to play Atropos -- and cut off the thread. Hee!
Just remember, Atropos got his come uppance in the end. :)
I've lived around good nuke targets the better part of my life.
*sigh*
Always a bridesmaid, never a bride.
Listen to these idiots.
Man, someone seriously got to these poor fools.
From the Washington Post of 13 Dec 2006:
Army, Marine Corps To Ask for More Troops
The Army and Marine Corps are planning to ask incoming Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Congress to approve permanent increases in personnel, as senior officials in both services assert that the nation's global military strategy has outstripped their resources.
In addition, the Army will press hard for "full access" to the 346,000-strong Army National Guard and the 196,000-strong Army Reserves by asking Gates to take the politically sensitive step of easing the Pentagon restrictions on the frequency and duration of involuntary call-ups for reservists, according to two senior Army officials.
Deja Vue Vietnam. Next step is a draft.
"Right now, the strategy exceeds the capability of the Army and Marines."
That strategy still does not supply enough troops in the field. History says this is how all great empires burned themselves out in this myth that they are the all powerful - god's chosen nation. America now has enemies everywhere. Wacko extremes said that even seven years ago when a president had intelligence and a vice president did not have dictatorship tendencies. Amazing what happens when people listen to emotion of wacko extremists than logic from non-fiction.
No wonder the current administration had to retire so many generals to find someone that would agree with them.
... two-thirds of Army units are rated "non-deployable."
But then one need not read that because even the Iraq Study Group defined that reality. A patriot already read the report; already knew that reality.
Has the Bush Doctrine failed?
The American military force is stronger now than it ever has been in history - partly because it's now been used, and is battlefield-hardened with commanders having all sorts of different kinds of experience.
That was classic propaganda AND a common lie of 30 Aug 2006. Published facts (those that ignore presidential lies) knew the opposite was true AND had to be true. Too much equipment was being stripped to send overseas - and too many costs were being hidden or not being spend to replace lost equipment. Even Humvees without armor demonstrated the problem. Did you, an American, realize this problem years ago? Two-thirds of the American ground force is not operational - as was obvious long ago. Again Frontline's
The Lost Year is how one learns so that 30 years from now, another scumbag member of the Democrat or Republican party does not try to destroy America.
Demonstrated is the difference between those who think emotionally verses those who think patriotically and logically.
Battle hardened?
If dead is battle hardend... sure, why not?
From the Washington Post of 17 Dec 2006:
Stubborn or Stalwart, Bush Is Loath to Budge
... said former senator Alan K. Simpson (R-Wyo.), a member of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, ... "Now his legacy depends on the national interest, not partisanship."
Others don't buy it. On its Web site last week, the Democratic National Committee said Bush could be "the most stubborn man on Earth" for not immediately embracing the study group's plan. Critics predicted that any new strategy he announces after the holidays will be little more than a dressed-up version of "stay the course." And a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 66 percent of Americans do not think Bush is willing to change his policies in Iraq.
"I just don't believe that this president, with this vice president whispering in his ear every moment, is oriented to change," said retired Col. Larry Wilkerson, who was chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell in Bush's first term. "And even if he were, I don't believe his administration is capable of implementing change."
Lawrence J. Korb, a former Pentagon official under President Ronald Reagan, agreed. "When it comes to Iraq, he has basically confused stubbornness with steadfastness," said Korb, ...
But Bush was deeply influenced by the fate of his father, whose decision to break his no-new-taxes pledge as president helped doom his reelection. The lesson: Stick to decisions regardless of shifts in political winds.
"Stay the course" is now called "Way forward".
from Lord Tennyson:
"Forward, the Light Brigade!"
Was there a man dismay'd?
Not tho' the soldier knew
Someone had blunder'd:
Their's not to make reply,
Their's not to reason why,
Their's but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell
Rode the six hundred.
34% of Americans still cannot see the lying president for what he really is - who even deny facts from the Baker Hamilton commission. George Jr's stubbornness and mental midgetry will even guarantee a defeat in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, American opoerations in
Somolia are also failing just as spectaculorly.
85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. That is 99% when top management is in denial - blames others such as me.
He has contempt for the American soldier. Way "Forward, the Light Brigade!" is just "Stay the course".
Time to solve "Mission Accomplished" with hundreds of thousands more troops has ended. So George Jr will think for another month about deploying a few ten thousand. They are expendable.
When a president must "Wag the Dog". George Jr now advocates more war (rejects the
Iraq Study Group) because soldiers are expendable and George’s legacy is more important.
Patriots leak constantly when scum bags would sacrifice more American soldiers to "Mission Accomplished". Leakers apparently include the Joint Chiefs. From the Washington Post of 19 Dec 2006 - and a fact that was predictable:
White House, Joint Chiefs At Odds on Adding Troops
Sending 15,000 to 30,000 more troops for a mission of possibly six to eight months is one of the central proposals ...
But the Joint Chiefs think the White House, after a month of talks, still does not have a defined mission and is latching on to the surge idea in part because of limited alternatives, despite warnings about the potential disadvantages for the military, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the White House review is not public.
Of course it was obvious that "Mission Accomplished" was being lost. The president started a war without a strategic objective AND (as leaked) still has no strategic objective. To anyone with minimal grasp of history, that means defeat. To any student of history or military science, the PBS Frontline program
The Lost Year demonstrates why this discussion should have been held in 2004. Since no positive solution remains, what do our anti-American leaders do?
Discussions are expected to continue through the holidays. Rice is expected to travel to the president's ranch near Crawford, Tex., after Christmas for consultations on Iraq. The administration's foreign policy principals are also expected to hold at least two meetings during the holiday. The White House has said the president will outline his new strategy to the nation early next year.
Current attitudes duplicate 1968; including rejection of conclusions from the president's "Wise Men". The expression "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it" has never been so explicit.
Colin Powell (former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and former Sec of State for George Jr) has defined "Mission Accomplished"
So if it's grave and deteriorating and we're not winning, we are losing, ... I am not persuaded that another surge of troops into Baghdad for the purposes of suppressing this communitarian violence, this civil war, will work,
Still 34% in America denied reality when defined even by UK General Sir Richard Dannatt in October 2006. See
British to Withdraw from Iraq to appreicate which Cellar Dwellers could not recognize the obvious - who therefore demonstrate contempt for the American soldier.
George Jr must reject the
Iraq Study Group. He must send more troops to Iraq. George Jr must advocate troop increases in Iraq AND more military spending at home. He is an extremist no different than Crusaders of the 11th Century. He even said that god told him to invade Iraq. And he must maintain this war beyond 2008 so that it is not 'lost on his watch' - his legacy. Worse are many Americans who believed this idiot – and still do. See
British to Withdraw from Iraq. And see what anti-Americans must deny:
The Lost Year
The idiot president as an MBA – and like every administration official did on 11 September to make zero decisions – this fool and his staff, instead, will have more meetings.
George Jr recently said we are not winning "Mission Accomplished" and not losing it either. Simple logic. Then American soldiers are not in Iraq. Well not being there is what another lying president tried to claim when he invaded Cambodia. So now George Jr says, by default, that American troops really are not in Iraq. "Mission Accomplished"?
From ABC News of 4 Jan 2007 or why Urbane Guerrilla has a president he adores:
Bush: Government Can Open Your Mail
President Bush says he and other government officials have the power to snoop through your mail without a judge's warrant.
Bush made the claim last month in a signing statement attached to a postal reform bill. Bush wrote that the bill "provides for opening of an item of a class of mail otherwise sealed against inspection."
Actually George Jr is correct. Another president - Nixon - did open mail without judicial review. When he was lying to the nation about Cambodia, Nixon feared that soldiers would hear the truth about his lies. So all mail to the troops from the United States was censored. Mail both from the troops and to the troops were censored. Nixon could not afford to have troops even receive the truth. So he opened and censored all mail - in both directions.
Deja vue Vietnam. Nixon - I mean George Jr - censors mail because we cannot be trusted. But then Americans finally got intelligent and demanded that other president (that Urbane Guerrilla also adored) be impeached.
The only mail I get is from creditors. If they open them, they have to pay them, right?
Thats a good idea wolf - can we get that through congress?
From ABC News of 4 Jan 2007 or why Urbane Guerrilla has a president he adores:
Actually George Jr is correct. Another president - Nixon - did open mail without judicial review. . . (that Urbane Guerrilla also adored) be impeached.
This is not why I "adore" the President, as you should very well know, but never do know, tw. It is your perpetual, oft-demonstrated inability to get these things right that persuades me you're none too bright -- in political matters at any rate. Nonetheless, valiant in your ignorance, you go on until you go down in flames, never learning the least lesson. Are you then a booby or a target drone?
Nixon was regarded in 1968 as being a strong man on foreign policy. A good man at foreign policy is what's wanted in a state of war, Congressionally declared or not. He quite upheld his reputation there.
You'll recall the Democratic candidate was George McGovern. That George had nothing (theoretically anyway -- I was seventeen at the time he was running) to offer me that would make me, and as it turned out forty-nine of the fifty states, want him in the Oval Office. That looks like history's vindication to me.
This Nixon was regarded in 1968 as being a strong man on foreign policy. A good man at foreign policy is what's wanted in a state of war, Congressionally declared or not. He quite upheld his reputation there.
That's right. Massacre another 30,000 American soldiers in Nam so that a war is not lost on his watch. Send 20,000 more to Iraq (woefully too few) so that "Mission Accomplished" (and Afghanistan) is not lost until after 2008. These are presidents that Urbane Guerrilla admires.
You'll recall the Democratic candidate was George McGovern. That George had nothing (theoretically anyway -- I was seventeen at the time he was running) to offer me that would make me, and as it turned out forty-nine of the fifty states, want him in the Oval Office. That looks like history's vindication to me.
Nothing? He didn't want to send you into a pointless war.
Blue, the last card you should ever try to play with me is that one.
Resistance to tyranny -- a tyranny amply proven in North Vietnam's behavior in the South -- always has a point and is by nature noble and right.
The defeatism he pushed -- that liberty and democracy aren't worth the effort needed to emasculate the Communists for trying to chain humanity -- is exactly what people like me never accept. America has quite a supply of people like me, it seems. We like democracy in ways you apparently can't fathom, and we don't accept totalitarianism as a way for any society to be.
Your remark, dear sir, is extraordinarily anti-democracy, and it is cowardly. Be ashamed, and then be better than you were tonight.
The same goes double for you, tw. You aren't a patriot, but an antipatriot, and you've been that way since, oh, the 1960s. You have not written one single word demonstrating you want America to win. Contrast that with a search of my postings, you indescribably awful example.
the effort needed to emasculate the Communists
And it was working so well right then and there, and ended up being so very successful. McGovern wanted to save your American life, and you blow him off by accusing him of defeatism. So ungrateful, you are.
I'm never grateful to people who fifth-column for humanity's enemy, and even less so to people who try and make America lose without even the crappy excuse of being foreigners.
Success, from a long-range point of view, was delayed: Vietnam eventually concluded Communism doesn't work as an economic system, and now seems to be turning capitalist in the streets while maintaining Communism as a sort of state religion. For the time being.
Which goes to demonstrate we were on the right side in that war, and that, blue, is something I've always understood -- since about fuckin' fourth grade. You, OTOH, have some catching up to do. I see you're not yet prepared to take the advice I gave you.
And where is McGovern now? -- retired and good riddance.
Resistance to tyranny -- a tyranny amply proven in North Vietnam's behavior in the South -- always has a point and is by nature noble and right.
Claiming that the US foreign policy is based on noble and right principles is ignorant, to say the least.
Claiming that the US foreign policy is based on noble and right principles is ignorant, to say the least.
Why can't America be noble and principled? I'm not saying our policy is, just asking why you think it can't be.
Why can't America be noble and principled? I'm not saying our policy is, just asking why you think it can't be.
It can be, but it isn't. It would be against the benefit of the US itself, most of the times. I'm not necessarily saying it's not the right thing (for the US) to do (Realpolitik and such), but claiming it happens out of noble principles is utter bollox.
I'm never grateful to people who fifth-column for humanity's enemy, and even less so to people who try and make America lose without even the crappy excuse of being foreigners.
Success, from a long-range point of view, was delayed: Vietnam eventually concluded Communism doesn't work as an economic system, and now seems to be turning capitalist in the streets while maintaining Communism as a sort of state religion. For the time being.
Which goes to demonstrate we were on the right side in that war, and that, blue, is something I've always understood -- since about fuckin' fourth grade. You, OTOH, have some catching up to do. I see you're not yet prepared to take the advice I gave you.
And where is McGovern now? -- retired and good riddance.
Yet, you're a Nixon fan. Whatever happened to him? Give us some spin on how disgracing the office of President makes America win. And, while you're at it, how one 'catches up' to a fourth-grade opinion of the Vietnam war.
Blue, I never have patience with the pseudosophisticates either. You are not able to fight totalitarianism; I am, and I have, and it's a way you'll never be, which keeps you the lesser. You can't even catch up with "a fourth-grade opinion." How lame is that?
You are not able to fight totalitarianism; I am, and I have, and it's a way you'll never be, which keeps you the lesser.
So Urbane Guerrilla just announced either his suicide or his impending mental self destruction. UG - you are the classic example of totalitarianism. You even preach (lie) exact same spin as those who did it in 1970 support the liar Nixon. Nixon also promoted and Cheney currently promotes same totalitarianism that Urbane Guerrilla promotes.
Amen. Something truly sensible from tw for a change (sorry mate).
From the New York Times of 10 Jan 2007:
U.S. and Iraqis Hit Insurgents in All-Day Fight
The fighting raged less than 1,000 yards from the heavily fortified Green Zone, which houses both the American command and the Iraqi government. It was the latest episode for the troubled neighborhood around Haifa Street, where major campaigns have repeatedly been initiated to rid the area of insurgents, only to have them re-infiltrate.
Iraqi officials said that at least 50 militants were killed Tuesday, but the Americans said they could not provide a count.
Complete with body counts, this reeks of Vietnam. US Military with a second surge this fall in Baghdad (troops removed from Anbar province execute this surge) still fight battles all day long - even with Apache helicopters and fighter bombers? This is a crowded city. Right outside the Green Zone. This is a victory?
Green zone - where Americans did not leave in 2004 due to security risks even in Baghdad – when the entire administration said we were winning hearts and minds? US troops and civilians could even walk the streets of Saigon during a losing war. A raging all day battle only right outside the green zone? This sounds more like the Tet Offensive.
Frank Miller was a 22 year veteran of the Pentagon; an analyst who viewed documents that most others only saw after being censored. Condi Rice, so frustrated for information in March 2004, sent Miller to Baghdad. Remember, this is when Iraq was secure – even according to many in The Cellar; reconstruction was rumored to be ongoing; the press was accused of being negative.
Miller was struck by how the Coalition Provisional Authority had become a hermit city, ensconced in the Green Zone. He explained to one CPA official how he planned to fly around the country to visit with the US military division commanders ... "Wow," the CPA official said. "I wish we could to that. I wish we could see the country." ...
It was striking, Miller thought, that the Iraqis he saw seemed generally friendly, or at least not antagonistic. Little kids came running out, smiling, saying hello, and giving the thumbs-up sign as they moved through.
And that is what many even in the Cellar posted.
It wasn't the middle finger, he noted, not realizing that in Iraq the thumbs-up sign traditionally was the equivalent of the American middle-finger salute.
Reality in Iraq even in 2004 was quite different from what our Rush Limbaugh and Fox News liars promoted.
It was that bad then. It’s many times worse now - an all day battle fought even right outside the Green Zone. What does that say (and obviously say to all Iraqis)? The insurgents are winning just like the Vietcong 30+ years ago. The president is lying to save his legacy as Nixon did (knowning full well that Vietnam could not be won). George Jr will send more (and too few) troops as if securing Baghdad will somehow win “Mission Accomplished”. He does this why? Read those posts on and after Sept 2003.
Some samples of what we were saying about Iraq in The Cellar in late 2003 and early 2004. Saddam was on the run. Abu Ghraid had not yet happened. Tobias posted from Iraq. Fallujah was not yet fought. deBaathification and disbanded Armies in May had started a summer of violent attacks.
How corrupt the media?
So, UT, what do you think of the Iraq big picture now? where xoxoxoBruce says
The hell you will. You started this thread. Git back here.
Major Concession
Bush goes to Baghdad
Pissed Iraqi foreign minister kicks UN squarely in the nads
Can't you anti-war people keep your bullshit pretenses straight? ...
The reason we're confused is the story from the White House keeps changing.
Iraqi poll results
America's Antagonistic Allies It was where we made a major mistake when our civilian leaders failed to plan for Iraqi surrender in 1991 - leaving Schwarzkopf to jury-rig a solution. As a result of mistakes made in Washington, we stayed and became a target of regional extremists.
What David Kay said and what they reportWhat he also said, which they don't report (source UK newspaper): Saddam's WMD hidden in Syria, says Iraq survey chief.
Nation Building 101As the Joint Chiefs said was necessary before the Iraq invasion even began - 200,000 troops for at least two years - minimum. ... I am struck once again by the incomparable hold VIETNAM has over some people.
Nixon also promoted and Cheney currently promotes same totalitarianism that Urbane Guerrilla promotes.
This is true -- in that I promote no totalitarianism at all. My mind, tw, remains clearer than yours at all times, at least those times when I am awake. Keep this in mind -- to the degree possible in yours.
It is remarked, from the
National Review quarter, that Nixon was no conservative -- and I think with justice, taking the quickly-failed wage-price regulation as just one example. The Bush Administration's fundamental political instinct is more in line with conservative Republican thinking: minimize tax burden (though in the typical Republican/Beltway/Democrat fallacy, don't minimize the burden by cutting government services and staffers of agencies, hence being vulnerable on the score of deficit spending), don't monkey with the Bill of Rights even where it might be convenient (a besetting sin of the Clinton Administration, which never gave a tinker's damn about the BoR and perennially worked to subvert it, though they were more successful at subverting the Department of Justice), and if a war comes, and come it did for certain on 9/11, try and win it rather than do the Dem Party thing -- make a half measure and call it "unwinnable."
This is what they try for, and they keep trying, even if they don't achieve it in the press of circumstance and the roar of war. The previous occupant of the Oval Office never even tried, and was an inept cypher at foreign policy. What can you say of a President who never recognized he had a war to fight? Glad I never voted for this -- this indescribable Ol' Possum Head.
... don't monkey with the Bill of Rights even where it might be convenient ...
Oh my fucking god. You have got to be kidding me. Bush has
unabashedly trampled every amendment but the second.
Oh wait, thats what you meant by the Bill of Rights. Nevermind then.
You also forgot the First, whose robustness is demonstrated right here, as you display without let nor hindrance (certainly not from me) your seventeenness.
The Third is a hard one to trespass upon -- it's been legitimately invoked a grand total of once AFAIK, and that case was settled without trial, or anything being established in the caselaw either.
The Fourth is where we come into furious debate indeed. There seem to be points to be made on both sides. I just note that no person here present has been searched unreasonably.
The Fifth through Eighth aren't touched.
Then we get to the Ninth and Tenth -- and the quiet campaign to revive these more fully. There isn't a triumphalist conquest by these two yet for two reasons: their particular partisans figure there's a long way to go yet, and there isn't really active opposition by anyone, just an inertia.
Unabasedly wasn't the word you wanted. When checking your prose, read slowly. I remind myself of that, from time to time.
abasHedly.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
One is being tightened more and more.
Four is gone.
Five is gone.
Six is gone.
Seven is gone.
Eight is gone.
Where the word "gone" is just hyperbole to make a point.
They just added, "Usually" to the front, or "except when..." to the end, of each amendment. I think amendment VI got both. :smack:
If it's not universally applied, if they get to pick and choose at ALL who does and doesnt have the rights given by the bill of rights... It's over. If they can pick and choose, it might as well not exist.
Now that I have time I'll explain a little, I posted the simple list when I was really really tired.
One - Christianity is becoming more and more of a state religion under the republican regime, and free speech is more conditional now. "Free Speech Zones", anyone?
Four - Illegal wiretapping and spying on US nationals without warrant and at the discretion of the white house alone.
Five - Forced confession, and holding of prisoners indefinitely without charge, and the suspension of Habeas Corpus.
Six - Again, holding of prisoners indefinitely without charge without declaration of war.
Seven - Trials not by jury but by military against prisoners.
Eight - If torture isn't cruel and unusual I don't know what is.
That's the problem here in America. They wonder whether or not there is a gratitude level that's significant enough in Iraq.
That's the problem, all right. We look at those Iraqis, and think they just aren't grateful enough! Maybe if we kill off a few more, they'll bump up that gratitude level to a sufficiently significant level.
We think we are helping them out but don't understand what they are going through. Typical.
We think we are helping them out but don't understand what they are going through.
We think the president tells a truth. 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. Iraqi are victims of American ideologs.
Ibbie, the America-haters want you to confuse what are in effect enemy prisoners of war -- foreign citizens, mind you -- with American citizens. One never charges POWs -- consider the roaring international success North Vietnam achieved trying to call our fliers "blackest criminals!" -- one simply holds them, which is another point the antis want you confused about. Indeed your entire list shows how thoroughly they've taken Ibram in: to get us to lose the fight, they fly a banner woven of red tape alleging that we are obligated to extend citizen rights unto noncitizens. That there is no such obligation doesn't shut these liars up for a minute.
I have no idea where you're getting this "Christianity-state-religion" thing, as this isn't happening, and if you know anything about Christianity as decent people practice it, I'll be pretty surprised. Frothy leftwing websites will insist it is happening, but I know better than to credit that lot. Nazi websites insist they're just plain great folks too, you know.
...and if you know anything about Christianity as decent people practice it....
Nazi websites insist they're just plain great folks too, you know.
You know, UG, if we were at WAR then calling them POWs and treating them as such would be a great thing to do.
We aren't at war. The war on terror is no more a war than the war on drugs. We don't go around rounding up Columbian coca famers and holding them indefinitely without charge, and torturing them, because that would be illegal and immoral. Charging the prisoners as terrorists or murderers, putting them on a trial by jury, and LEGALLY imprisoning them is completely acceptable. Holding them without charge, suspending Habeus Corpus, and torturing them, is not. It is a breach of EVERYONE's freedom when the government is given free reign to do this kind of thing. You may trust the government with your life - I don't. When the government is allowed to capture and torture as they please, it won't be long before they do it to their own citizens, too. All they have to do is mumble something about a terrorist threat, and they can do as they please. If the government decides the ACLU is a 'subversive terrorist threat' because they disagree with their pro-freedom views, they can just lock the whole lot of them up and throw away the key.
ANYBODY that calls themself 'pro-human' should oppose that. Giving the government more and more power can only lead to a repeat of the thirties and forties.
The Not War is preferable to Actual War, which is one of the alternatives, and would become the position of most of the public if another large-scale attack is pulled off inside the US.
It is a breach of EVERYONE's freedom when the government is given free reign to do this kind of thing.
Believing in slippery slope arguments as if they were logical and inevitable was what drove me into the Libertarian Party. Noticing that the world doesn't actually work that way is what pulled me out of it.
It is in fact not a breach of everyone's freedom when the government is given free reign to do this kind of thing.
For starters, although they restrict particular people's freedom, the police aren't the people who restrict
freedom. They are the ones who maintain the conditions in which freedom can exist. And strangely, it's still mostly true even if the cops suck (although not if they are corrupt).
But more importantly, I can't for the life of me think of one actual freedom that I personally have lost if some gentleman overseas is water-boarded. I am still free to say what I want, assemble with others, shoot off a big ol cannon at the local range, kiss mah woman (or man!) in the public square, sell my computing services to the highest bidder, and heavens, I may even engage in dancing, if I so desire.
Also, "free reign" is actually worse than slippery slope: it's inventing the conditions that make your argument. The government doesn't have "free reign" to do anything, as there are huge checks and balances everywhere. Some of these checks are enumerated in the Constitution, but there are many more that you don't usually notice. Some that are extremely powerful yet you never even realize they are there.
And in the end, our government answers to a higher power: the voters. A big sector of the American government has just been de-elected and replaced.
Oh, and when you say giving the government more and more power is bad, do consider at least for a moment that the forces it is supposed to be fighting (in the GWoT) are religious fascists -- looking to set up the biggest, baddest, most torture-friendly and freedom-unfriendly governments on the planet.
Oh, and when you say giving the government more and more power is bad, do consider at least for a moment that the forces it is supposed to be fighting (in the GWoT) are religious fascists -- looking to set up the biggest, baddest, most torture-friendly and freedom-unfriendly governments on the planet.
And, try as they might, they would never be able to do that to us. But they can make us do it for them, it seems. "What we're doing isn't so bad - look!
They're chopping off heads!"
All they have to do is keep ahead of us on the brutality scale, and we'll happily follow them.
Welp, keeping "ahead of us on the brutality scale" does mean they really suck bad enough that they should be defeated, defunded, destroyed and made pariahs of all men, and left talking to themselves in isolation cells and cardboard boxes in rainy alleys. Those that are still in shape to talk at all.
Be happy to defeat them, and don't agonize about how we have to be tough to win. It's bloody useless, and it will make you personally die a dog's death if they are ever lucky enough and powerful enough to catch you, HM.
Ibram, if you cannot learn from me, as evinced by every word you wrote in the first two paragraphs of post #455, then you are in effect extremely stupid. Which does not actually match your true intellectual powers. However, there is no one so very stupid as one determined beyond any bounds of sense to stay stupid just out of some childish dislike. Be very ashamed of yourself.
@ whom it may concern: free rein -- loosened control, not rulership at no charge.
Then please, oh wise and powerful UG, explain to me how we plan to wage a war on an idea, an ideology, a feeling?
Welp, keeping "ahead of us on the brutality scale" does mean they really suck bad enough that they should be defeated, defunded, destroyed and made pariahs of all men, and left talking to themselves in isolation cells and cardboard boxes in rainy alleys. Those that are still in shape to talk at all.
And then, after we've happily followed them, we would deserve the same.
Then please, oh wise and powerful UG, explain to me how we plan to wage a war on an idea, an ideology, a feeling?
We shouldn't! We should just pack up all our shit and go home and wait in blissful ignorance until they kick the door in and stick a bomb up our asses. Then we can call the "more benevolent nations" to help us out. Oh nevermind, it'll be too late by then. Hell, lets just all convert now.
Hell, lets just all convert now.
I doubt
Chuck Hagel is converting, but here he is pandering to us surrender monkeys.
The fact is that we agreed on and signed the Geneva Convention... we are not complying.
Right now, we are just as much the bad guys as they are. In Iraq, we are
just the bad guys. We started it and are continuing it, regardless of the few good PR things we do.
If we were invaded and occupied the way they are there would be an insurgency, I would be part of it and we would be doing what they are.
By international law, what they are doing is legal and should be. (I am not including the foreigners in Iraq just there to kill Americans, separate issue)
I support our troops, BTW, those who sent them there are international criminals and mass-murderers.
We shouldn't! We should just pack up all our shit and go home and wait in blissful ignorance until they kick the door in and stick a bomb up our asses. Then we can call the "more benevolent nations" to help us out. Oh nevermind, it'll be too late by then. Hell, lets just all convert now.
Maybe the fact that they hate us is because we are over there killing them. For every civilian we kill over there, ten more are going to grow up hating us.
Do you know how the American Revolution started to gain steam? The British would hurt innocent civilians and kill their neighbors. So they would hate the British for what they did to them, even if their neighbor started it first.
If we were invaded and occupied the way they are there would be an insurgency, I would be part of it and we would be doing what they are.
You would blow up civilians in crowded markets just like the Iraqi insurgents do?
:eyebrow:
I don't believe that that is common to Iraqi insurgents. More illegal immigrants there to continue their campaign of terror (that they would not be doing if we had not invaded and occupied an non-threat nation)... I was talking more along the line of direct fighting and blowing-up their vehicles, gorilla warfare.
Yes, I would do that.
Targeting civilians, no, in no way.
It's not just Iraqis vs. Americans. It's also a power struggle between the different religious factions.
It would be like if the Russians invaded the US, and the Baptists took the opportunity to go into a Catholic neighborhood to blow up a Walmart there, and any Russian soldiers they might see in the area too.
Maybe the fact that they hate us is because we are over there killing them. For every civilian we kill over there, ten more are going to grow up hating us.
We aren't over there intentionally killing civilians PH. Of course there are unintentional casualties, but they are not the enemy. Iraqi insurgents are being included as civilian deaths as well. Not all of them are over there wearing a bright sign that says "
ENEMY" on it. Many Iraqi civilians are being killed
by the enemy as well. Of course, thats our fault too.
It's a lose lose situation. I can't be certain but I would guess that Iraqis are more pissed at their poor living conditions than anything.
I think its a very different culture over there and the vast majority have absolutely no concept of what a democracy is or could be. They have no idea how wonderful life can be. All they've ever known is the same bullshit and fragmented society. Freedom is a word without a definition to them. Something they've never had nor can grasp.
Furthermore, those that oppose us wish to continue to exert their control upon the masses or gain more by any means - for their own gain/profit or power. Too bad we'll probably never be able to give the power back to the people - its a sin really.
We are not giving them freedom. We are running into their house, taking their possessions and peeing on them on the way out.
We have to slowly give them democracy or they will reject it. Also, I bet the USSR was saying almost the exact same thing as you 60 years ago.
We are not giving them freedom. We are running into their house, taking their possessions and peeing on them on the way out.
We have to slowly give them democracy or they will reject it. Also, I bet the USSR was saying almost the exact same thing as you 60 years ago.
Yep...that has always been the Bush=Hitler policy...according to the MSM.....Keith Oberman told me so...
Haaaaa...Haaaaaaa...
We have to slowly give them democracy or they will reject it.
Really???? We have to GIVE them democracy???
Too bad we'll probably never be able to give the power back to the people - its a sin really.
I don't know what the point of your remark was since you said the exact same thing.
I don't know what the point of your remark was since you said the exact same thing.
My point is that
the people are not in power. maybe its semantics, but we can't force a democracy on them we can only give them the power to choose whatever form of Gov't they want to have. They certainly didn't choose what they have had.
I'm going to be recycling some of the stuff I used in this thread on an essay I have to write in class in a few days about Social Contracts and Current Events and stuff like that, so I'm just stating that I'm the writer of all that stuff and such so I can argue that I wasnt plagarising anyone but myself.
Don't you dare Ibram - Use us all as interviewees and then reference us at the end -
can you say "bonus points?" ;)
Nah, its an in-class essay on social contracts for a class that doesnt REALLY encourage out of the box thinking as much as it should.
Nah, its an in-class essay on social contracts for a class that doesnt REALLY encourage out of the box thinking as much as it should.
Define and / or example a social contract.
And don't fret, Ibram; the idea that one can plagiarize oneself is complete bullshit. Anyone accusing you of it is full of something that makes the roses grow -- and check the color of his eyes.
I think he's more concerned about proving it is in fact himself he's plagiarizing--I mean, in theory he could plagiarize, say, something Elspode said, and when he got caught say, "No no, see, I'm Elspode!" and they may or may not believe him. By mentioning his paper he's establishing beforehand that "Ibram" is in fact "John Doe the student in Taiwan's" alias.
By definition, one cannot plagiarize oneself, but one may repeat oneself... even ad infinitum.
Yes, but UG, Clodfobble's right. I've already told my teacher and all and hes cool with it, but I'm just establishing that those ARE my words, and therefore NOT plagiarism.
Which was what I was saying, too.
Yes, but you being YOU, I had to argue.
Yes, but UG, Clodfobble's right.
Meanwhile, define and / or example a social contract.
read some rousseu, or voltaire, or locke. The social contract is the binding written OR nonwritten contract between the people and their government or the people and eachother; in the case of my paper, the constitution is the social contract of the US, and Bush violated it (repeatedly) by ignoring and violating the clear and binding text of both the constitution and the bill of rights.
read some rousseu, or voltaire, or locke. The social contract is the binding written OR nonwritten contract between the people and their government or the people and eachother; in the case of my paper, the constitution is the social contract of the US,
That is the part your paper must establish up front. I see little in common with the philosophies of rousseu, voltaire, etc and something written in stone - a Constitution. But then your definition of a social contract implies something vague (written or unwritten). As a contract, the two parties must be clearly defined - another definition that your paper must define up front.
Social contract is an expression to summarize ideas. But the noun is too vague; should be defined whenever or where ever it is used.
The assignment is to write about the social contract. The point is not to define the social contract; the point is to describe a current events situation in terms of the social contract.
Yes, but you being YOU, I had to argue.
Or YOU being you, you had to argue.
Let us be amused, and titter. :cool: <more or less throwing a dart at the smiley board>
Another example of how much George Jr (and Republican extremists who also use Hitler's propaganda techniques) so hates free markets and humanity; and so love K-street corruption and Urbane Guerrilla dictatorships. An exaggeration? Not for a minute. Cheney has always insisted that the president does not have enough power. From the NY Times of 29 Jan 2007:
Bush Directive Increases Sway on Regulation
President Bush has signed a directive that gives the White House much greater control over the rules and policy statements that the government develops to protect public health, safety, the environment, civil rights and privacy. ...
This strengthens the hand of the White House in shaping rules that have, in the past, often been generated by civil servants and scientific experts.
This administration has decreed that every unit will have it's own politikal officer, to monitor the unit's loyalty to the Exekutive. God save us.
Sounds like the Politruks in Stalin's days....
Who are loyal supporters of George Jr? A bi-partisan senate resolution will condemn this president's denial of reality on "Mission Accomplished". Mental midget's supporters would block that vote. So who so hate America as to do that? From the NY Times of 30 Jan 2007:
Senate Allies of Bush Work to Halt Iraq Vote
The new effort by President Bush’s allies, including Senators John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, is aimed at blocking two nonbinding resolutions directly critical of the White House that had appeared to be gaining broad support among Democrats and even some Republicans. ...
“There is a lot of pressure on people who could be with us not to be with us,” said Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, the co-author of one resolution along with Senators John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, and Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska.
Susan Collins of Maine is one of the Republicans who takes centrist positions – who repeatedly demonstrates basic intelligence rather than loyalty to party liars. Why would McCain support liars?
We have the solution created by people without a political agenda. People who can think logically and who work for America rather than for wacko political extremists: the Iraq Study Group. This report was widely critical of Maliki using logic rather than a promise from god.
At another Senate hearing, the leaders of the Iraq Study Group, the bipartisan panel that reported to Mr. Bush and Congress last month, disputed the White House’s contention that most of their recommendations had been incorporated into Mr. Bush’s troop increase plan.
IOW George Jr (and Cheney) lied again. ISG solution means defeat of "Mission Accomplished" might occur on George Jr's watch. George Jr's legacy is more important. Prolong the war. Lie to the nation. We are but fodder for his legacy.
"Mission Accomplished" will be completely decided by end of 2007. Also obvious is a major - a most important - point from the ISG. The only way that Iraqis can obtain peace is training. What do we know? Iraqis get almost no training despite administration (and Rush Limbaugh) lies. Where armor was required, we gave them pickup trucks. Iraqis were not even provided Chevy Suburbans. So where is all that money going? Most all weapons and equipment as provided has disappeared. Just like in Vietnam, major provider of Vietcong weapons was the United States. That was how incompetent Westmoreland was and how incompetent George Jr’s administration is today.
We have less than one year to train them and get out. After 2007, it will be even worse. Any longer and the conflict may expand into neighboring nations. If that is not obvious, well, did you hear why Turkey wants to (and may be encouraged by George Jr) to invade northern Iraq – especially Kirkuk.
We spent tens of $billions and no one knows where all that money went. Even the senate finally sees reality. But McCain and Graham demonstrate Urbane Guerrilla denial. They would even block a non-binding vote to protect a shitbag president. Maybe god talks to others besides George Jr?
Most educational institutions do not allow you to submit the same work twice for the purposes of marking, even if it's for different subjects. This may be what some might refer to as plagiarising yourself.
Sounds like the Politruks in Stalin's days....
Funny sidebar. In the game Call of Duty, one of the missions is the Soviet retaking of Stalingrad (Leningrad?Moscow?). You start out without any weapons, and each squad has to take orders from political officers. At one point you or one of the other characters have to kill one of the political officers in order to get into position to move forward.
Normally I don't like to deliberately kill characters on my own side in games, but in this case I didn't have any problem.:apistola:
Who are loyal supporters of George Jr? A bi-partisan senate resolution will condemn this president's denial of reality on "Mission Accomplished". Mental midget's supporters would block that vote. So who so hate America as to do that? From the NY Times of 30 Jan 2007: Susan Collins of Maine is one of the Republicans who takes centrist positions – who repeatedly demonstrates basic intelligence rather than loyalty to party liars. Why would McCain support liars?
We have the solution created by people without a political agenda. People who can think logically and who work for America rather than for wacko political extremists: the Iraq Study Group. This report was widely critical of Maliki using logic rather than a promise from god. IOW George Jr (and Cheney) lied again. ISG solution means defeat of "Mission Accomplished" might occur on George Jr's watch. George Jr's legacy is more important. Prolong the war. Lie to the nation. We are but fodder for his legacy.
"Mission Accomplished" will be completely decided by end of 2007. Also obvious is a major - a most important - point from the ISG. The only way that Iraqis can obtain peace is training. What do we know? Iraqis get almost no training despite administration (and Rush Limbaugh) lies. Where armor was required, we gave them pickup trucks. Iraqis were not even provided Chevy Suburbans. So where is all that money going? Most all weapons and equipment as provided has disappeared. Just like in Vietnam, major provider of Vietcong weapons was the United States. That was how incompetent Westmoreland was and how incompetent George Jr’s administration is today.
We have less than one year to train them and get out. After 2007, it will be even worse. Any longer and the conflict may expand into neighboring nations. If that is not obvious, well, did you hear why Turkey wants to (and may be encouraged by George Jr) to invade northern Iraq – especially Kirkuk.
We spent tens of $billions and no one knows where all that money went. Even the senate finally sees reality. But McCain and Graham demonstrate Urbane Guerrilla denial. They would even block a non-binding vote to protect a shitbag president. Maybe god talks to others besides George Jr?
That is not why we are about to get out.
Of course they are talking about getting out of Iraq...
The law is about to pass giving us the oil and natural gas and he just got the extra troops to secure it... duh.
That was the whole reason for us being there.
Now that they got it, fuck the Iraqis.
Years ago, George Sr's close friend, Brent Scowcroft, was predicting how bad it would get. But no one really thought the George Jr administration was even more incompetant. If you did not notice last month, every previous Sec of State from Carter's, Reagan's, Bush Sr's, Clinton, etc have criticize Condi Rice in public testimony for not doing her job. She is criticized for doing same failures as National Security Advisor.
How deep is the denial? Another example of how much worse Iraq is compared to rosy pictures so often in the news. Remember reality - Americans are attacked as much as 3000 times every day - because the Iraqis love being liberated. From ABC News of 3 Feb 2007:
Quick Highlights of the National Intelligence Estimate Report
A new National Intelligence Estimate paints a grim view of the security situation in Iraq.
Highlights of the report include:
. Civil War
"Civil war" accurately describes key aspects of the conflict, but the report indicates that there is clearly more than just a civil war at hand.
The report says: "The Intelligence Community judges that the term 'civil war' does not adequately capture the complexity of the conflict in Iraq, which includes extensive Shia-on-Shia violence, al-Qa'ida and Sunni insurgent attacks on Coalition forces, and widespread criminally motivated violence. Nonetheless, the term 'civil war' accurately describes key elements of the Iraqi conflict, including the hardening of ethno-sectarian identities, a sea change in the character of the violence, ethno-sectarian mobilization, and population displacements."
. A Deteriorating Situation
The situation in Iraq could grow much worse. Events like the complete defection of Sunnis from the government or the assassination of key political and religious leaders could "shift Iraq's trajectory from gradual decline to rapid deterioration with grave humanitarian, political, and security consequences" that could spill beyond Iraq's borders.
As Lee Hamilton of the Iraq Study Group stated bluntly during Congressional testimony, Maliki is useless and needs to be pressured. But how can this be? On his last trip to Iraq, George Jr said he looked into Maliki's eyes and therefore (somehow) knew.
I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul; a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country.
Lee Hamilton saw something completely different - by listening to what Maliki said.
From the Washington Post of 11 Feb 2007:
Victory Is Not an Option
The Mission Can't Be Accomplished -- It's Time for a New Strategy
The new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq starkly delineates the gulf that separates President Bush's illusions from the realities of the war. Victory, as the president sees it, requires a stable liberal democracy in Iraq that is pro-American. The NIE describes a war that has no chance of producing that result. In this critical respect, the NIE, the consensus judgment of all the U.S. intelligence agencies, is a declaration of defeat.
Its gloomy implications -- hedged, as intelligence agencies prefer, in rubbery language that cannot soften its impact -- put the intelligence community and the American public on the same page. The public awakened to the reality of failure in Iraq last year and turned the Republicans out of control of Congress to wake it up. But a majority of its members are still asleep, or only half-awake to their new writ to end the war soon.
Perhaps this is not surprising. Americans do not warm to defeat or failure, and our politicians are famously reluctant to admit their own responsibility for anything resembling those un-American outcomes. So they beat around the bush, wringing hands and debating "nonbinding resolutions" that oppose the president's plan to increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq.
Those with feet in reality knew how bad Iraq is just by reading the Iraq Study Group report and 79 tasks necessary to get out. That report that said "Way Forward" will not work? George Jr pretends it does not exist. He can because, well, read George Jr, Cheney, et al are as divorced from reality as Ronald Cherrycoke.
How divorced from reality are our leaders? Just like in Vietnam, ever major intelligence service said the bombing would not work. So we continued a lost war anyway - since the American soldier is something to be sacrificed. Only 22 Senators had to the balls to vote as American patriots against "Mission Accomplished". Even Hilary Clinton will not fully admit her major leadership fubar. Recently the Republicans (and Henry Reid) voted to protect this mental midget's crusade.
From The Economist of 10 Feb 2007 - and this should concern everyone:
"We are not planning for a war with Iran." So said Robert Gates, America's new defence secretary, on February 2nd. You cannot be much clearer than that. With a weak and isolated president, and an army bogged down in the misery of Iraq, the American Congress and people are hardly in fighting mood. Nonetheless, and despite Mr Gate's calming words, Iran and American are heading for a collision. Although the risk is hard to quantify, there exists a real possibility that George Bush will order a military strike on Iran some time before he leave the White House two years from now.
This is not a source to quibble with. The USS Eisenhower task force was surged to the Gulf recently. Now the USS Stennis is joining 'Ike' to conduct operations close to the Iranian coast.
Does that sound like a president listening to the people? Sounds just like Melvin Laird and Richard Nixon when they also claimed we had no plans to invade Cambodia. What resulted from that invasion? The Khmer Rouge and the killing fields.
Again: lessons from history. When a nation was obviously discontented with Vietnam (especially after Tet exposed the lies), then what did Nixon do? Nixon invaded Cambodia. We were only discontented. Deja vue. We are only discontented with "Mission Accomplished". So far, lessons of Vietnam strongly repeat in "Mission Accomplished". Why would a Cambodian invasion not reoccur as the 'Pearl Harboring' of Iran? After all, George Jr announced the countries he intends to fix - the axis of evil. Iran is next. You are only discontented.
How often would you ask a stranger "When do we go after bin Laden?" How often do you ask such embarrassing questions? Why not? By not doing so, we are tacitly encouraging the mental midget to expand on his legacy. He (actually Cheney) truly believe they are the good guys. Why would anyone dispute this? Even in the Cellar, the discontent is mild. Deja vue Vietnam - or why Nixon thought nothing of invading Cambodia.
"When do we go after bin Laden?"
The rhetoric has started to hype our 'big dics' into supporting more war. This Cover Story
scary picture is based in current facts AND from lessons of Vietnam:
Strange how the US forensic experts can find serial numbers (in Microsoft Times font) on tiny fragments from explosives in Iraq which they can trace back to Iran (famous for stamping Microsoft Times font on all its illegal weapons intended for export)...
when the same US forensic experts can't find an aeroplane in the hole in the ground in Pennsylvania nor in the debris at the Pentagon.
I expect they went on a refresher course between 2001 and 2007. That would explain it.
Ahmadinejad, being a devote follower of the Hidden Imam Mahdi, would love a US attack and prays for a "mahdaviat" every day. The more chaos the better, it'll only speed up the return of Jezus and the 15th Iman.
The only missing link, in Ahmadinejad's opinion, delaying the Mahdi’s arrival is that the world is still far too peaceful; the degrees of clash and disasters setting the chain of celestial events of "mahdaviat" have to gather speed. The recent mess in Lebanon by his proxies was a component of that uncompromising ideological fixation.
The powers to be in Iran, like Kathami, don't like this scenario and is in the, time consuming, process of deleting Ahmadinejad's power.
As usual, the present US government neither has any idea of the real power politics in Iran or has the patience to wait for that. Rummy the Great fortunately has been dismissed, so that will have a moderate influence on the decision makers, but, all or not pressured by Israel to fare another war by proxy, a stupid attack is still possible and Ahmadinejad gets his way and Kathami will be eliminated.
when the same US forensic experts can't find an aeroplane in the hole in the ground in Pennsylvania nor in the debris at the Pentagon.
Aw, not this shit, again. Take it another thread. Better yet, take it to the YouTube comments section for the Loose Change video where you'll find some real insightful views.
:headshake
An intelligent leader would have recognized long ago that without 500,000 troops in Iraq and with no plans for the peace, then "Mission Accomplished" was lost long ago. Even the Iraq Study Group laid out the only possible way to reduce the scope of that loss. Instead, and because people such as Urbane Guerrilla and Ronald Cherrycoke lie, then the mental midget president still thinks god must be telling him what to do.
Iraq is an American defeat. That was becoming obvious to anyone (but the most ignorant) by reading posts even here in the Cellar. Also noted in those posts: if we don't do something about Afghanistan, then even that war is lost. In fact, we may be down to our last year to do anything productive in Afghanistan. Logic says Afghanistan should have been lost years ago.
Cellar dwellers were reading that here more than a year ago when posted was that about one-half of Afghanistan was had been retaken by the Taliban. Yes, NATO is in so much trouble that, last year, the British commander only got from Tony Blair one-tenth the number of troops he requested.
Well Afghanistan is so much worse than reported in the press that the president demands NATO countries put more troops into Afghanistan. Wait? What nation spent one half trillion dollars and did not ... well this question is asked repeatedly only by those who have posting nothing but respect for reality: When do we go after bin Laden?
Why does the scumbag president chastise NATO when the mental midget does everything to empower the Taliban? Who is one of the Taliban's greatest enemies? Iran. Who would be more willing than anyone else in the world to attack and destroy the Taliban? Who did the most after September 2001 to help America destroy the Taliban? Iran. Who does the mental midget condemn without even knowing where the country was? Answer obvious.
And so we give Afghanistan back to the Taliban only because the American president is that dumb. So the dumb president chastises NATO for not doing enough to attack the Taliban? Why did the scumbag president (also called Cheney) attack Saddam? And when do we go after bin Laden?
He's certainly not going to take advice from you, tw. Your antipatriotism has been clear from the moment I rejoined the Cellar.
Instead he's taken advice from great chickenhawk patriots like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Feith.
The majority of the US population is against the Iraq war, are these all communists?
From the NY Times of 20 Mar 2007:
Army Brigade Finds Itself Stretched Thin
For decades, the Army has kept a brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division on round-the-clock alert, poised to respond to a crisis anywhere in 18 to 72 hours.
Today, the so-called ready brigade is no longer so ready. Its soldiers are not fully trained, much of its equipment is elsewhere, and for the past two weeks the unit has been far from the cargo aircraft it would need in an emergency.
Instead of waiting on standby, the First Brigade of the 82nd Airborne is deep in the swampy backwoods of this vast Army training installation, preparing to go to Iraq. Army officials concede that the unit is not capable of getting at least an initial force of several hundred to a war zone within 18 hours, a standard once considered inviolate.
The declining readiness of the brigade is just one measure of the toll that four years in Iraq — and more than five years in Afghanistan — have taken on the United States military. Since President Bush ordered reinforcements to Iraq and Afghanistan in January, roughly half of the Army’s 43 active-duty combat brigades are now deployed overseas, Army officials said. A brigade has about 3,500 soldiers.
George Jr’s legacy is safe. US can no longer respond to an emergency let alone fight a second war. Both were once considered essential to protect America. But George Jr is making America safer – for his legacy.
He is a classic 'big dic'. If the Army had the resources, then our 'big dic' administration would be starting another war. That is their political agenda as defined by Project for a New American Century.
A few years ago was a debate: whether US military doctrine (two simultaneous wars) still existed. George Jr so destroyed US military readiness as to quash that "2nd war" ability years ago. Of course mental midget's Rumsfeld and Cheney denied this. Well that debate is now moot. (Even US Eighth Army in Korea would have serious shortages of equipment and material ... and no backup; should you wonder why America suddenly wants to negotiate with N Korea). US military is now so massively diminished that even a Division Ready Brigade no longer exists.
A Division Ready Brigade is active for 18 weeks in Fort Bragg to deploy with only 18 hours notice out of Pope Air Force Base. Within hours of landing, they are expected to enter combat. This was once considered essential to American security. Even that ability is now gone.
What is necessary as "Mission Accomplished" continues well beyond 2010? Yes, George Jr's administration has already declared that "Mission Accomplished" will continue well beyond 2010. As George Jr said yesterday, "this war is still in the beginning phase". "Mission Accomplished". He was referring to the surge – is what we are expected to think.
How long has so much contempt existed for the American soldier? Well, remember Jessica Lynch and her 507th Maintenance Company? Did you read the entire story? George Jr's people made sure you did not. Col Teddy Spain needed all 20 MP Companies to provide escort for units such as Jessica's. Jessica’s unit was equipped and trained assuming MP assets would be provided. Administration mental midgets took away 17 of Col Spain’s 20 companies as being unnecessary. 507th had no heavy weapons training, no GPS, no radios, no night vision, and no escort. 27 of 33 soldiers were lost.
George Jr hopes you never learn why the 507th drove directly into an ambush in Nasiriyah. They were denied protection and escort that military planning deemed necessary. Protection denied on orders from George Jr's people. Orders came from that high.
Tom and Ray from NPR’s ‘
Car Talk’ took a call from Baghdad. The caller was asking for a solution to Humvee bearing problems. Attached armor is destroying wheel bearings every three weeks. Humvees sent to Iraq were never capable of supporting that amour. Is this an isolated event? Of course not. "Making of a Quagmire". Change the details and Vietnam is now "Mission Accomplished". But you don’t need to know these 2005 realities.
Like a spread sheet, each lurker is just learning of “ 2005 Mission Accomplished”. How bad will "Mission Accomplished" be in late 2007? We will finally learn in 2010. Even US Eight Army in Korea is now at risk. The US military is so depleted by George Jr and his 'big dics' that America has even lost our firemen – “Division Ready Brigade”.
Same opinions today existed in 1968 after Tet. If history repeats, then 1968 to 1975 ... we will be massacring American soldiers uselessly until 2014. People were angry but did nothing more in 1968 as Nixon massacred another 30,000 Americans to protect his legacy.
3,000 dead Americans. 23,000 seriously wounded. So little money left that a soldier lying in his own urine could not have sheets for his bed. History says these are the good times; it will get worse.
History also says younger Cellar dwellers will be in my position in 30 years. Don’t forget how so few were posting realities and facts in 2002. You will need that experience in 2040 when a new generation of ‘big dics’ take power to massacre the American soldier for a political agenda – the ‘big dic’ mentality.
New wheel bearings every three weeks. About 10 hours of helicoprter maintenance for every 1 hour of flying. Don’t worry. We’re rich. And they are only soldiers – sacrificial soldiers. After all, they signed up for this. More important – protect George Jr’s legacy. Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Urbane Guerrilla will thank you.
From the Kalleej Times in Dubai of 2 Apr 2007:
Double or quits
On March 28, the venerable Saudi monarch King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz told the Arab summit in Riyadh that the Anglo-American occupation of Iraq was illegal. The damage that this has done to America's presence in Iraq, and its credibility in the region, is immense. ...
This public snub was probably the good news. The private snub was if anything worse. King Abdullah sent his national security adviser, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, to tell President George Bush that he was a bit tied up at the moment, and therefore could not fly over for a state dinner on April 17: maybe they could do dinner another time? When your best friend is not free for dinner, it is time to look in the mirror.
The White House chose to grin and deny that any invitation had been sent, but it was impossible to deny the contents of the Abdullah speech. The State Department asked Nicholas Burns, still looking depressed after his non-talks on the nuclear deal in Delhi, to explain on television that the American presence in Iraq had UN sanction as well as the invitation of the Iraqi government. Mr Burns did not dwell on the finer points of both: that the Security Council held another view before the war began, and that the Iraqi government whose invitation he so admires did not exist then. And now comes news that young King Abdullah of Jordan has no time for dinner either. Although the Jordan monarch is so often in America that he could qualify for a frequent flyer programme were he plebeian enough to fly on a commercial liner, he too has sent word that it might be wiser to postpone a planned state visit in September. Would 2008 do?
His exact words (boldface mine) were:
In beloved Iraq, blood is flowing between brothers, in the shadow of an illegitimate foreign occupation, and abhorrent sectarianism threatens a civil war.
That's right. It is an occupation - not liberation. This from a closest George Jr friend?
From the Jerusalem Post of 2 Apr 2007:
Analysis: Are the Saudis seeking peace?
... if Israel thought Rice's optimistic diplomacy earlier in the week was based on some well-established US-Saudi coordination, it came as a total surprise when Jim Hoagland disclosed in The Washington Post yesterday that Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah canceled a mid-April gala dinner with President George W. Bush in the White House.
Hoagland heard from administration sources that Riyadh had decided for now to seek common ground with Iran, Hamas and Hizbullah. It now becomes understandable why the Saudis chose to strengthen Hamas, with the Mecca Agreement, at the expense of Mahmoud Abbas, who just became politically even more sidelined.
If Saudi Arabia has decided to distance itself from the US at this time, then how could Washington expect that now the time was ripe for a Saudi-Israeli rapprochement under an American umbrella?
... What is shaping Saudi Arabia's new diplomatic activism is the rapidly expanding Iranian threat and the weakness of the Western response.
Clear is an entire region rejecting (apparently as irrelevant) George Jr and his wacko extremists. Jordan and Saudi Arabia, considered America's closest Arab allies, have literally backhandedly slapped George Jr's face - and done so publicly so that you know it. Kings of Saudi Arabia and Jordan both cancel dinners? No way around it. That is a direct snub of the scumbag president who has zero credibility in the world.
But it gets worse. Up in Poland, a very pro-American defense minister Radek Sikorski has lost his job. From the Economist of 31 Mar 2007:
Iraq explains why 51% of Poles opposed the missile-defence plan in one recent survey, says Radek Silorksi, an Atlanticist Pole who recently lost his job as defense minister amid a row over hot exactly to negotiate with the United States over missile defences.
... says Mr Sikorski: "This is blowback from Iraq. We used to take things on trust from the United States in the security field" - but that is no longer the case.
George Jr policy was to 'not do as Clinton'. Clinton's Arab/Israeli shuttle diplomacy, et al were condemned, as George Jr people repeatedly said, because Clinton did it. Suddenly Rice is trying to rescue concepts once called the Oslo Accords by doing what? Shuttle diplomacy. Suddenly talks with N Korea are being conducted just as Clinton did ten years earlier - a new treaty almost exactly like one originally negotiated by Carter and vocally rejected by neocons from Project for a New American Century. Suddenly what Clinton was doing is now acceptable?
Too little too late. From the Associated Press of 1 Apr 2007:
Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, will convey a message to Syria from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, that Israel is interested in peace if Damascus stops supporting terrorism, an Israeli official said Sunday.
Pelosi met Olmert Sunday during the Israel part of her Mideast tour, which has drawn
criticism from the White House because of her planned stop in Syria.
"Pelosi is conveying that Israel is willing to talk if they (Syria) would openly take steps to stop supporting terrorism," Olmert spokeswoman Miri Eisin said.
Why is Pelosi doing Shuttle diplomacy? Israel also has little faith in what Rice had to say. The region was ripe for peace when 'big dics' decided to fix things with preemption. Never forget what a Norwegian foreign minister predicted in the first months of the George Jr administration: George Jr would undermine the Oslo Accords. And, of course, that is exactly what the mental midget did.
Why use Pelosi as the negotiator? She is the closest thing Israel can find to an American honest broker; someone who wants peace? Why couldn't Olmert have done same with Condi Rice who was just there last week? George Jr would not know peace if it bit him in the nose he once used for cocaine.
What is the White House response? White House mental midgets tell Pelosi to not convey any message from Israel to Syria. Why is the White House so fearful of peace?
Do not expect anything good to come of events here. A message about 'stopping terrorism' is only a message of 'maybe we can talk'. Nothing more. But the backhanded face slaps of George Jr by Arab leaders is long overdue. Both King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and King Abdullah II of Jordan canceled visits with one of America's greatest 'worst president'.
Meanwhile, 15 British hostages are now caught up in America's 'big dic' threats - war games conducted in the Persian Gulf off Iran's coast. As Martha Raddatz of ABC News noted:
U.S. naval officials in Bahrain told ABC News that the operation was hastily planned after the 15 Britons were seized Friday, yet the Bush administration would not say publicly that this is the case.
Military operations intentionally created upon White House orders - as if a classic 'big dic' response would solve anything. Military threats made it more difficult for moderate Iranians to gain the upper hand and end an undesirable hostage standoff.
What has now arrived in the Gulf? More US Navy ships including aircraft carriers USS Bataan (of New Orleans / Katrina fame) and her sister ship USS Boxer. Why Marine assault ships and so many mine sweepers? 'Big dic' neocons believe in preemption rather than intelligent negotiation. Even Poland - once most trusting and supportive of any thing American now say Americans cannot be trusted. But you cannot tell that even to 'big dic' advocates in the Cellar. Their response is akin to something about jealousy of Americans or some hidden agenda. The only thing hidden is intelligence among George Jr supporters. When only Pelosi is trusted enough to deliver a message? When even Kings of Jordan and Saudi Arabia are *publicly* too busy for a state dinner?
Strange how the US forensic experts can find serial numbers (in Microsoft Times font) on tiny fragments from explosives in Iraq which they can trace back to Iran (famous for stamping Microsoft Times font on all its illegal weapons intended for export)...
when the same US forensic experts can't find an aeroplane in the hole in the ground in Pennsylvania nor in the debris at the Pentagon.
I expect they went on a refresher course between 2001 and 2007. That would explain it.
They found both. In DC they cleaned it up and PA decided not to disturb it except clean up what's on the ground surface.
Munitions are usually designed with small hard parts,extra shrapnel you know. Commercial planes are not, and they can still identify an amazing number of tiny scraps and know exactly where they came from.
Strange how the US forensic experts can find serial numbers (in Microsoft Times font) on tiny fragments from explosives in Iraq which they can trace back to Iran (famous for stamping Microsoft Times font on all its illegal weapons intended for export)...
when the same US forensic experts can't find an aeroplane in the hole in the ground in Pennsylvania nor in the debris at the Pentagon.
I expect they went on a refresher course between 2001 and 2007. That would explain it.
So your contention is that no airplane crashed in the ground in Penn or the Pentagon!?!?! :eek: :bonk:
Ok, answer me this... not a very hard question so just try to stick to answering this one very simple thing, ok?
[SIZE="2"]Where are they hiding all of those people who were on the airplane manifest's???? They have them hold up in a camp in the hills? Was it a conspiracy among the funneral directors to have a bunch of false funnerals so they could make some money? Wait, wait, no I got it... it was a conspiracy from the air plane manufactures because those two planes were old and they wanted to remove them from the inventory so they just made them invisable on the radar and flew them to some secret location and all those people are really just hanging out down in Mexico on the beach sipping fruity drinks... THAT's it! Isn't it!?!?!?[/SIZE]
Well? Help me out here. :blunt:
The 9/11 conspiracy has so many variations you can't just disprove one. I'm pretty sure the bombs in the WTC are pretty much busted by real engineers along with most of the other main critiques but you can't prove that the US didn't have anything to do with it.
The 9/11 conspiracy has so many variations you can't just disprove one.
And IMHO you can't prove any of them.
You can prove them but the ones you can prove most likely never happened for obvious reasons.
If the US was involved in 9/11, I am 99% sure we would never find out or couldn't prove it but you technically could prove it. You can never prove that they didn't though.
It is basically like the "is there a god" debate. If a god shows itself then, yes, it is proven but that will really never happen so you can't really prove that god exists unless that happens. It also goes both ways with you can't prove that a god doesn't exist.
You can prove them but the ones you can prove most likely never happened for obvious reasons.
If the US was involved in 9/11, I am 99% sure we would never find out or couldn't prove it but you technically could prove it. You can never prove that they didn't though.
It is basically like the "is there a god" debate. If a god shows itself then, yes, it is proven but that will really never happen so you can't really prove that god exists unless that happens. It also goes both ways with you can't prove that a god doesn't exist.
Hence the basis of all conspiracy theory. Voids that allow others to fill in and make connections that do not exist. But because there is enough mistrust among all governments or controlling organizations there are people out there that will believe anything. Well that is until you point out the GLARING idiocy in their thinking, hence my example above about the airplanes in Penn and the Pentagon.
From looking through different conspiracies I have found two similarities. First, everyone one of them want the conspiracies to be true and they all think they are seeing things that everyone else is missing, making them to try to further see things that aren't there.
There are some very good questions regarding the 9/11 conspiracy (the fact that Bush needed 9/11 to do just about everything he has done so far) but that isn't proof by any means.
From The Washington Post of 11 Apr 2007:
3 Generals Spurn the Position of War 'Czar'
Bush Seeks Overseer For Iraq, Afghanistan
The White House wants to appoint a high-powered czar to oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with authority to issue directions to the Pentagon, the State Department and other agencies, but it has had trouble finding anyone able and willing to take the job, according to people close to the situation.
At least three retired four-star generals approached by the White House in recent weeks have declined to be considered for the position, the sources said, underscoring the administration's difficulty in enlisting its top recruits to join the team after five years of warfare that have taxed the United States and its military.
"The very fundamental issue is, they don't know where the hell they're going," said retired Marine Gen. John J. "Jack" Sheehan, a former top NATO commander who was among those rejecting the job. Sheehan said he believes that Vice President Cheney and his hawkish allies remain more powerful within the administration than pragmatists looking for a way out of Iraq. "So rather than go over there, develop an ulcer and eventually leave, I said, 'No, thanks,' " he said.
Nothing new in a report that confirms what the generals have long been saying quietly. This has long been a problem for George Jr and especially under Rumsfeld. An administration that overtly mocked even basic military doctrine is still dominated by the same wacko mental midgets.
No accident that the administration had to reach way down to Lt Gen Sanchez to find a commander for "Mission Accomplished". Suspicion remains so strong that the administration had to reach out to a Pacific based Admiral for a Central Command commander. So many previous generals remember what happened to Generals Shelton, Shinseki, Keane, Garner, Caffery, Schoomaker, Myers, and others.
Meanwhile, why a Czar for "Mission Accomplished" and Afghanistan? That is the job of Central Command's commander? Or is this Admiral not able to run both Central Command wars? Why another layer of bureacracy? Or must Central Command prepare for a third war? Who would an Admiral conduct attacks against?
Since 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management, then why would anyone work for an administration with so much contempt for the American soldier? Why would the administration need another general - another level of bureacracy? The obvious part is why so many generals don't want to work for George Jr's administration - where contempt for basic military doctrine is so extensive.
From the BBC of 7 Dec 2005: And clearly enlisted men brought dog collars with them to Iraq so as to walk naked prisoners down the halls of Abu Ghriad. Clearly Americans at the highest levels don't condone torture - just like Saddam conspired to attack the World Trade Center. After all, did not an honest president claim that in his State of the Union address?
Honest, decency, morality, and god's chosen people. Yep. That's US. Therefore when we torture, it must be for the greater glory of god ... or maybe our leaders are corrupt?
All politicians are corrupt. In order to attain that level of power, one must be willing to give up one's soul. There's no hope for this system or any other system of government that takes the power out of the direct control of the people. And until people can regulate themselves without chaos, there's no hope for that either.
Suspicion remains so strong that the administration had to reach out to a Pacific based Admiral for a Central Command commander. So many previous generals remember what happened to Generals Shelton, Shinseki, Keane, Garner, Caffery, Schoomaker, Myers, and others.
Well, the administration has a pretty narrow candidate profile- someone smart enough to make it to 4 star general and dumb enough to take the job.
Since so many soldiers are already being recruited from the ranks of non-citizens, maybe they'll offer the job to a general from Mexico or South America. I'm sure Cheney probably has some friends from the old military junta days in Chile. He should ask one of them.
Who would want to take the job knowing that the White House will put it's own agenda above dealing with the real situation and will also attempt to shift attention (and blame) away from themselves onto whoever fills the slot. In effect, they will order the 'czar' to 'stay the course' and then tell everyone that they had no input and that it was the "czar's" idea since he is ostensibly the one in charge.
Between this and the EPA debacle in the supreme court, it appears that the administration wants the power, but not when it comes with responsibility and accountability.
I just read a great quote from Lee Iacocca's new book,
Where Have All The Leaders Gone?
Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder. We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, "Stay the course."
Stay the course? You've got to be kidding. This is America, not the damned Titanic. I'll give you a sound bite: Throw the bums out!
You might think I'm getting senile, that I've gone off my rocker, and maybe I have. But someone has to speak up. I hardly recognize this country anymore. The President of the United States is given a free pass to ignore the Constitution, tap our phones, and lead us to war on a pack of lies. Congress responds to record deficits by passing a huge tax cut for the wealthy (thanks, but I don't need it). The most famous business leaders are not the innovators but the guys in handcuffs. While we're fiddling in Iraq, the Middle East is burning and nobody seems to know what to do. And the press is waving pom-poms instead of asking hard questions. That's not the promise of America my parents and yours traveled across the ocean for. I've had enough. How about you?
I'll go a step further. You can't call yourself a patriot if you're not outraged. This is a fight I'm ready and willing to have.
Tell it Lee!
The 9/11 conspiracy has so many variations you can't just disprove one. I'm pretty sure the bombs in the WTC are pretty much busted by real engineers along with most of the other main critiques but you can't prove that the US didn't have anything to do with it.
Bombs? What bombs? You probably believe that a missle struck the pentagon too?
Do a little a research on the pentagon, and read the interviews with the two firefighters that were there at the helicopter landing pad. (In one of the photos taken that day, you can see a burning fire truck.) They will tell you it was PLANE they saw. And have the burns on their backs from running away!
Who would want that job knowing that the White House will put it's own political agenda above the real situation and will also attempt to shift attention. Who wants a job that will only get them the blame? In effect, they will order the 'czar' to 'stay the course' and then tell everyone that they had no input and that it was the "czar's" idea since he is ostensibly the one in charge.
What was always more important? Early in 2003, the White House had White House spokesmen assigned to Central Command public information offices just so the message was correct. Realities are secondary when MBAs and lawyers make the decisions. (Same people who said global warming does not exist and that Man to Mars will advance science.)
Humvees had no armor. Why? "Mission Accomplished". If we sent armor kits, then that would be an admission that "Mission Accomplished" had not happened. The message was more important than realities. Therefore soldiers died.
A soldier asks Rumsfeld why so few armored humvees. Rumsfeld said the armor was being delivered as fast as possible. Again, a message was more important than reality. Company that made those armor kits said they could increase production by something like 400 per month - but Rumsfeld would not order it. Why? The message was “Mission Accomplished”. Therefore more soldiers died.
Message said evil Baathists must be removed. Where did military doctrine even from 500 BC (Art of War) ever appear in that message? Therefore Baathists, teachers, electric utility workers, government officials, police, military, .... all were fired because of the message. Therefore 'the message' created an insurgency.
The message said Saddam has WMDs everywhere. Better to leave those ammo dumps alone. Message was more important than reality. Therefore the country remains chock full of munitions to arm an insurgency.
Col Spain needed his twenty MP companies to perform his job. He got three. Why? The message was that the Iraqis would welcome occupation forces. When that did not happen, then the 507th Maintenance Company (Jessica Lynch) was virtually wiped out. They were deployed with no radios, no GPS, and without the MP escorts they were equipped to expect and that would have provided protection. Message was that Jessica Lynch was shot and captured while firing her weapon. More lies because the message is always more important than reality.
The message was “There’s no question but that in those regions where pockets of dead-enders are trying to reconstitute”. Wolfowitz repeated the same message on Capitol Hill: “remnant of the old regime”; that resistance was almost eliminated. Therefore reality - a massive American created insurgency was growing and killing Americans in increasing numbers. An insurgency created by Bremer and the George Jr administration then was renamed Al Qaeda. Again the message was more important than reality. Label them as bogeymen rather than angry Iraqis who wanted Americans gone.
After October 2003, Americans were being attacked 1500 and 3000 times every day. The message from Rumsfeld was, "We're in a low intensity war that needs to be won, and we intend to win it." Over 1000 attacks every day is low intensity? But reality was contrary to the message. So many Americans had so much contempt for the troops as to believe the message.
By mid-October, the insurgency was obviously spiking. Instead US commanders were planning for troop reductions to 100,000 the next summer and something like 40,000 by next year. Why? The message was Iraqis were happy to be liberated - when their lives had never been worse. But again, the message is more important than reality.
By this point, after obviously lying about WMD, one might say, “Fool me once; shame on you. Fool me twice; shame on me.” Instead, majority of American were believing the message; ignoring reality; blaming the press for being too negative.
"Mission Accomplished" was never justified by a smoking gun. It has no strategic objective. Therefore it has no exit strategy. All this is now being demanded by Congress that wants milestones. George Jr is fighting and obstructing what the military needs. No strategic objective means victory is not possible - Vietnam deja vue complete with contempt for the troops.
Wait... wait... I think I see light at the end of the tunnel. No. That's someone looking for electricity in Baghdad. Why would anyone with intelligence want to work for an administration enchanted by their own message? Why would they want to accept blame when so many Americans would not even see through “the message” from a compulsive liar?
A “Mission Accomplished” Czar must ignore reality to promote the President Cheney message.
Uh TW, it's really a small point but my post read:
Who would want to take the job knowing that the White House will put it's own agenda above dealing with the real situation and will also attempt to shift attention (and blame) away from themselves onto whoever fills the slot. In effect, they will order the 'czar' to 'stay the course' and then tell everyone that they had no input and that it was the "czar's" idea since he is ostensibly the one in charge.
You quoted me as: (I added the underlines)
Who would want that job knowing that the White House will put it's own political agenda above the real situation and will also attempt to shift attention. Who wants a job that will only get them the blame? In effect, they will order the 'czar' to 'stay the course' and then tell everyone that they had no input and that it was the "czar's" idea since he is ostensibly the one in charge.
I don't mind anyone snipping sections from posts. Even doing what reviewers do with the "It was a great book......great summer read" is ok.
The meaning wasn't altered significantly, and I realize that my original sentence was in danger of becoming a run-on sentence. However, I really don't want anyone acting as my editor here. Parsing quotes is fine. Actually changing words and sentences, even if the result is an improvement, is not a good idea.
I really do enjoy your input and I am very happy that you quoted me, so I hope that you will not take this as a rebuke but rather as a minor correction.
Bombs? What bombs? You probably believe that a missle struck the pentagon too?
Do a little a research on the pentagon, and read the interviews with the two firefighters that were there at the helicopter landing pad. (In one of the photos taken that day, you can see a burning fire truck.) They will tell you it was PLANE they saw. And have the burns on their backs from running away!
When in my post did I say I believe in the 9/11 conspiracy?
The actual quote you quoted me from says "I'm pretty sure the bombs in the WTC is busted" meaning that I don't believe in it and have evidence that supports my opinion. Don't quote me and accuse me of saying one thing when my post clearly says the other.
Uh TW, it's really a small point but my post read:
I did not realize I had perverted the quote. Don't know how it happened but my mistake is not relevant to the topic. I have no idea either how or why I would have perverted that quote so massively.
Points posted were facts related to your original post. Irrelevant is whether it contradicts or confirms what you posted. The situation: why so many generals have proclaimed "Mission Accomplished" as wrong for various reasons - including every general that served in Iraq and has since retired .... that fact remains.
Facts posted are the reality of our current history and therefore current situation. Because same mental midgets remain and continue to lie to us, then why would any general want to work for people whose "message" is more important than reality? Military professionals even list examples of dead soldiers because the "message" had no basis in reality. Specific examples of dead soldiers directly attributed to *the message*.
Everyone here should have long learned those lessons; be it from W E Deming's concepts (ie "Out of Crisis") or from Vietnam. Tactical victories are wasted efforts when conducted without a strategic objective. Quality control inspectors mean no quality. In each case, doing a better job means no victory; no accomplishment. - because the bigger picture is bogus; a lie.
Even if the enlisted man believes he is doing so much good, his perspective hides a reality: his good intentions are wasted when not contributing to a viable strategic objective. So many 2003 soldiers insisted they were doing so much good when reality was opposite. It was only creating an insurgency. They would not know - they could not see the bigger picture - the strategic objective that did not exist.
A general who fails to understand why the "message" has no basis in reality would take that Czar job. That job is a no win situation because a political agenda - wacko extremist bias - is subverting realities. No strategic objective is a well proven formula for defeat.
Vietnam is the classic example of why a war could not be won - why propaganda - the message - a political agenda - will only create more dead troops. The Vietnam War Memorial in Washington is a tribute to so many killed watefully because our leaders were so self serving and stupid - did not have the courage and intelligence to acknowledge reality. Vietnam dead because the president’s legacy was more important than 30,000 American lives.
Why would anyone want to work for people with so little intelligence, so little grasp, so little courage, and massive, self serving political agendas? Yes, what George Jr is doing borders on treason; with so much contempt for the American soldier.
As an MBA, then what is his solution? Another layer of bureaucracy? George Jr, an MBA without 'dirt under his fingernails', has a long history of solving problems with more bureaucracy and increased spending. He even denies our only viable solution - the Iraq Study Group.
A Czar will somehow accomplish what is supposed to be the job of Central Command? No. But then we have leaders so short on intelligence as to even increase a subordinates pay from $130,000 to about $195,000 per year just for sex (that is not considered as despicable bad as 'nappy headed ho'?). Just another example of how wacko the entire George Jr administration really is.
Why would any General want to work for people with so much contempt of the American soldier, American principles, and Americans? No wonder religious right extremists are so in love with these *leaders*.
But then we have leaders so short on intelligence as to even increase a subordinates pay from $130,000 to about $195,000 per year just for sex
WTF is this referring to?
Wolfowitz put his girlfriend on the fast track in the World Bank. More than that- she got raises well past the limit.
Remember who Wolfowitz is. He originated and campaigned extensively for "Mission Accomplished". An agenda still strongly advocated by this administration's neocons in direct opposition to the Iraq Study Group. Wolfowitz today was caught again lying; this time about his letter to a Vice President for Human Resources. Of course. He is completely representative of those who believe "the message" justifies the means. Or as was argued back in Nam: the ends justifies the means.
Lying to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to protect 'your' oil: acceptable. Lying to have the World Bank pay another $50,000 per year for Wolfowitz's sex: also acceptable especially when it is 'your' World Bank. Lying about a free and consensual blow job if you are a Democrat? Impeachable.
As so many military analysts have noted, 'the message' has even resulted in American soldier deaths. But then another righteous administration also had same contempt for 30,000 American soldiers in Nam.
Notice what constitutes 'morality' - a direct snub in the face of anyone who calls themselves religious and yet remains silent about these so moral administration officials - both recent and current.
I don't believe in morality. I believe those who advocate morality are the reason why the World Bank was paying an additional $50,000 per year for Wolfowitz's "nappy headed ho".
So where did they move her? Protected in the State Department to work for Wolfowitz's 'moral' peers. Why are the religious among us so silent? After all, Wolfwitz is what we once called the 'moral majority'.
Clinton did not pay for his sex. Wolfowitz did with the bank's money. Clinton confronts impeachment? Then Wolfowitz should be facing capital punishment. Oh. Wolfowitz is from the moral party. Therefore he should be punished less severely than Don Imus?
Funny. Don Imus exercised his 1st Amendment rights and gets punished far more severely. Wolfowitz's even overtly lied to kill hundred of thousands and make refugees of 4 million. Therefore he may not even suffer punishment as severe as Imus'? Justice has a double standard? Yes as long as your supporters are so 'moral'.
Moral to me is how the most hateful people justify their own crimes and protect their own at the expense of mankind. $50,000 annually to buy sex for Wolfowitz. As moral as a pedophile Catholic priest. Double standard.
It's not just that Wolfowitz exercised questionable activities for the benefit of his 'nappy headed ho'. He also lied repeatedly about doing these things.
Shaha Riza would see her income rise from $130,000 to $244,000 which his $20,000 higher than the maximum for her pay grade. But then having a moral boss can be so profitable.
Wolfowitz Dictated Girlfriend's Pay Deal
World Bank Board Weighs Its Options
Just too many details to summarize anything here. Read the long list of 'moral' decisions from a founding member of Project for a New American Century.
In hip hop, it is acceptable to 'have a ho in every state'. Clearly when a bank president has only one ho in Washington, well, that's good and moral? Same double standard also justified Wolfowitz's lies about Saddam's WMDs. Clearly he is more moral this time because he only had one ho and the bank - not he - paid for her.
In Vietnam, tw, the end was to prevent the grip of the bad religion, Communism, from tightening around the throat of the Vietnamese. This is an end of most excellent nobility and humanity, no?
You, of course, complain of how many Communist cultists die to achieve this end.
That is why you suck so very bad. You wanted and want the bad religion to misrule our world.
Reality was obvious in 2004 when insurgents (that myth promoters called Al Qaeda) could spend all morning adjusting their mortars with a transit in a neighborhood adjacent to Abu Ghriad. Why? Because no Iraqis would report the insurgents or their planned attack on Abu Ghriad. Those who 'assumed' Americans were so welcome as liberators had to completely ignore these so obvious details. Insurgents could spend all morning setting up for an attack while MPs in Abu Ghriad never knew an attack was coming. Everyone else knew it because Americans were not welcome - despite American domestic propaganda.
Again, the details are damning. This sounds too much like Vietnam. From the NY Times of 16 Apr 2007:
Attacks Surge as Iraq Militants Overshadow City
They maneuver in squads, like the American infantrymen they try to kill. One squad fires furiously so another can attack from a better position. They operate in bad weather, knowing American helicopters and surveillance drones are grounded. Some carry G.P.S. receivers so mortar teams can calculate the coordinates of American armored vehicles. They kidnap and massacre police officers. ...
As the insurgent ranks have swelled, attacks on American troops have soared. ...
On the ground in Baquba, it is not hard to see why. Despite recent seizures of stockpiles, the insurgents have a ready supply of artillery shells and material to make bombs, the biggest killer of American troops here. Some bombs destroy American vehicles. Some are used to booby-trap houses to crash down on Americans. Some are used in larger battle plans: Before overrunning an Iraqi Army outpost south of Baquba, guerrillas laid bombs on the road that Iraqi and American forces would later use to try to rescue the outpost. The minefield blocked the reinforcements, and the Iraqi soldiers at the outpost fled.
The guerrillas seem increasingly well organized and trained. An insurgent force trying to overrun an American outpost in southern Baquba was repelled only after American soldiers fired more than 2,000 Coke-bottle-size rounds from Bradley fighting vehicles and 13,000 rounds from M-240 machine guns. ...
Fighters from the Mahdi Army, the Shiite militia largely loyal to Moktada al-Sadr, the anti-American cleric, have also flooded north from Baghdad and now control villages west of Baquba and north of Sadr City. ...
Shiite-dominated security forces in the city inflamed tensions by persecuting Sunnis, but remain ill prepared to fight the insurgents without support of American forces. Basic government services like food and fuel deliveries have collapsed. ...
With areas like Zaganiya receiving little attention, insurgent ranks grew unchecked. Eight of the 300 soldiers in the Fifth Squadron of the 73rd Cavalry Regiment have been killed near Zaganiya since they arrived in March to secure the village. The squadron has been sweeping the area northeast of Baquba, while the Fifth Battalion of the 20th Infantry Regiment rushed north from Taji in March to reinforce Baquba....
At one newly built outpost in Baquba, nicknamed Disneyland, soldiers staff lookouts and sniper posts and sleep on cots. They say they control little outside the tall concrete barriers. "You see anybody out there with binoculars, you light them up!" ...
Deja vue Nam.
But the Iraqi soldiers said that most Iraqis assigned to the outpost had fled, kicking back some of their pay to commanders to avoid punishment. ...
The Iraqi soldiers fretted that the insurgents had better equipment compared with their two clips and rickety Kalashnikov rifles. Like Baquba’s residents, they are intimidated. An Iraqi, Sgt. Raad Rashid, said his countrymen would flee if Americans abandoned the outpost. "Twenty minutes later we'd be gone," he said. "They would surround this place and kill us."
As the president declared we were winning, attacks on American increased - in Nam. They tell us the surge is working. Well, protection measures have now been increased even in the Green Zone - only place in Baghdad considered save for Americans. From ABC News of 9 May 2007:
U.S. Embassy: Wear Flak Jackets, Helmets
U.S. Embassy Workers in Iraq Ordered to Put on Flak Vests, Helmets if Outdoors in Green Zone
A sharp increase in mortar attacks on the Green Zone the one-time oasis of security in Iraq's turbulent capital has prompted the U.S. Embassy to issue a strict new order telling all employees to wear flak vests and helmets while in unprotected buildings or whenever they are outside. ...
The increase in mortar attacks comes despite the presence of tens of thousands more American and Iraqi soldiers in the streets of Baghdad as part of the security crackdown ordered by President Bush in January.
The vest and helmet security order was issued May 3, one day after four Asian contract workers working for the U.S. government were killed when rockets or mortars slammed into the Green Zone.
Almost one in three Americans still support a mental midget and his "Mission Accomplished". Every general who served in Iraq and since retired has spoken out against his war. The Iraq Study Group defined an effective solution to minimize a resulting defeat – as the Wise Men did in Vietnam when we also ignored them to massacre 30,000 more American soldiers.
Generals are doing what any patriotic America would do: tell the truth. Necessary to protect American troops. From ABC News of 9 May 2007:
Political Punch
General Discontent
In an act of defiance perhaps not seen since President Truman fired Gen. Douglas MacArthur, today the anti-war veterans group VoteVets.org, which has been influential with Capitol Hill Democrats, is launching a half-million-dollar TV ad campaign featuring Maj Gen John Batiste (Ret.), former commanding general of the first infantry division in Iraq. ...
Batiste then appears, saying, "Mr. President, you did not listen. You continue to pursue a failed strategy that is breaking our great Army and Marine Corps. I left the Army in protest in order to speak out. Mr. President, you have placed our nation in peril. Our only hope is that Congress will act now to protect our fighting men and women."
Remember George Jr is a fool who promotes a mythical worldwide terror organization that he calls Al Qaeda. Terrorist cells led by bin Laden are conjugating even in Cherry Hill NJ. Oh. These terrorists could not even discover that their automatic weapons would not work?
So why did George Jr make no effort to go after bin Laden? He even eliminated the Alec Station whose only function was to get bin Laden. Better for George Jr, politically, to have bin Laden alive. Reality - only threat to Americans in Iraq is ... George Jr. Phony threats such as Al Qaeda will keep the naive from learning reality.
An obvious reality exists as even demonstrated by Cellar Dwellers in
The impending Veto. The United States has no smoking gun to justify "Mission Accomplished", has no strategic objective, and has no exit strategy. Confronted by this reality, supporters of George Jr cannot deny it. US no longer even has a
Division Ready Brigade.
Hearsay according to those who support the troops. Irrelevant to ‘big dic’ thinkers who only see things in terms of military explosions such as ‘shock and awe’ (as if that had any strategic significance). Latter cannot see the difference between a tactical objective and a strategic one. After all, ‘shock and awe’ was big explosion. Therefore it must have accomplished something strategic.
This missing strategic objective was defined even four years ago here in The Cellar. How many dwellers noticed that reality back then?
Four years later and wacko extremists still cannot find an objective? Five years later and still no attempt to get bin Laden? Still they promote this mythical worldwide Al Qaeda lurking everywhere to kill us all? Yes - because it serves George Jr to lie. One in three have so much contempt for the America soldier as to ignore reality. More important is George Jr’s legacy.
Tonight on PBS News Hour, Sen Olympia Snow (R-Maine) even defines the problem. Every commander in Iraq that she talked to – everyone – said that a military victory cannot win this war. Of course. So obvious even from Sze Tzu’s book of 2500 years ago. What Senator Snow says is doctrine from Military Science 101.
Condi Rice was on Charlie Rose recently. Charlie pressed her constantly on their alternative plan should the Maliki government fail (and it is slowly losing supporters). Finally, Rice conceded that George Jr's administration had no alternative plan because their plan was to not fail. "Mission Accomplished". That was Charlie Rose on 7 May 2007.
Any war - including "Mission Accomplished" - is a defeat without a strategic objective. Even Gen Patraeus admits his effort is only a tactical objective intended to give Maliki time to establish a viable government. IOW Americans cannot win "Mission Accomplished". No strategic objective. Americans can only stall for time. Therefore the war will not be lost on George Jr's watch. Why is this obvious? What is the strategic objective? Crickets.
Moderate (intelligent) Republicans are realizing reality. A consensus is building in Congress among moderates (intelligent) and Democrats that September should be the cutoff date. Screw Condi Rice who never had a plan - even when warned repeatedly of terrorist threats in 2001. The legacy of George Jr – America’s worst president in 100 years. At least Nixon was smart enough to know he was lying. What should we expect when President Cheney tells him what to think?
What is a strategic objective? This basic military / political concept is demonstrated using a well known historical event in
The impending Veto .
It looks like the
GOP finally had an intervention.
G.O.P. Moderates Warn Bush Iraq Must Show Gains WASHINGTON, May 9 — Moderate Republicans gave President Bush a blunt warning on his Iraq policy at a private White House meeting this week, telling the president that conditions needed to improve markedly by fall or more Republicans would desert him on the war.
The White House session demonstrated the grave unease many Republicans are feeling about the war, even as they continue to stand with the president against Democratic efforts to force a withdrawal of forces through a spending measure that has been a flash point for weeks.
Participants in the Tuesday meeting between Mr. Bush, senior administration officials and 11 members of a moderate bloc of House Republicans said the lawmakers were unusually candid with the president, telling him that public support for the war was crumbling in their swing districts.
One told Mr. Bush that voters back home favored a withdrawal even if it meant the war was judged a loss. Representative Tom Davis told Mr. Bush that the president’s approval rating was at 5 percent in one section of his northern Virginia district.
Of course, some people just don't get it. On Scarborough Country tonight, Michael Reagan criticized generals who criticized the war saying that they shouldn't criticize unless they can come up with something other than 'cut and run'.
That is an amazingly stupid argument. It's like saying you can't stop a truck driver from driving drunk unless you can show that you know how to drive his truck. If the only two choices are leaving or brining back the draft and sending in 500,000 troops, is that what the generals have to propose?
And what doesn't have much to do with post #536, so it's post #537: the Democratic Party is in this unseemly hurry to lose a war with non-democrats, a/k/a fascists, the Ba'ath-Fascist connection starting with the WW2-era Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and continuing since -- and thus the Democratic Party gives the most profound lie to even its name.
The problem is chronic. Was it or was it not a Democratic-controlled Congress that cut off munitions funds to South Vietnam, guaranteeing thereby the Communist North's victory and the hellish conditions that anyone with half an eye could see coming as a direct result of the Communist victory? Is it or is it not a Democratic-controlled Congress trying to get the war lost, again by defunding, just as rapidly as may be? These people do not have the Republic's interest either in mind or at heart, and do not deserve any American's support. To support these despot-loving boobs, you must be stupider even than they.
Guess who's not that stupid.
The only Democrats presently worth a damn are the registered Democrats in uniform. These and only these Democrats are acting in the Republic's interest.
Urbane, you talk as if we haven't already lost the war.
It may be an uncomfortable truth, and one you don't want to admit, but that doesn't change it. Look at basic facts. Our troops live on a heavily fortified base. When we leave the base we are attacked. We go out into Iraq, perform a mission, and then return to the base to sleep. When we return to the base, it's as if we hadn't gone out into the country at all, because the insurgency comes right back as soon as we leave. We have no long term impact on the situation outside the base. If we were making progress, it would be a different story. Please point to any progress we have made in Iraq.
I know you are afraid to admit it, but we lost this one. The longer we take to admit what is obvious, the more troops will die. The more men will come home on gurneys to shattered lives. How many lives would you destroy for nothing?
The timing of the Democrats is horrible. They should have opposed this war before it started. They were spineless wimps for not standing up to Bush back then. But it's better late than never.
I've been paying attention to all this (The Iraq part of the war), and ALWAYS wondered why, exactly, we were fighting in the first place.
I've been paying attention to all this (The Iraq part of the war), and ALWAYS wondered why, exactly, we were fighting in the first place.
Its been defined here often. For example, use SEARCH to find 2002 posts about "Project for a New American Century", pre-emption verses containment, and the many Frontline Reports (
www.pbs.org) that defined the inevitable. Those many Frontline Reports should still be available on the net. Even in 2003, they define what is happening today.
Learn what Halberstam, et al had been warning about.
Time was on the side of the enemy, and we were in a position of not being able to win, not being able to get out ... only being able to lash out ... And so the war went on, tearing at this country; a sense of numbness seemed to replace an earlier anger. There was, Americans were finding, no light at the end of the tunnel, only greater darkness.
Is this not "Mission Accomplished"? No, Halberstam wrote this in "The Best and the Brightest" in 1972. Deja vue because, well, did you even know about an essential strategic objective, need for a smoking gun, and an exit strategy defined by that strategic objective? And yet that was the lesson of Vietnam, the Pentagon Papers, and history.
Read about the battle of Ap Bac in 1962 that demonstrated why Nam would not be a winnable war. Notice the Iraqis and Maliki's government are doing this same thing. Notice back then how many even in The Cellar did not recognized a situation that created Vietnam was creating "Mission Accomplished" - complete with a lying president.
Also notice Urbane Guerrilla, et al are promoting this reasoning that kept Nam ongoing for seven years after the Wise Men (just like the Iraq Study Group) told Johnson that Nam could not be won. But ‘big dic’ reasoning from Gens LeMay and Westmoreland continued to be promoted. Westmoreland so in denial as to proclaim fundamental military doctrine did not apply to Nam.
View posts from last summer – ie June 2006. That was America’s last (and desperate) hope to create a "Mission Accomplished" victory. One year ago is when "Mission Accomplished" could no longer be won because George Jr, Rumsfeld, etc refused to even give the troops what was requested (ie enough troops). Even more appauling, they were doing the exact same thing that undermined Swartzkopf fabulous military victory in 1991. I could not believe it. Would Cheney, Rumsfeld, Fieth, Wolfowitz, etc make in 2003 the exact same mistake they made in 1991? Yes!
The Cellar (and this thread) are a history of what you should have known then when it was posted. Follow many posts. Some are based in military doctrine and the lessons of history. Others just know we must be winning because Gen Odierno was executing heavy artillery attacks every night. Like in Nam, where the myopic saw successful artillery attacks as an indication of victory, instead, those who understood basic military doctrine (and especially how to fight an insurgency) knew those artillery barrages only demonstrates how badly "Mission Accomplished" was being lost while effectively recruiting for the enemy.
Some posts not only warned of impending failures. Also provided repeatedly are underlying reasons why. Rumsfeld could not find Generals to staff his operation - had to reach so far down into the ranks to find Gen Sanchez. Gen Garner all but refused to continue. "Mission Accomplished" (and Rumsfeld) were carrer destroyers; that well known to those educated in military doctrine that long ago.
What is common to all above? 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. In this case, those wacko extremists kept makinng the same mistakes again and again. Their political agendas (ie America does not do nation building) replaced intelligence. they are that dumb and that much driven by their extremist rhetoric. And we let them.
I disagree with that, Glatt, and say better never than at all. Who in a democracy has any business bowing to a fascism? You may be among the defeated, but why should I join you in that ugly stew? Why can't you be like me instead?
We do understand the nature of our foes, do we not? -- oppressive, repressive, hostile to democracy, the one legitimate governmental form and the one most conducive to a wealthy society. Nor is this a separate war; it is an integral part of the GWOT, and is most properly spoken of as a "campaign" -- a fraction of the wider war.
From the Washington Post of 11 May 2007:
Iraqi Lawmakers Back Bill on U.S. Withdrawal
A majority of members of Iraq's parliament have signed a draft bill that would require a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. soldiers from Iraq and freeze current troop levels. The development was a sign of a growing division between Iraq's legislators and prime minister that mirrors the widening gulf between the Bush administration and its critics in Congress.
The draft bill proposes a timeline for a gradual departure, much like what some U.S. Democratic lawmakers have demanded, and would require the Iraqi government to secure parliament's approval before any further extensions of the U.N. mandate for foreign troops in Iraq, which expires at the end of 2007. ...
On his second day in Iraq, Cheney spoke to U.S. soldiers at a base near Tikrit about the difficulties they face each day. ... He added: "The United States, also, has made a decision: As the prime target of a global war against terror, we will stay on the offensive. We will not sit back and wait to be hit again."
So why are we in Iraq, why have we permitted the Taliban to take back 50% of Afghanistan, and when do we go after bin Laden? Apparently Cheney still thinks Americans are so dumb as to think Iraq had something to do with 11 September. But then almost one in three Americans still supports Pres Cheney and his band of wackos. So yes, some Americans are still that woefully deceived. But when do we go after bin Laden?
You favor an invasion of Pakistan? How many troops will it take?
We do understand the nature of our foes, do we not? -- oppressive, repressive, hostile to democracy, the one legitimate governmental form and the one most conducive to a wealthy society. Nor is this a separate war; it is an integral part of the GWOT, and is most properly spoken of as a "campaign" -- a fraction of the wider war.
So your philosophy is that we should bomb the hell out of them until they love us?:rolleyes:
Its been defined here often. For example, use SEARCH to find 2002 posts about "Project for a New American Century", pre-emption verses containment, and the many Frontline Reports (www.pbs.org) that defined the inevitable. Those many Frontline Reports should still be available on the net. Even in 2003, they define what is happening today.
And there's the
Clean Break Document written by some very familiar people directly involved with the Iraq war.
"Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions. "And in an unsurprising accord with tw's usual pathology, he believes some other Americans believe Iraq did 9-11. This despite my severally-repeated remark that while I support the Iraq campaign fully, I neither believe Iraq did 9-11 nor can I name one single American who does.
Tw's so full of It that it's dripping out the top.
Turning to Glatt: which outcomes are acceptable, one way or the other? That they love us, or that they become absent?
...[W]hile I support the Iraq campaign fully, I neither believe Iraq did 9-11 nor can I name one single American who does.
Then UG...
Why are we there?You mean you weren't paying ANY attention? I've commented more than once on why we're there: a democracy prospers best in a world full of other democracies (an indisputable point, I think; not even those who disagree with me out of sheer mindless reflex try it) and having an actual democracy (in whatever degree that exceeds that of the other regimes about the Great Oil Patch) in control of a quarter of the world's oil reserves can be nothing but good, right?
That Iraq is liberated and remains liberated from the dictator's iron boot is the one, the only, the preeminently important thing. The list of dead fascists who tried impeding this liberation matters not at all -- except of course to democracy-haters and fascism-lovers. By their actions ye shall know them. [Hint: they're the ones who push for anything other than a US & Allies victory.]
You don't have to believe Iraq did 9-11 to desire its liberation. Where's any connection between the two? I don't see one.
UG, the people didn't want us there, dont want us there, and are no happier now than they were. I'm all for freedom and democracy - much more than you are, if you support Bush - but there was NO justification for going into Iraq. If they wanted Saddam out, they could have kicked him out themselves. Just look at the state Iraq is in now. We're much more powerful than Saddam was; if they can take us on, they could have taken him on.
It's not our responsibility to police the world.
Dictatorships are bad. Turning America into one, and a militaristic and aggressive one at that, is even worse.
And in an unsurprising accord with tw's usual pathology, he believes some other Americans believe Iraq did 9-11. This despite my severally-repeated remark that while I support the Iraq campaign fully, I neither believe Iraq did 9-11 nor can I name one single American who does.
This is fact. Many American still believe that Iraq was responsible for 9-11.
In 2003,
70% of Americans thought Iraq was behind the 9-11 attacks.
In 2005,
24% of Americans thought Iraq was behind 9-11.
I can't find results for 2007, but I'm sure there are still a few morons out there.
But UG doesn't know any of them. How could he not know 24% of Americans?
Well, glatt, I never thought that. And I still don't know anybody who does. Guess my friends and acquaintances are all among the smarter three-quarters, if HM's figure is not pulled out of thin air.
The links in my post (#551) show where those figures came from.
glatt demonstrates how Americans believed and many still believe Saddam is complicit in 11 September. But even UG had that opinion in Aug 2005. In 2005, he was lumping Saddam, Al Qaeda, and all those other 'enemies' in a monolithic
Islamoterrorism that would attack the US.
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. ...
To amplify: there's no particular wrong in taking the weakest dictatorship down first ...
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.
Urbane Guerrilla once had 11 September, bin Laden's Al Qaeda, and Saddam as a monolithic enemy that America must 'fix'. His 'Them verses Us' mentality justified by a political agenda rather than facts.
Next he will re-educate us: North Vietnam was a surrogate for monolithic communism of China and USSR.
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.
Urbane Guerrilla defines terror to include 11 September.
[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE] Suddenly
Iraq has no relationship to terror attacks on 11 September? One can do this when a political agenda justifies rewriting history - history of what UG has posted.
Also on
UG's list of countries responsible for 11 September and Bali Indonesia:
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.
The world according to UG: all Islamoterrorism is why Americans must unilaterally attack Iraq, Iran, and even Syria. A black and white world where only good can vanquish evil. IOW a political agenda explains everything.
[QUOTE]We were *attacked* without provocation.
That we were attacked again without provocation (despite the fact that the attacking parties can in either case point to something they will call a provocation) puts us in the identical moral position in the War On Terror as in WW2. Iraq is but one campaign in the WOT, and inseparable from it if we want Islamoterrorism to go extinct. [/QUOTE] Iraq and 11 September was inseparable in Urbane Guerrilla's mind. Now that he cannot rewrite that history, he tries to claim "Mission Accomplished" has no relationship to 11 September? Rewriting his own opinions also justified by his political agenda?
In Ford Motor, when an MBA did not understand how the work gets done, then he hires subordinates. To become productive again (after we kicked out Henry Ford by not buying his products), Ford Motor cut their management from 48 layers down to five.
"Mission Accomplished" from the Sec of Defense and Joint Chiefs is then run by Central Command and then commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan. Today, George Jr added more management layers. From ABC News of 15 May 2007:
Bush Taps New 'War Czar'
In the newly created position of assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for Iraq and Afghanistan policy and implementation, Lute would have the power to direct the Pentagon, State Department and other agencies involved in the two conflicts.
Lute would report directly to the president and to National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley.
Filling the position had become a priority for the White House, after a handful of retired generals told the White House they did not want the job. Among them, retired Marine Corps four-star Gen. Jack Sheehan, who proved an embarrassment to the White House after he wrote an op-ed piece in the Washington Post saying there were "huge shortcomings" in the White House view of the strategy in Iraq.
Of course, anyone without contempt for the troops agrees with so many generals who blame George Jr (Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc) for the destruction of the US military. That is so obvious to those who also saw the stupidity of "Mission Accomplished" on and after 2003.
"What I found in discussions with current and former members of this administration," wrote Sheehan, "is that there is no agreed upon strategic view of the Iraq problem or the region."
At this point, every Cellar dweller should be fully cognizant of what Generals such as Sheehan have been saying for years:
no strategic objective.
Those who use a political agenda to proclaim support for the troops - they must deny reality. One will even claim he never associated 11 September with "Mission Accomplished" even after those above quotes are his. But then Urbane Guerrilla represents those who have so much contempt for the American soldier - and the world.
No strategic objective. More layers of bureaucracy. This man still has another 1.5 years to screw up America. Notice how much he did only in the first 1.5 years. He can still do much damage so as to protect his legacy at the expense of all citizens in the world. How many hundred thousand death Iraqis are on his hands? Meanwhile TheMercenary now posts this is good because so few died.
so as to protect his legacy
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
His legacy as the worst president ever? Not much need to protect that, he's in no danger of losing it.
His legacy as the worst president ever? Not much need to protect that, he's in no danger of losing it.
*knocks on wood*
Be careful Bruce, you never know who we will have in two years.
Thank goodness Griff is going to be president...there isn't much in the way of other decent choices. :)
Apparently we are in even worse shape than I thought.:eek:
You already have my vote, and Spexxvet's...that's two!
From The NY Times of 28 May 2007:
As Allies Turn Foe, Disillusion Rises in Some G.I.'s
But now on his third deployment in Iraq, he is no longer a believer in the mission. The pivotal moment came, he says, this February when soldiers killed a man setting a roadside bomb. When they searched the bomber's body, they found identification showing him to be a sergeant in the Iraqi Army.
"I thought: 'What are we doing here? Why are we still here?'" said Sergeant Safstrom, a member of Delta Company of the First Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry, 82nd Airborne Division. "We're helping guys that are trying to kill us. We help them in the day. They turn around at night and try to kill us."
His views are echoed by most of his fellow soldiers in Delta Company, renowned for its aggressiveness. ...
But in interviews with more than a dozen soldiers in this 83-man unit over a one-week period, most said they were disillusioned by repeated deployments, by what they saw as the abysmal performance of Iraqi security forces and by a conflict that they considered a civil war, one they had no ability to stop.
They had seen shadowy militia commanders installed as Iraqi Army officers, they said, had come under increasing attack from roadside bombs - planted within sight of Iraqi Army checkpoints - and had fought against Iraqi soldiers whom they thought were their allies. ...
To Sergeant O'Flarity, the Iraqi security forces are militias beholden to local leaders, not the Iraqi government. "Half of the Iraqi security forces are insurgents," he said. ...
... as he neared an Iraqi police checkpoint with a convoy of Humvees, Sergeant Griffin spotted what looked like a camouflaged cinderblock and immediately halted the convoy. His vigilance may have saved the lives of several soldiers. Under the camouflage was a massive, six-array, explosively formed penetrator - a deadly roadside bomb that cuts through the Humvees' armor with ease.
... As the ordnance team rolled back to base, they were attacked with a second roadside bomb near another Iraqi checkpoint. One soldier was killed and two were wounded.
No one has been able to explain why two bombs were found near Iraqi checkpoints, bombs that Iraqi soldiers and the police had either failed to notice or helped to plant.
What are George Jr's reasons to stay? Same reasons to justify Vietnam in 1971. Deja vue Nam.
American ignorance and stupidity are not limited to replacing containment with pre-emption. It exists in virtually all parts of American government agendas. From the NY Times of 31 May 2007:
Rice Clashes With Russian on Kosovo and Missiles
The United States and Russia, with relations between them at their most contentious since the collapse of the Soviet Union, openly sparred here on Wednesday at a meeting of foreign ministers of the Group of 8 industrialized nations.
The Russian foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, accused the United States of starting a new arms race and implicitly threatened to veto any United Nations Security Council resolution that, like the one proposed by the United States and its European allies, would recognize the independence of Kosovo.
Even as the White House and the Kremlin were announcing plans for a rare kiss-and-make-up meeting between President Bush and President Vladimir V. Putin, their top diplomats were clashing here ...
Their clashes are indicative of a chill in their countries' relations. In February, Mr. Putin delivered a blistering speech accusing the United States of undermining international institutions and making the Middle East more unstable through its clumsy handling of the Iraq war. ...
At the meeting on Wednesday, Mr. Lavrov repeatedly questioned why the United States was so intent on resolving Kosovo's status when other areas of the world were in dispute.
"Lavrov said, 'Why don't we solve the case of Western Sahara first?'" said a European official who was at the session, speaking on condition of anonymity under customary diplomatic rules. "He even brought up Abkhazia," the obscure Black Sea region that has been trying to secede from Georgia.
And every time Lavrov said something, Condi would jump in, the official said. "It was like tennis."
In an earlier meeting of major nations. Putin requested to talk frankly. He warned that the US was repeatedly doing things that threatened to restart the Cold War. Truth be told - Putin is right.
A senior Bush administration official acknowledged that the administration, in more than six years, had not figured out how to manage its relationship with Russia.
Duhhhhh. Clinton, George Sr, and Reagan had no problem. All were smart enough to even recognize the power of containment and the dangers of pre-emption. Clinton effected regime change when the regime was massacring its own people - twice and without military invasion. George Jr is even losing both wars that he created.
George Jr terminated the anti-ballistic missile treaty unilaterally. He is attempting to do same to the nuclear test ban treaty and the non-proliferation treaty. He destroyed an agreement that would have brought N Korea into the world. He destroyed relations with Syria, What could be better than all this? Restart the Cold War. But then wacko extremists are so suspicious that Condi Rice even mistakenly called them the USSR in a public statement. Putin has every reason to fear a US incompetence to restart the Cold War.
The only nation that keeps the US from unilaterally releasing (Pearl Harboring) a nuclear war is Russia. Would Cheney think twice before ordering a pre-emtive nuclear attack. Obviously not.
Well yeah, but they are consistant... that should count for something.
You know how you read about the outbreak of WWI and it just doesn't make much sense... I'm starting to get that ole "leaders just like conflict" feeling.
From the NY Times of 22 Jun 2007:
Agency Is Target in Cheney Fight on Secrecy Data
For four years, Vice President Dick Cheney has resisted routine oversight of his office's handling of classified information, and when the National Archives unit that monitors classification in the executive branch objected, the vice president’s office suggested abolishing the oversight unit, according to documents released yesterday by a Democratic congressman.
Why would they fear being held accountable for what they do with secrets?
... in May 2006 a former aide in Mr. Cheney's office, Leandro Aragoncillo, pleaded guilty to passing classified information to plotters trying to overthrow the president of the Philippines.
What happened when the US government conspired institute regime change in Australia (ie Falcon and the Snowman). (Non-Americans should have no say about these things since America has *every right* to institute regime change in Australia and Phillippines - Cheney doctrine.)
Clearly only Cheney can be trusted. How many more Cheney subordinates will be found guilty of corruption? Or not if even e-mails are destroyed in violation of Federal law and without prosecution. This is a right wing wacko in power. Laws don't apply to him.
Last time we had leaders with this much contempt for the law and for American principles - the president was the crook Nixon. His VP? A convicted crook named Spiro Agnew. 30 years later - Deja vue.
An accurate source of reality has been PBS Frontline. An hour long news documentary on various subjects. Frontline has been particularly accurate on "Mission Accomplished" with their reports entitled
Rumsfeld's War,
The Torture Question,
The Dark Side, and especially the blatant examples that violate even basic military science 101 principles
The Lost Year in Iraq .
So how do we terminate a defeat called "Mission Accomplished"? The Iraq Study Group provided clear and stunningly comprehensive solution to minimize that defeat. But that defeat would be on George Jr's legacy.
Frontline details and organizes current events that may result in a fourth campaign defeat -
EndGame
For example, obvious was an American defeat in Fallujah. Not the battle. Tactically, Second Fallujah was a victory. But strategically, Fallujah was a defeat; especially First Fallujah. Marines lost that one twice for no fault of their own. First when Marines were ordered to solve a crime problem faster with a full out military assault. Second when the same Washington micromanagers became appalled at what they had created and ordered the Marines to withdrawal. Iraqis then realized Americans could be defeated; inspiring growth of an insurgency fueled by widespread Iraqi dislike of an American occupation.
Not obviously stated in that report: at no time do even major strategists ask something so simple: "What do the Iraqis want?" Therein lays the question necessary for a strategic objective. Without those answers, then Americans could easily remain in Iraq for another decade - just like Nam.
Presented in Frontline's
EndGame is the same scenario that lost Nam. Battles can be won but a war be lost.
Each Frontline reports is must viewing for those who learn history from current events. How badly is "Mission Accomplished" being lost? Most do not realize how bad even Fallujah was. Contempt for the Marines in Washington was appalling. A tactical victory such as Second Fallujah was, in reality, a strategic defeat. Appreciate why a once peaceful Diaylah province is now in civil war. Learn from
EndGame why both Nam and “Mission Accomplished” are defeats – even when soldiers win each battle. Appreciate why 85% of all problems are directly traceable to a mental midget.
See what pretty jewelry Daughter No. 1 makes?
[image= The only BUSH I trust is my own]
Last time I looked where one was supposed to be, nothing was there. No wonder he never asks a single question or reads his memos. Nothing there.
So, there you have it. Laura waxes.
Well I believe it. After all, Nancy Reagan was famous for her blow jobs when she was a starlet. What's a little Brazilian compared to that?
Funny this stuff about Cheney and his "secret" documents. Should make for a great book in '09. Otherwise it is all pretty insignificant.
If it's so insignificant, why doesn't he comply with the law? What's he hiding?
What's he hiding?
Secwits.
If it's so insignificant, why doesn't he comply with the law? What's he hiding?
[brooklyn bridge]It would set a bad precedent. He shouldn't have to explain himself to us. Democracy is too fragile for such things, it must be protected at all cost.[/on sale now!]
Yea, I am sure the US was really glad when JFK came on the nightly news and told the country about the blockade off of Cuba. Or when Carter came on and told us about the reason they were about to send a completely failed rescue mission to Iran, or maybe when Regan came on and told us all about the CIA working behind the scenes in Afganistan... Yep all good stuff. Keeping the well educated American public informed.
[brooklyn bridge]It would set a bad precedent. He shouldn't have to explain himself to us. Democracy is too fragile for such things, it must be protected at all cost.[/on sale now!]
We can't handle the truth.
We can't handle the truth.
Neither can we {the US public} handle the strategy required to take the fight to the terrorists on terms they can understand.
Oh, I can handle that ok. It's the rest of the world Bush wants to fight, for reasons known only to him (or Cheney), that aren't terrorists, instead of where the terrorists are in Afghanistan.
Oh, I can handle that ok. It's the rest of the world Bush wants to fight, for reasons known only to him (or Cheney), that aren't terrorists, instead of where the terrorists are in Afghanistan.
Agreed. Well they use to be. Now we have a whole other potential breeding ground. But I bet once we are out of there they will have their own problems to tend with and will not be producing much more than self destruction.
Funny this stuff about Cheney and his "secret" documents. Should make for a great book in '09. Otherwise it is all pretty insignificant.
It is only insignificant to those who love fascism. Meanwhile, the Washington Post has an ongoing series on unprecedented power by Cheney - who really makes the decisions unbeknownst to most even in the executive branch.
Pushing the Envelope on Presidential Power
On June 8, 2004, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell learned of the two-year-old torture memo for the first time from an article in The Washington Post . According to a former White House official with firsthand knowledge, they confronted Gonzales together in his office.
Rice "very angrily said there would be no more secret opinions on international and national security law," the official said, adding that she threatened to take the matter to the president if Gonzales kept them out of the loop again. Powell remarked admiringly, as they emerged, that Rice dressed down the president's lawyer "in full Nurse Ratched mode," a reference to the head nurse of the mental hospital in the 1975 film "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest."
Neither of them took their objections to Cheney, the official said, a much more dangerous course. ...
Not only did the court leave the president beholden to Congress for the authority to charge and punish terrorists, but it rejected a claim of implicit legislative consent that Bush was using elsewhere to justify electronic surveillance without a warrant. And not only did it find that Geneva's Common Article 3 protects "unlawful enemy combatants," but it also said that those protections -- including humane treatment and the right to a trial by "a regularly constituted court" -- were enforceable by federal judges in the United States.
The court's decision, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, was widely seen as a calamity for Cheney's war plan against al-Qaeda. As the Bush administration formed its response, the vice president's position appeared to decline further still.
Cheney's position? Yes, torture was avocated by VP Cheney. Even done so by keeping other government officials so isoated as to discover America was torturing, in violation of Federal law and the Geneva convention in the Washington Post.
Ongoing is a question of George Jr's legacy. To protect that legacy, Guantanamo should be closed. George Jr had even said, "I'd like to close Guantanamo." A year later, Guantanamo is still functioning since that is what Cheney wants.
the vice president stands by the view that Bush need not honor any of the new judicial and legislative restrictions. His lawyer, they said, has recently restated Cheney's argument that when courts and Congress "purport to" limit the commander in chief's warmaking authority, he has the constitutional prerogative to disregard them.
If Cheney advocates a return to waterboarding, they said, they have not heard him say so. But his office has fought fiercely against an executive order or CIA directive that would make the technique illegal.
It is quite clear why TheMercenary would love Cheney. Cheney demonstrates everything that fascists advocate including unrestricted torture, wiretapping without judicial review, and wars against enemies that don't really exist. Notiice that TheMercenary has again posted the silly myth that "if we don't stop them there, then they will attack us here".
The Washington Post series started with
'A Different Understanding With the President'
Just past the Oval Office, in the private dining room overlooking the South Lawn, Vice President Cheney joined President Bush at a round parquet table they shared once a week. Cheney brought a four-page text, written in strict secrecy by his lawyer. He carried it back out with him after lunch.
In less than an hour, the document traversed a West Wing circuit that gave its words the power of command. It changed hands four times, according to witnesses, with emphatic instructions to bypass staff review. When it returned to the Oval Office, in a blue portfolio embossed with the presidential seal, Bush pulled a felt-tip pen from his pocket and signed without sitting down. Almost no one else had seen the text.
Cheney's proposal had become a military order from the commander in chief. Foreign terrorism suspects held by the United States were stripped of access to any court -- civilian or military, domestic or foreign. They could be confined indefinitely without charges and would be tried, if at all, in closed "military commissions."
"What the hell just happened?" Secretary of State Colin L. Powell demanded, a witness said, when CNN announced the order that evening, Nov. 13, 2001. National security adviser Condoleezza Rice, incensed, sent an aide to find out. Even witnesses to the Oval Office signing said they did not know the vice president had played any part. ...
[Cheney] has found a ready patron in George W. Bush for edge-of-the-envelope views on executive supremacy that previous presidents did not assert. ...
Cheney is not, by nearly every inside account, the shadow president of popular lore. ... Their one-on-one relationship is opaque, a vital unknown in assessing Cheney's impact on events. The two men speak of it seldom, if ever, with others. But officials who see them together often, not all of them admirers of the vice president, detect a strong sense of mutual confidence that Cheney is serving Bush's aims.
Cheney's political agenda approaches what is called fascism. He openly states that the President does not have sufficient powers; needs more. A president can openly create war and torture in direct violation of Federal laws, Geneva Convention, and basic American principles - and still does not have enough power? That would explain why those here who know by using a political agenda also so love Cheney.
Allah Akbar!!!!.
Ok, thanks for your support of terrorists and all things anti-American. Well done!:whofart:
From The Economist of 16 Jun 2007:
For only the second time since he became president, George Bush went to lunch with Senate Republicans on Capitol Hill on June 12th. They entertained him frugally: he had a peanut-butter and jam sandwich. And when he tried, strenuosly and politely, to persuade them to revive his stalled immigration- reform plan, they gave him more peanuts.
Well its a good thing that TheMercenary's hero is an elephant. He got an honorary meal well deserved.
The Economist is a good mag. I have a subscription. :D
From the Washington Post of 26 Jun 2007:
A GOP Plan To Oust Cheney
The big question right now among Republicans is how to remove Vice President Cheney from office. Even before this week's blockbuster series in The Post, discontent in Republican ranks was rising.
As the reputed architect of the war in Iraq, Cheney is viewed as toxic, and as the administration's leading proponent of an attack on Iran, he is seen as dangerous. As long as he remains vice president, according to this thinking, he has the potential to drag down every member of the party -- including the presidential nominee -- in next year's elections. ...
Today, another group of party elders, led by Sen. John Warner of Virginia, could well do the same. They could act out of concern for our country's plummeting reputation throughout the world, particularly in the Middle East.
Let's look at the Middle East. Under George Jr, the Oslo Accords were destroyed and the Intafada II expanded to war all over Palestine and even into the most northern cities of Lebanon. Under George Jr, Iraq that was probably on the verge of an Orange or Rose revolution, instead was put into Civil War with democracy no longer considered possible. Many (without a political agenda) now believe Iraq with become a theorcratic dictatorship dominated by Shia.
And Afghanistan that was justified by 11 September. More than 50% of the country has now fallen back into Taliban hands since "America does not do nation building". We all know the genius who repeatedly stated that violation of Military Science 101.
Meanwhile Iran that once had a strong reformist movement is now a bastion of wacko extremists. That key turning point was the famous "Axis of Evil" speech based in a political agenda; listing countries that were a threat to no one.
Pakistan is now under threat of Islamic extremism and rattles nuclear weapons. India is being exempted from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty - a treaty setup specifically to stop what India is doing.
Turkey is talking about invasion of Kurdistan. Somolia is now only peaceful when Islamic extremists control the country. And the US keeps sending multiple carrier task forces with amphibious task force to threaten ... well we still don't know who Cheney want to attack next.
As scholar after scholar have noted - today it was Robert Dallek, a presidental historian who just published Nixon and Kissinger - everything in the Middle East that this administration has touched is now a disaster. Show me one success. There are none. Zero. Dallek said this noting the similarities between Nixon's Vietnam and George Jr's Iraq. Virutally everyone without a political agenda notes both events are so extremely similar; complete with the rhetoric.
"If we don't stop them there, then they will attack us here." Some in the Cellar also foolishly advocated that nonsense claim in 2003. Same thing in Nam was called the Domino Theory. Deja vue Nam. You would think Cheney et al had learned from history. No wonder top Republicans would love to execute a coup.
Do you know how bad Iraq has become? It is even worse. Republicans Lugar, Warner, and others want Cheney out.
Gen David Patraeus recently said Americans may be in Iraq for another 9 or 10 years. Patraeus is correct if we continue this Cheney doctrine. No wonder top Republican Senators have been so angry for so long. No wonder they fed George Jr only peanut-butter and jelly sandwiches.
The Domino Theory was validated by the results, even if the results did not go as far as was feared at the time: China, North Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and South Vietnam all fell to communism. That is the validation of the Domino Theory, and only the maddest of cranks dispute it.
Thailand had the societal integrity not to fall to communism, and Burma -- well, didn't need to, by anyone's lights. It deteriorated into its present basket case condition through its own mismanagement.
That the Domino Theory is now going in reverse as these nations recover from communism is a pleasant surprise.
Now we have tw to tell us the sky is everywhere falling. It's certainly not going to stay propped up if the likes of tw are in charge, busily trying to lose us the war. Phooey to the lot of them.
China & North Vietnam were already red states.
tw - Please don't use Dallek as a source. His cheerleading for Democrat imperial Presidencies helped lead to our present difficulties.
The Domino Theory was validated by the results, even if the results did not go as far as was feared at the time: China, North Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and South Vietnam all fell to communism.
China and Cambodia are now doing quite well without America imposing wars in their region. Vietnam is the second fastest growing economy is East Asia. Laos is something like the 35th fastest growing economy in the world. Clearly they are doing worse since Americans stopped spending $million a day on war there – according to history as rewritten by Urbane Guerrilla.
Funny how those Domino fell mostly better for their people – which Urbane Guerrilla forgets to learn.
Urban Guerrilla again rewrites history for a political agenda. Since George Jr said it, then Urbane Guerrilla also knows we are winning “Mission Accomplished” – the war that was supposidely won 4 years ago. Did Urbane Guerrilla forget that reality – or rewrite it. Urbane Guerrilla was an enlisted man 1st class for twenty years. Therefore he knows more than everyone about basic military principles and history. Clearly the military genius Urbane Guerrilla must rewrite history so that we will not be deceived by reality.
UG - you make this too easy. Can't you at least show some imagination when you rewrite history?
An individual countries rank in growth rate is not a measure of the health of their economies nor how well their people are doing over all in relation to growth.
Here you see tw's delusional mental masturbation in its full glory. Foolish tw, have you never noticed that no one applauds your perorations?? And did you notice my speaking of the reversed domino effect hardly more than a paragraph down?
China & North Vietnam were already red states.
These were the first two dominoes: 1949 and 1954. Remember there was some undercurrent of blame-gaming over "who lost China" for many years.
From the BBC of 9 Jul 2007:
US Iraq chief warns of long war
The head of US forces in Iraq, Lt Gen David Petraeus, has told the BBC that fighting the insurgency is a "long term endeavour" which could take decades.
In less time, the United States built arm forces almost from scratch, fought wars on almost every continent, and won all those wars. In more time, the Iraqis still don't have an useful Army? It says so much about a leadership (and his supporters even here in the Cellar) who are so much in denial AND who cannot even define a strategic objective.
... Gen Petraeus's efforts, which might have saved the day for the Bush administration if they had been introduced three, or even two, years ago, may well have come too late.
People who actually support the troops have been saying that for how long? "Mission Accomplished"? There was no insurgence until America created one. That even defined by lessons in any first year course in Military Science.
Are we finally seeing light at the end of a tunnel? Depends on whether we threaten Cheney with impeachment or support the troops by implementing what those with minimal knowledge understood as the only viable solution - Iraq Study Group.
Notice how extremists among us avoid any mention of that ISG report and its withdrawal. Same people also fear to touch the other damning questions - "When do we go after bin Laden?"
Pretty selective quotes there tw - I see its the "same ole same ole" with you.
How bout these two from the same article?
"In the last few weeks US forces have captured two big insurgent centres, Ramadi and Baquba, which was the main stronghold of al-Qaeda."
"In Baghdad for example, June was the lowest month for sectarian deaths in a year."
That statistic doesn't have much merit though.
The month of May had the largest amount of civilian deaths since the war began.
The number of civilians killed in Iraq jumped to nearly 2,000 in May, the highest monthly toll since the start of a U.S.-backed security crackdown in February, according to figures released on Saturday.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/COL241131.htm
There was a drop in June, but what does that mean? Since there was a spike in May it is hard to believe that the deaths are going to be consistent and many deaths many be going unreported.
However, the figures cannot be verified independently, and many deaths are believed to go unreported.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6260084.stm
Then, if you look at the recent news, you will find that some of the most deadly days of the war have occurred during the last few days.
June 8 - Estimated 150 dead.
July 7 - Estimated 73 - 105 dead.
(
List of US Casualties by month and other stats)
I find it really hard to believe that anything is progressing in Iraq.
How bout these two from the same article?
"In the last few weeks US forces have captured two big insurgent centres, Ramadi and Baquba, which was the main stronghold of al-Qaeda."
Well, Yesman065. Had you been learning from so many military sources posted here, then you can tell us the significance of those 'captures' of towns that were not even 'occupied by the enemy' last year.
You tell me. What is the strategic significance of that capture? And why, after that capture, does Gen Petraeus talk about decades of military operations? Do you really think that is coincidence?
Yesman065 - you clearly thought your quote was significant. Good. Fill us with your wisdom. Your post must have grasp of why Gen Petraeus has expanded his quote from nine years to decades. Show us how you somehow know something beyond what military experts and even Gen Petraeus are warning. Please tell us why your quote is so significant because you know what you have quoted - a detail - is so more important. Tell us why the 'cature' of two towns in a province that once had no warfare is now an example of "Mission Accomplished"?
Little hint. Your reply must explain the difference between a tactical and strategic objective. Be very careful in your answer to that question: What is the
strategic signficiant of that capture?
"In Baghdad for example, June was the lowest month for sectarian deaths in a year."
Body counts were also a measure used to prove we were winning the war in Nam. If you first learn some basic Military Science concepts, then you knew body counts have little relationship to accomplishing a strategic objective.
In Nam, America killed everyone in N Vietnam three times over. What did that prove? It proves that those grasping for something to show progress will even be foolish enough to use body counts as a measure of strategic accomplishement.
Meanwhile, what do 'biblical' philosphies of guerrilla warfare dictate in response to a conventional army offensive? Did you not learn that so well proven concept of guerrilla warfare? Did you not hear quotes directly citing American frustration in every Nam era movie - ie 'Full Metal Jacket', 'Platoon', etc? Did you just watch those movies for entertainment - or learn from the fundamental points that explained why America was defeated in Nam?
Yesman065 - only fools would make the same 'body count' mistake performed even in Nam. But again, it goes right back to a simple question. What is the strategic objective of Americans in "Misson Accomplished"? Why do so many now retired Generals keep saying that America has no strategic objective in Iraq? Or do you also ignore the most important point in those reports?
Body counts. There is little relationship between victory in a battle and body counts. So Westmoreland rationalized that Nam was a completely different war - did not conform to basic military doctrine. Therefore Westmoreland who measured battles by body counts was decisively defeated. Yesman065 - you know have lessons of history to learn from - and still you look at body counts? Somehow you are trying to say Iraq is somehow becoming safer? These are a long list of damning question that Yesman065 will have to ignore. Yesman065 - prove me wrong.
Tw's setting up quite the straw man here with his peroration about body counts. He thinks we don't know better than to use body count to assess anything!
It is these poor choices of argument that suggest to me tw is severely wanting in political acumen and talent. Too, we can also rest in confident expectation that tw will disgrace himself, through a want of common sense and an overdeveloped penchant for rhetoric.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_IRAQ?SITE=WIMIL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT (this link will probably run out by tomorrow, 7/11/07)
A progress report on Iraq will conclude that the U.S.-backed government in Baghdad has not met any of its targets for political, economic and other reforms, speeding up the Bush administration's reckoning on what to do next, a U.S. official said Monday.
Some say it is still early to determine what is happening and we should wait until September but we have to start looking at alternatives now.
TW - as usual you missed the point - What I was referring to was your innate ability to selectively choose only negative quotes from an article in an attempt to support your point of view - The woute nor subject matter were not the issue at hand. You are always so quick to attack opposing points of view and manipulate information in a VERY transparent attempt to make yourself look smart that any valid point you may have had gets lost.
TW - as usual you missed the point - What I was referring to was your innate ability to selectively choose only negative quotes from an article in an attempt to support your point of view - The woute nor subject matter were not the issue at hand. You are always so quick to attack opposing points of view and manipulate information in a VERY transparent attempt to make yourself look smart that any valid point you may have had gets lost.
Don't waste your time.
TW - as usual you missed the point - What I was referring to was your innate ability to selectively choose only negative quotes from an article in an attempt to support your point of view ...
And again I repeat - all those questions posed at you are necessary to appreciate why what I posted was the KEY fact in that article.
Go back many years to see my posts that worried about "Misson Accomplished" becoming exactly what we now have. You call it negative? Well then why have those negatives become reality?
The 'capture' of those towns only demonstrates a blunt reality. Same stories were reported in Nam. But I suspect David Petraeus is doing something very smart. My posts are suggesting to you a much larger picture. Do you see it?
Can a private see the war being won? Not without grasping a bigger picture. In a post that you find so negative, I may be reporting a much larger story that may the rescue of the US Army from another Nam. That last sentence made your eyes big - if you start grasping big picture.
But if caught looking only at petty little details - ie the capture of two towns or body counts - then you have no idea that a bigger picture even exists.
Those questions are not debating points. They go right after what you must comprehend to then see a bigger picture:
What is the strategic significance of that capture? And why, after that capture, does Gen Petraeus talk about decades of military operations? Do you really think that is coincidence?
Your post must have grasp of why Gen Petraeus has expanded his quote from nine years to decades.
Your reply must explain the difference between a tactical and strategic objective. Be very careful in your answer to that question: What is the strategic signficiant of that capture?
what do 'biblical' philosphies of guerrilla warfare dictate in response to a conventional army offensive?
None of these questions were posted to argue. They were posted to get you to appreciate a bigger picture that is neither negative nor positive. To appreciate why I reported fundamental mistake after mistake made even in violation of first year military science concepts. To appreciate how much worse "Mission Accomplished" really is.
Do you think I was just playing politics criticizing the disbanning of the Iraqi army and police? Not for one minute. I saw a major looming disaster. Guess what. Everyone now sees that disaster - but years later. Did you even for one minute think pre-emption was a formula for something different from disaster? That is the mistake so common among 'big dic' thinkers. Did you see a disaster looming because we abandoned containment in favor of pre-emption? Why not. Were you looking at the big picture - or viewing from a Private's perspective.
To gain from this thread, answer those questions. See a bigger picture - not petty politics that were never in that post. Daily news reports do not yet report the massive numbers of dead - resulting massacres that are yet to happen but that may be inevitable using our current tactics - no strategic objective. Just another reason why my posts years ago were so forboding. Again, do you see what Petraeus is really saying?
Appreciate that "Mission Accomplished" is already unwinnable. Appreciate why "Misson Accomplished" could mean a second defeat in Afghanistan. Appreciate a larger significance in "When do we go after bin Laden?" How? Start by answering those requoted questions.
"When do we go after bin Laden" is not just some cheap shot at the wacko extremists. It is a much larger question about everything we are doing - Deja vue Nam. Our current actions have no possiblity of victory. What is one major symptom of the malaise - a mistake being made at the highest (strategic) levels? "When do we go after bin Laden?"
Your post argues about size of dirt particles in a response to post that discusses geology of an entire island. Those questions are not debating points. Stop wasting time with body counts. Those questions beg you to appreciate a bigger picture - by answering them.
Tell us why the 'cature' of two towns in a province that once had no warfare is now an example of "Mission Accomplished"?
1) Significance - I guess if you don't see it, there mustn't be any. He explained his timetable and why he gave it so there is no reason for me to answer a question based upon an article YOU cited and apparently selectively read.
2)See above - The general explained himself just fine - no need for me to infer or make assumptions - that's your game.
3) My reply need not do anything YOU demand - who the hell are you to tell me what I can and/or cannot post.
4) What the hell does that have to do with anything? Never mind I really don't care what you think. You mind is like a steel trap that was left out in the rain.
5) No one said it did - except you. "Mission Accomplished" was discussed ad nauseum long ago and the only one who continues to misinterpret it is YOU.
1) Significance - I guess if you don't see it, there mustn't be any. He explained his timetable and why he gave it so there is no reason for me to answer a question based upon an article YOU cited and apparently selectively read.
2)See above - The general explained himself just fine - no need for me to infer or make assumptions - that's your game.
3) My reply need not do anything YOU demand - who the hell are you to tell me what I can and/or cannot post.
4) What the hell does that have to do with anything? Never mind I really don't care what you think. You mind is like a steel trap that was left out in the rain.
5) No one said it did - except you. "Mission Accomplished" was discussed ad nauseum long ago and the only one who continues to misinterpret it is YOU.
Let me introduce you to our friend:
Ya know Merc, I left because I didn't like what a "discussion" with tw (Total Whackjob) turned into and I swore I wouldn't get into it with him again - oh well once an _______always an _______.
Me, I just like telling tw he has no political acumen, is delusional, is a whackjob, is a mental masturbator, is a very inferior sort of being. While he doesn't have to be an inferior sort of being, he clearly prefers that to becoming enlightened: he'd rather be Left than right.
For his manifold sins and anti-American wickedness, I torment him. And there is absolutely nothing he can do about it except turn procapitalist and pro-American. In short, to escape his current torment, he has to more resemble me.
Feel free to dump on the commie until he converts or flees the Cellar. He has not fled yet, so I reckon him for a communist masochist. He posts, subconsciously, to show himself that the world is none too friendly to such as he. What he doesn't understand is that it's his own fault.
wow. *grabs a bag of popcorn* fucking fascinating.
Slide over. I brought drinks.
I found tw's pic on the FBI website:
It's even more fascinating when it's fucking.
That's on account of the change of position...:doit:
P.S.: For the record, the miffed-at-GEICO looking Ted Kacsinski is definitely on the Celebrity Won't-Bang List.
Me, I just like telling tw he has no political acumen, is delusional, is a whackjob, is a mental masturbator, is a very inferior sort of being. While he doesn't have to be an inferior sort of being, he clearly prefers that to becoming enlightened: he'd rather be Left than right.
For his manifold sins and anti-American wickedness, I torment him. And there is absolutely nothing he can do about it except turn procapitalist and pro-American. In short, to escape his current torment, he has to more resemble me.
Feel free to dump on the commie until he converts or flees the Cellar. He has not fled yet, so I reckon him for a communist masochist. He posts, subconsciously, to show himself that the world is none too friendly to such as he. What he doesn't understand is that it's his own fault.
That kind of childish taunting doesn't reflect well on your position.
Me, I just like telling tw he has no political acumen, is delusional, is a whackjob, is a mental masturbator, is a very inferior sort of being. While he doesn't have to be an inferior sort of being, he clearly prefers that to becoming enlightened: he'd rather be Left than right.
For his manifold sins and anti-American wickedness, I torment him. And there is absolutely nothing he can do about it except turn procapitalist and pro-American. In short, to escape his current torment, he has to more resemble me.
Feel free to dump on the commie until he converts or flees the Cellar. He has not fled yet, so I reckon him for a communist masochist. He posts, subconsciously, to show himself that the world is none too friendly to such as he. What he doesn't understand is that it's his own fault.
That kind of childish taunting doesn't reflect well on your position.
I disagree, xoB. I think it reflects his position *perfectly*.
Furthermore, he knows it, too:
If your thinking's actually good enough, you need not bolster it with abusive language. Nor need you indulge in hysterics.
Care to guess the identity of our mystery guest, author of this sage advice?
A clue.And his posts still declare him a communist, his actions a masochist. Aaand I can make him blow up any time I want to.
I've seen this kind of behavior from leftists before. It illustrates a certain kind of emotional immaturity which I have also seen from leftists, which seems to me necessary to be one. The conservatives of my acquaintance act and think in a more adult fashion. Speaking of adult, there is nothing juvenile whatever in my listing tw's mental properties, nor is there taunting. The man avoids understanding that he's a fool. Unfortunately for him, everyone else knows that.
It is on occasion difficult to find words for the depth of my contempt when he delivers himself of something particularly wrongheaded and violently anti-American, and the intensity of my struggle to express it may sometimes be seen in the length of the adjectival sentences I apostrophize him with.
Some days my Internet To-Do List looks rather like this:
See what's new on The Armour Archive
Ditto the Living History Library
Savage tw at least once
Look at Philosophy forum and see if Happy Monkey is still doing well there
Google up "black cardamom" to find out what to do with a bag of the stuff -- the most original suggestion is stew a couple pods with a mug of scratchbuilt hot chocolate
Savage tw on some other point -- the only business that man has talking politics is to turn people off to Communism anyway
Give piercehawkeye a ration, too, for not being a partisan for democracy
Pause to make sure I'm not smirching my soul doing this
Wrap the session up with Mudcat or Strike The Root
You're a little light on the pausing.
Ooo-kay, Bruce.
Here I am resisting the evil of communism, which not even tw denies he's trying to promulgate and I believe everyone else understands that's what he's doing, and campaigning against the America-must-lose mentality that is the curse and the plague of the American left, which mentality tw embodies. Hard to figure anybody decent would do that when America's cause is democracy's, and democracy's cause, I am persuaded, is all humanity's. For this among other reasons I reckon a communist to be an enemy of mankind, and that it is in mankind's interest to destroy all communists if they won't convert to capitalism. I once thought tw was merely a perverse leftist, but noting his habit of repeating Soviet or Red Chinese propaganda points along with his bitterness towards Republicans, who are more efficient at resisting Communist subversion than Democrats and better at thwarting Communist ambitions worldwide -- well, that he's a communist explains more of his properties better than that he's crazy. Not that he exhibits rational thinking when he gets wound up anyway -- he'll make deluded utterances and show idees-fixe by the handful. Since I desire the Communist stay discredited, I leave him his idees-fixe and let his own preposterousness defeat him.
And there's piercehawkeye's well-known sympathy not for Israel the democracy in that contest, but for the Palestinian authoritarian kakistocracy. This position is not readily distinguishable from antisemitism, and it's certainly a display of an undue degree of fascist sympathy, assuming Ba'athist influence anywhere in the Palestinian Authority. On the face of it, this seems likely, especially in any group closely connected with Syria.
So here you have two Cellarites of a couple of differing degrees of commitment to brutality, oppression, poverty, and general social wrongheadedness -- and you, Mr. Bruce, find it in your soul to object to my excoriating them for their sins? I'd like to see you justify your opinion. Grousing at me for striking out against evil just isn't going to make it.
I hatz me a' commie!
(I like their posters and hats though)
UG, you know the world is much more detailed and complicated than black and white right?
Sure, but it sure as hell ain't red.
Some of us have a sense of humor too...
Commies do hatz them some freedomz thou.
Good thing I'm not a commie then huh? ;)
Ooo-kay, Bruce.
Rant, rant, rant.
I'd like to see you justify your opinion. Grousing at me for striking out against evil just isn't going to make it.
Captain George W Queeg is at the helm and you're running around accusing everyone of having a duplicate key to the god damn strawberries... while the ship of state is heading straight into a typhoon.
You and the Captain are red, white and blue patriots, damn the torpedoes and all that, but neither of you know jack shit about diplomacy, post San Juan Hill and the Great White Fleet. The world has changed and you can't just charge around the world barking orders. The world's too big and you're too small for a "fer us or agin us" attitude because you'll just make everyone "agin us".
You have to accept the fact that not everyone that is different, in system and values, is the enemy... unless you make them so, which is a pretty stupid thing to do.
You fucked with a second, almost third, world nation of 25million and got your nose bloodied. Fuck with the world and you'll get your ass kicked.
Bruce, can you ever get it through your head that our self-made and explicitly self declared enemies, who have been busily bloodying us since about 1983, are simply not our fault?? They are their own fault.
Therefore, they should lose and we should win. Democracy should win despite anything the undemocrats can do or say. When the last dictator kicks out his last moments hanged on the tripes of the last national chief of secret police, how much woe will have fled our world?
There is really my sole concern, Bruce. What else is there? What else could there be?
Therefore, they should lose and we should win.
Oh, well....at least we know what should happen eh?
Urbane, your government and my government have taken us into an unwinnable war. Maybe, if it had been done differently, it might have been winnable once, but it isn't now.
So the shitbags win? Why should they? What's so invincible about them? They aren't ten feet tall, Dana.
So the shitbags win? Why should they? What's so invincible about them? They aren't ten feet tall, Dana.
No. That's true. And neither are we. As to why should they win? Because we cannot win this war. Not definitively. It's nothing to do with how tall they are, but rather the nature of the conflict and the geography of the theatre.
[neo]C'mon! Let's bomb Iran.[/con]
If they were ten feet tall, maybe we could win. But they look just like, and in most cases are, the people we claim to be there to help. Many mistakes we make (and many bits of collateral damage if those aren't counted as mistakes) when attempting to kill the bad guys make more bad guys. Even when the guys we get are bad guys, it may not be believed, and thus generate more bad guys. Heck, just being there generates more bad guys.
You can't play whack-a-mole against oobleck. Or a cat-in-the-hat-bathtub-ring.
If just being in the presence of westerners turns good guys into bad guys, they were bad to begin with.
The presence of any foreign army would turn many American citizens into what that army would consider bad guys.
Good thing I'm not a commie then huh? ;)
I'd sure hate to give away the computer that I worked so hard for.
Would you do that HM? Would you be a bad guy?
hang on a second while I turn off my trick question alarm
Ok. I'm back.
UT, dude, you're crystal clear on the importance of context, and you're a sharp reader too. You know that HM's actions would be his own, and you likewise know that the definition of "bad guy" *DOES NOT* come from HM, but from the foreign army. Those were the conditions in HM's example, and they neatly match the conditions in Iraq.
So, why the trick question: "Would you be a bad guy?" It's not up to him to say, is it? Ask the foreign army.
To the foreign army... I would be a VERY bad man. Even in my current state, perhaps especially.
You could not imagine. Truly, you could not.
I love this nation and the ends would justify the means.
That is not rampant nationalism, it is about where I live.
Their army would not be humans, they would be things, objects to be "removed". Nothing more.
That is why I see no issue with the insurgency (the domestic one) in Iraq. I feel they are completely justified, as far as actions toward the military.
This time around, EVERYTHING the US is doing is illegal and immoral.
OK, let's write it differently. And hell, let's have fun with it.
Bush decides in 2008 that he is the leader of a new religious reformation, and he cancels the election. He then assassinates all Generals who will not stand with him, and uses the military and private intelligence to take out major figures turning against him in major cities.
The British, aghast at this situation, knowing that the future of the world depends on it, decides that they can use their military might to enforce a regime change if they can flip 30% of the American military to their side. They invade Washington and find that they flip 80%, including many commanders who secretly hated Bush but had to play the game.
Bush himself retreats to an unspecified location. Members of the Bush team are pictured on packs of trading cards; Cheney is the Ace of Spades. The Brits dismiss the remaining military, and attempt to establish a level of control with too few troops, and fail completely to seal the borders.
An insurgency develops from a number of different places. One is a group of religious nuts in Colorado Springs, who recruit across the country, calling themselves the Bush Believers. They find they can maintain order in large areas, but at the highest levels they are true right-wing conspiracy people who have lucked into leadership of the red states.
Another insurgency develops out of what was a loose network of Organized Criminals - mobsters. In inner cities, the "mob" fights with even looser networks of criminals and Thugs for control of the streets. The police forces fold away after missing paychecks from governments that no longer exist, on a banking system that is no longer guaranteed on dollars whose value is diminishing. The Brits install a system of citizen policing but insist that no police can carry guns, so that the new cops can signal to society how things ought to be.
The Brits establish elections, and the people vote widely to express that they want things to go back to normal at least, hoping a proper government will get the job done. But real power is invested in the people willing to use it, not necessary where it is granted by vote; and so civil society continues to suffer.
All of the insurgency groups kill, but particularly the Organized Criminals, who make deals and find sources of arms and training manuals from nationalist Northern Irelanders. The common target of the insurgency groups is Brits, but they routinely kill each other, or anyone who they think will disagree with them. In particular, it's completely racist in certain areas, and one learns grimly of the murders of the only remaining black couple in Colorado Springs, along with many carfuls of whites whose crime was to drive through a Thug-controlled neighborhood.
Meanwhile, the British people have lost all patience and are demanding that it's gone on long enough. If 500 more of them can be killed, they will probably leave, letting the rest of the set fight it out for control. The new police, the new army, and the new government will probably fall, leading to even more chaos and probably even prompting invasion by other countries.
So, do you join:
- The Bush Believers
- The Organized Criminals
- The Thugs
- The Brits
- The Starter Government
- Head for Canada
- None of the Above
If the election is canceled, I will not write what I will do.
Bruce, can you ever get it through your head that our self-made and explicitly self declared enemies, who have been busily bloodying us since about 1983, are simply not our fault?? They are their own fault.
Therefore, they should lose and we should win. Democracy should win despite anything the undemocrats can do or say. When the last dictator kicks out his last moments hanged on the tripes of the last national chief of secret police, how much woe will have fled our world?
There is really my sole concern, Bruce. What else is there? What else could there be?
If you'd stick to the self declared enemies it would be understandable.
BUT, when you declare any country with a different system and/or set of values to be the enemy, especially when they've shown no aggression other than disagreeing with your choice of system, then you are a jingoistic bully... deserving to lose.
Why are you the only one allowed self determination? Are you so unsure of the value and strength of your system you must eliminate all competition? Is it necessary to have the military seek out competitors and smack the in the knee with a club so you can win a medal?
Think about who the enemy really is, next time you're at walmart buying a Chinese made American flag.... to save yourself 50 cents.
I'd like to think that I'd join a local insurgency, not affiliated with any of your groups, but there's no way to tell, really.
Of course, the other way to take my whole original question is, would you join the bad guys in Iraq?
I'd be hangin with MaggieL.
If the roles were switched I wonder if UG would be the first ones bombing the invading armies?
I would probably play some role in the insurgency but it also depends on the role of the insurgency. If it was to get rid of the invading army then yes but if it fought for values I disagreed with then I could not join them. There are too many variables for a definite yes or no though.
- The Bush Believers
- The Organized Criminals
- The Thugs
- The Brits
- The Starter Government
- Head for Canada
- None of the Above
Action: Hello, Canada, eh!
Evaluation / response by:
BB: Minor victory for us, only because it makes the population of a blue state, an area we don’t control, slightly less. Small bonus for the absence of a potential enemy.
OC: Potentially large victory, depending on what was left behind (house, car, stuff), and in whose local territory it was left (OC, TT).
TT: Potentially large victory, depending on what was left behind (house, car, stuff), and in whose local territory it was left (OC, TT).
TB: A dead loss. There goes a non-hostile local. Someone with whom we could have worked while we’re in this war, someone this messed up country will desperately need once we’re gone.
SG: A dead loss. There goes someone who’s smart, resourceful, and takes action. It’s a damn shame he values himself and his family more than he values our ith whom we could have worked while we’re in this war, someone our beloved country will desperately need once The Brits have gone.
Other New Canadians: Another smart (and probably sad, but live) rat fleeing the sinking ship.
NA: What? Me, worry?
Alternate ending 01:
Action: Become bold Bush Believer.
Evaluation / response by:
BB: Welcome aboard. First things first, sign this DNR, this Non Compete, this Oath of Loyalty and this Confession. Oh, don’t worry, we’ll fill in the date later. Oh, and here, drink this kool aid.
OC: I always knew that *$M)%*(&(@ was a “patriot”! Ptui! He’s dead meat if he ever shows up here again.
TT: I always knew that *$M)%*(&(@ was a “patriot”! Ptui! He’s dead meat if he ever shows up here again.
TB: Great, just bloody great. At this rate, we’ll need to start printing Canasta decks.
SG: Deluded f*cker. True Americans owe their loyalty to the country and the Constitution, not the man.
NC: Dumbass.
NA: What, me? Worry?
Alternate ending 02:…
Alternate ending 03:
…
Alternate ending 04:
Etc, etc.
Don’t you see that A is in opposition to B? If I align with A, I am a good guy to A and a bad guy to B, and vice a freakin versa. You must be acquainted with the concept of self righteousness, and everyone, you, me and “them” included.
UT, it can't be the Brits. The foreign army must be from a culture utterly alien, representing a different world view which we don't get.
They also need to put in a form of government outside our experience.
I'd join the 1920s Revolution Brigades.
I would probably get involved with that as well or something similar to that. This is also why we can not label all insurgency into one group.
UT, it can't be the Brits. The foreign army must be from a culture utterly alien, representing a different world view which we don't get.
They also need to put in a form of government outside our experience.
How about China or if you really want alien, Australia.
Bruce, and why is it again you're suckering yourself into trying to defend the fascists against the democrats? That's what your argument boils down to. It amounts to your arguing against the best interest of all of mankind -- which category should include you. How can you be so morally careless?
Undemocrats cannot have moral equivalency with democrats. Understand this: undemocracy facilitates oppression and too often develops out of someone's seeking license to oppress some out-group, while democracy hinders oppression -- perhaps slowly, but so far as I can see, inevitably. This "different system" idea of yours prevents your actual understanding of what's at stake, and thus your thinking becomes self-obfuscated and ultimately self-defeated. To indulge a cliche, then the terrorists have won. Over you, anyway.
Hey man... I'm all for the Chinese gettin' hooked on cash, Marlboro and Levis. It's what brought down the USSR.
Well for China, it's gonna' be Google, KFC and Nintendo, but fuck-it... it's good.
I'm ALL FOR IT!
China... heading for T.P.M. Barnett's New Core...
When the paradigm shifts in China and a LOT of people say "heeeeyyyyy...", it is going to be uuuuUUUUgggLLLEEEE!
A few other people are going to go... "hey, you gotta' plane? That dude with the nuclear waste in his back-yard is lookin' at me funny."
Bruce, and why is it again you're suckering yourself into trying to defend the fascists against the democrats? That's what your argument boils down to. It amounts to your arguing against the best interest of all of mankind -- which category should include you. How can you be so morally careless?
What complete and utter bullshit. You are the one trying to impose your utopia on the whole world. You want to decide what people must choose. You are the fascist.
Undemocrats cannot have moral equivalency with democrats. Understand this: undemocracy facilitates oppression and too often develops out of someone's seeking license to oppress some out-group, while democracy hinders oppression -- perhaps slowly, but so far as I can see, inevitably. This "different system" idea of yours prevents your actual understanding of what's at stake, and thus your thinking becomes self-obfuscated and ultimately self-defeated. To indulge a cliche, then the terrorists have won. Over you, anyway.
Moral equivalency is a myth. If you are deciding what is moral and what is not, you're in fact doing nothing more than judging everyone else to be, fer ya or agin ya. Pompous, to say the least, and the way of every aggressor since Caine.
In other words, you cannot tolerate an exhibition of moral choice on my part.
What utter error, Bruce. It isn't my Utopia -- it's not a Utopia at all. It is proven, in action, every single day, by three hundred million Americans, rather fewer Canadians, and so on and so on. You shouldn't be wandering down that path. I concern myself with mankind's best interest, which is not, of course, to be found under a dictatorship's thumb. There, you find only the dictator's interest, all others at best underserved. Recall that I have personal experience with the way dictatorships behave. That is why I'm such a partisan for democracy, for societies that operate more by consensus.
Do you mean Cain? I don't recall any with-or-against from him.
I am pleased, though, to see we agree about "moral equivalency" -- some societies simply do better by their members than others, and the respective properties of either are readily enumerated. Any need to guess which one is worth living in? Any need to guess which needs immediate and complete replacement? A democrat isn't a fascist, and you must withdraw your erroneous statement. Never call me a fascist unless you haven't lied enough today. In other words, Bruce, no idiot-talk today, please.
In other words, you cannot tolerate an exhibition of moral choice on my part.
Other than for yourself... HELL NO! Don't try to impose your choices on me.
What utter error, Bruce. It isn't my Utopia -- it's not a Utopia at all. It is proven, in action, every single day, by three hundred million Americans, rather fewer Canadians, and so on and so on. You shouldn't be wandering down that path. I concern myself with mankind's best interest, which is not, of course, to be found under a dictatorship's thumb. There, you find only the dictator's interest, all others at best underserved. Recall that I have personal experience with the way dictatorships behave. That is why I'm such a partisan for democracy, for societies that operate more by consensus.
Oh, you get to decide what's in, "mankind's best interest"? Well, I don't welcome our "mankind's best interest" overlord. So, no thank you.
Sure you have experience in dictators, you are one.... or at least want to be, in the determination of "mankind's best interest".
Do you mean Cain? I don't recall any with-or-against from him.
No, he just killed anyone that pissed him off.
I am pleased, though, to see we agree about "moral equivalency" -- some societies simply do better by their members than others, and the respective properties of either are readily enumerated. Any need to guess which one is worth living in? Any need to guess which needs immediate and complete replacement? A democrat isn't a fascist, and you must withdraw your erroneous statement. Never call me a fascist unless you haven't lied enough today. In other words, Bruce, no idiot-talk today, please.
See, there you go telling people what they
must do.... again, still, ad nauseum.... that's what fascist do. I'll withdraw nothing.
OK, you win. you're not a fascist. I'll try to remember that when you waddle, quack and lay big fat eggs.
Of course, the other way to take my whole original question is, would you join the bad guys in Iraq?
Were I Iraqi, I might end up being considered a bad guy by occupying forces.
What drives people to join the insurgency?
I've called up families of fighters and when I ask that question, the response is always the same: Wouldn't you? They are extremely upset about what's going on in Iraq. Some of them have a burning hatred for the U.S. They see the U.S. as imposing its will on their countries. Some of them have a burning desire to be a missionary and martyr for Islam. You have people who have broken out of prison and gone to fight in Iraq. It's now a vacuum sucking in every disaffected voice in the region.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/03/02/insurgency/HM, would you kill them?
PH, that make it OK to kill people?
PH, that make it OK to kill people?
What do you exactly mean by that? Be more specific.
In terms of the insurgency it seems that people join to see their country become stable again and internally run. They do not trust the US government to bring them what they want so they will fight and kill to get what they want. This type of scenario always brings us to a universal (best for society) moral situation.
Is it OK to kill one person to ensure the safety of 10?
Is it OK to kill 10,000 to bring freedom to 1 million?
Is it OK to kill 3,000 to make life easier for 300 million?
Morals are subjective so there is no right or wrong answer but when you talk about morals on a universal scale, what is best for society, a lot of those will be attempted to be justified.
An invasion is the single strongest justification for war, by all measures. So if my nation were invaded and I found myself courageous enough, I would attack the invader.
Most definitly... even Radar would sign up for that one.
An invasion is the single strongest justification for war, by all measures. So if my nation were invaded and I found myself courageous enough, I would attack the invader.
I agree, if invaded I have no issue with killing all invaders and those cooperating with them until the invasion is over.
That means
all invaders are out of the nation, no other terms.
Self-defense is fully justifiable in my definition of pacifism.
Bruce, there's never been a fascist duck.
Man, about any smilie would work after a line like that!
And I'm here to tell you what you must do to be good, and that's not by sticking up for the undemocrats. And if you fuckin' want to be a democracy-unfriendly shithead just to exhibit the bullheadedness of your own ego, don't get upset if I call you on it, Bruce. You'd do the same were our debating positions reversed.
And I'm here to tell you what you must do to be good, and that's not by sticking up for the undemocrats. And if you fuckin' want to be a democracy-unfriendly shithead just to exhibit the bullheadedness of your own ego, don't get upset if I call you on it, Bruce. You'd do the same were our debating positions reversed.
Undemocrats? Oh, Republicans. No I won't stick up for them.
Then again, I won't stick up for the Democrats either. I'm registered Independent so I can bitch about or support, both of them.
Your, Republicans=good, Democrats=bad, the world must conform or die, rhetoric is just...well... Ducky.
Bruce, I'd appreciate your not talking like a full-on fool. Republicans, quotha!
And I have fifteen years of disgust and disappointment with the Democrats to back my opinion up. When was the last time a Democrat was selling something I wanted to buy -- enough that I bought it? I've remarked on how long it's been, before.
At the moment, I hear one Democratic Congressman with any sense, and that's Senator Lieberman. He is wise enough not to wish for substitutes for victory. The rest of the bunch -- ashes. Dust.
The Republicans, at least, consistently believe in the value of an assertive foreign policy. Having seen mush from the wimp Carter, and the actions of Clinton who as Presidential timber goes was balsa wood, I reckon the Republican paradigm is not only less trouble but actually less dangerous. But Republican notions of domestic policy and mine don't mesh as much, save that more of them are pro-gun, which indicates they really mean it when they say they're antigenocide and anticrime. The big problem I have with the national Republican leadership is they do so little to shrink Federal bureaucracy and officious overregulation -- or the Federal deficit, which is a continuous debaser of the currency through being a driver of inflation. This is why I'm a Libertarian rather than a Republican. The smaller the public sector, the less parasitic drag there is on the economy.
The Republicans, just like me, like kicking sundry dictators and oppressor states right in the chops. Can't imagine why you won't stand up and cheer that, at least... actually, I can imagine, but the imaginings DON'T do you the least credit, Bruce. They would cast you too far into the tw camp -- and you don't like that anti-American son of a bitch either.
This is why I'm a Libertarian rather than a Republican.
LP
platform
IV. Foreign Affairs
American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and the defense -- against attack from abroad -- of the lives, liberty, and property of the American people on American soil. Provision of such defense must respect the individual rights of people everywhere.
The principle of non-intervention should guide relationships between governments. [COLOR="Red"]The United States government should return to the historic libertarian tradition of avoiding entangling alliances, abstaining totally from foreign quarrels and imperialist adventures[/COLOR], and recognizing the right to unrestricted trade, travel, and immigration.LP platform
IV. Foreign Affairs
American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and the defense -- against attack from abroad -- of the lives, liberty, and property of the American people on American soil. Provision of such defense must respect the individual rights of people everywhere.
So far, I agree.
The principle of non-intervention should guide relationships between governments. [COLOR="Red"]The United States government should return to the historic libertarian tradition of avoiding entangling alliances, abstaining totally from foreign quarrels and imperialist adventures[/COLOR], and recognizing the right to unrestricted trade, travel, and immigration.
Got some issues with this part though.
So everybody is on board with "unrestricted immigration"?
I'm expecting a huge fight on that next time around, but I'm still an open borders guy.
Bruce, I'd appreciate your not talking like a full-on fool.
Gosh, I better reread what I wrote if you're saying I sounding like a full-on fool. After all, you are the expert in that category, as you keep demonstrating.
Well I do agree the Democrats have been weak in conducting fascist campaigns to make as many enemies as possible. They seem to have lost that fire that got us into Korea and Vietnam, why with a couple more years they might have been able to draw China into Vietnam, too. But alas, the Republicans took over and lost them both.
And you are also right about the Republican lack of desire to shrink Federal bureaucracy, officious overregulation and the Federal deficit.
Remember the SURPLUS? The Republicans thankfully took care of that scary monster for us. ... by the cleverly contrived... er, conceived plan to partner the public treasury and private Hallibur... uh, industry, to save the taxpayer the expense of building more of those expensive vaults to contain that nasty old surplus.
Whew, that was close.
Quotha? What the hell is that? Oh yes, forsooth. As in;
Forsooth! what light through yonder window breaks?
It's the 5 cell maglight of the Feds, without warrant,
and Fatherland Security with gizmos set on stun.
I'm expecting a huge fight on that next time around, but I'm still an open borders guy.
That's because you've got attack goats and gators in the moat.
So everybody is on board with "unrestricted immigration"?
Count me out!
Nothing we do north of the border will materially affect illegal immigration, even if we construct two thousand miles of fence. It does not strike at the root of the problem: Mexico does not have a middle class. The opportunity to bootstrap yourself up is north of the Rio Grande.
Griff, don't become too attached to Article IV, there: the very minute the Libertarian Party accedes to a position of national responsibility, it becomes a dead letter. The most to be hoped for is some reduction of number and type of alliances entered into and cutting off foreign aid to one or two dubious candidates before the Department of State convinces a Libertarian Administration of the foreign-policy effectiveness of bribery.
Too, there's also the matter -- one not examined by you, among others -- of just how libertarianism may come to those places, generally despotisms, where libertarianism would bring the greatest benefits to the greatest number. Despots do not respond well to moral examples or righteous indignation. I figure it'll take shooting -- done by people who believe in libertarianism enough to do that.
So everybody is on board with "unrestricted immigration"?
Screw that, shut the damm borders and let's figure this mess out.
How high a wall can we build and how many contractors are available to get statred?? Thats what I wanna know - after that & WE are in control WE can determine who gets in or not.
I don't care if we close down the borders or not, both will cause problems. The best thing I can think of is too build the wall then allow more immigrants in each year.
I am pro-amnesty, deportation can only cause more problems and it is a bottomless pit situation where it will end up like a "war or terror" or a "war on drugs". Ignoring the illegals won't help either.
Nuke 'em.... a nice radioactive no person's land.
What's that Harry? recalled? Replaced? Relieved of duty? Are you shittin' me?
How high a wall can we build and how many contractors are available to get statred?? ...
Plenty of
bosses available, to drive around in air-conditioned pick-ups, but no
workers ...for this project.
I'm sure there are plenty of workers available to do this. Oh wait maybe the unemployment rate is only 4.5% and thats why - hmmm
I'm sure there are plenty of workers available to do this.
Not unless you import them from non-border states.
Plenty of national guard and reserve units to do the work. Pull them out of Iraq and let them work at home. Close the frigging borders now. Then talk about reforming policy. Nothing can or should be done till the tide of illegals is halted.
Plenty of national guard and reserve units to do the work. Pull them out of Iraq and let them work at home. Close the frigging borders now. Then talk about reforming policy. Nothing can or should be done till the tide of illegals is halted.
I agree - see post #667
Nothing can or should be done till the tide of illegals is halted.
Ay. I hate that kind of terminology when it's applied to people. 'tide', 'flood', 'swamped by'.
'tide of illegals'. Nothing in that phrase indicates that it refers, in any way, to the movement of human beings.
All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances;
Many do it legally, many do not;
Hence our need to stem the flood.
They are not a flood. They do not drown you.
They are not a flood. They do not drown you.
Not all people drown in a flood, but they can be consumed and surrounded by water.
Ay. I hate that kind of terminology when it's applied to people. 'tide', 'flood', 'swamped by'.
'tide of illegals'. Nothing in that phrase indicates that it refers, in any way, to the movement of human beings.
I can respect that opinion, but we really do need to get this under our control. They are our borders and we should be in a position to control it. Too many drugs and terrorists can come here through there unchecked. There is a stor going on about two border agents who shot an illegal in the ass while he was bringing 750lbs of narcotics over. They were sentenced to 12 years. Wait, isn't that what they are supposed to be doing??? Oh and the "illegal" who was given immunity to testify agianst them was recently caught transporting more drugs into the U.S.
Well they did shoot him in the backside as he was trying to get back across the border. But I think they should be allowed to do that if you are transporting drugs into the US.
Not all people drown in a flood, but they can be consumed and surrounded by water.
Consumed? Surrounded? How the fuck do 10 million people consume and surround 300 million?
Consumed? Surrounded? How the fuck do 10 million people consume and surround 300 million?
Depends on where you live. Those 10 million, more like 30 million by some estimates, are often concentrated in different areas. They do surround and they consume our tax dollars.
They also pay tax dollars.
They also pay tax dollars.
The only time they pay taxes is when they consume. I would love to be able to do that, pay only when I make a purchase. That would save me about $55,000 dollars a year in income tax.
From the New York Times:
TOCKTON, Calif. - Since illegally crossing the Mexican border into the United States six years ago, Ángel Martínez has done backbreaking work, harvesting asparagus, pruning grapevines and picking the ripe fruit. More recently, he has also washed trucks, often working as much as 70 hours a week, earning $8.50 to $12.75 an hour.
Not surprisingly, Mr. Martínez, 28, has not given much thought to Social Security's long-term financial problems. But Mr. Martínez - who comes from the state of Oaxaca in southern Mexico and hiked for two days through the desert to enter the United States near Tecate, some 20 miles east of Tijuana - contributes more than most Americans to the solvency of the nation's public retirement system.
Last year, Mr. Martínez paid about $2,000 toward Social Security and $450 for Medicare through payroll taxes withheld from his wages. Yet unlike most Americans, who will receive some form of a public pension in retirement and will be eligible for Medicare as soon as they turn 65, Mr. Martínez is not entitled to benefits.
He belongs to a big club. As the debate over Social Security heats up, the estimated seven million or so illegal immigrant workers in the United States are now providing the system with a subsidy of as much as $7 billion a year.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/business/05immigration.html?ex=1270353600&en=78c87ac4641dc383&ei=5090
I understand from a fairly wide range of sources, that Mr Martinez is not exactly an atypical case.
There is a stor going on about two border agents who shot an illegal in the ass while he was bringing 750lbs of narcotics over. They were sentenced to 12 years. Wait, isn't that what they are supposed to be doing??? Oh and the "illegal" who was given immunity to testify agianst them was recently caught transporting more drugs into the U.S.
Problem is, they shot him as he was running away, didn't know his legal status at the time, and didn't even know he was transporting drugs. Then, the agents didn't report the incident and tried to cover it up by collecting the shell casings. Border agents aren't supposed to do stuff like that.
Problem is, they shot him as he was running away, didn't know his legal status at the time, and didn't even know he was transporting drugs. Then, the agents didn't report the incident and tried to cover it up by collecting the shell casings. Border agents aren't supposed to do stuff like that.
My understanding was that they were very familiar with this particular individual AND he was shot in the U.S.while commiting a crime. It doesn't matter what his legal status was. Perhaps not wverything was dne right, but the reality is what it is. They got 12 years and this POS goes free to do it again - The real incriminating evidence was the illegals testimony and now that he has gotten caught transporting drugs again, how reliable was/is that?
The border agents got the shaft. They deserved nothing more than a slap on the wrist, suspension with or without pay, or dismissal. 12 years in prison is bull shit. This case was in the news last week. The perp that got off was is suspected in numerous other drug cases since the border agents were sent to prison. He supposedly used his immunity in the first case to cross back and forth over the border unchecked by agents to continue to smuggle drugs. They should have capped his ass the first time.
A copy of the news relating to the July 18th hearing by Congress on the matter:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200707/POL20070718a.html
As Cybercast News Service reported earlier, after the drug dealer was brought to the U.S. for medical treatment for the bullet wound, U.S. authorities gave him a "humanitarian pass" to cross the border freely. It was during this time, according to Drug Enforcement Administration documents, that Aldrete-Davila was allegedly involved in further drug-smuggling.
"Was it wise to give a humanitarian pass to a known drug dealer?" Cornyn of Texas asked.
Sutton responded: "You're assuming he ran another load of dope."
Feinstein interjected, raising her voice slightly. "His question was, 'Do you think it was wise to give a humanitarian pass to a known drug dealer?'"
Sutton wavered, "If he ran another load of dope, it was a mistake [to give him the pass]. If he did not run another load of dope, it wasn't."
My understanding was that they were very familiar with this particular individual AND he was shot in the U.S.while commiting a crime. It doesn't matter what his legal status was. Perhaps not wverything was dne right, but the reality is what it is. They got 12 years and this POS goes free to do it again - The real incriminating evidence was the illegals testimony and now that he has gotten caught transporting drugs again, how reliable was/is that?
According to the U.S. Attorney's office in Texas, he was not committing a crime when he was shot. Even if they didn't have the guy's testimony, they still have enough evidence (like ballistics) that the agents screwed up, big time.
July 18, 2007
Bipartisan call for commuting border agent sentences
Especially in these partisan times, it is encouraging to see bipartisanship on any issue. And, as detailed in this Lou Dobbs commentary, the extreme sentences for former border agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean has brought leading Senators from both sides of the aisle together:
There was an unusual spectacle in the nation's capital Tuesday, downright rare, in fact: U.S. Senators seeking truth, and justice, and taking action. And they deserve great credit and thanks. The Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, led by Dianne Feinstein, focused on the reasons for the prosecution of two Border Patrol agents now serving long sentences in federal prison. Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean were given terms of 11 and 12 years respectively on their convictions for shooting an illegal alien drug smuggler. Senator Feinstein, and Senators Jeff Sessions, John Cornyn, Jon Kyl and Tom Coburn demanded answers of U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, who chose to prosecute Compean and Ramos and give that illegal alien drug smuggler blanket immunity to testify against the men....
Senator Feinstein and Senator Cornyn announced Tuesday night on our broadcast that they have decided to request that President Bush commute the sentences of Ramos and Compean.
According to the U.S. Attorney's office in Texas, he was not committing a crime when he was shot. Even if they didn't have the guy's testimony, they still have enough evidence (like ballistics) that the agents screwed up, big time.
Uh, no not really - do your research before saying something like that. Even the prosecuter in an interview on 1210am last friday said his testimony was the lynch pin to the case - without it they wouldn't have even been prosecuted.
Uh, no not really - do your research before saying something like that. Even the prosecuter in an interview on 1210am last friday said his testimony was the lynch pin to the case - without it they wouldn't have even been prosecuted.
Okay...where would I find that? I don't see that particular interview anywhere.
I've seen several government reps make that statement for justification in granting amnesty.
They were following him because they knew he had a truckload of dope. He knew they knew, so he stopped the truck and ran. One agent took off after him, while the other secured the truck and took off a minute or so later. The second agent crests the hill to see his partner prostrate and the perp fleeing. He fired once not thinking he hit anything.
Before they left the scene there were other agents including two supervisors there. Yes, he picked up the cartridge. They all Knew what happened and agreed to forget about it, to avoid a mountain of paper work, thinking the agent had missed.
The perp went home and bitched to the family who called a cousin that is an agent in another state. The cousin called homeland security and bitched. Homeland security railroaded the two agents for minor infractions.
The perp in a professional drug smuggler, not some poor peasant trying to get to the US to work for money, to care for his aged mother and 17 starving children.
Personally, I think Homeland Security has a standing deal with the Mexican mafia, to not shoot at them in exchange for a peaceful border that won't make waves for Cheney's White house. Too bad they didn't kill the fucker.
Too bad they didn't kill the fucker.
Damm tootin'. A head shot would have put all these questions to rest.
It's a good thing for the agents that they didn't kill him--they'd be in a lot more trouble. 15 rounds were shot, not just one.
As scholar after scholar have noted - today it was Robert Dallek, a presidental historian who just published Nixon and Kissinger - everything in the Middle East that this administration has touched is now a disaster. Show me one success. There are none. Zero. Dallek said this noting the similarities between Nixon's Vietnam and George Jr's Iraq. Virutally(sp) everyone without a political agenda notes both events are so extremely similar; complete with the rhetoric.
Public opinion, of course, can change. In 1973, 1974 and 1975,
Congress undoubtedly felt it was reflecting the country's disillusionment with the Vietnam War, and it
forced a disengagement over the Nixon administration's strong objection. Yet military historians are coming to a consensus that by the end of 1972, there was a much-improved balance of forces in Vietnam, reflected in the 1973 Paris agreement, and that
Congress subsequently pulled the props out from under that balance of forces -- dooming Indochina to a bloodbath. This is now a widely accepted narrative of the endgame in Vietnam, and it has haunted the Democrats for a generation..
If we let ourselves be driven out of Iraq, what the world will seek most from the next president will not be some great demonstration of humility and self-abasement -- that is, to be the "un-Bush" -- but rather for reassurance that the United States is still strong, capable of acting decisively and committed to the security of its friends. Given our domestic debate, to provide this reassurance will be an uphill battle in the best of circumstances.
It will be even more difficult if President Bush succumbs to all the pressures on him to do the wrong thing in Iraq.It's a good thing for the agents that they didn't kill him--
--I think its too bad they didn't.
(pdf download)
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/2007/compeanramosfinal.pdf
from here:
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/index.html
Now those pdfs are completely contrary to all the reports that were released while the story was ongoing. Proof history is written by the victors.
Public opinion, of course, can change. In 1973, 1974 and 1975, Congress undoubtedly felt it was reflecting the country's disillusionment with the Vietnam War, and it forced a disengagement over the Nixon administration's strong objection. Yet military historians are coming to a consensus that by the end of 1972, there was a much-improved balance of forces in Vietnam, reflected in the 1973 Paris agreement, and that [B]Congress subsequently pulled the props out from under that balance of forces -- dooming Indochina to a bloodbath.
If America had pulled props out from under Saigon's army, then why did that army never once stand on its own with props? As made so obvious in Halberstam's 1965 "Making of a Quagmire" and Sheehan's "Bright Shining Lie", Saigon's army never operated under stress without full American support.
A classic example was Saigon's attack on the Ho Chi Minh trail in Laos with multiple divisions, full supplies, and American airpower in support. This time, American units were not in that operation. Communists simply let Saigon drive deep into Laos - and then destroyed those Saigon divisions. Whole Saigon units would disappear. Classic Diem Bien Phu. How could this be? America provided everything including air power and supplies. But American troops were not part of the invasion. Saigon’s soldiers did not trust their officers. Proven but again, Saigon never had a viable army.
Why? 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. Saigon never had a viable government. Lack of support made obvious even in movies such as "Good Morning, Vietnam" and "Full Metal Jacket"(?). How bad was it? What was even a biggest source of Communist supplies? The US.
Things were so bad that Le Duc Tho would provide Kissinger with N Vietnam secret assessments complete with time lines. Paris negotiators were simply reminding Kissinger how bad things were in Saigon. Saigon fell apart faster than even N Vietnamese estimated because - 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. S Vietnam never really had a viable government - in 1963 Halberstam's book or in 1973. It is total nonsense to believe America could keep supporting a full scale war where it was actually supplying both sides and where insurgents were far stronger. Insurgents repeatedly avoided confronting direct attacks making Saigon appear equal only on paper.
Gen Petreaus constantly repeats what everyone here should now know. He says he cannot win “Mission Accomplished”. As was also true in Nam, he is correct. Petreaus says he can achieve stunning tactical victories - just like in Nam. Made to look even better because insurgencies don’t confront 'surges'. Where is that strategic objective? Americans cannot achieve a strategic victory - just like in Nam and for obvious reasons. If you are not hearing Petreaus, well, he is making that point painfully obvious to those who understand basic military concepts.
A strategic objective can only be achieved by Iraq's government. As made just as obvious in Halberstam's book, et al, Iraq's army also will only be as viable as its government. Maliki's administration is about as incompetent as the many who preceded him. But then who supports Maliki? Same Americans who also believed Chalibi.
Number one problem - widespread government corruption. Deja vue Nam complete with American supplies flowing to the enemy. Other problems include a government more interested in partisan politics than a national agenda. Who visits province chiefs to gain their support? The Maliki government? Of course not. Just as John Paul Vann and others had to do in Nam, so Americans do in "Mission Accomplished". In both wars, the national government had little public support. Americans bought support then and pay for it now. Support did not come from people working for their country.
American presidents in both wars said otherwise. Maliki's government only has support when it is convenient for others to support him. Maliki is a good source for American handouts. Maliki's government is a government of convenience as demonstrated by four years - and still Iraq has no viable army.
Rocket man can setup across the river to attack the green zone. Nobody saw anything? Of course not. Rocket man is not the enemy. Insurgents could spend all morning outside Abu Ghriad setting up mortars even with a surveyor transit. Everyone saw it. Nobody said anything? An organized attack on Abu Ghriad was a surprise to Americans? Of course. These same Iraqi were described as welcoming Americans – by whom? Deja vue Nam.
Petreaus says he cannot achieve a strategic victory. He can only give Iraq’s government time to establish itself. But that has not been happening. Worse are the many power brokers (described by Americans as a monolithic Al Qaeda) who would be positioning themselves and supplies for this expected ‘end of calm’.
An insurgency never confronts a traditional military power. When the 1st Marine Division sat in Khe Sanh on the verge of being overrun, meanwhile insurgents were elsewhere. We call that the Tet Offensive. That is what insurgents do. Insurgencies are especially dangerous when quiet; when appear to be defeated.
When insurgents disappear from the battlefield, then tactical victories are proclaimed. It happened in Nam. Many make those claims in "Mission Accomplished". Some actually believe a monolithic Al Qaeda exists – and that it had a capital?
Insurgents are not dumb. They know this 'surge' cannot be maintained. Americans cannot maintain this without a draft. Already 10% of recruits have criminal records. The strain on America is great. When America tapers back, expect to see where insurgents have relocated and who stops working with Maliki. A strategic objective is not being achieved. Everyone would be waiting for a multiparty civil war – ie Lebanon style.
Meanwhile, a country currently with so little violence now has millions of refugees. A number now estimated to increase by 50,000 every month. Is a strategic objective being achieved? Or is a nation slowly readying itself for an expected upturn in civil war. Remember that civil war that we were told did not exist? Same people also claim things are getting better every month. They also proclaim another myth of insurgent united under an Al Qaeda banner. How many lies did Nixon say before Americans finally conceded he was lying? How many lies must George Jr tell before we acknowledge realities in "Mission Accomplished"?
Well, in Nam, the generals lied. At least the Generals are being honest about what they can do in “Mission Accomplished”.
Just like in Nam, when a major offensive is conducted, then the battlefield is devoid of insurgents. That proves we are winning? Even Gen Petreaus says America cannot achieve a strategic objective - another lesson made so obvious from Nam. An offensive with so much quiet is a calm before a storm - as N Vietnam planned for their final victory in early 1970s.
Le Duc Tho even showed their secret assessments to Kissinger knowing full well that America could do nothing. He was simply showing that they also knew what Kissinger knew. The defeat of a corrupt Saigon government was inevitable. Only on paper was Saigon's army an equal. N Vietnam had a government that even many S Vietnamese supported. The Iraqi army repeatedly duplicates Saigon's abilities. Without inclusion of American units, neither army (Saigon or Iraq) could operate in fierce battle. A problem directly traceable to governments that did not work for the country and that were/are even chock full of corruption. Armies that mysteriously lose units as soon as combat gets too dangerous. Deja vue.
[If we let ourselves be driven out of Iraq, what the world will seek most from the next president will not be some great demonstration of humility and self-abasement -- that is, to be the "un-Bush" -- but rather for reassurance that the United States is still strong, capable of acting decisively and committed to the security of its friends.
Time to worry about that was back in 2002. I was. Anyone who read those 2002 posts know damn well how much I feared the mistake now called "Mission Accomplished".
Three conditions are required for war. 1) A smoking gun. 2) A strategic objective. 3) An exit strategy defined by the strategic objective. These were posted here how many years ago? Five?
Your logic is too little too late. Damage was done long ago. Just another example of damage that does not appear in numbers until years later.
You are using the same logic that massacred so many of my generation. Those who have contempt for the troops used that rationalization. Even a poker player would never be so dumb as to use that rationalization. At the poker table, one who blindly used such rationalization becomes easy money for everyone else.
A smart man learns early when he has created an unwinnable situation - and folds long before the damage is evident. Our last hope for victory required 500,000 troops in country over one year ago. And that was a conservative number. Military doctrine puts the number at 600,000. You are supposed to know such basic concepts when somehow taking a Gen Curtis LeMay's 'big dic' attitude. Even LeMay conceded that Nam could not be won. But to get his attention, we even had to sacrifice 10% of this nation's nuclear bombers.
Yesman065 - at what point do you temper your reasoning by first learning basic military concepts and history? Three fundamental requirements are necessary for a military victory. None. Zero - exist in "Mission Accomplished". So you would throw away more good American soldiers? That is the definition of contempt for the troops.
Blah blah blah - Did you even read the article I cited? Obviously not.
"everyone without a political agenda notes both events are so extremely similar; complete with the rhetoric."
Just more rhetoric.
Now those pdfs are completely contrary to all the reports that were released while the story was ongoing. Proof history is written by the victors.
Of course they are, my dear--those pdfs were meant to clear things up. There are court transcripts there on the page, too.
Yesman065 - at what point do you temper your reasoning by first learning basic military concepts and history? Three fundamental requirements are necessary for a military victory. None. Zero - exist in "Mission Accomplished". So you would throw away more good American soldiers? That is the definition of contempt for the troops.
My reasoning is working just fine, thanks.
To me, trying to deny them financial support and treating them as pawns in an attempt to make your political opponents look worse - in effect - USING the troops so you may gain power--- That is the definition of contempt.
Oh hell I'll just post another link you won't read cuz it doesn't fit your agenda.
A War We Just Might Win
AND from the NYT of all places.
Of course they are, my dear--those pdfs were meant to clear things up. There are court transcripts there on the page, too.
I concede the story appears to not be as reported all along, but considering the source, I'd suspect their complete accuracy.
I still think there is an ongoing deal with Homeland Security and the Mexican drug lords to allow smuggling of cocaine and methamphetamines in return for a peaceful border. There is just too much tonnage coming in for there not to be.
Blah blah blah - Did you even read the article I cited?
Obviously read it and more. Then I cited - what - 15 different reasons why that one isolated point is in direct conflict with history. Did you read all those maybe 15 reasons? Or ignore them? Or not understand them because the author assumed you know the history?
Your point is simply a paragraph quoted from a newspaper article; taken as if a verbatim fact. Provided were other sources, the bigger picture, AND why other facts dispute your conclusion. Did you spend enough time reading and then reading that post to grasp so much information?
Did you even grasp the significance of S Vietnam's invasion of Laos when Saigon's forces were (as you believe) equivalent to the enemy (on paper) AND had US airpower in support? Did you ignore that example because you did not know that history? Did you learn why better card players know when to fold ‘em?
Yesman065, you are very young to already have such firm opinions. That is not a good thing especially when humans typically don't even start grasping the world until after age 16. Posted were three reasons necessary to have a victorious war. Do you just ignore fundamental concepts to ‘keep spending good money after bad’?
In 1973, 1974 and 1975, Congress undoubtedly felt it was reflecting the country's disillusionment with the Vietnam War since even the wise men said in 1968 that the war could not be won. Even Nixon had conceded that reality but continued that war so as it not be ‘lost on his watch’. Did you know those facts? Did you know that N Vietnam so well understood the power of their position as to even show their own secret assessments to Kissinger in Paris? And yet you know otherwise because you read a 'Daily News' type summary in a newspaper article.
If Saigon forces were so good, then why were they massacred in their first major operation, fully supplied, and without American troops? Did you even read the reality I cited?
Show me something with facts such as why. Show me - and I am not from Missouri. A paragraph in one newspaper article has a severe credibility problem especially when 15 some examples demonstrate it wrong - with 'whys'.
My reasoning is working just fine, thanks.
I don't know. You are making claims from an article that does not say what you claim. First O’Hanlon and Pollack, as I recall, were two of the best Iraqi analysts who were attacked for removal by Rumsfeld because they were not saying the political agenda. They advocated nation building. They came to the Pentagon via Sec of State Powell because they were some of the best experts on Iraq. They were driven out by an administration of wacko extrmists who somehow knew "America does not do nation building".
And what do they write. Details that fit in exactly with what I posted.
A War We Just Might Win
We are finally accomplishing something in Iraq, at least in military terms. We have been losing massively at every level for four years. Those who replaced knowledge with a poltical agenda are easily identified. They said we were accomplishing something where even simplest minds knew that was not true.
IOW with generals who were not selected and constrained by wacko political agendas, then we are winning tactically. Petraeus repeatedly said he can win tactically.
Did Yesman065 hear what massive numbers of analysts are also saying in response to this commentary and in agreement with Petraeus? "Mission Accomplished" cannot be won militarily. These temporary victories provide Maliki time to create a political solution - the strategic objective. So what is Maliki doing? Nothing. Not even basic legislation is being passed. Lawmakers all went home. Iraqis appear to be fortifying positions for a wider civil war.
Why does this commentary get big play? The wacko extremist propaganda machine is pushing this one commentary massively because they finally have an accomplishment that is not a lie. Why do wackos forget to mention the rest of what Petraeus says? Why does Yesman065 also forget same; confuse tactical victories with strategic success?
Again, Yesman065 - either you never read or did not grasp what was posted repeatedly even to you. How many times must this be repeated to put O’Hanlon and Pollack into proper perspective? Somehow you are assuming that victory in battle means victory in war. Only fools and those with a 'big dic' perspective believe that. "Our bombs are bigger. Therefore we will win?"
We won most every battle in Nam - and lost. That war could not be won for reasons even cited in 1960s by Halberstam and Sheehan's books. For reasons also cited by the 'wise men' in 1968. Same exists in Iraq.
Yesman065 - they are repeatedly talking in the news about tactical verses stratgeic objectives. Do you not yet get it? You are making claims from an article that does not say what you claim. By not learning the bigger picture, you fail to comprehend the point in that commentary.
tw - do you not get it??? I didn't make any claims - only you did and it took you 5000 words to ask me a question based upon an incorrect assumption.
Positive Report by Petraeus Could Split House Democrats on War
Many Democrats have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad.
But of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. Clyburn said that would be "a real big problem for us."
Amazing to me that a positive report - a report that things are going well, that our military was achieving objectives, that our troops were succeeding would be "a big problem." WTF?
Is it really amazing?
Edit: Sad maybe, but amazing?
I get beat up on for saying that the democratic party (NOT EVERY ONE) but the leadership - whatever doesn't support our troops. This d-bag comes right out and says that it would be "a big problem" if there was a positive report given by our commander in chief. Sad and really effed up. I don't like ANY of them anymore and I'm afraid if I do like one its just cuz he's a better liar than the rest!
But you understand he's talking about the political standing of his party, not about the troops, right?
The Democrats have put pretty much all their eggs into the anti-war basket. If the war starts going well, it will put the Democrats into the position of either flip flopping on the issue or sticking to their position and looking stupid. They lose politically either way.
What they should do, is embrace any positive news because that's what any normal person would do, and then from a political point of view, they should take credit for it. They could argue that their victory in November is what pressured the Administration to change its war tactics. And they would be right.
But you understand he's talking about the political standing of his party, not about the troops, right?
Yup
The Democrats have put pretty much all their eggs into the anti-war basket. If the war starts going well, it will put the Democrats into the position of either flip flopping on the issue or sticking to their position and looking stupid. They lose politically either way.
And therein lieds the rub.
What they should do, is embrace any positive news because that's what any normal person would do, and then from a political point of view, they should take credit for it. They could argue that their victory in November is what pressured the Administration to change its war tactics. And they would be right.
I think you're right - they should act like any normal person and rejoice at positive news. I'd even be willing to let them take credit :headshake that they are responsible for the change in tactics.
Amazing to me that a positive report - a report that things are going well, that our military was achieving objectives, that our troops were succeeding would be "a big problem." WTF?
That is the point. You selectively posted an isolated event. Demonstrated but again is that "Mission Accomplished" was being lost at every level. And yet our glorious president repeatedly said we were winning. Even this minor good news only confirms how often our leader was a liar.
Citing success in tactical objective while ignoring the entire picture is also called propaganda.
Meanwhile also know who O'Hanlon and Pollack are. Pollack was 'person non-grata' by George Jr because he wrote about needing a force that exceeded 150,000 and then over 100,000 for five or ten years minimum. The political agenda said America does not do nation building.
O'Hanlon got same treatment because he wrote in his 2002 book that Saddam paniced; his regime destabilized when Clinton executed Desert Fox in 1998. Saddam was so destablilzed as to be a threat to no one. Clinton had almost completely solved the problem created by Cheney, Wolfovich, Rumsfeld, et al. O'Hanlon also stated that containment was working. Facts are wrong when they contradict a political agenda? That too is part of the story that was ignored.
Who does not support the troops? Those who believed a lying president. Those who denied we were losing "Mission Accomplished" at every level. Finally troops have one limited success. Those who have contempt for the troops repeatedly ignore or deny that bigger picture. Contempt even promoted pre-emption while disparaging containment.
Well at least someone finally did something for the troops. The mental midget was so publically disparaged that troops finally got a competant general and got relieve from political agendas. We did that in PA by voting against the wacko extremist Senator Santorum.
What is postive? The mental midget is slowly coming around to what the Iraq Study Group, et al (including this poster) have long been saying. Unfortunately he is doing it so slow as to protect his legacy at the expense of American troops. Notice many who claim to support the troops really have contempt for those troops. That political agenda is contempt for the American soldier.
Meanwhile, notice what is happening as a result of "Mission Accomplished"? When are we going after bin Laden? Does one worry about saying things only positive - or confront reality in full perspective and without emotion? Those who instead deal with reality are only those who support the troops.
Never rejoice due to postive news. That only creates an attitude based in silly emotion. Take news as news. Add that news to the big picture. A picture that also asks, "When do we go after bin Laden?"
Those who only rejoice in good news are doing propaganda; intentionally ignoring THE most important fact. We make no effort to go after bin Laden. We have one little accomplishment. Some tactical victories that all acknowledge will turn into losses if the strategic objective for "Mission Accomplished" remains ignored.
What does that good news say? Our leaders have been lying to us - an indisputible fact. A strategic objective is not being achieved. Ten or more years in Iraq - so that the war will not be lost during George Jr's watch. George Jr does zero to demand a strategic success - which is also in that 'good' news - when one looks at the big picture.
In other words --
If everything goes well now, it doesn't excuse the fact that it was a massive mistake -- in fact things have to go *exceedingly* well for that to be the case, to justify the cost in lives and dollars.
Anti-war, pro-surge would be the correct choice in such a case. (Obama.)
Pro-war, anti-surge would be the incorrect choice in such a case. (Hillary.)
At this point I don't think exceedingly well can ever make up for the fumbling that's been going on in the past four years... for the unnecessary hardship on the Iraqis or our allies, for the cost to the US in men, money and international good will.
Even if Iraq becomes our bestest buddy, this war will cause hate toward the US with their neighbors and throughout the muslim world. I suppose that would happen even if the war had been run right and Iraq was stabilized in the first year, but I think it would have had less impact on muslims, removed from that area, without the years and years of war news.
At this point I don't think exceedingly well can ever make up for the fumbling that's been going on in the past four years... for the unnecessary hardship on the Iraqis or our allies, for the cost to the US in men, money and international good will.
Even if Iraq becomes our bestest buddy, this war will cause hate toward the US with their neighbors and throughout the muslim world. I suppose that would happen even if the war had been run right and Iraq was stabilized in the first year, but I think it would have had less impact on muslims, removed from that area, without the years and years of war news.
At best we have been treading water for a few years now.
Even if Iraq becomes our bestest buddy, this war will cause hate toward the US with their neighbors and throughout the muslim world.
That dam busted years ago - long before 9/11/2001 - I would guess. Then again the way the conflict has gone and reported certainly didn't help.
That dam busted years ago - long before 9/11/2001 - I would guess.
Quite the other way around. Respect and admiration for the US by 2000 was probably at an all time high. World wide, American approval ratings were abut 70%. This was especially true in the Middle East when America was supporting the Oslo Accords. Even Syria was secretly a strong US ally. Libya was actively courting a new and friendly relationship with the US. The Dayton Accords set another foundation of repect for how the US ends massacres and overt military conflicts - doing so to protect a mostly Muslim population. Kuwait even renamed a major street after George Sr. Sudan had even changed enough to drive bin Laden out of their country (although by that time, Sudan had all but soaked bin Laden for most of bin Laden's financial net worth).
One of America's strongest allies in the entire world was Turkey.
What has changed since 11 September - when the entire world could not be more closely allied with the US? Well even Turkey has some of the lowest American approval ratings compared to the world. We have even destroyed that relationship with one of our closest allies - Turkey. Even Israel has become concerned. American fubars are so massive that Hamas and Hezbollah have both become popular and stronger. American stupidity even for demanding Palestinian elections was obvioius to all in the region. But America even forced that stupid demand. Pakistan is sitting on a pin head - could easily go either way in a very short time - with just one successful assassination attempt.
This idea that Americans were unpopular among Muslim nations is simply bogus propaganda promoted Limbaugh and other radicals. As that group of 50 ambassadors and generals stated in an open letter so many years ago, George Jr has mostly destroyed relationships with nations that took them 50 years to build.
Richard Holbrook and Charlie Rose discussed this recently. Normally presidents start in office with a domestic agenda. Only years later do they take up international agendas. But the next president will have some of the most challenging international relation problems this nation has ever seen. Two wars; both going badly. First time in history, an international trade conference has failed with blame at America and France. Even American relationships with Mexico and Canada are at all time lows. America was once a nation to respect, to set world agendas, to lead the world in solving new problems, and (if an enemy) to fear. Even American enemies have so less to fear. Could America execute another Dayton Accords or create a bloodless coup in Haiti today? Doubtful. American diplomacy is completely paralyzed by political agenda such as American demands to terminate family planning programs in other nations. American military might is so bogged down as to be a diminished threat even to enemies. We don't even have a Rapid Reaction force - once considered absolutely essential to American security. Even that is bogged down in "Mission Accomplished".
Welcome to the new world order - one the father was not expecting and that the son created. One in which even the Oslo Accords were undermined by America after 2000.
Great - maybe I'll just go shoot myself - geez tw you gotta be either a droid or the most ddepressing person on the face of the planet. One little offhand remark and you write a chapter on how the sky is falling.
Great - maybe I'll just go shoot myself - geez tw you gotta be either a droid or the most ddepressing person on the face of the planet. One little offhand remark and you write a chapter on how the sky is falling.
Why are you posting emotions? If you think that a sky is falling, then fine. What are your supporting facts to make that conclusion. Your post again reeks of wacko extremist fear of Arabs.
Why do you even entertain such emotions? Why do you let such emotions proclaim that the Arab world mostly hated Americans? That is what Rush Limbaugh needs all to assume so that he can promote propaganda - the hate and fear that Cheney so promotes.
A benchmark identifies many brainwashed by extremism. They believe myths that enemies are out there everywhere hating us and just waiting for oppurtunities to kill us all. Reality - enemies were few to near zero. Reality - most dangerous enemies were really us - ie Timothy McVeigh. The world was not full of hate for America as Limbaugh, Cheney, et al claim. And yet that unjustified assumption results in "That dam busted years ago - long before 9/11/2001 - I would guess." That guess is based in their wacko extremist 'hate and fear' propaganda.
Appreciate the problem that we created because so many Americans foolishly believe wacko propaganda that Arabs mostly hated Americans. It just was not true AND it becomes justificaton for so much hate and fear even of Muslim Americans.
With so much hate and fear, then extremists said Saddam had WMDs to attack America. A lie that they knew only from their feelings; not from facts. Meanwhile Saddam was doing anything he could to be an American friend without destroying his own regime. Somehow that reality got lost in all this 'Arabs hate us' propaganda. Such racist assumptions should be challenged by a long list of contrary facts.
Yesman065 - you posted your bias. You have assumed facts not in evidence - this widespread Arab hatred of America that exists before 11 September. That did not exist except where extremists such as Limbaugh were preaching outright lies and hate. Shame on you for entertaining their racism and then getting emotional again because your emotions were proven wrong by fact, after fact, after fact ...
Get over it. There are not all these people hiding everywhere waiting to kill us all. That fear is the same wacko propaganda that even justified "Mission Accomplished".
We have one enemy. When do we go after bin Laden? How can you see so much hate in the Arab world and yet not ask this damning question often. When do we go after bin Laden? Notice those who promote fear and hate of Arabs never ask that question.
Your simple comment was dripping with 'hate and fear' of Arabs.
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah WMD blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah TOP MANAGEMENT blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Why do you even entertain such emotions? blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah long before blah blah blah Limbaugh, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Cheney blah blah blah blah big dic blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah You have assumed blah blah blah blah blah blah blah "Mission Accomplished" blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah contempt for the troops blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Never rejoice due to postive news. blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah the same wacko propaganda blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah so obvious to all blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah George Jr. blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah When do we go after bin Laden? blah blah big dic blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah "Mission Accomplished" blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Never rejoice blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah When do we go after bin Laden? blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah TOP MANAGEMENT blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah wacko propaganda blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah 85% of all problems are traceable to TOP MANAGEMENT blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah FREAKIN BLAH
you forgot 'big dic'.
Yeah - thanks - I got it now
Yeah - thanks - I got it now
Of course you forgot about big dic. To have remembered it, first you must have one. Notice the difference between a technical post and one that is posted in reply to a chain of 13 insults from ValleyGirl065. How do we know it is her? Anything that does not praise ValleyGirl065 must be an insult. After all, the world revolved around ValleyGirl065.
ValleyGirl065 - why does you cunt smell so bad. That is an insult you have long deserved. Why do you not know what a big dic is. Puberty is not yet you - as demonstrated by your immediate need to see insult in all posts - you fucking scumbag.
It's not fun posting like ValleyGirl065. I wonder why she does it so often.
If you guys come to blows.... I could sure use one.
hee hee hee - oh tw, have you not yet realized that for me to take anything you say personally I would first have to care what you think of me? Geez, and I was holding back on my posts -
I think I'm a reasonably bright and resourceful fellow, but for the life of me I've never been able to figure out what "big dic" means.
Of course you forgot about big dic. To have remembered it, first you must have one.
ValleyGirl065 - why does you cunt smell so bad. That is an insult you have long deserved. Why do you not know what a big dic is. Puberty is not yet you -as demonstrated by your immediate need to see insult in all posts - you fucking scumbag.
Again, Aliantha - at no time do I post anything personally insulting.
Also notice I don't post profanity only to post emotional profanity.
Nothing in my posts even implied insults. Those who take insult need to reassess themselves since inside their head is the only place that an insult exists.
Hmmm...
In the first quote, he is acting out a character. Posting an example of how not to post.
Do you mean it was an
Emily Post?
I think I'm a reasonably bright and resourceful fellow, but for the life of me I've never been able to figure out what "big dic" means.
Or why he insists on spelling it with no K. A quixotry from tw? Who'd'a thunk?
Incidentally, and for about the fourth time, and so far into complete silence, I'll ask tw yet again:
tw, do you actually want America to win? There are reasons in your writing here to suspect you do not.
That the approval ratings for the president, congress - hell our entire governmental leadership speaks volumes to the rest of the world - THAT is a most telling reality we should be focused on. Is it a problem? Why? how to rectify and alter our election process to make it more palatable (sp) to qualified candidates - thats what I'd like to know.
Make me king.
I want to be Minister of Defense.
Make me king.
I'll handle your re-election campaign.
Re-election? There will be no elections. We don't need no stinkin elections. I am KING.... Bwahahahahaha.
Uh, that was my point - I get paid for nothing :)
Sooo, you want a free ride on the public mon... er, uh, MY money, huh? Bring that piss jar over here.
lol. Well I could also handle all yor image advertising so all the people in
"king Brucedom" would think you're great guy
I didn't know you were a magician.
Saddam won every election and polled very popular.
Therefore no reason Bruce should be anything but very, very popular.
Palatable is correct.
/s/ UG the Copyediting Eagle-Eye Guy
Palatable is correct.
I sincerely hope you are not correcting
meSign of the times. Everybody wants to be an English Nazi.
Sign of the times.
Correction: Sign [SIZE="3"]O [/SIZE]the Times. [SIZE="3"]O[/SIZE] the Times.
FLINT!
for the millionth time...
I love you.
Except it's not Sign O the Times... its Sign "☮" The Times.
Confirming, yesman, confirming. ;)
After a moment's rereading of Ibram's remark, I'll toss in two cents more: in typesetting, a small, ornamental mark that is not a letter is called -- a dingbat. That the dingbat was legally a trademark owned by Prince Rogers Nelson and was connected with a copyright tussle goes far to explain this eccentricity, but does not reduce its peculiarity.
I am now going to pun mercilessly on tw:
Sign of the times. Everybody wants to be an English Nazi.
Oswald Mosley.
Gosh all hemlock, kid, should you feed me straight lines like that?
Hey DanaC - Do the have Nazi's in England?
Hey DanaC - Do the have Nazi's in England?
Can an Irishman be an English Nazi? Would he admit it?
Yes. British National Party (BNP) is a nationalist party who also mainly subscribe to white race politics. They were born of the National Front, the more outwardly fascist party (skinheads and swastika tattoos), and are the result of the 'moderate' wing of the NF splitting off to form a new party. The leader of this new 'moderate' party has served time for serious violent assault and is also known on the European fascist tour circuit. He has also, I believe, endorsed a particularly unsavoury revisionist history of the holocaust.
Both the BNP and the NF field candidates in elections (very few NF thee days) and their cannier members wear smart suits and are careful not to be too over the top with racist comments unless they're sure of their audience. Their hardcore activists are a combination of the old guard, serious white power racists, with a fetishised love of all things Third Reich related and the newer tranch of activists who in another era would have been members of a mainstream party.
Even though the BNP is a political party, it is widely known and understood (in the same way it was known and understood about Sinn Fein) that they have a paramilitary wing, known as Combat 18. Big bastards with serious tattoos:P
I was kidding Dana, but thats really interesting to know nonetheless.
From the Washington Post of 24 Aug 2007:
Warner Calls for Pullouts By Winter
GOP Senator Suggests Move Would Prod Iraq
Sen. John W. Warner, one of the most influential Republican voices in Congress on national security, called on President Bush yesterday to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq in time for Christmas as a new intelligence report concluded that political leaders in Baghdad are "unable to govern effectively."
There is no reason to make the same Vietnam mistake all over again.
From the Washington Post of 24 Aug 2007: There is no reason to make the same Vietnam mistake all over again.
According to Bush, the Vietnam mistake is that we aren't still there.
According to Bush, the Vietnam mistake is that we aren't still there.
Those who rewrite history are doomed to rewrite it over and over again.
According to Bush, the Vietnam mistake is that we aren't still there.
Which means he did not even read the Pentagon Papers. Oh. He also forgot to read a memo on his desk entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike America". Funny how Secretary of Treasury Paul O'Neill would spend hours going through a four page memo point by point with George Jr - because George Jr did not read that 4 pages either. Amazing how he need not read because god tells him.
After all, who did he consult before authorizing 'Shock and Awe"? Cheney and god. That was it. George Jr need not read the Pentagon Papers. His grasp comes from higher authorities. Just wondering which is the higher authority - Cheney or god.
Inasmuch as "Bin Laden Determined to Strike America" was completely unspecific and had nothing actionable in it, tw is engaging in the most harebrained of spin-exes and I'm calling him on it. Reading the report or not reading the report would have made no difference.
Tw, don't you understand how well informed we are? You cannot lie like that without getting your cock in the Cuisinart. Oh, that's right, this is how you indulge your subconscious masochism -- you bring it on yourself. Not something a man of integrity or acumen would do, seems to me.
A mindless prejudice against Republican Presidents is at work here -- and an absence of thought before operating the keyboard well in evidence.
The second agent crests the hill to see his partner prostrate and the perp fleeing. He fired once not thinking he hit anything.
Maybe not.Yeah, we went through that. bluecuracao posted a link to the testimony at their trial. It's way different than how the story was originally reported at numerous sources.
The article goes through how those sources got the story. The right wing noise machine can be halfway around the world before the "mainstream media" even decides not to bother fact-checking them.
Well, the war critics among the active military
seem to be at a disadvantage.
The last words of the op-ed written by seven soldiers serving in Iraq were courageous and poignant.
"We need not talk about our morale. As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through."
Sadly, that mission came to an end for two of those soldiers just three weeks after that editorial was published in The New York Times.
Sgt. Omar Mora, 28, and Staff Sgt. Yance T. Gray, 26, two of the authors of "The War as We Saw It," were killed in Baghdad Monday when the five-ton cargo truck they were riding in overturned.
Another of the authors, Staff Sgt. Jeremy Murphy, was shot in the head while the group was working on the article.
The controversial Aug. 19 editorial gained international attention for its skepticism about the American war effort: "To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched."
The news of their deaths arrived as Gen. David Petraeus was finishing his testimony to Congress about the progress of the military's surge in Iraq.
I try not to post 2 in a row, but it has been 3 days since my last post on this thread.
Greenspan Book Criticizes Bush And Republicans
In a withering critique of his fellow Republicans, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan says in his memoir that the party to which he has belonged all his life deserved to lose power last year for forsaking its small-government principles.
In "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World," published by Penguin Press, Mr. Greenspan criticizes both congressional Republicans and President George W. Bush for abandoning fiscal discipline.
The book is scheduled for public release Monday. The Wall Street
Mr. Greenspan writes that when President Bush chose Dick Cheney as vice president and Paul O'Neill as treasury secretary -- both colleagues from the Gerald Ford administration, during which Mr. Greenspan was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers -- he "indulged in a bit of fantasy" that this would be the government that would have resulted if Mr. Ford hadn't lost to Jimmy Carter in 1976. But Mr. Greenspan discovered that in the Bush White House, the "political operation was far more dominant" than in Mr. Ford's. "Little value was placed on rigorous economic policy debate or the weighing of long-term consequences," he writes.
There are a
lot of critics of Mr. Greenspan. He had a very important, very high profile job for a very long time. Economics is not a 'hard' science, so his decisions will be second guessed for a very long time.
He does, however, have a reputation for intelligence, honesty, and usually tactful silence. He spent decades trying to say as little as possible in public, knowing the consequences. Now that he is 'out of uniform' and being paid a healthy book advance, he is starting to talk.
A lot of respected former military and intelligence people have come out against Bush's military and intelligence decisions. Now here is one of the most well known economic policy makers in US history saying what many of us already guessed, that there was no long term thinking in the White House when it came to fiscal policy.
This should get interesting. I almost pity the talking head that tries to debate Greenspan.:corn:
Who do you work for - the people or for a political agenda? These questions are again being asked in Washington as more people in government are found working for a political agenda rather than for America. From the Washington Post of 19 Sept 2007:
State IG Accused of Averting Probes
Howard J. Krongard, the State Department's inspector general, has repeatedly thwarted investigations into contracting fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan, including construction of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, and censored reports that might prove politically embarrassing to the Bush administration, the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform charged yesterday in a 13-page letter.
The letter, addressed to Krongard and signed by the committee chairman, Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), who released it yesterday, said the allegations were based on the testimony of seven current and former officials on Krongard's staff, including two former senior officials who allowed their names to be used, and private e-mail exchanges obtained by the committee. The letter said the allegations concerned all three major divisions of Krongard's office -- investigations, audits and inspections.
Two former senior officials who allowed their names to be used.
Waxman accused Howard Krongard of:
_ Refusing to send investigators to Iraq and Afghanistan to investigate $3 billion worth of State Department contracts.
_ Preventing his investigators from cooperating with a Justice Department probe into waste and fraud in the construction of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.
_ Using "highly irregular" procedures to personally exonerate the embassy's prime contractor of labor abuses.
_ Interfering in the investigation of a close friend of former White House adviser Karl Rove.
_ Censoring reports on embassies to prevent full disclosure to Congress.
_ Refusing to publish critical audits of State's financial statements.
Seemingly after numerous prognoses of carnage during “March of Peace” for “reunion of Georgia and South Ossetia” rate of Georgian president had fallen near zero. Georgian authorities couldn’t gather enough those who’d wished to take part in this great provocation. And Ossetians prepared well to meet uninvited guests. So now they’re doing away feverishly from lists of assumed participants and making contradictious statements. Thus South Ossetian minister of internal affairs says about postponing of march till September, 20th. But state minister of Georgia for conflict settlement Bakradze and head of “caretaker administration” of South Ossetia Sanakoev announced that Georgia never planned such march. But it happened so that I was writing an article about march’ preparations. And I’ve seen those lists of participants with my eyes! And I’ve seen Sanakoev himself in Georgian village of Ditsi instructing pupils of 5th form of local school how they should behave themselves during that march!
So whom should I believe? Venal politicians or my own eyes?
Hi there Spark, nice to meet you.
If you've seen things with your own eyes which contradict what politicians are telling you....then I'd say believe your own eyes:)
Cause that had a whole bunch to do with Bush...
I think it has something to do with dishonest politicians....which has something to do with Bush.
Greenspan Book Criticizes Bush And Republicans
There are a lot of critics of Mr. Greenspan. He had a very important, very high profile job for a very long time. Economics is not a 'hard' science, so his decisions will be second guessed for a very long time.
He does, however, have a reputation for intelligence, honesty, and usually tactful silence. He spent decades trying to say as little as possible in public, knowing the consequences. Now that he is 'out of uniform' and being paid a healthy book advance, he is starting to talk.
A lot of respected former military and intelligence people have come out against Bush's military and intelligence decisions. Now here is one of the most well known economic policy makers in US history saying what many of us already guessed, that there was no long term thinking in the White House when it came to fiscal policy.
This should get interesting. I almost pity the talking head that tries to debate Greenspan.:corn:
This is probably the only book of it's genre that I think I could actually read easily. Greenspan has been around for so long. He's a smart man but an honest one too. Nice piece of history I suppose.
This is probably the only book of it's genre that I think I could actually read easily. Greenspan has been around for so long. He's a smart man but an honest one too. Nice piece of history I suppose.
Read Paul O'Neill's story - George Jr's Secretary of the Treasury. "The Price of Loyalty" was published in 2004. It demonstrates how incompetent the George Jr administration was so early on. Worse, it demonstrates how incompetent a president can be and so many citizens will just deny. Appreciate from that book - as also demonstrated by the Pentagon Papers - how so many will see facts and yet all but deny those facts.
Paul O’Neill was from the same circle of Republicans as Greenspan. The difference – it was not safe for Paul O’Neill to be so honest so early.
snip~ And I’ve seen those lists of participants with my eyes! ~snip
Welcome to the Cellar Spark. :D
How did these lists of participants get to Cochabamba?
I think it has something to do with dishonest politicians....which has something to do with Bush.
When a president is corrupt, crime increases everywhere. Top management defined the 'attitude and knowledge'. Did we not learn from Nixon?
Military doctrine says the US needed 600,000 troops in "Mission Accomplished". Since the president is an MBA - a proverbial cost controller - America is so incompetent as to even use cost controls on military deployments. 40% of the US military equipment should be in Iraq. However nobody knows for sure due to cost controls. From the Washington Post of 20 September 2007 is but one example:
Pentagon Probes $6 Billion in Contracts
U.S.-led command training Iraqi forces did not have enough people in Iraq to properly catalog the thousands of weapons flowing into the country. As a result, the Pentagon does not know if the number of weapons that were destined for the Iraqis "were in fact transferred," he said. The issue first surfaced in May when Pentagon officials learned that Turkish officials were concerned that American-issued weapons were being used in violent crimes in their country. In July, Defense Secretary Robert Gates sent the Pentagon's top lawyer, William Haynes, to Turkey to hear the concerns.
Pentagon Inspector General Claude Kicklighter was subsequently directed to investigate the failures that led to the distribution problems. Gimble said that inquiry is one of his office's "highest priorities."
'Highest priority' is the high Cheney and George Jr get from spending money and wasting American soldier lives. As Cheney said, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter". Even drug dealers don't spend money so corruptly. Too few people meant we did not even know weapons are missing until the Turks complain? What happen to those 747 plane loads of $100 bills? Any good deals yet on a nuclear bomb?
No. Not very funny because some even in the Cellar still love scumbags in the George Jr administration who have so much contempt for the American soldier. Add to the list Democrats with no balls.
The patriot is even a bank robber because our leaders are that corrupt.
For contempt for the American soldier, it is among the worst kept of secrets that tw is unmatched.
His point was that it doesn't matter the intent of the 'american soldier,' they're no longer fighting for the security of their country, they're fighting for whatever special interests are popular at that time.
"You don't support the troops," "you hate american soldiers," "they need our support, not our dissent," blah fucking blah. I am sick and tired, exhausted even, at how many people talk so much much god damned bullshit about 'the american soldier.' They're people doing a job, and there's nothing more noble or ignoble than anyone else living their life.
They don't deserve excess scorn, or excess praise. Most of the people that I know that enlisted, did so for the GI bill, some steady cashflow, the benefits for their kids, and occasionally 'service to their country.' They're not all Toby Keith's painting of some soft spoken super hero. In fact, a bunch of them can be real shitbags. But then again, it's about the same percentage as every other group of people on this green earth.
If you live in this country, guess what? You pay their salaries, so you 'support' them. They get a pretty damn good wage and benefits (despite what they say), and while there are some that do it 'for god and country,' most are doing it as their job. I'm not saying there's something wrong with that at all, I'm saying you need to stop treating them like they're fucking Jesus come back to earth.
I'm tired of rhetoric, I'm tired of the same Foxnews-Pentagon-Channel-Dick-Cheney bullshit lines OVER AND OVER AND OVER. So just shut the flying hell up. I'm going to go puke now.
[SIZE=7][COLOR="Red"]BR[/COLOR][COLOR="Silver"]AV[COLOR="Blue"]O!![/COLOR][/COLOR][/SIZE]
When you commit two years of your life of public service to our nation, two years which are your country's and not your own, I will support and thank you too.
Please let us know your plans.
they're no longer fighting for the security of their country
That is your opinion, and we all certainly hope you are right about that, but if you are or even if you're not, the military doesn't have a choice in the matter.
The troops go regardless of the rhetoric, and should be held in high regard regardless of the rhetoric.
How about the four years that I'm currently serving? Is that enough? I do hold them in high regard, but no more than any other civil servant, teacher, plumber or any other job. I don't 'have contempt for the troops,' I am a troop, it just drives me up the wall (and to swearing at people, I guess) when people use me, most of my friends, my fiance, and my entire nuclear family as bargaining chips, or worse as some reason to squash public dissent.
Military members are no better or worse at their core than anyone you see on a daily basis, and shouldn't be treated or used as such.
Thank you for your service.
His point was that it doesn't matter the intent of the 'american soldier,' they're no longer fighting for the security of their country, they're fighting for whatever special interests are popular at that time.
"You don't support the troops," "you hate american soldiers," "they need our support, not our dissent," blah fucking blah. I am sick and tired, exhausted even, at how many people talk so much much god damned bullshit about 'the american soldier.' They're people doing a job, and there's nothing more noble or ignoble than anyone else living their life.
They don't deserve excess scorn, or excess praise. Most of the people that I know that enlisted, did so for the GI bill, some steady cashflow, the benefits for their kids, and occasionally 'service to their country.' They're not all Toby Keith's painting of some soft spoken super hero. In fact, a bunch of them can be real shitbags. But then again, it's about the same percentage as every other group of people on this green earth.
If you live in this country, guess what? You pay their salaries, so you 'support' them. They get a pretty damn good wage and benefits (despite what they say), and while there are some that do it 'for god and country,' most are doing it as their job. I'm not saying there's something wrong with that at all, I'm saying you need to stop treating them like they're fucking Jesus come back to earth.
I'm tired of rhetoric, I'm tired of the same Foxnews-Pentagon-Channel-Dick-Cheney bullshit lines OVER AND OVER AND OVER. So just shut the flying hell up. I'm going to go puke now.
Yea, you make some really good points... and on the same note don't forget that the door of perception swings both ways... Those damm good wages and benefits are for a good reason. Most people who are not in the military could never hack the lifestyle. Most marriages would never survive. I would venture to say that many wifes and husbands would divorce their partners after the first long azzed deployment of undetermined length. Most of us did as a job. But most don't do it just for the benies. None of us want to be treated like "Jesus come back to earth", far from it.
And I'm tired of rhetoric, I'm tired of the same MoveOn.org conspiracy theorist news-antiwar.com-Channel-GeorgefuckingSoros-NancythecuntPelosi-KenedyClintionclitlicker-bullshit lines OVER AND OVER AND OVER. So say what ever you want, but we are sick of it too. I'm going to go puke now as well.
Absolutely, I don't mean to imply that the anti-war side uses it any more than the pro-war, it makes me sick either way.
And I don't think military service is so hard most can't take it, I think everyone that joins expects and is therefore ready for on-call-at-all-times and deployments. But then again, I'm in the air force: inventors of the air-conditioned tent city. ;)
Absolutely, I don't mean to imply that the anti-war side uses it any more than the pro-war, it makes me sick either way.
And I don't think military service is so hard most can't take it, I think everyone that joins expects and is therefore ready for on-call-at-all-times and deployments. But then again, I'm in the air force: inventors of the air-conditioned tent city. ;)
Got ya. I was 20 years Army and loved it. I tell my kids not to go into the Army unless they are going SF (son). My youngest dau may go in the AF after college. All good stuff. One thing is for sure, they will have health insurance while on AD and that is more than most can say about the current job market.
Thank you for your service.
Don't you see that's my point? Why are you thanking me for my service? If someone chooses to be a biochemist, do we usually thank them for doing that? What about if someone chooses to work for a telecommunications company? Should they be thanked? A University prof?
For some reason we've decided that a few fields of work are somehow more noble than others, or deserve our respect more. Medicine, peacekeeping, and war fighting are some that I think of immediately, and frankly I'm still undecided as to how much the military really contributes to society, be it global or local communities.
I tell you this, while there are military members who've fallen into that talk, myself and most I know don't consider ourselves any different than any civilians, I'm not being modest, I'm being honest.
Also, mercenary, what'd you do in the army?
Then again, you're not putting your life on the line. An air conditioned office in Georgia is a far cry from a combat zone.
Don't you see that's my point? Why are you thanking me for my service?
You said you were doing four years of public service for our country. I don't give a shit what your intentions are, whether it's to make a dime or college money or whatever. The soldier/marines are putting their life on the line without having the ability to decide where and when. I would also thank firefighters and cops and anyone else of that ilk. These are the folks who do the heavy lifting in society that I personally don't care to do. When the shit hits the fan they are the ones knee-deep in shit.
and frankly I'm still undecided as to how much the military really contributes to society, be it global or local communities
It's wonderful to be in that position where the benefit is not totally obvious!
Meanwhile in most of the real world it's the Serengeti Plain, eat or be eaten.
The disorder is all around you. And in certain places, it's nuclear. You don't like the current conflict... because you don't like its politics. Yeah well I didn't vote for the guy either but this was one way to go about cleaning up the middle east and Bill Clinton might well have taken the same approach, although he would have made sure France was paid off properly before going to the UN.
WW2 was only 4 generations ago and today there's much, much greater capacity and much more at stake. Deadly force will continue to be needed and it will continue to be deadly. I can't wait for a D to be President so people like you (omg that's a terrible phrase to use) will sober up and recognize that. (what a terrible thing to say)
Then again, you're not putting your life on the line. An air conditioned office in Georgia is a far cry from a combat zone.
So my word doesn't matter because I didn't draw the bad lottery ticket? It wasn't my choice to be here anymore than others IN country choose to be there. In fact the military has a funny way of doing the exact OPPOSITE of what you ask from it. Ask any other members past or present ;)
Meanwhile in most of the real world it's the Serengeti Plain, eat or be eaten. The disorder is all around you. And in certain places, it's nuclear. You don't like the current conflict... because you don't like its politics. Yeah well I didn't vote for the guy either but this was one way to go about cleaning up the middle east and Bill Clinton might well have taken the same approach, although he would have made sure France was paid off properly before going to the UN.
So... what does the local carjacking have with the military? And what armed conflict are we involved in with Syria or ROK? And it should be pointed out that this was NOT a way to clean up the middle east, it might have been if it were done properly, but all its done is messed things up WAY worse.
I can't wait for a D to be President so people like you (omg that's a terrible phrase to use) will sober up and recognize that. (what a terrible thing to say)
You said it yourself, Bill Clinton might have done the same thing. I have no doubt that any Democratic president elected will still use force. And I love how everyone says that democrats are 'anti-military,' but guess what? Over the past 20 or so years, the highest increase in pay per soldier was under a democratic president. He did a much better job with the military than the president before him, or the president after him. Also, if you remember, the guy that was president during WWII... democrat.
My point was that I'm not SURE about the usefulness of the military. Mostly because I'm what you call a global thinker. In the end, what's best for the entirety of humanity is far more important than what's best for the US... this is because I'm not arrogant or prickish enough to think that those things are one in the same. There are a LOT more people on the planet than are in the US. And in my opinion, what we are doing is NOT in the global interest, it was done ONLY with personal interest. And THAT is something that most democratic presidents wouldn't have done.
P.S. Don't assume that I'm a democrat or that I agree with them all. I'm a liberal for sure, but I'm not part of some amorphous lump of 'those kind of people' anymore than you are. In fact, I'm NOT in favor of a withdrawal from Iraq. I just don't want to be directly involved in the killing anymore.
So my word doesn't matter because I didn't draw the bad lottery ticket? It wasn't my choice to be here anymore than others IN country choose to be there. In fact the military has a funny way of doing the exact OPPOSITE of what you ask from it. Ask any other members past or present ;)
No no, not at all, but birds of a feather. My point is, being stateside in the Air Force, is different from the Marines or Army in Iraq, is different from the National Guard, or Navy, in either place.
The people that sign up for the Marines or Army, knowing they are going to be grunts, especially during a war, are probably not motivated by the tuition money as much as the people that join the Air force or Navy with a needed skill. The grunts are taking a bigger risk, putting more on the line, also.
Scoffing at their sacrifice doesn't diminish it.
The Guards that signed up in peace time, one weekend a month, two weeks in the summer, for extra income and the benefits, took a crap shoot and lost. Because they knew the risk, doesn't diminish the sacrifices they are making over there. The fact they shouldn't be there in the first place, doesn't either.
I agree with Q (how's that for a tag) that mixing up carjacking and military is a bad, bad idea.
The reason that the
Posse Comitatus Act was passed was that our country's two experiences with military peacekeeping, the pre- and post- Revolutionary War period and the Reconstruction following the Civil War, were so significant that it was felt that a law had to be passed to further define limits implied in the Constitution.
The military are not 'cops with different color uniforms'. Their rules of engagement are significantly different from those of police. A cop who shoots an unarmed 12-year-old in broad daylight, for example, is in more trouble than a soldier who does the same in a war zone. This isn't to say that similar situations don't occur. The police in London responsible for the
Stockwell shooting will not individually face charge for effectively shooting the wrong guy because he was wearing a bulky coat, wasn't white, and lived near suspected terrorists.
One of the most effective tool terrorists have is getting cops and soldiers to start killing civilians. It's even more effective when they are perceived as getting away with it.
No police officers will face criminal charges over the death of Jean Charles de Menezes, the Crown Prosecution Service said yesterday.
He was shot dead at Stockwell Underground station, south London, last July by anti-terrorist officers who mistakenly feared that he was a suicide bomber.
The Metropolitan Police will be prosecuted under health and safety law over "operational errors" in planning and communication which fell short of criminal offences.
"In order to prosecute those officers, we would have to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that they did not honestly and genuinely hold those beliefs. In fact, the evidence supports their claim that they genuinely believed that Mr de Menezes was a suicide bomber and therefore, as we cannot disprove that claim, we cannot prosecute them for murder or any other related offence."
He added: "I considered the actions of all those involved in the operation to see how it was that an innocent man came to be mistaken for a suicide bomber.
"I concluded that while a number of individuals had made errors in planning and communication, and the cumulative result was the tragic death of Mr de Menezes, no individual had been culpable to the degree necessary for a criminal offence."
In effect, if enough people are responsible for the death of a civilian, than none of them are guilty.
The point is, there are savages everywhere, from which we need protection and direction.
The point is, there are savages everywhere, from which we need protection and direction.
I have a huge problem with this idea. We need to protect ourselves from savages here, not be protected from savages everywhere. You do get that all savages everywhere creates a state of permanent warfare, do you not?
Don't kid yourself. The world is in a permanent state of warfare. You never notice it because, like crime, 99% of it never leads anywhere because somebody sane says, if we do this we will be punished or killed.
Musharraf says, the first thing he thought when considering his options post 9/11 was, shall I go to war with the US? And his second thought was, no, we will be pulverized.
Turn off Fox News. Most of it never leads anywhere, because most people care only about what is personally happening to them and their families. There are very few real bad actors who take it beyond the personal. That tiny group can be policed.
Pay more attention to Fox News and other sources you don't agree with as well. If it weren't for US influence, most of the world's oil chokepoints would be controlled by those bad actors and/or the nations interested in throwing their weight around. There wouldn't be US influence, actually because we'd be in Carter-era economic sluggishness/crisis.
Look at history man. The time of world wars was before US throwing its weight around arrived on the scene. I know you don't like the World Police approach but you are reaping tremendous benefit... as does the entire world.
I hear you man, but the particular media source isn't the big problem. There isn't much of a market for the sky isn't falling news. Prowar/antiwar both want to terrorize. Both will say the sky isn't falling only in reaction to the others over-reaction. When the news is skewed you need to look inside yourself and think, I'm a human what drives me? Very few of us look inside and see a real bastard. Folks that give great power to others out of fear risk handing their power to one of the few bastards, because those few bastards are by definition grasping.
I'm reaping the benefits of the accumulated knowlege of mankind. To attribute that to American hegemony seems a distortion of reality.
I didn't really understand your post, but I thank you for writing it.
Maybe I'll sober up and clean that one up...
Look at history man. The time of world wars was before US throwing its weight around arrived on the scene. I know you don't like the World Police approach but you are reaping tremendous benefit... as does the entire world.
I don't see that. I see wars continuing everywhere. Wars were becoming more international - sucking in more countries in every war - as weaponry increased ranges for each battlefield. It was not America that caused a mindset change. The world is not safer only because of America (as Fox News propaganda tell extremists). Where 'world policemen' justify their actions, then problems may actually become worse. It took wars so vast with weapons so massive to finally cause little people to rise up - to demand that the reason for war (the leaders) answer instead to the people. But again, an obvious fact identifies where such problems are created.
Neither WWII nor America stopped threats of war by 'big dic' mentalities. Probably the event that most brought worldwide sanity was the Cuban Missile Crisis. The power and need of institutions such as the UN, people who talk to their enemies (a direct comment on the stupidity of George Jr), the need for eliminating military conflict by solving problems at the negotiating table rather than with 'big dic' solutions, and the power of 'containment' - all became obvious and necessary. Many Americans were no different than other 'evil ones' with a 'big dic' mentality. 'Big dics' on all sides saw solutions only in terms of military conflict. The lessons from Kennedy and Khrushchev conclusively proved the fallacy of 'big dic' reaction.
What is an impediment to worldwide conflict? Learn the lessons of history AND appreciate concepts in this previous citation:
from "New study/experiment. Uber conservatives now get a diagnosis?"
Yes warfare is still ongoing. But no longer unrestricted. No longer sucking in every major power. It took something so fearful as a Cuban Missile Crisis to finally make obvious the stupidity of that 'big dic' reasoning. It was not America that brought sanity. My god. Some Americans are still so 'evil' (if evil exists) as to even want a shooting war with China over a silly spy plane. America, like other nations, can easily be enthralled in the emotion of power. As a result, America is responsible for unnecessary death of millions of innocent people just in Nam and Iraq alone. Is that a 'good' people, or a misguided people? To answer that, who was the leader then?
Don't for one minute fall for myths promoted by wacko and religious extremists - that Americans are the good guys. One benchmark for identifying the myopic and potentially 'evil' ones? They view in terms of "good verses evil" rather than a world full of perspectives. They cannot take the mindset of an honest broker. They see solutions only in military terms - the 'big dic' solution. They feel; therefore they assume they must know. Too many will not "look inside and see a real bastard." Too many still never learned lessons even taught by Kennedy and Khrushchev that one October when American and Soviet 'big dics' tried to destroy the world.
Flushed with oil money, the Russians are getting an
erection.
Russia is planning to buy new intercontinental ballistic missiles, nuclear submarines and possibly aircraft carriers as part of an ambitious military programme, it emerged yesterday.
The defence minister, Sergei Ivanov, told parliament the military would have 17 new ballistic missiles this year - a hefty increase on the four deployed on average each year in recent times.
The purchases are part of a weapons modernisation programme for 2007-2015 worth about 5 trillion roubles (£96.4bn).
Well, aren't we planning on more missles in various spots in Eastern Europe? Its the same old, same old, and, as I understand it, the US is the country that started the latest face-off, not Russia. The more things change, the more they stay the same. :eyebrow:
Its the same old, same old, and, as I understand it, the US is the country that started the latest face-off, not Russia.
Was that before or after the Head of the KBG became thier leader?
Was that before or after the Head of the KBG became thier leader?
That was when America kept doing things that made Russian security threatened. America was building bases that surrounded Russia. NATO forces were being deployed closer to Russia. America would unilaterally 'Pearl Harbor' nations (ie Iraq) and threatened to attack others. The United States would unilaterally cancel international treaties intended to create mutual trust between Russia and America. All this started with George Jr whose staff had even written a memo saying that the United States should be ready to unilaterally attack Russia, Germany, or India. Why? The objective was to keep the United Stated number one at all costs.
Is this a nation that Russia could trust? Of course not. Putin had been repeatedly warning that actions of the United States threaten to restart the Cold War. How many Americans - especially the 'big dic' types who blindly support George Jr - ever heard these warnings even from many in the United States?
Under George Jr, the United States has repeatedly acted in ways that only worry Russia. My god. This American government is so wacko extremist as to even justify torture, extraordinary rendition, imprisonment without judicial review, nuclear weapons even for conventional warfare, unlimited wiretapping, nuclear proliferation, a fear of enemies who were even once friends, a population that even believes wacko extremist lies (propaganda) from their government, and even ‘Pearl Harbors’ nations using outright lies. Leaders who would even go to war over a silly spy plane. A nation that had no problem even destroying the Oslo Accords. Russians looking at history would recognize what preceded 1938.
What does Russia do when threatened externally? It consolidates domestic power. What is Putin doing? Consolidating power after having repeatedly and publically warned about American actions restarting the Cold War.
The damage done by George Jr to America's international reputation will be our legacy for at least the next 10 years. Even worse are the so many Americans who so hate America as to deny the damage.
Not negotiating with al-Qaeda does not define stupidity and cannot define stupidity -- as long as al-Qaeda doesn't want to negotiate. You're being unfair to Republicans because they're Republicans, tw. Please take your delusional bigotry elsewhere before I put it someplace that will make you walk very oddly on departing.
You have yet again disgraced yourself, btw.
Don't for one minute fall for myths promoted by wacko and religious extremists - that Americans are the good guys. One benchmark for identifying the myopic and potentially 'evil' ones? They view in terms of "good verses evil" rather than a world full of perspectives.
I see, along with your inability to spell
versus -- you're really not very good at foreign terminology, you know -- that you're still trying, in the old Soviet manner, to tell us there is no basis for seeing that we have, and are a living example of, a solution to the world's ills. This tired old Sixties-leftism claptrap will not suffice, tw, except for those as thickheaded as yourself. That is almost no one on this board, come to think of it.
Too many still never learned lessons even taught by Kennedy and Khrushchev that one October when American and Soviet 'big dics' tried to destroy the world.
That is exactly the thing they did not do -- and I think a more careful reading of the Cuban Missile Crisis will show that. Both sides knew what might have happened; neither side wanted to make that happen. But then, are we to be surprised when tw deals in half truths?
Tw also needs perpetual reminding that for the "unnecessary deaths" he decries so vehemently, you cannot beat the Communists. But oh, no -- criticizing the Communists doesn't accord with tw's extremist agenda, and you'll never hear him do it. I've been listening for this for a couple of years now, and the lack of fire against the Communists tells me what tw is.
That was when America kept doing things that made Russian security threatened. America was building bases that surrounded Russia. NATO forces were being deployed closer to Russia.
It is clear that tw believes this implicitly and literally. So also, in my experience, did the Soviet propaganda mongers, who promulgated this very idea, inside the USSR and out -- in case anyone might be listening.
All this started with George Jr whose staff had even written a memo saying that the United States should be ready to unilaterally attack Russia, Germany, or India. Why? The objective was to keep the United Stated number one at all costs.
I'm sure of two things: either this will remain unsourced, or a complete reading of the matter will show quite a different slant. Expect tw to deal in half truths only. He probably got all excited about a war plan, devised well ahead of events as a plan for what to do about prosecuting a war. They keep them on file, you know.
The people who insist that we are damaged strike me as myopic and as fatuous. Fatuity is not good for foreign policy.
Not negotiating with al-Qaeda does not define stupidity and cannot define stupidity -- as long as al-Qaeda doesn't want to negotiate. You're being unfair to Republicans because they're Republicans, tw. Please take your delusional bigotry elsewhere before I put it someplace that will make you walk very oddly on departing.
What did Reagan say? Not negotiating with your enemies is stupidity. Was Reagan was a Democrat? Who is being delusional here? The one who sees enemies hiding everywhere. The one who sees solutions only in 'big dic' terms. Only military solutions work. We should not talk to anyone. Just shoot 'em all. God will know his own.
Sorry, Urbane, but when the US is banging the war drums concerning Iran, which in my opinion the Gov't have a better basis for attacking than the US Gov't ever did for attacking Iraq; and the other countries are holding their collective heads to their ears this time; the US reputation is really damaged.
Yep. Unsourced...
(cue the 60 Minutes stopwatch: tick tick tick...)
Pay more attention to Fox News and other sources you don't agree with as well.
I see the problem as people paying too much attention to all news outlets, not just to the media wing of the GOP. They all have their bias, but their main objective is the public's attention. They don't get attention by dispassionately presenting what happened. The last I watched cable news, CNN was working as hard scaring liberals as Fox was scaring conservatives.
Both outlets scare their people into believing that more power needs to flow to their politicians. The vast majority of people are basically good. Those few who are evil will try to gain power over others, politics looks like the path to power when centralizers are successful. If we give too much power to politicians we are asking for oppression.
If it weren't for US influence, most of the world's oil chokepoints would be controlled by those bad actors and/or the nations interested in throwing their weight around.
We are a nation throwing its weight around. Our attempts to stabilize the region over the years have contributed to our problems on the Arab/Persian street. We were never great supporters of ME democracy before, supporting "undemocracy":rolleyes: if we thought tyranny suited our needs. We have this vision of ourselves left-over from WWII as international defenders of freedom, unfortunately that reality didn't survive the Cold War. In the work of halting global communism we lost the man on the street, when his democratic aspirations conflicted with our needs.
There wouldn't be US influence, actually because we'd be in Carter-era economic sluggishness/crisis.
I'd say we risk another era of sluggishness if we don't free ourselves of oil dependence. The money we've thrown at stabilizing tyrants was a subsidy for the established oil industry. Some would say subsidizing nuke, wind, and solar at the same levels would make them competitive. It is an argument worth having, especially if global warming is man's doing.
Look at history man. The time of world wars was before US throwing its weight around arrived on the scene. I know you don't like the World Police approach but you are reaping tremendous benefit... as does the entire world.
I stand by my previous thought that we are benefiting more from man's accumulation of knowlege than from US hegemony. Free societies are better at preserving and distributing knowlege. We are a country at a crossroads, will we choose to be free or will we choose fear? I do not believe we can continue to sow fear to justify foreign and domestic interventions and remain as free as we are. The voters will demand that people have less control over their daily lives.
I see the problem as people paying too much attention to all news outlets [[because their main bias is to frighten]]
Oh it's
people now and not
me. Yeeeah, I thought you were just doing the usual Cellar attack style, in which we take whatever we know about somebody and attack them on that basis. If we know they have an orange cap and wear it backwards, we attack on that basis. If we know they are fat, we attack on that basis. Now since it's been noted that, in the past, I watched a lot of TV news, I assumed you were assailing me for doing that. I was going to retaliate by saying you don't get smarter about the world by turning off all your sources and living in isolation in the middle of nowhere. So thankfully it's
people now, and you weren't attacking
me, you were just making an unrelated point about news, right?
If you have other outlets, you can learn to determine what is fright and what is actual news. But do tell us what your wonderfully golden sources are, and we promise not to mock you.
We are a nation throwing its weight around. Our attempts to stabilize the region over the years have contributed to our problems on the Arab/Persian street. We were never great supporters of ME democracy before, supporting "undemocracy":rolleyes: if we thought tyranny suited our needs. We have this vision of ourselves left-over from WWII as international defenders of freedom, unfortunately that reality didn't survive the Cold War. In the work of halting global communism we lost the man on the street, when his democratic aspirations conflicted with our needs.
Do tell us your wonderfully golden sources.
When I went to college in the early 80s, I had a friend named Roberto. Roberto was lucky and got to go to school in the US for nearly free due to international programs. Roberto was from Uruguay.
Roberto hated America. He would bring anti-American propaganda from Uruguay. The Uruguayans were mad, or at least some of them were, because they didn't like American pressure on their country.
But there wasn't really American pressure on their country. Come on, it was Uruguay! The socialists just enjoyed saying that there was, so they could blame America for all their ills. The people liked to think that their little country was so important that it required the intimate meddling of the great powers.
Being the biggest guy in the room makes us a target for doing nothing.
Some would say subsidizing... wind, and solar at the same levels would make them competitive.
We need your sources on this so that we can properly mock them (and not you)
So now the worm turns: you're in favor of massive government research programs in the name of freedom... broadly preventing free people (well, Exxon/Mobil, we can easily color them the bad guys) from trading with nations we don't agree with... and you're saying that if we
prevent trade and come up with a sensible alternative to oil that is cheaper *snort*...
...it would surely make the US more powerful...
...which according to you, would make everyone that we don't trade with, not hate us, and therefore make us less of a target...
...although at that point, having developed and exported these energy alternatives, we will have undercut their only means of making serious money at all.
We are a country at a crossroads, will we choose to be free or will we choose fear?
I'm sorry, weren't you the one who was carefully cautioning about sources that use fright to make their message important?
My reply is fair because you claim special insight due to intense scrutiny of media. Your criticism is fair because I intentionally ignore same.
My "other outlets" are regular people like your Roberto. Did you find him misguided or instead evil? Unless Rob was advocating or committing violent acts, I'd say he was merely misguided.
Yes, we will take heat for being successful, but I'd rather take my chances with that than to take heat for being truly wrong.
Note the weasle word "Some." I don't advocate subsidy. I advocate bringing home the troops and letting energy cost what it costs. If you argue for the military subsidy, I'll counter by noteing a lower level of force would be used by the state subsidizing alternatives.
It is fair to say I'm fear mongering. I believe that people with "evil" or misguided intentions try to concentrate power. I believe that power distributed is safer. I am not familiar with any cable news outlet with that bias.
tick tick tick...)
There it is. Urbane Guerrilla is a ticking time bomb just waiting to explode.
Still unsourced, and two current posts from tw. Is tw then a lying bastard? Or should it be then and now...?
Perhaps I am a crocodile that once swallowed an alarm clock, and at another time, a captain's arm, and now wants the rest...:whip: :handball:
Was that before or after the Head of the KBG became thier leader?
Ah, but our president has
examined his soul and found it acceptable.
PRESIDENT BUSH: I will answer the question. I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul; a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country. And I appreciated so very much the frank dialogue.
I don't know what is a bigger surprise, that President Bush thinks he is a good judge of mens souls or that he appreciates 'frank dialogue'.
President Carter used to be considered a wimp for talking too much about feelings. Yet I doubt that he would have used this kind of language for Putin. Maybe President Bush is getting a free pass on the wimpiness since he is responsible for two wars (and wore a flight suit).
Anyway, it is an interesting philosophical argument whether a tyrant can also be a patriot.
We always talk about democracy and patriotism, but we always seem to ignore the fact that in many cases the democratic and patriotic goals of other countries are in conflict with our goals. It's like saying to a five-year-old "I know I told you that you can have what you want for dinner, but you don't want pizza, what you really want is broccoli".
Anyway, it is an interesting philosophical argument whether a tyrant can also be a patriot.
We always talk about democracy and patriotism, but we always seem to ignore the fact that in many cases the democratic and patriotic goals of other countries are in conflict with our goals. It's like saying to a five-year-old "I know I told you that you can have what you want for dinner, but you don't want pizza, what you really want is broccoli".
rich, you answered your own question here. If you serve broccoli, you're a tyrant. If you serve pizza, you're a patriot.
What about broccoli pizza?
If you serve broccolli pizza I think that makes youa communist...
At the very least, a flip-flopper.
"I actually chose the broccoli before I chose the pizza!"
"I actually chose the broccoli before I chose the pizza!"
Now you sound like Hillary!
Russia Good! Commies Good! Russia should be Trusted!... US BAD! Evil Empire! Down with America! Make US like Russia all will be GOOD! All evils in the world are fault of US! Down with America!
WTF? :eyebrow:
We always talk about democracy and patriotism, but we always seem to ignore the fact that in many cases the democratic and patriotic goals of other countries are in conflict with our goals. It's like saying to a five-year-old "I know I told you that you can have what you want for dinner, but you don't want pizza, what you really want is broccoli".
Yea, I know. We will always be in a position of making decisions which favor US interests on the stage of international politics which will always conflict with other nations interests. I guess it's what makes the world go round. Of course we could just abdicate all our interests to the UN and let there be One World Government. Or we can treat 5 year olds like 5 year olds. I am really not interested in allowing other countries to tell us what is in our best interest.
I am really not interested in allowing other countries to tell us what is in our best interest.
But you're quite happy for your country to tell others what is in their best interest ?
But you're quite happy for your country to tell others what is in their best interest ?
Not at all. If I had my way we would withdraw all, and I do mean all, funding from all countries and fix our problems at home. I think we should stay out of everyone's business and let them self destruct. Some will make it, some will not. See who is left over and deal with the winners. Take WW2...
Merc, what if a neighboring country is doing something that is hurting your country?
Lets say the Mexico starts releasing this chemical that causes very powerful acid rain and tears up the ozone layer but when Mexico releases these chemicals, they drift up to Georgia. Shouldn't we have a right to tell Mexico to stop using those chemicals or at least release them somewhere else.............like Canada :p ?
Merc, what if a neighboring country is doing something that is hurting your country?
Well on the diplomatic front I would just advocated nuking the fuck out of them and seeing who is left over. I mean really, we just can't go on having it both ways.
Hmmm... four calendar days now and no sourcing from tw. Guess he just makes shit up.
Going... going... gone. [dying Pac-Man sound]
@Merc: I agree with the spirit -- those sentiments may pretty safely be attributed to tw. But I don't use a quote box that way as I reckon it unethical to do. I'd suggest plain ol' quote marks. (I can't figure a "Quote Marx" pun to fit in here... sighhh.)
Well on the diplomatic front I would just advocated nuking the fuck out of them and seeing who is left over. I mean really, we just can't go on having it both ways.
Hahaha, I like that idea.
Oh yeah, that's a wonderful idea. Then we'd have a nuclear dust cloud over Georgia instead.
Intelligent people know that torture results in less or unreliable information. Those with 'big dic' disease - a mental disorder - would disagree. From the Washington Post of 6 Oct 2007:
Fort Hunt's Quiet Men Break Silence on WWII
When about two dozen veterans got together yesterday for the first time since the 1940s, many of the proud men lamented the chasm between the way they conducted interrogations during the war and the harsh measures used today in questioning terrorism suspects.
Back then, they and their commanders wrestled with the morality of bugging prisoners' cells with listening devices. They felt bad about censoring letters. They took prisoners out for steak dinners to soften them up. They played games with them.
"We got more information out of a German general with a game of chess or Ping-Pong than they do today, with their torture," said Henry Kolm, 90, an MIT physicist who had been assigned to play chess in Germany with Hitler's deputy, Rudolf Hess.
Blunt criticism of modern enemy interrogations was a common refrain at the ceremonies held beside the Potomac River near Alexandria. Across the river, President Bush defended his administration's methods of detaining and questioning terrorism suspects during an Oval Office appearance.
Several of the veterans, all men in their 80s and 90s, denounced the controversial techniques. And when the time came for them to accept honors from the Army's Freedom Team Salute, one veteran refused, citing his opposition to the war in Iraq and procedures that have been used at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.
"I feel like the military is using us to say, 'We did spooky stuff then, so it's okay to do it now,' " said Arno Mayer, 81, a professor of European history at Princeton University.
When Peter Weiss, 82, went up to receive his award, he commandeered the microphone and gave his piece.
"I am deeply honored to be here, but I want to make it clear that my presence here is not in support of the current war," said Weiss, chairman of the Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy and a human rights and trademark lawyer in New York City.
George Jr is so quick to deny when facts say America was torturing (Cheney even publically advocated torture). From the NY Times of 5 Oct 2007:
Bush Says Interrogation Methods Aren’t Torture
President Bush, reacting to a Congressional uproar over the disclosure of secret Justice Department legal opinions permitting the harsh interrogation of terrorism suspects, defended the methods on Friday, declaring, “This government does not torture people.”
The remarks, Mr. Bush’s first public comments on the memorandums, came at a hastily arranged Oval Office appearance before reporters. It was billed as a talk on the economy, but after heralding new job statistics, Mr. Bush shifted course to a subject he does not often publicly discuss: a once-secret Central Intelligence Agency program to detain and interrogate high-profile terror suspects.
“I have put this program in place for a reason, and that is to better protect the American people,” the president said, without mentioning the C.I.A. by name. “And when we find somebody who may have information regarding a potential attack on America, you bet we’re going to detain them, and you bet we’re going to question them, because the American people expect us to find out information — actionable intelligence so we can help protect them. That’s our job.”
Without confirming the existence of the memorandums or discussing the explicit techniques they authorized, Mr. Bush said the interrogation methods had been “fully disclosed to appropriate members of Congress.”
We must make a decision. America tortures prisoners (resulting in numerous phony Orange Alerts, Guantanamo, and secret prisons), or George Jr tells the truth. These are mutually exclusive conditions. Most extraordinary - some still say George Jr is honest. Of course he is. He talks to god - which is also what George Jr claims. Some with 'big dic' disease even believe him.
From the NY Times of 5 Oct 2007:
Bush Says Interrogation Methods Aren’t Torture
The clash colored Congressional relations with Alberto R. Gonzales, the former attorney general. And by Friday, it was clear that the controversy would now spill over into the confirmation hearings for Michael B. Mukasey, the retired federal judge whom Mr. Bush has nominated to succeed Mr. Gonzales in running the Justice Department.
Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, sent a letter to Mr. Mukasey asking him whether, if confirmed, he would provide lawmakers with the Justice Department memorandums.
And Senator Charles E. Schumer, the New York Democrat and Judiciary Committee member, said he expected the memorandums would become a central point in the Mukasey confirmation debate.
"When the president says the Justice Department says it's O.K., he means Alberto Gonzales said it was O.K.," Mr. Schumer, who has been a vocal backer of Mr. Mukasey, said in an interview.
Alberto Gonzales, who consistently agrees with George Jr, is a close friend and came from TX with George Jr. Do George Jr and Gonzales disagree on torture? Obviously doubtful. Nobody expects a Spanish Inquisition.
I certainly wouldn't expect it in interrogating the terrorists. None of them speak Spanish.
Meanwhile, the scoreboard says we're still catching major players among the terrs, and it's six years and counting since the terrs have achieved any strike anywhere in the United States. Gives a guy some reason to trust the US government over the johnny-one-sour-note naysaying natterers like tw.
Meanwhile, the scoreboard says we're still catching major players among the terrs, and it's six years and counting since the terrs have achieved any strike anywhere in the United States. Gives a guy some reason to trust the US government over the johnny-one-sour-note naysaying natterers like tw.
I hate this argument, we don't know if Bush's policies helped or hurt because we have nothing to base it off of. It wasn't like we were getting repeated terrorist attacks before 9/11 and Bush stopped them all.
And if you count external attacks, like the Cole, they are now an everyday occurance in Iraq.
From the NY Times of 5 Oct 2007: Alberto Gonzales, who consistently agrees with George Jr, is a close friend and came from TX with George Jr. Do George Jr and Gonzales disagree on torture? Obviously doubtful. Nobody expects a Spanish Inquisition.
Straw man points.
But I don't use a quote box that way as I reckon it unethical to do. I'd suggest plain ol' quote marks. (I can't figure a "Quote Marx" pun to fit in here... sighhh.)
I think I will just make my points via the method I choose.
Meanwhile, the scoreboard says we're still catching major players among the terrs, and it's six years and counting since the terrs have achieved any strike anywhere in the United States.
Name all those terrorists caught trying to attack the US? All zero of them. Wacko extremists are so quick to post half facts. Wacko extremists would also forget another fact. Since 11 September, US government agents are no longer stifled by the George Jr administration. Suddenly Federal agents are permitted to "conduct a criminal investigation"? An exact phrase used by George Jr management to stifle a Federal investigation into 11 September before 11 September. UG routinely ‘forgets’ what does not fit in his political agenda.
Name all those terrorists held in Guantanamo or other secret American concentration camps? Or should we forget hundreds of Guantanamo prisoners, held without judicial review for years then released to freedom, who were 100% innocent. UG and other extremists routinely forget facts. If in an American concentration camp, then they must be as guilty as Hitler's Jews. That is the UG mindset – he is that scary.
No wonder those Dominos fell in Southeast Asia. Anything is possible when we rewrite history for a political agenda.
This posted to benefit new Cellar dwellers. Long time residents know UG rationalizes to protect extremism. He conveniently forgets why so many Federal investigations were quashed by the George Jr administration who still was fighting the Cold War and who even tried to create war with China over a silly spy plane.
If one is an immigrant here to pick the crops - and 53% of those farm workers we so desperately need are illegal immigrants - then UG also labels them as terrorists. More wacko extremism. This same UG mentality would justify the Holocaust – and Guantanamo. Wacko extremists are that dangerous. Nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition. Nobody expects one to rewrite history even to justify torture. Others like UG also advocate torture - and love when torture is used on ‘evil’ people. UG is typical of George Jr supporters. Almost 30% so hardcore as to hate this country - to know using a political agenda rather than first learning facts. UG was not the only Cellar dweller who openly approved of torture – and American concentration camps. But others are smart enough to now stay silent.
Iraq was not a threat to anyone. In 2004, 26,500 attacks on Americans only by terrorists - not by patriotic Iraqis? In 2005, 34,000 attacks on American invaders - only by terrorists? According to UG, only terrorists who would otherwise attack North America are responsible for all those attacks. Funny how those 34,000 instead are too stupid to cross the Atlantic. More wacko extremist rhetoric that even worships torture. More wacko rationalization that somehow knows torture provides useful information - when reality says otherwise. After all, Hitler used it in his concentration camps. According to UG, torture must be good.
Name all those terrorists caught trying to attack the US? All zero of them. Wacko extremists are so quick to post half facts. Wacko extremists would also forget another fact. Since 11 September, US government agents are no longer stifled by the George Jr administration. Suddenly Federal agents are permitted to "conduct a criminal investigation"? An exact phrase used by George Jr management to stifle a Federal investigation into 11 September before 11 September. UG routinely ‘forgets’ what does not fit in his political agenda.
Name all those terrorists held in Guantanamo or other secret American concentration camps? Or should we forget hundreds of Guantanamo prisoners, held without judicial review for years then released to freedom, who were 100% innocent. UG and other extremists routinely forget facts. If in an American concentration camp, then they must be as guilty as Hitler's Jews. That is the UG mindset – he is that scary.
No wonder those Dominos fell in Southeast Asia. Anything is possible when we rewrite history for a political agenda.
This posted to benefit new Cellar dwellers. Long time residents know UG rationalizes to protect extremism. He conveniently forgets why so many Federal investigations were quashed by the George Jr administration who still was fighting the Cold War and who even tried to create war with China over a silly spy plane.
If one is an immigrant here to pick the crops - and 53% of those farm workers we so desperately need are illegal immigrants - then UG also labels them as terrorists. More wacko extremism. This same UG mentality would justify the Holocaust – and Guantanamo. Wacko extremists are that dangerous. Nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition. Nobody expects one to rewrite history even to justify torture. Others like UG also advocate torture - and love when torture is used on ‘evil’ people. UG is typical of George Jr supporters. Almost 30% so hardcore as to hate this country - to know using a political agenda rather than first learning facts. UG was not the only Cellar dweller who openly approved of torture – and American concentration camps. But others are smart enough to now stay silent.
Iraq was not a threat to anyone. In 2004, 26,500 attacks on Americans only by terrorists - not by patriotic Iraqis? In 2005, 34,000 attacks on American invaders - only by terrorists? According to UG, only terrorists who would otherwise attack North America are responsible for all those attacks. Funny how those 34,000 instead are too stupid to cross the Atlantic. More wacko extremist rhetoric that even worships torture. More wacko rationalization that somehow knows torture provides useful information - when reality says otherwise. After all, Hitler used it in his concentration camps. According to UG, torture must be good.
Fair number of falsehoods there tw. You should really try to stick to facts to make your arguments. In that rant you failed.
Fair number of falsehoods there tw.
Not yet. Urbane Guerrilla has not yet published a history book with those necessary corrections.
Name all those terrorists caught trying to attack the US? All zero of them.
Which was NOT the point made: namely that they couldn't get any done.
Wacko extremists are so quick to post half facts.
As is naturally evidenced by their resident king. Or are you so quick to forget that half-truth you were peddling about the C-130J, tw? Fortunately, those of us blessed with normal memory may humiliate you continuously on that point, you ignorant slut.
Name all those terrorists held in Guantanamo or other secret American concentration camps? Or should we forget hundreds of Guantanamo prisoners, held without judicial review for years then released to freedom, who were 100% innocent. UG and other extremists routinely forget facts. If in an American concentration camp, then they must be as guilty as Hitler's Jews. That is the UG mindset – he is that scary.
As a devout Communist (never denied nor refuted, just tacitly accepted -- in view of the evidence, you could do no other, except perhaps to explicitly acknowledge Communist beliefs), you do not and cannot possibly expect anyone to accord you a superior moral position. You cannot take any position here except the immoral and the antipatriotic, because that is what you are at the core of your being, tw. I can see this, and it's hardly invisible to anyone else who has exposure to your posts. You clearly have no accurate idea of my mindset in any case; I'd say I frighten you chiefly through having no fascistocommunist sympathies whatever. I am thus a friend to mankind, and you, it seems, bitterly hate me for it -- and for being thereby so much better a man than your miserable, half-truth-peddling, low-ethics, pravda-hagridden self. I could keep stringing adjectives about your antipatriot mentality from here to the moon; they would all voice disapproval and condemnation.
The argument that the
de facto if not
de jure -- it's not made much difference in their treatment that I can see -- POWs in Guantanamo are getting a raw deal because they aren't being criminally tried appeals only to the specious minds, or to the treacherous "America must at all costs lose the war" set. I belong to neither group: no one possessed of anything like ethics
charges POWs with crimes, nor tries them. The ethics-challenged Communist North Vietnamese did try criminalizing POWs -- without trials, at that. Even they could not sustain such a charade, nor the international obloquy that would have been the result. Only a mind as delusional as yours, tw, would have accepted such a thing. Frankly, bub, outpatient therapy would perhaps be helpful in your case: why is it you never manage an idee-fixe that is factual?
"Concentration camps," is it? First concentration camp I've ever heard of where the prisoners put on between eight and fifteen pounds in their first year, I must say. This kind of hysteric misuse of the language clearly indicates an intent to lie, and if caught in the lie, to lie harder. Well, tw, that's why you're an idiot, isn't it? You think you can fool somebody this way. Okay, I know one person you've fooled, and I'm writing, well, at him now. No truth nor enlightenment I have penetrates tw's skull, for he is a wacko extremist and prefers that state to anything an objective observer would say is right. However, everyone else around can draw back from tw and mock him for his insistent and obdurate delusion.
No wonder those Dominos fell in Southeast Asia. Anything is possible when we rewrite history for a political agenda.
This odd capitalization suggests the ruination of a chain of pizza parlors.
This posted to benefit new Cellar dwellers. Long time residents know UG rationalizes to protect extremism.
Tw's powers of psychological projection are clearly on display.
He conveniently forgets why so many Federal investigations were quashed by the George Jr administration who still was fighting the Cold War and who even tried to create war with China over a silly spy plane.
A threat of war over the EP-3 collision with a J-811M and subsequent forced landing on Hainan existed only in tw's brain. There is no evidence it emerged anywhere else. It's not been US policy to rattle the sabers over even spy planes shot down over China, and that was active, hostile use of munitions: a good handful of Taiwanese-flown U-2s were shot down before Taiwan gave up the program. More than five, fewer than twelve, if memory serves.
But try telling tw any of this. Tw, dear, the reason you have no balls is because you're hip deep in de Nile, and de crocs took 'em off one at a time because you're a slow learner.
If one is an immigrant here to pick the crops - and 53% of those farm workers we so desperately need are illegal immigrants - then UG also labels them as terrorists.
Nope. Not a fact. I've had very very little to say about illegal immigrants, as a search of my posts will show, and a search of tw's fallible memory will not.
UG is typical of George Jr supporters.
In that we understand what a foreign policy should look like, yes. Put simply, not what the Clinton Administration wasted national time and substance doing. Whatever the freckles and warts on the program, Iraq among other places seems to me to be evolving its way out of the Barnettian Gap -- tw tried twitting me about studying Barnett's writing on occasion and is now obliged to be silent on the subject -- and that is what is wanted, however early and tentative and stumbling the steps of this evolution may be.
Almost 30% so hardcore as to hate this country - to know using a political agenda rather than first learning facts. UG was not the only Cellar dweller who openly approved of torture – and American concentration camps. But others are smart enough to now stay silent.
Tw never actually approves of our doing anything that might actually win us the fight. This is active antipatriotism. He can't even answer the simple question
Tw, do you want America to win? The question, asked repeatedly in other threads in Current Events and Politics, hangs tw on the horns of an exquisite dilemma: to reply in accordance with his inclinations would cause every American in the Cellar to turn on him in a fury, while to reply according to what he might think I want to hear would be to dissemble. It's an example of damned foolishness to have gotten into that position. All he can do is pretend he's missed it. Somebody whose forebrain is in better shape than his might essay a "Yes, but..." sort of answer -- but figure the odds here!
Iraq was not a threat to anyone.
Except our friends in the Gulf region like Kuwait, likely eventually Bahrain, and (however qualified) Saudi Arabia, and our friends in Europe, which is practically everybody there. Europe gets quite a lot of its oil from Iraqi sources, and Saddam embarked on two wars clearly in pursuit of petroleum hegemony and the enhanced petroleum revenues that went with it, as a way of covering staggering government debt, with options fading month by month.
We've said since Kissinger that it was a pity that both Ba'athist Iraq and the Iranian mullahs couldn't lose the Iran-Iraq war. Barring this absolute success, we were pleased enough to see that Iran got bled into a weakened condition. Half a loaf...
In 2004, 26,500 attacks on Americans only by terrorists - not by patriotic Iraqis? In 2005, 34,000 attacks on American invaders - only by terrorists? According to UG, only terrorists who would otherwise attack North America are responsible for all those attacks. Funny how those 34,000 instead are too stupid to cross the Atlantic.
A tw with a strawman argument, invented by himself that he may the more readily destroy it, is I suppose a happy tw. But then, it is hard to read happiness in tw's prose; it is usually written in a tone of feverish delusiveness and dyspepsia.
The fact is, tw has said far more about this than I have, as a search of our respective postings will show.
Let the record show it's been two solid weeks since I demanded a source from tw, and he's had four postings in which he might have cited his source.
Nothing.
Hah. Tw, you're still a delusional idiot, and your arguments fail. I dance a jig on your limp Communist penis, you mental maladroit.
ok, that was another joke right?
No.
Tw's communist beliefs and general mental defectiveness are a blot on the Cellar.
The dance continues, as an expression of the revenge of the West upon that which was the ruin of the East.
I don't think tw is a communist. Not even his penis...although that's an interesting thought. He does have a weird view of some things though.
I thought the man was just plain weird myself -- until I noticed his pattern: he sounds exactly like Soviet press releases about US foreign policy back in the day. He sounds exactly like the sort of thing the very Sovietized Sandinistas said about US policy in their day.
I have seen no particular in which he varies from the Communist Party line, particularly that of the sixties and the seventies, in any of the posts he indicates an opinion in.
Figuring tw for a Communist presents a more organized explanation of what you see from him in Politics and Current Events than mere perversity does. I've called him a Communist in public here, and received neither rebuttal nor disproof. I haven't even received reproof from him. I think he knows that I know.
His emotional shortcomings are quite another matter from his red-diaper-baby political tone: he's obsessive, delusional, driven by resentments, petty to a remarkable degree, and never fair when he thinks he can gain an advantage otherwise. If this man was ever married, it was brief. Can you imagine anyone tolerating a life partner of that temperament? Now he's up against someone of better character, much greater emotional maturity, higher ethics, of accomplishments he cannot aspire to, of some foreign experience, and who's wise to him. He'd love to find some way to make me look bad -- just like him -- but as long as he's constituted as he is, and I am constituted as I am, there is no hope of that either.
You're as bad as each other UG. Seriously. you cancel each other out. lol
I thought the man was just plain weird myself -- until I noticed his pattern: he sounds exactly like Soviet press releases about US foreign policy back in the day.
And you sound like Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity had a baby. So Ali's right, you cancel each other out.
But for the record... aside from TW's incredible use catch phrases and sound-bite-type speech patterns, I agree with 90% of what he says...
And communism isn't an insult, it's a form of gov't.
From the NY Times of 12 Oct 2007:
Former Top General in Iraq Faults Bush Administration
In a sweeping indictment of the four-year effort in Iraq, the former top American commander called the Bush administration’s handling of the war incompetent and warned that the United States was "living a nightmare with no end in sight."
In one of his first major public speeches since leaving the Army in late 2006, retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez blamed the administration for a "catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic war plan" and denounced the current "surge" strategy as a "desperate" move that will not achieve long-term stability.
General Sanchez is the most senior in a string of retired generals to harshly criticize the administration's conduct of the war. ...
"There was been a glaring and unfortunate display of incompetent strategic leadership within our national leaders," he said, adding later in his remarks that civilian officials have been "derelict in their duties" and guilty of a "lust for power."
The White House had no initial comment.
Questioned by reporters after his speech, he included the military and himself among those who made mistakes in Iraq, citing the failure to insist on a better post-invasion stabilization plan.
But his main criticism was leveled at the Bush administration, which he said he said has failed to mobilize the entire United States government, other than the military, to contribute meaningfully to reconstructing and stabilizing Iraq.
Which brings us right back to the Iraq Study Group - a comprehensive solution that required immediate action by most every part of the US Government. But that required an MBA and wacko extremists to even acknowledge a problem exists and is not being solved. Since so many even in the Cellar remained so quiet, well, now every "Mission Accomplished" alternative is even worse. Denial remains widespread. Just as during Nam, so many of us remain silent - tacitly support even worsing conditions. The overwhelming silence by the American public - Deja vue Nam.
George Jr got exactly what he wanted - just as Nixon did. He got the mess dumped on someone else's lap. George Jr does not care how many he murders as long as his legacy is protected. "Mission Accomplished" was not lost by George Jr.
Estimates now put "Mission Accomplished" at another 10 years. Even the most optimistic numbers are another 6 years. Less only if Americans wake up to the realities. We didn't in Nam because we let wacko extremist propaganda create fear - those mythical Dominos. We even invaded Cambodia and made that country unstable. How long before our wackos call for attacks on Iran or Syria? Deja vue Nam complete with so many even here who are unwilling to grasp the reality of not leaving now. That number well proven in history especially when the invading Army violates every principle of Military Science. At least with a withdrawal, Iraqis have 20 months to decide - or die - complete with the only way to minimize a disaster - the Iraq Study Group.
Stupidity is not limited to "Mission Accomplished". Did you notice today a fundamental warning from Russia that America is slowly pushing the world back into a Cold War? It was no mistake that Rice and Gates were left to sit on their ass for so long. It was a message right to you. Did you hear it?
A long list of top Generals from Iraq (10+ now?), retired, and now publically blame the mental midget administration. No way around these realities. He is making messes well beyond Iraq - and Urbane Guerrilla approves. Things are that bad.
The Marines may have found a way to get out of an unwinnable conflict. They are asking to be deployed only to Afghanistan. Remember that other war where Goerge Jr / Cheney et al all but protect bin Laden? So when are we going after bin Laden? Well at least the Marines will not be fighting where they cannot win.
"A nightmare with no end in sight." Deja vue Vietnam where the most unAmerican Americans once said if we leave, then it will only get worse. Guess what. It was called, "I see light at the end of the tunnel". That light was a locomotive closing fast. We did nothing - just stayed - and it only got worse. America then created the death of maybe another 1 million. We could not fathom a bad decisions was by far our best alternative. We have to massacre more good men to finally concede reality? Deja vue Nam.
Currently the surge is blamed for a reduction in American deaths. How curious. The same logic also was used after Tet to proclaim America was winning the war. Deja vue Nam.
Just because you don't like the consequences justifies doing nothing? Find me an American commanding general from Iraq who publically supports "Mission Accomplished"? You cannot. That is the brutal reality of a war that cannot be won especially when Iraqis don't even know what they want.
Meanwhile, another bombing just occurred in Kirkuk. As Holbrook (and other people with intelligence) warned, Kirkuk could be the irreversible flash point.
How long is that list of top American generals, all commanding in Iraq and now retired, who are telling Americans to wake up - to be patriotic.
Batiste Newbold Eaton Pace Riggs Swannack Scales Shinseki ... and now Sanchez
Rumsfeld Rebuked By Retired Generals
Bush's Shrinking Safety Zone Especially significant is Batiste who was regarded as a sure bet for Joint Chief. He turned down a third star - considered the biggest promotion in a lifetime - because his principles were stronger than his ambitions.
How many notice the bombings in Kirkuk. How many noticed American approval among a former topmost ally, Turkey, is now down to 11% according to the lastest German Marshall Fund poll. Why are people now asking when Turkey may invade Iraq?
But things are getting better in Iraq according to a very effective White House propaganda machine. Effective because so many, even here, cannot get beyond the sound bytes - start facing reality.
If we leave, then they will have to take charge of their own lives. If we leave, Iraqis will have 20 months to do it - or inherit the conseuqences. Currently they will do nothing for the next 10 years. Deja vue Nam.
At what point does anyone here say, "Fool me twice, shame on ...".
But for the record... aside from TW's incredible use catch phrases and sound-bite-type speech patterns, I agree with 90% of what he says...
And communism isn't an insult, it's a form of gov't.
That form of government
is an insult, at least to the free adult humans and nearly as much to the sorta-kinda. S'matter, Queequeger, aren't you a free adult human? Aren't you a free man? If so, tw does not speak in your interest, as a review of his posts will tell you.
Anyone who thinks he could bother me by telling me I sound like either Ann or Sean or both -- is a person with values so peculiar as to be nearly unrecognizable as such. I've got enlightened views; what can I say?
From the NY Times of 12 Oct 2007:
General Sanchez is the most senior in a string of retired generals to harshly criticize the administration's conduct of the war.
Up until yesterday, your considered opinion was that Sanchez was criminally incompetent.
That form of government is an insult, at least to the free adult humans and nearly as much to the sorta-kinda. S'matter, Queequeger, aren't you a free adult human? Aren't you a free man? If so, tw does not speak in your interest, as a review of his posts will tell you.
Anyone who thinks he could bother me by telling me I sound like either Ann or Sean or both -- is a person with values so peculiar as to be nearly unrecognizable as such. I've got enlightened views; what can I say?
I guess that just depends on your point of view. Ann Coulter doesn't believe that women should be allowed to vote. Ann Coulter believes the reason we have no responsibility to our environment is because of
GOD. Sean Hannity thinks that because a member of congress is Muslim, he is 'with the enemy.' They both blither on and on about personal freedoms, but what it amounts to is the strong taking from the weak. Now, if you honestly agree with the minds that think these things up, that doesn't make you enlightened. That makes you an asshole.
Up until yesterday, your considered opinion was that Sanchez was criminally incompetent.
The only assumption of criminal incompetence is yours. Sanchez was clearly not ready for the job. But he was the only one that George Jr's administration (apparently) could get.
Amazing how Rumsfeld could not find another General with experience necessary to command at the Corp level.
Sanchez now joins numerous others (including me as one of the earliest informed) to declare incompetence at the highest levels in George Jr's administration. Only someone who should remain on the street as a starving painter would disband the army and police. How many years ago was that stupidity even noted in The Cellar? Sanchez also accuses George Jr's administration of creating those problems.
Only a fool would not appreciate 'unity of command' - another simplest concept of military science. A concept violated in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Sanchez now publicly criticized the source of problems that were forced upon his by wacko extremists - better called mental midgets. He was even denied 'unity of command'. Who here does not realize that means complete incompetence in Washington DC.
Sanchez "who was too far from ready to have such a command" (note the exact quote) clearly did not have sufficient experience to be the top commander. Does that imply that Sanchez is incorrect about the worst American president in 100 years? Of course not.
Sanchez's mistakes (and lessons he learned) AND balls to make his statement only further proves George Jr and conspirators are that incompetent. Criminally? Well if more Americans supported America rather than political agendas, we would be impeaching both George Jr and Cheney - with extreme bias.
Sanchez was put into a position where success was not an option because his civilian bosses were that anti-American. Are you reading controversy about that in the Army War College in Ft Leavenworth KS? You should. Shinseki was the only top commander to accurately speak out - to defend the military and the American soldier. If you think you know what I am thinking, again don't make assumptions such as "criminally incompetent".
As anyone with basic military knowledge knows: unity of command in theater must exist. There was none because, well, Armitage said it best:
... these guys never heard a bullet go by their ears in anger. These guys never heard a bullet! None of them ever served. They're a bunch of jerks. ...
"Those remarks were aimed at everybody,' Wilkerson said, "including the president."
Larry Wilkerson was Colin Powell's chief of staff.
None of this is about Sanchez or about what UT misinterpreted. This is about people so corrupt that they should resign as President and Vice President - and then publicly apologize to the world for being so stupid.
But again, who is reading the controversy flaying so hot in KS?
I guess that just depends on your point of view. Ann Coulter doesn't believe that women should be allowed to vote.
Sounds like you skimmed through
Godless, all right. Coulter's remark was more in the nature of an observation than a condemnation, and it was this: "women's issues" have come considerably more to the fore in US government action and policy since 18 August 1920, when half the national electorate was of the feminine persuasion. I'm quite unaware of any refusal by Ann Coulter to vote, in the past or nowadays. Doesn't add up to what you think it does, unless I am very much in error about her.
Ann Coulter believes the reason we have no responsibility to our environment is because of GOD.
She believes in our dominion, yes. Says so loudly. That is not the same as believing in "no responsibility." Especially not in this day and age. Remember what sort of people Ann Coulter annoys, and remember these people can't touch her. So they'll tell you all kinds of dubious rumors about her, in hopes of cheating their way back into an opinion dominance they should never have had in the first place.
Certainly it's not the kind of idea
I would accept, for dominion, such as it is, must be coupled with stewardship, and intelligent stewardship at that. I don't think you'll find hostility towards stewardship of our globe in Coulter's writing.
Sean Hannity thinks that because a member of congress is Muslim, he is 'with the enemy.'
I wouldn't know -- and I get quite a bit of Sean Hannity by both TV and radio.
They both blither on and on about personal freedoms, but what it amounts to is the strong taking from the weak.
No doubt somebody's told you that's what it amounts to... I've heard them out on these matters in a general way for years now, and can't point to anything indictable as "the strong taking from the weak." I've not only heard Hannity, I've read him, and nothing in his writing raises any Libertarian warning flags, even though he's more a Republican than a Libertarian.
Basically, I'd advise you stop listening to leftists. They don't want a Republic, they suffer from the tyranny of PC non-think, et cetera. Many and deep are their sins.
Now, if you honestly agree with the minds that think these things up, that doesn't make you enlightened. That makes you an asshole.
I gotta tell ya: I don't think you know the material.
UG, have you checked out the philosophy forum today?
If not, you should have a look.
Really? Neato... probably better do it tomorrow night, though. Real philosophy needs careful reading, the good old mark, learn, and inwardly digest. It's late, so late it's early, and I've a busy day tomorrow daytime.
Coulter's remark was more in the nature of an observation than a condemnation, and it was this: "women's issues" have come considerably more to the fore in US government action and policy since 18 August 1920, when half the national electorate was of the feminine persuasion.
"I think [women] should be armed but should not [be allowed to] vote."---Politically Incorrect, 2/26/01
She believes in our dominion, yes. Says so loudly. That is not the same as believing in "no responsibility."
~snip
I don't think you'll find hostility towards stewardship of our globe in Coulter's writing.
"God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it.
Rape it. It's yours.'"---Hannity & Colmes, 6/20/01...
That sounds kind of like lack of responsibility to me.
No doubt somebody's told you that's what it amounts to... I've heard them out on these matters in a general way for years now, and can't point to anything indictable as "the strong taking from the weak." I've not only heard Hannity, I've read him, and nothing in his writing raises any Libertarian warning flags, even though he's more a Republican than a Libertarian.
Admittedly, Sean Hannity is not as ridiculous Coulter, because she is possibly the craziest person to ever appear on television, but they're both just plain mean people. They care little about the rest of the country, and less about the rest of the earth. You can talk all you want about 'the left' (by the way, I don't just listen to them, I AM on the left), but acting out of compassion is not weak. In fact, it's a little more difficult and complicated than using a 'fuck it, blow it up' mentality.
I don't know who said it, but I fully agree with the sentiment that anyone can use violence. Physical bravery is a lot easier than moral bravery.
Having read all of Coulter's books save her latest rock into the waters -- If Democrats Had Brains, They'd Be Republicans -- I say those two lines are both satirical, and at variance with the body of her work.
Some pundit of her competition has told either Hannity or O'Reilly on their programs on TV that Coulter is no historian. On what evidence, the guy didn't bother to say, and Coulter seems pretty diligent at getting her primary sources right and carefully footnoted, so I am skeptical of the remark. Her work may end up being an aid to historical research of our times at the least.
One thing Coulter isn't is a natural-history scientist. I know enough science myself to recognize her chapters in Godless polemicizing against evolution are worthless; it's too bad she doesn't know this field.
The less you listen to the Left the wiser you'll be -- the record of the last forty years demonstrates this well enough to persuade me. Watching the behavior of the Democratic Party for maybe ten years less -- well, I agree with the book title. The Dems' senior leadership is short on wisdom.
In the interest of complete accuracy, make it If The Democrats Had Any Brains...
And hunting around for excuses to reject Coulter's message... well, that's a fool's errand. Don't run on it unless foolishness is your only mode.
It's Coulter, accuracy, complete or otherwise, doesn't enter into it.
Women like Coulter really piss me off. The battles that our foremothers fought to get rights like voting, and equal pay (still not quite there) and bitches like this do the patriarchy's work for it. Fuck, that annoys me. Frankly, the woman should be surrounded by a mob of angry, liberated, modern women and have her hair shaved off like the collaborators in German occupied France. Fucking traitorous bitch.
Fucking traitorous bitch.
:shred:
DanaC, you speak in complete ignorance -- read as much of her stuff as I did, then talk. Don't embarrass yourself further in the face of those who actually know. You can find her column via the Drudge Report, for instance.
Bruce, I've never heard anything solid on Coulter being impeached on matters of fact -- frankly I doubt I ever shall. Blather such as you offered make me very very glad I'm too smart to be a leftist. What annoys me is you could be that way too -- yet for some never-explained reason, you're satisfied to not be, instead to be something less.
Now yes, she does earn her bread as an opinion columnist, and should be taken as such -- but she is, happily, an opinion columnist of integrity, and only the blinkered will deny it.
DanaC, you speak in complete ignorance -- read as much of her stuff as I did, then talk. Don't embarrass yourself further in the face of those who actually know. You can find her column via the Drudge Report, for instance.
I don't need to read the bible as much as a theologian might, in order to hold an opinion on it. Likewise I do not need to read everthing this woman writes in order to hold an opinion on her, her views, her political agenda.
I have, however, read some of her writings. But I like that you have jumped to the conclusion I am entirely ignorant on this topic.
In terms of embarrassing myself, I am not embarrassed to hold such an excuse for a modern woman in contempt.
Bruce, I've never heard anything solid on Coulter being impeached on matters of fact -- frankly I doubt I ever shall.
I, too, doubt that you will ever hear it. Due to a failure of listening on your part.
Oh, indeed? Why, do you have actual examples? Funny you didn't bring 'em out, isn't it? I'd sure as hell like to see you try and come up with some.
Would there be a point? You wouldn't hear them, any more than you did when you pretended, several times, that the Swift Boaters hadn't been refuted.
Ah, well, what the heck. Here are a few.
1) You yourself impeached her on the issue of
evolution.
2) Her much vaunted "
footnotes" are full of inaccuracies, misleading representations, incomplete information, and quote mining.
3) She claimed, without source, that "
Everyone in Washington knew (Plame) was a CIA agent."
Plus, there are any number of jokes, exaggerations, insinuations, and mudslinging that are both inaccurate and misleading, but can be discounted by supporters as just jokes.
When were the Swift Boaters refuted? Has anyone awarded John Kerry even one Purple Heart, let alone three? Notice that this has not come up in any reputable source I've ever heard of, and unlike some, I'm not the sort to put my fingers in my ears. John Kerry has run true to his form for the past thirty years -- he plumped for the Sandinistas much more than for his own country's interest, or humanity's. That's a matter of public record, and you can look up how he voted: he was consistently one of those voting against our acting in any way in Nicaragua. There was far too much of that kind of Marxist-symp activity going on in Congress at the time. I hardly need mention any party-line breakdown.
An exerpt from John O'Neill, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, in June 2005:
We called for Kerry to execute a form which would permit anyone to examine his full and unexpulgated [sic] military records at the Navy Department and the National Personnel Records Center. Instead he executed a form permitting his hometown paper to obtain the records currently at the Navy Department. The Navy Department previously indicated its records did not include various materials. This is hardly what we called for. If he did execute a complete release of all records we could then answer questions such as (1)Did he ever receive orders to Cambodia or file any report of such a mission (whether at Christmas or otherwise); (2) What was his discharge status between 1970 and 1978 (when he received a discharge) and was it affected by his meetings in 1970 and 1971 with the North Vietnamese? (3)why did he receive much later citations for medals purportedly signed by Secretary Lehman who said he did not know of them; (4) Are there Hostile Fire and Personnel Injured by Hostile Fire Reports for Kerry's Dec. 1968 Purple Heart (when the officer in charge of the boat Admiral Schacte, the treating Surgeon Louis Letson, and Kerry's Division Commander deny there was hostile fire causing a scratch) awarded three months later under unknown circumstances.
1) True enough; but what I had in mind was matters of politics and history.
2) And proof is where? Who says this? The kind of people who're trying to get her silenced? Should they be taken seriously?
3) Such a remark is so strained as not to enter into consideration much: there was a good deal of carrying on like somebody in the White House had committed a felony -- until the matter was looked at more closely, and was found a creature of anti-Republican spin.
And another link, which I didn't get to fit into #877:
Further investigation from JustOneMinute.comWhen were the Swift Boaters refuted?
I pointed you to the links at least twice.
1) True enough; but what I had in mind was matters of politics and history.
2) And proof is where? Who says this? The kind of people who're trying to get her silenced? Should they be taken seriously?
I made a link.
3) Such a remark is so strained as not to enter into consideration much:
So when she lies, you just discount it as not politics or history, or you pretend the refuter isn't credible, or you say it's below consideration.
I think my point is made. Thank you.
I pointed you to the links at least twice.
And here's another.
Bold 'em in the future. I do. They don't show up at all well otherwise on my screen.
Okay, so you find MediaMatters convenient to your arguments. Fine. Reading them over, I get an overwhelming scent of "he said/she said." Clearly, look to the primary sources for yourself.
Meanwhile, I'd welcome any thoughtful comments on what I've linked.
Reading them over, I get an overwhelming scent of "he said/she said."
She said one thing, her
primary sources
Said another. That's what "he said/she said" has become these days.
Meanwhile, I'd welcome any thoughtful comments on what I've linked.
What you linked seems to be a story about how disappointed the right-wing blogs were when Kerry's released records contained nothing incriminating. What few actual claims I could find in the noise were covered in my "here's another" link.
It would leave you in the dark to rationalize ignoring Ann, though. There are a good many people who are desperate to ignore her, and they will seize upon any excuse at all -- it seems the sillier the better. Her observations on the Democrats and mine mesh pretty closely, and she's got more detail. As you can imagine, I've found the Dems an unsatisfactory lot for going on twenty years now. That is a damn long time for a whole party to be so unlikable in a representative republic like ours.
That's because she's as crazy as you are. What a pair.
Considering the inadequacy of the Dems at foreign policy and dealing with antidemocratic totalitarians, what's crazier, rejecting them or following them?
Her observations on the Democrats and mine mesh pretty closely, and she's got more detail.
She's got lots and lots of detail, but if you follow her footnotes, you find that they don't support her. She approaches all of her research the same way she (and other creationists) approach science. Put it in a form similar to the one that legitimate research is presented in, and confidently expect that your core audience will not look deeper.
And another link, which I didn't get to fit into #877:
Further investigation from JustOneMinute.com
I love it. Those guys buried Kerry.
No bad thing, from what I've seen of Kerry and his voting record.
From ABC News of 4 Nov 2007:
Nearly Three-Quarters Say the Country Is on the Wrong Track, Highest in a DecadeSeventy-four percent of Americans in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll say the country is headed in the wrong direction, the most since the government shut down in a contentious budget battle in early 1996. And while George W. Bush remains at his career low in job approval, he now has company: A year after they won control of the House and Senate, approval of the Democrats in Congress has fallen to its lowest since 1995.
As the article notes, this is below any other president. But then where is a single George Jr accomplishment?
The terrs haven't been able to touch us since 9-11, and we've been touching them quite hard. Frenetic Republican-haters are the only ones yelling about "what accomplishments has he?" but this comes only out of the most discreditable of all possible motives: anti-Republican bigotry, carried to a ridiculous extreme. You've been carrying a lot of that water, you mule-headed bigot. It will drown you just as it submerges your integrity -- which as is well known is too small and carious to be allowed out alone, for fear the wind would blow it away.
The Democrats will not accomplish winning the war, not for democracy or for anything else; for that we must turn to the Republicans. I think that we, a democracy, should win this war against the democracy-opposers. You never have thought this way for as long as I've known you, and that is why I despise you and why you really don't have friends here.
Your agenda has not, perhaps, been furthered. This is precisely in accord with the needs of our Republic.
First of all, 'the terrorists haven't touched us since 9-11' is ridiculous. When was the previous foreign terrorist attack on civilians before that? 1993 WTC bombing killing 6. Yeah, that was a pretty crazy time before Bush got to office, so many foreign terrorists were bombing us constantly. The US is no more or less safe now than it was before.
To preempt a likely argument, there have actually been slightly MORE terrorist attacks (outside of Iraq) on the US military after 2001 than before. In fact, we're averaging just over one a year, whereas the previous 10 years or so, we had about one every 2 years.
So if you remove September 11th (dear god, no, where will the kneejerk reactions go!?) in the interest of this argument, the civilians of this country are about as safe now as then, and the military is more at risk.
Point: I am not anti-Republican because of some kind of bigotry. I am anti-republican because I disagree with every single idealogical difference between them and the democrats. To claim anyone has some kind of bigotry for political views is a little ridiculous, considering you can't make a post without bringing up how much you hate the Democrats...
Actually, I can, and you are indulging in hyperbole precisely when for the sake of your argument you shouldn't.
Nor is it particularly hatred: it's just that for fifteen or twenty years straight they've been trying to sell what I don't want to buy. In a republic that's a pretty long time to be so totally on the outs with any part of the electorate -- I know full well I'm not alone. I reckon they're wrong for the Republic, and on the wrong side of history also.
For some reason you're not taking into account for the attacks on American targets outside the US prior to 9-11: Marine barracks Beirut 1983, East African embassies, USS Cole, Khobar Towers Saudi Arabia. I think these count quite satisfactorily as terrorist assaults. These guys have been trying since 1983 to get a war going with us. After about eighteen years of trying, they got one. And they're losing it. Happy-happy.
Were I a particularly deep thinker as leftists go, I wouldn't associate with the anti-Republican bigots even in thought, for lying down with dogs means you get up with fleas.
And lying down with logs means you get up with trees....
You're right, I didn't include the attacks on the military as a reason to go to war, because no one has ever said that this was for the military's safety. In fact, we almost never go to war for small scale attacks on our military. It has to be a definite and severe attack, because otherwise we'd be at war with 75% of the globe. We all know coming in that we're going to be at significantly higher risk than as a civilian.
If you reread my post, you'd notice that I said that civilians are no more safe now than before, as we can't really address the number of attacks, because it hasn't been long enough. I also said
To preempt a likely argument, there have actually been slightly MORE terrorist attacks (outside of Iraq) on the US military after 2001 than before. In fact, we're averaging just over one a year, whereas the previous 10 years or so, we had about one every 2 years.
Which includes every attack you mentioned.
Total terrorist attacks on our military (and embassy employees) 1993-2001: 4.
Total terrorist attacks on our military (and embassy employees not including Iraq) 2001-present: 8.
That's twice as many attacks in just about half as many years. We're safer?
...and the democratic party has been on the outs with the electorate? How did we have a democratic congress and a democratic president? If you don't hate the democratic party, why do you keep labeling them as enemies of the state!? I can't believe.. never mind, I said before I'd give up responding, but I guess I forgot myself. Enjoy your insanity, man.
Actually, I can, and you are indulging in hyperbole precisely when for the sake of your argument you shouldn't.
For some reason you're not taking into account for the attacks on American targets outside the US prior to 9-11: Marine barracks Beirut 1983, East African embassies, USS Cole, Khobar Towers Saudi Arabia. I think these count quite satisfactorily as terrorist assaults. These guys have been trying since 1983 to get a war going with us. After about eighteen years of trying, they got one.
Again UG lumps them all into one giant international conspiracy. According to UG, we must massacre all Arabs due to attacks on Marines in Beirut, embassies, USS Cole, Khobar Towers, 1993 WTC attack, Kansas City, highjacked ships off Somolia, Tehran Embassy hostages, and by the Barbary Pirates.
UG - at what point do you identify each suspect and only go after that suspect. UG never answers this question. "When do we go after bin Laden?" It means we would not have an excuse to massacre so many others.
Instead we should attack Hamas, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Muslims in the Phillippines ... Yea, that will solve all problems. How funny. That is the complete opposite of what UG's recent (and now diposed) idol Thomas Barnett wrote.
UG - still waiting for the publication of "The Pentagon Papers" by Urbane Guerrilla. Clearly history will not be correct until it is rewritten. Thomas Barnett never said that either.
Two letters, tw: BS. You merit no further reply, and you're not talking sense nor truth.
From the BBC of 13 Nov 2007:
'Hidden costs raise' US war price
The US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are costing nearly double the amount previously thought, according to a report by Democrats in the US Congress.
They say "hidden costs" have pushed the total to about $1.5 trillion - nearly twice the requested $804bn (£402bn).
Higher oil prices, treating wounded veterans, and the cost to the economy of pulling reservists away from their jobs have been taken into account.
The White House has called the report politically motivated.
How curious. Having White House lawyers rewrite science for a political agenda is not politically motivated?
Not bad for a war that would be paid for by Iraq's oil revenues. Not bad for a war that would only cost $2billion. But George Jr's wackos (ie Cheney) did not lie?
The Kuwait liberation did not destroy American standards of living. America did not pay for that war. America was paid to liberate Kuwait. But back then, an American president was not making the world hate Americans.
60% of the US Military equipment is deployed for the glory of Cheney. 50% of National Guard equipment is deployed. How did another lying president do this same thing? He simply lied about the costs in Nam. Deja vue - or why should America's worst president in 100 years be any different. Oh. It does not cost that much? God told him? "Reagan proved that deficits do not matter".
Did your mother say you would burn in hell if you lied? Who believes words from a burning Bush? Only those who believe it must be the word of god. Oh. In god we trust? No problem. George Jr talks to him. Next week the slogan. A vote for George Jr is a vote for god. So god will fix those debts?
Yeph. Sub-prime loan crisis. Falling dollar. Rising oil prices. Rising gold and copper prices. Inevitable tax increases. America for sale to foreigners. So few Americans now technically educated that America cannot import enough immigrants. Katrina. A long list enemies that previously did not exist. God even knocked down two highest buildings and we still did not get the message? Maybe the burning Bush was not his messenger. It only took seven years to figure that out? “Mission Accomplished”.
From the NY Times of 13 Nov 2007:
F.B.I. Says Guards Killed 14 Iraqis Without Cause F.B.I. Says Guards Killed 14 Iraqis Without Cause
Federal agents investigating the Sept. 16 episode in which Blackwater security personnel shot and killed 17 Iraqi civilians have found that at least 14 of the shootings were unjustified and violated deadly-force rules in effect for security contractors in Iraq, according to civilian and military officials briefed on the case.
The F.B.I. investigation into the shootings in Baghdad is still under way, but the findings, which indicate that the company's employees recklessly used lethal force, are already under review by the Justice Department.
Prosecutors have yet to decide whether to seek indictments, and some officials have expressed pessimism that adequate criminal laws exist to enable them to charge any Blackwater employee with criminal wrongdoing. Spokesmen for the Justice Department and the F.B.I. declined to discuss the matter.
Maybe the good guys are not the good guys? Of course not. After all, everyone in 2003 knew Saddam must have had WMDs. Therefore only Americans are good guys.
How can Blackwater, et al have done wrong? We even made it legal for them to kill anyone they want at any time. They are Americans - not second class people like Iraqis, Germans, and Brits (yes this is what an extremist religious lady and supporter of George Jr was telling me last night). That reasoning was sufficient to even prove Saddam had WMDs. Others who know differently are so silent because they have "weak liberal minds". Considering the so few who speak out here, she must be right.
Good thing we have George Jr and Condi Rice's State Department to protect our heroes in Blackwater uniforms. Blackwater employees cannot be prosecuted even for murder. Also good is that Blackwater takes revenge for what happened to employees in Fallujah. God heil Amerika even though Democrats and so many others who remain silent are so backboneless.
Investigators found no evidence to support assertions by Blackwater employees that they were fired upon by Iraqi civilians. That finding sharply contradicts initial assertions by Blackwater officials, who said that company employees fired in self-defense and that three company vehicles were damaged by gunfire.
... investigators determined that the subsequent shootings of 14 Iraqis, some of whom were shot while fleeing the scene, were unprovoked. ...
A separate military review of the Sept. 16 shootings concluded that all of the killings were unjustified and potentially criminal. One of the military investigators said the F.B.I. was being generous to Blackwater in characterizing any of the killings as justifiable.
Cars were heavily damaged mostly in the rear with few if any bullets entering their front. Clearly all these vehicles were backing up to threatened Blackwater.
No problem. This is what we want. Even our Democrats silently cheer that inferior races are killed. If not, Democrats would be screaming loudly. A majority of Cellar dwellers clearly approve just as loudly. Al Qaeda must exist in Iraq. That's the only way to explain a clearly misguided FBI analysis. We all know the only enemy in Iraq is Al Qaeda.
shhh, take your pill. the voices will go away.
From ABC News of 14 Nov 2007:
Blackwater Turret Gunner 'Paul': Why I Opened Fire in Baghdad
A 29-year-old U.S. Army veteran hired by Blackwater last year is at the center of the investigation into the Sept. 16 shooting incident that killed at least 17 civilians, U.S. officials say. ...
It was just the beginning.
He went on to describe why he opened fire on what witnesses have said were bystanders running from the scene.
"I started receiving small arms fire from the shack approximately fifty meters behind the car. I then engaged the individuals where the muzzle flashes came from," he said.
Iraqi officials say there was no such small-arms fire aimed at the motorcade of State Department officials.
The Blackwater guard's account describes why he continued to fire.
"I was told on our radio that the command vehicle was down and that we were still taking fire," he said.
In his statement, he said he then fired on a man armed with an AK-47, later described as an Iraqi police officer. ...
There was still one more target that the Blackwater turret gunner claimed to be an enemy threat in his statement, a passenger car he said he thought might be rigged as a bomb.
"There was a red vehicle backing toward the command vehicle. Fearing that it was a VBIED [vehicle-borne improvised explosive device], I engaged in order to stop the threat," his account reads.
These people represent the American flag in Iraq. Lookout123 approves of this. More dead inferiors means less surplus population.
[QUOTE][Lookout123 approves of this./QUOTE]
cite?
cite?
here
When junior learns respect, then lookout123 can ask permission to speak.
so from that post you get that i approve of blackwater mercenaries killing people and getting away with it? is that what you are saying?
Tw getting somebody's ideas wrongly fixed is the usual road, yes.
He's a lot better at troubleshooting autos than at the people arts, like politics.
Tw getting somebody's ideas wrongly fixed is the usual road, yes.
He's a lot better at troubleshooting autos than at the people arts, like politics.
..or carpet bombing.
..or carpet bombing.
Yeph. Agent Orange killed that flea. Problem solved. Cheney would be proud of me. And now everyone asks where I bought the new carpet.
From the BBC of 8 Dec 2007:
UK Guantanamo four to be released
Four of the five British residents held by the US at Guantanamo Bay are to be released, the BBC has learned. ...
The Americans accuse Mr el-Banna of being a prominent al-Qaeda recruiter and financier, Libyan Mr Deghayes of associating with al-Qaeda, and Algerian Mr Sameur of receiving combat training in Afghanistan.
Suddenly they are no longer dangerous? By torturing them with the words from god as told to George Jr, then these evil men have been repatriated? After spending years in prison without judicial review or writ of Habeas Corpus, then suddenly these four men are no longer part of an "international world wide organized evil empire of terror"? Wow. Maybe the Nazis had to right all along. Torture does work.
Did George Jr also convert the bogeyman after only asking questions in a secret underground White House prison chamber? Suddenly UG and classicman no longer have an enemy to blame for everything? What will they do?
A secretly released CIA tape proves that Hitler's bastard son, living in South America, has been secretly supplying Al Qaeda with weapons. Now we can 'Pearl Harbor' Brazil. That will make Urbane Guerrilla so happy. Guantanamo is conveniently placed to make this work. It's good to know how Guantanamo can reform terrorists. Even the most evil terrorists with stiff upper lips.
so from that post you get that i approve of blackwater mercenaries killing people and getting away with it? is that what you are saying?
From now on when you see TW post think Ted Kaczynski with internet access:
Suddenly UG and classicman no longer have an enemy to blame for everything? What will they do?
How and why did I get dragged into this?
tw, seriously, leave me out of your petty squabbles.
ktxbye
I'm so pleased the George Jr administration is protecting Americans - a specific reference to the type of people Urbane Guerrilla so approves of and a government that would even deny this happened. Since "Saddam has WMDs", then what's wrong with a few more lies. From ABC News of 10 Dec 2007 is a question of how often does Haliburton work for the greater glory of America. As made obvious from George Jr administration actions, this is all good for America:
Gang-Rape Cover-Up by U.S., Halliburton/KBR
A Houston, Texas woman says she was gang-raped by Halliburton/KBR coworkers in Baghdad, and the company and the U.S. government are covering up the incident....
"I said, 'Dad, I've been raped. I don't know what to do. I'm in this container, and I'm not able to leave,'" she said. Her father called their congressman, Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas.
"We contacted the State Department first," Poe told ABCNews.com, "and told them of the urgency of rescuing an American citizen" -- from her American employer.
Poe says his office contacted the State Department, which quickly dispatched agents from the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad to Jones' camp, where they rescued her from the container.
According to her lawsuit, Jones was raped by "several attackers who first drugged her, then repeatedly raped and injured her, both physically and emotionally."
Jones told ABCNews.com that an examination by Army doctors showed she had been raped "both vaginally and anally," but that the rape kit disappeared after it was handed over to KBR security officers. ...
Over two years later, the Justice Department has brought no criminal charges in the matter. In fact, ABC News could not confirm any federal agency was investigating the case. ...
Congressman Poe says neither the departments of State nor Justice will give him answers on the status of the Jones investigation. ...
Since no criminal charges have been filed, the only other option, according to Hutson, is the civil system, which is the approach that Jones is trying now. ... Halliburton won more than 80 percent of arbitration proceedings brought against it.
Why should they investigate. Haliburton employees in Iraq are exempt from all laws.
Her rescuers found her in a locked shipping container. Her medical exam says she was clearly raped. The evidence was lost by Haliburton - that so patriotic organization. EVen a Republican Congressman says it happened. Two years later means no criminal investigation? Begs anyone who supports the scumbag president to question his own morality. But it won't. Even questions by a Congressman means no investigation. Campaign contributions do buy protection.
Amazing how only the evil news services would report such facts. The coverup continues. Read it.
KBR said it was "instructed to cease" its own investigation by U.S. government authorities "because they were assuming sole responsibility for the criminal investigations."
Jones told ABCNews.com that an examination by Army doctors showed she had been raped "both vaginally and anally," but that the rape kit disappeared after it was handed over to KBR security officers. ...
What???? Why would they give the rape kit to the accused? Somethin fishy with that story.
P.S. - tw, see how I quoted the article to eliminate any confusion?
What???? Why would they give the rape kit to the accused? Somethin fishy with that story.
You are making assumptions. Again making conclusions based upon what does not exist. The rape kit was not handed to the accused. KBR (Halliburton) was not accused.
... was handed over to KBR security officers
KBR are the patriots who work for America. These were security men. Therefore they could be trusted [font=1] to promote the George Jr agenda[/font].
Halliburton (KBR) accused of violating American laws? No problem. KBR is exempt from any laws in Iraq. Even the Iraqi government cannot prosecute any KBR employee in their country.
"Texas woman says she was gang-raped by Halliburton/KBR coworkers in Baghdad, and the company and the U.S. government are covering up the incident...." ~snip~ ... an examination by Army doctors showed she had been raped "both vaginally and anally," but that the rape kit disappeared after it was handed over to KBR security officers...:eyebrow:
Sorry still doesn't make sense.:headshake
[size="1"][COLOR="Silver"]pssssst - tw was being sarcastic[/COLOR][/size]
[size="1"][COLOR="Silver"]pssssst - tw was being sarcastic[/COLOR][/size]
[size="1"][COLOR="Silver"]psst - so was my response.[/COLOR][/size]
Bt the question I posed remains to be answered, doesn't it?
Bt the question I posed remains to be answered, doesn't it?
You really must learn to read with care. Why do you see a "question" when even a question mark does not exist? What question? Maybe I should requote it for you? Naw. That would only create more questions without question marks. The world is confusing enough. [And who is Bt?]
What? Why would they give the rape kit to the accused?
That one perhaps. actually its those two.
China made the problem so obvious that everyone, even in the Cellar, would see it. A Chinese intentional destruction of a satellite means the number of dangerous space junk tracked by the US increased to over 6000+ items. 2000+ were created by that Chinese demonstration. Numbers intentionally created to make it impossible for anyone (except extremists) to justify the mental midget's denials.
Responsible nations desperately want restrictions so that this problem does not worsen. Only one nation (under extremist god) is stifling this effort. President Cheney would rather solve everything using pre-emption. America needs space for more battlefields.
From the NY Times of 13 Feb 2008:
U.N. Weighs a Ban on Weapons in Space, but U.S. Still Objects
The Russian foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, on Tuesday presented a Russian-Chinese draft treaty banning weapons in space to the United Nations Conference on Disarmament, an idea that was quickly rejected by the United States.
Russia and China have pushed for years for a treaty to prevent an arms race in space, a threat underlined by China last year after it shot down one of its own aging satellites.
Responding to previous American assertions that there is no arms race in space and therefore no need for a treaty,
Show me one thing from the mental midget that indicates intelligence.
The White House responded to the proposal on Tuesday afternoon, saying it opposed any treaty that sought "to prohibit or limit access to or use of space."
Oh. George Jr will find bin Laden in space? Even Nixon was not this anti-American, anti-Australian, anti-Thai, anti-German, anti-Tanzanian, anti-Brazilian ...
See also
USA pwnz space..What does that have to do with giving the rape kit to the company/employer of the accused rapists?
That simply makes no sense.
From the NY Times of 19 Mar 2008:
Bush Says Iraq War Was Worth It
President Bush says he has no doubts about launching the unpopular war in Iraq despite the ''high cost in lives and treasure,'' arguing that retreat now would embolden Iran and provide al-Qaida with money for weapons of mass destruction to attack the United States.
Bush is to mark the fifth anniversary of the US-led invasion of Iraq on Wednesday with a speech at the Pentagon. Excerpts of his address were released Tuesday night by the White House.
At least 3,990 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the war in 2003. It has cost taxpayers about $500 billion and estimates of the final tab run far higher. Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglizt and Harvard University public finance expert Linda Bilmes have estimated the eventual cost at $3 trillion when all the expenses, including long-term care for veterans, are calculated.
Meanwhile neither Iran, Iraq, or N Korea was a threat. A wacko extremist has a political agenda to serve. Honesty is not George Jr - a problem when told what to do by god. All those 'axis of evil', it turns out, were not until George Jr began threatening them with 'Pearl Harbor' actions justified by a crusader's mentality. Guess who pays.
Curiously, this was also the 40th Anniversary of the My Lai massacre where American soldiers even used babies for target practice. All for the glory of another lying president.
From the Washington Post of 2 Apr 2008:
Memo: Laws Didn't Apply to Interrogators
Justice Dept. Official in 2003 Said President's Wartime Authority Trumped Many Statutes
The Justice Department sent a legal memorandum to the Pentagon in 2003 asserting that federal laws prohibiting assault, maiming and other crimes did not apply to military interrogators who questioned al-Qaeda captives because the president's ultimate authority as commander in chief overrode such statutes.
Torture and international kidnapping of any non-American was declared legal by our wacko extremists. Another example of how corrupt one will be when a political agenda justifies action. Another example of why extremists are so dangerous since only an extremist would see nothing wrong here.
"It was legal. Therefore it is not 'evil'."
Another example .... since only an extremist would see nothing wrong here.
Where?
:eyebrow:
From the NY Times of 19 Mar 2008: Meanwhile neither Iran, Iraq, or N Korea was a threat. A wacko extremist has a political agenda to serve. Honesty is not George Jr - a problem when told what to do by god. All those 'axis of evil', it turns out, were not until George Jr began threatening them with 'Pearl Harbor' actions justified by a crusader's mentality. Guess who pays.
Curiously, this was also the 40th Anniversary of the My Lai massacre where American soldiers even used babies for target practice. [COLOR=DarkOrange]All for the glory of another lying president[/COLOR].
Which lying president would that be?
Answer from wiki
During 1968 there were many questions about the presidency. On March 31, 1968 in a decision that stunned political friends and many others, President Lyndon B. Johnson announced that he would not seek, nor would he accept the nomination of his party for president. Johnson said he was withdrawing in the name of national unity. This sparked many questions throughout the nation. People wondered who would become the next president of the United States. Their questions were answered very soon. In August of 1968, Richard Nixon, the "old pro" of the Republican Party, was nominated for president. On November 6, 1968 Richard M. Nixon was elected President of the United States.
Which lying president would that be?
From ABC News of 19 April 2008:
No Al Qaeda Policy: Congress Wants Answers
Congress plans to press the Bush administration aggressively to justify its policy in Afghanistan following a nonpartisan report that concludes that the administration "lacks a comprehensive plan" to take on al Qaeda in its stronghold. ...
Berman has scheduled a hearing for May 7 to grill administration officials.
His concern follows a report by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, that concludes, "No comprehensive plan for meeting U.S. national security goals ... has been developed" in Pakistan's lawless tribal region along the Afghan border.
Such a plan requires a White House that works for America; not for a political agenda. These are mutually exclusive objectives.
There is not and has not been plans to get bin Laden. Those who have long understood this also ask, "When do we go after bin Laden?" Now the GAO says same.
The Bush administration does not have such a plan, even though it was called for by the 9/11 Commission and was mandated under a 2007 law, the GAO report said.
The report pulls no punches. It concludes that six years after President Bush pledged to take Osama bin Laden "dead or alive," al Qaeda has "regenerated its ability to attack the United States and had succeeded in establishing a safe haven" in Pakistan's border region.
Is the GAO some kind of communist conspiracy? Only useful plans to end "Mission Accomplished" also came from the 9/11 Commission. But when the president is even a liar, then keeping a bogeyman alive is good politics.
Which is good for America? A political agenda or getting bin Laden? Keeping bin Laden alive is good for wacko extremist politics. But the patriot asks, "When do we go after bin Laden?" GAO has finally moved Congress to work for America? How many Cellar Dwellers also feared to ask what only a patriotic Congressman (or presidential candidate) would ask. When DO we go after bin Laden? A lying president will not.
Let me help. The lying president wasn't named Bush or Nixon. My Lai occurred
March 16, 1968.
Old lying liberal Democrat LBJ was the lying president during My Lai. How many thousands of civilians and US military died because of his lies and micromanagement? GWB has no chance of finishing up his eight years in office cathing up to LBJ's five years of criminal activity.
We've had lots of liars. LBJ is right there with Wilson and Bush in shear criminality.
Can you attempt to adjust for inflation?
It says, in 2007 dollars.
$4 billion in 1776 dollars would have been impressive.
We've had lots of liars. LBJ is right there with Wilson and Bush in shear criminality.
Looking at the chart WWI, WWII, and the Korean War were not 'US' Wars. Technically, Afghanistan-Iraq also are not, but with over %90 of the forces involved and probably an even larger percentage of the cost tied to the US, it really is a US-led show.
Was the $3.2 trillion for WWII all from the US?
BTW, the 820 billion for Iraq/Afghanistan only includes current costs, and even then not those buried in defense spending. I'm not sure I trust the $3 trillion figure being thrown around, but I would at least double the 820B if including post-war costs even if the war were called off tomorrow.
In terms of bang for the buck, Iraq will go down in history as the worst strategic blunder the US has ever made.
Was the $3.2 trillion for WWII all from the US?
That is the impression I get from the labeling. The article in
Reason it comes from is about the cost of our present war so they would want to minimize the WW2 numbers.
Percentage of GDP would show actual impact on the people and the economy.
Using
this set of GDP data, and a Sharpie on the back of a wet napkin:
Iraq 2: 1.1% of GDP
Iraq 1: 1.2%
Vietnam: 2%
WW2: 56%
WW1: 16%
Span-Amer: 2%
Civil War: 22%
Beyond that I doubt the numbers are meaningful.
Well yeah, it's 1.1% that could surely have been spent more wisely.
This does indicate the difference between "war" and "total war" ala WW2 in which the fight is thought to be for one's very existence as a nation, as a culture. Pretty much the whole banana is avoiding one of those kinds of wars. Whatever we could do to avoid that would be great.
Using this set of GDP data, and a Sharpie on the back of a wet napkin:
Iraq 2: 1.1% of GDP
Iraq 1: 1.2%
Vietnam: 2% ...
Iraq 1 (Desert Storm or Kuwait Liberation) does not tell the entire picture. Because the president back then was more responsible, then the US paid almost nothing for that war. That war was paid for mostly by the entire world. Japan being the largest contributor. Therefore the negative effects on the economy from that war were marginal at best (and yet still the economy took a small downturn).
From ABC News of 30 April 2008:
White House admits fault on 'Mission Accomplished' banner
"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended," Bush said at the time. "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on Sept. 11, 2001, and still goes on." The "Mission Accomplished" banner was prominently displayed above him - a move the White House came to regret as the display was mocked and became a source of controversy. ...
Now in its sixth year, the war in Iraq has claimed the lives of at least 4,061 members of the U.S. military. Only the Vietnam War (August 1964 to January 1973), the war in Afghanistan (October 2001 to present) and the Revolutionary War (July 1776 to April 1783) have engaged America longer.
3.5 years to create, train, and deply armies all over the world and win every war. Six years and George Jr cannot even conquer one innocet nation? Meanwhile, when do we go after bin Laden? Mission Accomplished. Protect the bogeyman.
Meanwhile, when do we go after bin Laden?
When we decide to declare war on Pakistan.
When we decide to declare war on Pakistan.
We don't need a war to conduct covert operations. But then all efforts to get bin Laden including tracking him, military surveillance, Alex Station, or future intentions – all have been canceled or obstructed by George Jr.
It would be impossible to conduct a covert operation in North-West Frontier Provence.
It would be impossible to conduct a covert operation in North-West Frontier Provence.
Just like it was impossible to do in Afghanistan? Spies can be dispatched almost anywhere - as we had in Afghanistan. Intelligence units (ie Alex Station) would have always existed if we had any intent to go after bin Laden.
The North-West Frontier Provence is a whole different ballgame. A goat can't move without being scrutinized. Rambo would be killed, there.
KBR is George Jr's choice for no-bid contracts. KBR properly reflects the attitude and knowledge of our leader. From the NY Times of 4 May 2008:
Despite Alert, Flawed Wiring Still Kills G.I.'s
... the Army bulletin said that five deaths over the preceding year had apparently been caused by faulty grounding, and the circumstances of others have not been fully explained by the Army. Many more soldiers have been injured by shocks, Pentagon officials and soldiers say.
Tens of thousands of grounds must be missing just to have one result in severe electric shock. Electrical grounds are so obvious and easy that it is almost impossible for any honest person to not connect one. Why do so many Americans still get killed? Good thing we saved so much money and therefore don't have all these debts to pay off.
American electricians who worked for KBR ... said they repeatedly warned company managers and military officials about unsafe electrical work, which was often performed by poorly trained Iraqis and Afghans paid just a few dollars a day. ...
KBR itself told the Pentagon in early 2007 about unsafe electrical wiring at a base near the Baghdad airport, but no repairs were made. Less than a year later, a soldier was electrocuted in a shower there. ...
Lawmakers and government investigators say it is now clear that the Bush administration outsourced so much work to KBR and other contractors in Iraq that the agencies charged with oversight have been overwhelmed. The Defense Contracting Management Agency has more than 9,000 employees, but it has only 60 contract officers in Iraq and 30 in Afghanistan to supervise nearly 18,000 KBR employees in Iraq and 4,400 in Afghanistan handling base maintenance.
"All the contract officers can do is check the paperwork," ...
Staff Sgt. Christopher L. Everett, 23, of the Texas National Guard was electrocuted in September 2005 while power-washing a Humvee at Camp Taqaddum, in central Iraq near Falluja. ...
The most recent fatality occurred on Jan. 2 in Baghdad, when Staff Sgt. Ryan D. Maseth, a Green Beret, died in a shower after an improperly grounded water pump short-circuited.
Nearly a year earlier, KBR issued a technical report to the contracting agency citing safety concerns related to the grounding and wiring in the building in the Radwaniyah Palace Complex, where Sergeant Maseth's unit, the Army Fifth Special Forces Group, was housed.
Another soldier said in an interview that he was repeatedly shocked in the shower in December 2007 and submitted requests for repairs. But nothing was done until the day after Sergeant Maseth's death, when the defense agency ordered KBR to correct the problem, according to Pentagon documents.
They are only soldiers - expendable? So lie to mask reality?
Cheryl Harris, Sergeant Maseth's mother, said in an interview that the Army initially told her that her son had taken an electrical appliance into the shower with him. Later, she said, officials told her that investigators had found electrical wires hanging down around the shower. She said she had been skeptical of both accounts and learned the truth only after repeatedly questioning Army officials. ...
"I knew Ryan would not get into a shower with an electrical appliance, and having wires hanging overhead didn't make sense," said Ms. Harris, of Cranberry Township, Pa. "My biggest question is really, why would KBR do a safety inspection, know about the electrical problems and not alert the troops?" ...
In 2006, John McLain was working as a KBR electrician at the United States regional embassy compound in Hilla, south of Baghdad, when he made a disturbing discovery. A KBR quality control inspector had recently cited employees there for failing to file quarterly ground resistance testing logs - reports on whether the wiring in the upgraded embassy building was properly grounded and safe.
Mr. McLain soon realized that the testing was not being conducted, because the building had never been grounded, though KBR and at least one Iraqi subcontractor were supposed to install proper safeguards during a renovation the previous year. Mr. McLain said he had sent a series of increasingly blunt memos and e-mail warnings about the safety hazards to KBR officials.
Mr. McLain said other KBR electricians later created logs that incorrectly made it appear that the grounding system existed. KBR fired him in 2007 after he told a visiting defense contracting agency official about his concerns. His candor proved useless, however. Mr. McLain said that the contracting agency official showed no interest. "He said, I'm not an electrician; I don't know what you are talking about," Mr. McLain recalled.
Noris Rogers, who worked for KBR in Afghanistan in 2005, said he repeatedly complained to his supervisors that electrical work at Camp Eggers, the American military's command base in Kabul, Afghanistan, did not meet the requirements of the company's Pentagon contract.
Mr. Bliss, who saw a soldier in Qalat, Afghanistan, get a severe shock from an electrical box that was not supposed to be charged, said his KBR bosses mocked him for raising safety issues.
Safety grounding is so easy, so obvious, so standard, so simply, and so difficult to get wrong .,. So why does grounding not get done? It’s easier to not do it - but only when top bosses hold nobody responsible or are also on the take. Why does George Jr so often reward KBR - Cheney's company - with so many no-bid contracts?
Cheney's "company" is Halliburton. Last year Halliburton sold off KBR, and is now only an oil services company and not an oil and international construction services company.
But wasn't KBR awarded this work while still in the Halliburton (Cheney) family?
Cheney's "company" is Halliburton. Last year Halliburton sold off KBR, and is now only an oil services company and not an oil and international construction services company.
And the shareholders rejoiced mightily at the windfall, which, thanks to the Bush Administration, were taxed lightly.
Cheney should have recused himself from any decisions involving Haliburton/KBR. It should have been left to the Pentagon.
Estimates now put "Mission Accomplished" at another 10 years. Even the most optimistic numbers are another 6 years. Less only if Americans wake up to the realities. We didn't in Nam because we let wacko extremist propaganda create fear - those mythical Dominos. We even invaded Cambodia and made that country unstable. How long before our wackos call for attacks on Iran or Syria?
A long list of top Generals from Iraq (10+ now?), retired, and now publically blame the mental midget administration. No way around these realities. He is making messes well beyond Iraq - ... Things are that bad.
The Marines may have found a way to get out of an unwinnable conflict. They are asking to be deployed only to Afghanistan. Remember that other war where Goerge Jr / Cheney et al all but protect bin Laden? So when are we going after bin Laden? Well at least the Marines will not be fighting where they cannot win.
From the Washington Post of 9 May 2008:
Pentagon Is Open to Moving More Marines to Afghanistan
The Marine Corps may begin shifting its major combat forces out of Iraq to focus on Afghanistan in 2009 if greater security in Iraq allows a reduction of Marines there, top Pentagon officials said yesterday.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Michael G. Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that the proposal by the Marine Corps commandant, Gen. James Conway, to focus his force on Afghanistan -- which they rejected late last year -- could be reconsidered.
The evidence remains against any interpretation that the dominoes were "mythical." China: first domino. North Vietnam: second domino. Then in very rapid succession, Laos, Cambodia, South Vietnam. Four or five dominoes (which word tw cannot spell) is validation of the domino worry: that SE Asia would fall into Communism's dark night and human wastage. Which it indeed did. For which occurrences, tw is the endless shill, while denying he's doing any such thing. He's never been able to explain how the domino theory is unjustified anyway. It suffices for him to pretend aloud that it was, but I have a clearer, better mind, and much better morals. I actually dislike dictatorships.
If there's ever a leftist totalitarian regime tw can't love, I don't know which one it is. I've thought the same of the late columnist Mary McGrory, and disapproved of her every bit as much because of it.
It's more tw's ideas that are under attack nowadays than his personality.
guerilla, the so called dominoes fell because the US invaded their countries as well, for what turned out to be no reason at all. Those countries got so pissed at this new attempt at imperialism from the West, they threw themselves on the (Chinese/Vietnamese) Communists' side.
Only for the USSR, the 'dominoes' became dominant in themselves, and didn't care much for Russian-brand Communism.
Iran learned very well from 'Nam. Notice how they helped the Coalition in Afghanistan by shutting out the Taliban' potential escape there; but have their cronies fight the Coalition in Iraq after Saddam fell. They realize first that it is in their interest to rid themselves of Hussein and Omar as neighbors. They then extended the war because they realized that Bush/Cheyney was looking at a reason to invade Iran from 2003 on. 'Have the brothers fight over there on enemies' turf, as opposed to having the brothers fight on our turf.' Somebody said that, someone famous...
UG also forgets that under that same 'evil' government, Vietnam is now prospering as never seen before. GDP growth is puts Vietnam as one of the fastest growing nations in Asia. Another trend is so many former boat people who visit their former homeland and end up staying. Job prospects and a future are that rosy in communist Vietnam. Domino simply fell in the right direction.
Tw's ever the apologist for the Communists, which is simply an indication of his amputee's grasp of the real or that which humans desire. Totalitarian government cannot help but be evil; tw never understands this because he's so incompetent both at good and evil and at the human arts of politics. He hitched his wagon to a Red Star, and can't unhitch. Very inflexible mind.
The reason Vietnam is working now is because the Vietnamese have abandoned communism, not because the Communists seized it and generated two million international refugees and two hundred fifty thousand surviving boat people. People try and float away from communist totalitarianism on rafts, tw -- never towards it. Boat people validate our entire effort, and indict those whom you love so crazily and unbelievably. I can only assume your motivations are either insane or nonhuman. I will have none of them, and am offended you still advocate such abominations.
Having abandoned communism, Vietnam prospers in spite of the cadre's maintenance of Communism as the state religion. Vietnam will be in better shape when it abandons the bad religion at all levels.
Deadbeater, Laos is still communist, and still totally screwed up. American bombing of communists in Cambodia, communists in Laos, and communists in South Vietnam did not collapse these nations, only the invasion by totalitarians did. No totalitarian invasion, no falls -- that follows. After invasions by totalitarians, falls into ruin, everywhere I've mentioned. Those nations that have abandoned communism now prosper again. They didn't while the Communists practiced communism upon the population. These things are matters of record, deadbeater, which records you're not reading. Why is that? I can imagine, but it's very much not to your credit.
Summary of Bush's actual record -- and of who'd rather it were otherwise.
Summary of Bush's actual record -- and of who'd rather it were otherwise.
World Net Daily? I call shenanigans...
American bombing of communists in Cambodia, communists in Laos, and communists in South Vietnam did not collapse these nations, only the invasion by totalitarians did. No totalitarian invasion, no falls -- that follows. After invasions by totalitarians, falls into ruin, everywhere I've mentioned. Those nations that have abandoned communism now prosper again.
More proof we can't force it on them, the people have to want it.
Deadbeater, Laos is still communist, and still totally screwed up. American bombing of communists in Cambodia, communists in Laos, and communists in South Vietnam did not collapse these nations, only the invasion by totalitarians did. No totalitarian invasion, no falls -- that follows. After invasions by totalitarians, falls into ruin, everywhere I've mentioned. Those nations that have abandoned communism now prosper again. They didn't while the Communists practiced communism upon the population. These things are matters of record, deadbeater, which records you're not reading. Why is that? I can imagine, but it's very much not to your credit.
Except, you know, China.
Except, you know, China.
Last time anyone checked the communist party was alive and well in China.
Yup. That was, in fact, the point.
The stock market crashed today on bad news that can't be hidden by the government anymore. The market crashed, and, as the oil running up $11 dollars per barrel, we will soon have rises in unemployment and inflation. Way to go, Bush.
This started long before Bush, he just hastened it.
This started long before Bush, he just hastened it.
I don't see a previous president running up massive debts and pumping out economics incentives. Both the debts and economics incentive should start resulting in economics taking revenge about ... how about that ... George Jr's money games should start making economic downturns and recessions now.
How curious. tw was warning about this economic penalty when others were hyping Kennedy tax cuts back in 2002 - while ignoring the downturn created by those tax cuts. How curious. Deja vue. Silly tax cuts (without spending cuts) are again created economic problems years later. Oh. George Jr did not create those tax cuts? George Jr did not destroy a budget surplus? George Jr did not fill the world with so many dollars as to create a 40% reduction in American wealth? How curious - these many economic problems discussed (predicted) so many years ago are now happening. But somehow, the mental midget did not create it? One must be both blind and naive to ignore all these economic problems created by President Cheney.
Did we forget the $trillions of debt created by "Mission Accomplished"? Did we forget that "Mission Accomplished" debts do not appear in the budget? More George Jr money games that even Enron could not duplicate.
What did NAFTA has to do with this? Are we exporting incompetent CEO's around the world, or what?
What did NAFTA has to do with this? Are we exporting incompetent CEO's around the world, or what?
No, just thousands of jobs.
And let's see, just what is going on in China these days? Looks like abandoning Communism as the way of life and adopting capitalism to me. That Communism remains the state religion of the Beijing cadre becomes less and less relevant, as anyone can see.
Nah, headsplice: if you want to be part of the future, abandon leftism and socialism completely. They are keeping you screwed up. But mastering capitalism and at least centrist politics, ah, that will unscrew you nicely.
How curious. tw was warning about this economic penalty when others were ......
You did
not just start referring to yourself in the third person, did you?
Oh C'mon Rich - he's been doing that for months! He is T-dub after all!!
World Net Daily? I call shenanigans...
Without cause.
That is Larry Elder of all people that you're trying to devalue, and that's an errand for a fool's fool. Don't be stupid enough to ignore this guy. Go find some of his books.
You did not just start referring to yourself in the third person, did you?
A challenge directed at English teachers. Teachers more concerned with conformity at the expense of clarity. Secondary is using first, second, or third person. Rules of English can be violated for clarity. A law is secondary to the purpose of that law. Irrelevant is whether the object is "I" or 'tw' (first or third person). Those who fear (who advocate blind conformity) would be upset. It bewilders or perplexes English Nazis who are more concerned with rules rather than the logic - the underlying point.
The point remains obvious. Today, the stock market welcomed rumors of increased interest rates. How can that be when the market rallied over lowered interest rates and easy money only months ago? Welcome to the conundrum created because massive economic stimulus by an irresponsible (wacko) administration now means that everything the government does can only make things worse.
Lower interest rates creates more inflation, a lower dollar, higher energy prices, and more money games that mortgage the future and stifle innovation. Raise interest rates only increases the deficit as we sell off more of America, continue to reduce real estate prices (cumulatively) by 40%, and increase bankruptcies. Well, this was the impending disaster that tw was warning about maybe four years ago. Problems created by welfare to the rich (lower taxes) and record high spending that only Republicans advocate. This same warning was coming from so many self made rich men so many years ago. Welcome to what happens because we ate Cheney's apples as the snake (UG, et al) so often advocated. Yes, tw also put the Bible into proper perspective.
Lookout truly believes tw is insane.
Lookout truly believes tw is insane.
lookout123 also believed rhetoric of stock brokers and other myth purveyors. lookout123 believed George Jr's idioms after George talked to god. How curious that those accused of mental insanity got out of the nest seven years ago – and kept getting it right. The remaining cuckoo's would label as insane anyone who would question authority? But then many in that cuckoo’s nest only believed what they are told to believe.
lookout123 knew George Jr was honest; god talked to George. lookout123 still denies that stock brokers underperform the market. lookout123 has a history of repeating what is taught in that nest while forgeting his long history of being wrong. What happened to those mutual funds that lookout123 recommended? Underperformed the market - as is industry averages predict while denied by lookout.
lookout is not insane; just brainwashed. Sooner or later, he too may leave the nest - start thinking for himself.
Lookout truly believes tw is insane.
You ain't the only one. :lol2:
lookout123 still denies that stock brokers underperform the market.
No, Lookout has dealt with that issues multiple times. TW the coward fuckstick refuses to engage in conversation about the issue because he is an obvious liar. But thanks for playing.
No, Lookout has dealt with that issues multiple times. TW the coward fuckstick refuses to engage in conversation about the issue because he is an obvious liar. But thanks for playing.
Well ask Radar, he knows all the answer that tw does not know.:headshake
I thought Radar was tw's puppet or vice versa - oh well, whatever.
No, classicman, they are distinct. Radar's eccentric and bullheaded and interested in politics, and you've nailed him as a narcissist; tw is an embarrassment to any cause he espouses and completely untalented at politics, not even to that minimum of being able to get people to enjoy contact with him -- and may be a narcissist. These flaws and communication styles aren't similar enough to posit a single individual behind these two identities.
How many desperate people have wondered in print here if I might be some other Cellarite playing some inscrutable game? They've all had to give the idea up. They tried to find the mask, and what they found was my real face.
In what way would wondering if you are someone else in disguise, mean that someone was desperate?
This is a message board UG. You are not a cold war spy.
Hey - UG - I was being facetious - get it? a joke, ya know humor.... Oh nevermind.
This is a message board UG. You are not a cold war spy.
UG has a problem differentiating a 'gap' from his 'core'.
June 12, 2008
Losing the Information War with Amendment 56
By Lance Fairchok
The Democrats are angry. Despite investing enormous effort undermining the military, things are going fairly well in Iraq. General Petraeus and the surge have been a success, not that you would know that from the media coverage, which has been, to say the least, sparse. The anti-Bush themes of an "Iraqi quagmire" and "surge failure" were premature, and all the congressional show hearings, the choreographed Code Pink performance art and the MoveOn.org smears were for naught. The president and the military did it right, and the Democrats got it wrong.
Now it's time for Democrats to change the subject, to distract the public, to pretend the dire predictions and the hysterics were about something else entirely, and hope the short memory of the electorate kills the issue by November.
It's also time for a little vengeance on the Pentagon.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/losing_the_information_war_wit_1.htmlPetraeus got it right, but his predecessors did not.
Iraq's "freedom fighters" have used us to help rid themselves of the violent, oppressive, bastards, that call themselves AlQuida, but still are a long way from finding common ground with each other. A lengthy, and bloody, civil war is still a good possibility.
None of this changes the fact that Bush was wrong to leave Afghanistan twisting in the wind, to run off and start another war, especially under false pretenses.
General Petraeus and the surge have been a success, not that you would know that from the media coverage, which has been, to say the least, sparse.
If so successful, then where is this political settlement? What is the purpose of war? Taking and solving that conflict in a negotiated settlement. Petraeus' success is tactical - as he predicted. Petraeus (and the US) cannot create a strategic solution - again as he predicted.
These basic military concepts have been explained repeatedly. What Petraeus has accomplished - a tactical success - is what the US Army also accomplished in Nam. US Army won most every battle and lost the war. Numerous tactical successes without a strategic success - that was Nam. As the 1965 book "Making of a Quagmire" demonstrates, a strategic success was not possible in Nam.
If Petraeus has achieved a strategic victory, then where is that political settlement? Or where is that political settlement ongoing? Various factions realign themselves while major Iraqi powers keeping their ammo stored and dry. When Sahdr says to lay low, then suddenly America is winning? When Sadr's Mahdi Army goes offensive for maybe a month, then suddenly America casualties increase to pre- surge numbers. So America is winning only because Sadr's Mahdi Army is waiting to take power? How is that a victory? Its not for the same reason that ‘light did not exist at the end of that tunnel’.
Petraeus achieved tactical success as predicted; but not a strategic victory. No military victory exists when the purpose of war - to take a dispute to the negotiation table - is not happening. Nobody is negotiating with Maliki. Major Iraqi forces are bidding time until time to strike (to take power) is ripe.
Concepts never taught to enlistedmen. Concepts learned in history from virtually every previous war including Nam. Petraeus stated same before the 'surge' began. He (and the US) cannot achieve a strategic victory. He can only achieve tactical success; make a strategic solution possible.
Those who never learned these basic military concepts have confused tactical success with a military victory. Deja vue Nam. Confusing tactical and strategic success resulted in body counts, "The Boys in Company C", and "we have met the enemy and he is us". No political solution means no military victory.
Furthermore - no phase four planning also means no military victory. "America does not do nation building" - the wacko extremist mantra - means no phase four planning was possible. Just another reason why strategic victory is not possible AND why a justified war in Afghanistan was also being lost.
If so successful, then where is this political settlement? What is the purpose of war? Taking and solving that conflict in a negotiated settlement. Petraeus' success is tactical - as he predicted. Petraeus (and the US) cannot create a strategic solution - again as he predicted.
These basic military concepts have been explained repeatedly. What Petraeus has accomplished - a tactical success - is what the US Army also accomplished in Nam. US Army won most every battle and lost the war. Numerous tactical successes without a strategic success - that was Nam. As the 1965 book "Making of a Quagmire" demonstrates, a strategic success was not possible in Nam.
If Petraeus has achieved a strategic victory, then where is that political settlement? Or where is that political settlement ongoing? Various factions realign themselves while major Iraqi powers keeping their ammo stored and dry. When Sahdr says to lay low, then suddenly America is winning? When Sadr's Mahdi Army goes offensive for maybe a month, then suddenly America casualties increase to pre- surge numbers. So America is winning only because Sadr's Mahdi Army is waiting to take power? How is that a victory? Its not for the same reason that ‘light did not exist at the end of that tunnel’.
Petraeus achieved tactical success as predicted; but not a strategic victory. No military victory exists when the purpose of war - to take a dispute to the negotiation table - is not happening. Nobody is negotiating with Maliki. Major Iraqi forces are bidding time until time to strike (to take power) is ripe.
Concepts never taught to enlistedmen. Concepts learned in history from virtually every previous war including Nam. Petraeus stated same before the 'surge' began. He (and the US) cannot achieve a strategic victory. He can only achieve tactical success; make a strategic solution possible.
Those who never learned these basic military concepts have confused tactical success with a military victory. Deja vue Nam. Confusing tactical and strategic success resulted in body counts, "The Boys in Company C", and "we have met the enemy and he is us". No political solution means no military victory.
Furthermore - no phase four planning also means no military victory. "America does not do nation building" - the wacko extremist mantra - means no phase four planning was possible. Just another reason why strategic victory is not possible AND why a justified war in Afghanistan was also being lost.
What the hell is wrong with you? No personal attacks? you are slipping... no "TheMercenary
this bla, bla, bla..., no "TheMercenary
that bla, bla, bla..., you really should go back to making mail bombs Ted, Tom, or whatever your name is...
June 12, 2008
Losing the Information War with Amendment 56
By Lance Fairchok
The Democrats are angry. Despite investing enormous effort undermining the military, things are going fairly well in Iraq. General Petraeus and the surge have been a success, not that you would know that from the media coverage, which has been, to say the least, sparse. The anti-Bush themes of an "Iraqi quagmire" and "surge failure" were premature, and all the congressional show hearings, the choreographed Code Pink performance art and the MoveOn.org smears were for naught. The president and the military did it right, and the Democrats got it wrong.
Now it's time for Democrats to change the subject, to distract the public, to pretend the dire predictions and the hysterics were about something else entirely, and hope the short memory of the electorate kills the issue by November.
It's also time for a little vengeance on the Pentagon.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/losing_the_information_war_wit_1.html
"It seems predictable that the Democrat controlled Congress would pass legislation to further hamstring our military while passing other legislation providing yet another layer of insulation for media who might use anonymous sources to betray our country with publication of classified material. Perhaps we should force legislation to prevent Congress from engaging in propaganda, which could be roughly defined as whatever you might hear when Nancy Pelosi opens her mouth." madmax
What the hell is wrong with you? No personal attacks?
Again TheMercenary posts mockery to avoid reality. No strategic objective means no victory. Deja vue Nam. The US won most every battle - tactical victories. But lost the war. Why? As the Pentagon Papers and a long list of other sources make so obvious - no strategic victory means an unwinnable war. "A Bright and Shining Lie" should one choose to learn from history.
Military operation must move the conflict to a negotiating table. When the US went to that Paris negotiating table, Le Duc Tho even provided Kissinger with N Vietnam's secret assessments of the future. US had no strategic objective. The Vietnamese objective was clear, obvious, and (we now know) took less time than even the North estimated. Vietnamese objective was reunification of their nation. America's were body counts, 'search and destroy', etc - nothing that creates a strategic victory.
Too complex for TheMercenary is Petraeus's statements. He can achieve tactical victory. America cannot achieve a strategic victory. Worse, Iraq's government wants to reassess their entire American agreement. Not negotiations with various insurgents - the many parties in that civil war. Instead, Maliki's government wants to limit the Americans. America's objectives are not consistent with an Iraqi solution. No viable strategic objective? So where is this light at the end of a tunnel? From the NY Times of 13 Jun 2008:
... talks with the United States on a new long-term security pact were deadlocked because of U.S. demands that infringed Iraq's sovereignty.
"... we found that the U.S. demands hugely infringe on the sovereignty of Iraq, and this we can never accept," Maliki said ...
The United States and Iraq are negotiating a new agreement to provide a legal basis for U.S. troops to stay in Iraq after Dec. 31, when their United Nations mandate expires, as well as a separate long-term agreement on political, economic and security ties between the two countries.
Not discussed is a fundamental definition of victory in "Mission Accomplished". Not discussed in those negotiations and completely ignored by TheMercenary. Well published facts that TheMercenary has difficulty grasping. TheMercenary confuses tactical victory with military victory. That difference why armies have officers who better understand the difference.
As one Captain said (quoted in network news broadcasts), "I can win every battle but cannot win this war". He is officer material; understands why an army can win every battle and still lose the war. No strategic objectives, means no strategic victory, means "no light at the end of the tunnel". Deja vue Nam - or why TheMercenary cannot challenge let alone understand the concept. But then TheMercenary always attacks the messenger when reality contradicts his political agenda. No wonder he loves the mental midget president. Birds of a feather ...
TheMercenary ...bla, bla, bla....TheMercenary...bla, bla, bla....TheMercenary...bla, bla, bla, bla ...TheMercenary...TheMercenary ....TheMercenary ....TheMercenary......bla, bla
I knew you couldn't resist. Way to go. Did you actually say something of importance?:headshake
blah blah blah
And again the concept of military victory is too complex for one who worships George Jr. So TheMercenary. What color is George Jr's feather of the day? Do you wait for Rush Limbaugh to tell you or do they fax you the schedule?
Strategic objective? Too complex for extremists is even a simplest question: When do we go after bin Laden? No wonder 'strategic objective' is so difficult for TheMercenary - who even lied about his service record.
bla...TheMercenary...bla, bla, bla...TheMercenary - who even lied about his service record.
Like I said there Willis, put up or shut up. So far you have produced no response. Should I consider that a weak attempt at a personal attack?:eek: :D
Should I consider that a weak attempt at a personal attack?
tw now duplicates how TheMercenary routinely posted.
It was only one paragraph. TheMercenary can only understand sound bytes. Typical of anyone so dumb as to still openly support George Jr, extremism, and fear a simplest question: When do we go after bin Laden? Why does TheMercenary fear to answer that question? Oh. Rush Limbaugh has not yet told him how to respond.
Yes, so dumb as to not apologize for supporting the scumbag president. So anti-social as to even approve of torture and Guantanamo. Well documented facts about someone who even lied about his service record. Funny how lies and extremism go hand in hand. Funny how such people cannot read beyond one paragraph. It was one paragraph. So TheMercenary almost understood it. Could George Jr also understand it. Birds of a feather …
Again TheMercenary still cannot grasp something taught in Military Science 101 - strategic objective and the purpose of war. So his ignorance is not exposed in replies, TheMercenary attacks on the messenger. He has no grasp of basic military concepts ... just like George Jr. TheMercenary: can you even name the countries adjacent to Israel? George Jr couldn't.
TheMercenary - who even lied about his service record.…
Come on tw. You said it, answer it. Put up or shut up.:3_eyes:
Come on tw. You said it, answer it. Put up or shut up.
Posted as TheMercenary does. Supporting facts need not be posted. Accusations are sufficient. Posted by me is far more proof than TheMercenary posts. Meanwhile, TheMercenary lied about his service record. But then lying is situation normal for those who worship George Jr - who have no idea what is necessary to win a war.
How curious. You again avoid discussing what is necessary to win a war so that others will not see how ignorant you really are. Not just a personal attack. Also a fact.
honest question tw: why do you think anyone should take you seriously when all you do is throw allegations without providing any support for your position?
honest question tw: why do you think anyone should take you seriously when all you do is throw allegations without providing any support for your position?
Look in the mirror you scumbag lover.
At least I post supporting facts. You admit to being lost in the very first paragraph. You admit to only understanding sound byte logic. What? You don't like reading posts that only mirror what you and UG post routinely? Well, you still refuse to discuss what is necessary to win a war. Why? If you discuss it, then everyone will learn your knowledge only comes from a political agenda - not from an education.
But again, only posting in the same tone used by TheMercenary - well known lover of a dic licking president. Why mention that? Because only the dumbest people could still supporting the mental midget. Just another metric of TheMercenary's intelligence.
Look in the mirror you scumbag lover.
...known lover of a dic licking president.
...only the dumbest people...
...the mental midget.
Rather interesting for one who claims not to post insults.
Pot - Kettle : Kettle - Pot
Look in the mirror you scumbag lover.
Is that an insult?
TheMercenary - who even lied about his service record.…
Come on tw, answer the question. You said it, now put up or shut up.
At least I post supporting facts.
where? cite? no? maybe just a hint about what thread it was in then?
You admit to being lost in the very first paragraph. You admit to only understanding sound byte logic.
? where did this happen?
you are such a rancid little cunt of a liar, tw. wipe the spittle from your chin.
TheMercenary lied about his service record.
Please tell us where he lied - Thats a hell of an accusation to make without and supporting proof.
[COLOR="White"]...[/COLOR]
TW did post some basic facts that were true. The US did win every major battle in Vietnam but did lose the war. I cannot verify his other claims, and some of his posts have a rant-like quality.
Merc, for his part actually took an earlier post and quoted himself, which seems odd. Also a bit high on the rant-o-meter.
All in all, the last dozen posts have a high noise-to-content ratio with a big dose of spin and paranoia from both sides.
It's a nice warmup for the fall elections.:blah:
TW did post some basic facts that were true. The US did win every major battle in Vietnam but did lose the war. I cannot verify his other claims, and some of his posts have a rant-like quality.
Merc, for his part actually took an earlier post and quoted himself, which seems odd. Also a bit high on the rant-o-meter.
All in all, the last dozen posts have a high noise-to-content ratio with a big dose of spin and paranoia from both sides.
It's a nice warmup for the fall elections.:blah:
The only reason I quoted myself is that I felt is was a continuation of a chain of related thoughts which may stimulate some conversation with individuals who were interested in the subject. There was no other intent.:rolleyes:
TW did post some basic facts that were true. The US did win every major battle in Vietnam but did lose the war. I cannot verify his other claims, and some of his posts have a rant-like quality.
Which ones do you have doubts about?
tw long and accurate claims about the myths and lies justifying "Mission Accomplshed" also appears to be rants. Today we know it was all true. Which part is unconfirmed?
Please tell us where TheMercenary lied - Thats a hell of an accusation to make without any supporting proof.
You seem to keep missing this Tom. Please answer or recant & apologize. You can bitch, insult and name call all you want, but when you question a veterans service record you BETTER back it up.
Again, answer or recant & apologize.
Your lack of response is proving other's case against you.
Tw is feared only by tw. Tw's self-justificatory attempts impress only tw. Tw is taking to speaking of tw in the third person.
It should -- again -- be pointed out that tw does not want us to win the GWOT. I explicitly asked him if he really wanted us to win the war about half a dozen times over the past eighteen to twenty-four months. There was no answer, affirmative or negative; tw confined himself to carping irresponsibly about our nation doing, apparently, anything at all to trouble the foe. Talk about being afraid! -- I saw it then.
Personally, I slap tw into accesses of jealous rage routinely. I'm the good man he'd like to be, but can't, owing to his developmental history. I managed to badger him into confessing he himself had never been in the military.
[COLOR="White"]...[/COLOR]
nice!
I'll be here all week. Try the veal!
Again, answer or recant & apologize.
Good Americans stand up for the troops. Good Americans ask fundamental and simple questions such as "When do we go after bin Laden?" Any good American with respect for the American soldier asked those questions long ago. Does classicman? Where?
Where were you when good Americans were standing up for the troops? Where were you when George Jr was lying about WMDs, violating most every basic military concept, sending American soldiers uselessly to death, making the American soldier a target for 5+ years by disbanding the Iraqi army and police, proclaiming "America does not do nation building", and even putting injured soldiers n disgusting treatment programs including Walter Reed? Where were you when soldiers were even denied basic medical treatment for the many physical and psychological wounds? Oh. classicman remained silent - would not even apologize for such contempt.
classicman avoids a simple question by posting accusations. Tell us why you fear to ask a simple patriotic question. Why so much contempt for the American soldier as to avoid that question and advocate more deaths? Do you routinely side with George Jr's lies and half truths? Why so much contempt for the American soldier as to side routinely with TheMercenary and UG? Do you also have so little respect for the American soldier as to advocate more torture, extraordinary rendition, and imprisonment without judicial review? These are advocated by TheMercenary, et al due to, in part, contempt for the American soldier. Do you also have that same contempt?
Estimates suggest that 25% of self proclaimed American veterans never served. Lying is routine among those who huff and puff their military credentials; who routinely advocate military solutions; who fear talking to our enemies; who also support lying presidents.
Where was classicman when it came time to stand up for the American soldier? Instead, he defends a mental midget? That is contempt for the American soldier. So contemptible as to require an apology. Shame on you classicman for even denying that contempt.
Ironic how you don't like it when tw replies using those same personal attacks. Too bad you scumbag president lover. Oh. Did you join UG fighting the Russians during Desert Storm? Yes, he also made that claim. He is someone that classicman agrees with?
No wonder some use personal attacks. Posting, TheMercenary style, is easier when supporting facts need not be provided. Screw the Cellar that should now become a hotbed of personal attacks. A George Jr worshipper demonstrates contempt for the American solider by not asking one simple question, "When do we go after bin Laden?"
Sorry Tom, that game has gotten very old. No diversionary tactics - no changing the subject. Please remain on topic - Where is your proof, Tom? You made an unfounded accusation - either back it up or STFU.
You can attack me later. Lets finish this subject first - ok?
Prove where Themercenary lied about his service record or apologize - just like any real man would do.
BTW - that was a very nice post although about 80% of the accusations about me were wrong too.
You made an unfounded accusation - either back it up or STFU.
You would again turn accurate statements into a pissing contest. classicman, when you do show responsibility and respect for the American soldier. Ask what an intelligent American adult would routinely ask, "When do we go after bin Laden?"
You would instead side with and post like TheMercenary? I thought you were smarter. TheMercenary cannot and therefore does not attempt to defend himself. So why are you his attack dog? Oh. You cannot miss any opportunity to denigrate another? Well, that is the point. Some people, especially George Jr supporters, only understand personal attacks - in Rush Limbaugh tradition.
At what point do you finally demonstrate integrity? Ask what any decent person would ask, "When do we go after bin Laden?" I thought you might be smarter than that. Replies are now in a tone that you understand - personal attack.
Surprise me. Demonstrate a shred of intelligence and integrity. Define George Jr for what he really is. Ask that simple question that George Jr supporters (TheMercenary and UG) fear to ask. Show some respect for the American soldier. Deal with the issues rather than attack another. A simple question that exposes the uneducated (and therefore George Jr supporters) such as TheMercenary.
The game is not old. Now wonder you do it so often. Enjoyable is posting as you and TheMercenary routinely do. You don't like it? Why then would you post like TheMercenary and UG? A socially responsible classicman would instead criticize those who routinely reply with personal attacks. Why do you routinely side with and post like UG and TheMercenary? Are you also a wacko extremist? Its not getting old. Its only confronting extremists with what someone should have done long ago - replies duplicating what they normally do.
I have chosen only the side of the truth - that is my goal here - but alas another diversion attempted by you and refuted again by me - Please try to focus & stay on topic.
Integrity??? What a surreal challenge, coming from you- You made a claim, back it up! That would demonstrate your integrity, Tom Welch - Please don't question mine simply because I asked you to verify your claim. Just provide the proof you claim to have and we'll all be able to move on.
Another diversion will not change the subject nor the apparent reality that you are seemingly a liar. If that is not true - provide proof. It seems so simple that even a layman like me can understand it - surely an electrical engineer like yourself should be able to do so as well.
Am I somehow being unclear in what I am asking of you? If so, please let me know and I'll try to clarify it for you.
Your last post had nothing to do with you backing up your claim that TheMercenary lied about his service record - either put up or shut up - seems pretty simple. You can write a 2000 word post on virtually anything, but when asked to back it up with facts - - - silence...
Why is that? The simple answer seems to be that there is no proof. That would call into question much of what you claim.
Accurate statements, tw? You do not issue accurate statements. Your most inaccurate statements are your claims to be some description of patriot. Sorry. Though the only thing I'm sorry about is how incapable you are of redemption or improvement. It is a sad spectacle. You're out of your depth in politics, and watching you try and do politics is like watching a thalidomide case playing the bagpipes. You are particularly out of your depth in the political question of when, whether, and how to replace nondemocracy with genuine democracy.
Hell, your memory about what I've said isn't exactly steel-trap. It's now a matter of Cellar record that you've exaggerated my length of service and underestimated my promotions -- there are many who can tell you the difference between a Petty Officer First Class and a corporal. And your source of information was me.
You do not want, and never did want, the American military to succeed in the endeavor made necessary by 9/11. You're transparent as glass, and we're not taking your ideas in any fashion, let alone taking them seriously.
Originally Posted by tw
TheMercenary lied about his service record.
Please tell us where he lied - Thats a hell of an accusation to make without and supporting proof.
Come on tw. I am still waiting for you to prove this claim.
You would again turn accurate statements into a pissing contest. classicman, when you do show responsibility and respect for the American soldier. Ask what an intelligent American adult would routinely ask, "When do we go after bin Laden?"
You would instead side with and post like TheMercenary? I thought you were smarter. TheMercenary cannot and therefore does not attempt to defend himself. So why are you his attack dog? Oh. You cannot miss any opportunity to denigrate another? Well, that is the point. Some people, especially George Jr supporters, only understand personal attacks - in Rush Limbaugh tradition.
At what point do you finally demonstrate integrity? Ask what any decent person would ask, "When do we go after bin Laden?" I thought you might be smarter than that. Replies are now in a tone that you understand - personal attack.
Surprise me. Demonstrate a shred of intelligence and integrity. Define George Jr for what he really is. Ask that simple question that George Jr supporters (TheMercenary and UG) fear to ask. Show some respect for the American soldier. Deal with the issues rather than attack another. A simple question that exposes the uneducated (and therefore George Jr supporters) such as TheMercenary.
The game is not old. Now wonder you do it so often. Enjoyable is posting as you and TheMercenary routinely do. You don't like it? Why then would you post like TheMercenary and UG? A socially responsible classicman would instead criticize those who routinely reply with personal attacks. Why do you routinely side with and post like UG and TheMercenary? Are you also a wacko extremist? Its not getting old. Its only confronting extremists with what someone should have done long ago - replies duplicating what they normally do.
No where in this post have you been able to support your claim:
Originally Posted by tw
TheMercenary lied about his service record.
I have more than 20 years of honorable service and the documents to back it up. Your blanket statements dishonor hundreds of thousands of people who have served our nation. Please back up your statement or STFU.
I can't believe the number of other Cellar Dwellers you just sit by and accept this kind of statement from tw.
Thanks to classicman for stepping up to the plate.
I can't believe the number of other Cellar Dwellers you just sit by and accept this kind of statement from tw.
I can't speak for anyone else, but this mud fight is not something I'm interested in joining.
I think rich got it right.
All in all, the last dozen posts have a high noise-to-content ratio with a big dose of spin and paranoia from both sides.
As seen on bumper stickers and fridge magnets everywhere:
Never argue with an idiot; people watching may not be able to tell the difference.
here's the deal Merc. TW has been around since the dawn of the cellar, which coincidentally was the same day his mom got him a laptop. He's always been out in leftfield from what I've seen, although I do wonder what he posted about before 2000. His erratic insanity has become more apparent over the last couple years, but within the last few months he has genuinely blown a circuit I think. The dude is nuts. He isn't worth arguing with. Yeah, I know I do it, but it is for my own entertainment at this point. Don't take anything he says seriously, it's all BS.
I didn't take his bait about your service because it is too ridiculous to argue about. Most guys who lie about their service just do it to make quick points in an argument and then disappear when questions come up. TW is a liar, we all know it, so there really isn't any point in arguing over his obvious lies and insults.
Glatt, I agree with your discomfort about the use of TW's whole name. I think that was a reaction to TW's claim that he knows the truth about other dwellars lives. Not an excuse, but somewhat understandable. Glad to see Classic has chosen to drop that line of attack.
All said and done TW is just a target now. Use him for practice. He has been shown to be a liar. He frequently posts insults but freaks out when someone throws it back at him. (Apparently his mom forgot to teach him that what goes around comes around). When is the last time a dwellar actually read his post without an expectation of insanity? Take it with a grain of salt and a laugh.
I'm just going to apologize in this thread too - I apologize.
I'm done wasting my time with him. Sorry everyone.
here's the deal Merc. TW has been around since the dawn of the cellar, which coincidentally was the same day his mom got him a laptop. He's always been out in leftfield from what I've seen, although I do wonder what he posted about before 2000. His erratic insanity has become more apparent over the last couple years, but within the last few months he has genuinely blown a circuit I think. The dude is nuts. He isn't worth arguing with. Yeah, I know I do it, but it is for my own entertainment at this point. Don't take anything he says seriously, it's all BS.
I didn't take his bait about your service because it is too ridiculous to argue about. Most guys who lie about their service just do it to make quick points in an argument and then disappear when questions come up. TW is a liar, we all know it, so there really isn't any point in arguing over his obvious lies and insults.
Glatt, I agree with your discomfort about the use of TW's whole name. I think that was a reaction to TW's claim that he knows the truth about other dwellars lives. Not an excuse, but somewhat understandable. Glad to see Classic has chosen to drop that line of attack.
All said and done TW is just a target now. Use him for practice. He has been shown to be a liar. He frequently posts insults but freaks out when someone throws it back at him. (Apparently his mom forgot to teach him that what goes around comes around). When is the last time a dwellar actually read his post without an expectation of insanity? Take it with a grain of salt and a laugh.
Good advice. I will just drop it and move on.
Glatt, I agree with your discomfort about the use of TW's whole name. I think that was a reaction to TW's claim that he knows the truth about other dwellars lives.
Absolutely. I think tw was trying to prove some sort of a point by going personal lately. Trying to get some sort of reaction. Maybe play the victim.
Fuckhim. i don't mind his tinfoil hat, wearing, ridiculous encyclopedic posting, but I'm just tired of the lies, that is why I personally will take every dig at him I can. I don't mind disagreements in factual interpretation, I hate the willful lies and misdirection.
I don't mind disagreements in factual interpretation, I hate the willful lies and misdirection.
If you hate lies, then why support the mental midget's political agenda? Funny thing about all those lies from tw. They ended up being truth.
If you hate lies, then why support the mental midget's political agenda? Funny thing about all those lies from tw. They ended up being truth.
You are full of crap tw. You speak bull with forked tongue. Increase your meds.
I think tw was trying to prove some sort of a point by going personal lately. Trying to get some sort of reaction. Maybe play the victim.
He's been trying exactly that: he's making these sniveling pleas to Undertoad about how I'm benefiting from a "double standard" that lets me, well, annoy him, without getting banned. I don't know if he's been trying this with anyone else -- I presume I'm just the most obvious example.
Hey, from what I can see I think tw's thinking is typical of the hard Left. Look at the recent MoveOn.org ad against McCain -- it exemplifies the Left's extremity of cowardice, and their utter incapacity in fighting the fascist Ba'athists and other undemocratic, unfree, woman-abusing groups of nasties. Such are our foes, you know. They don't seem much of an improvement over the long-extinct worshippers of Baal with their infant sacrifices. You'd think the Liberal-Left would be against that kind of woman-abusing, but so long as it's a Republican in the Oval Office, no
oooo! Seems they want to impeach him for conducting foreign policy while being a Republican, and for trying to win a war started by foreign aggressors by the intelligent strategic approach of leaving them no sanctuary to retreat to. Nuts and crazymen, all of them.
You are full of crap tw.
So a shitface is an expert on crap. TheMercenary - how would you know. You did not even get an education.
Hey, from what I can see I think tw's thinking is typical of the hard Left.
Same UG who openly advocates torture by denying it was torture, then denied it was authorized by those he worships. Senate investigators have traced requests for torture to the highest levels of George Jr administration. These are people that UG admires?
SCOTUS Grants Guantanamo Prisoners Habeas Corpus ... officials began assembling lists of harsh interrogation techniques in the summer of 2002 for use on detainees at Guantanamo Bay and that those officials later cited memos from field commanders to suggest that the proposals originated far down the chain of command,
How does UG reconcile his morality with his love of torture? How does he explain that extremist (like UG) advocated torture in 2002 and then lied about who instituted it in Guantanamo, Abu Ghriad, and in secret torture prisons throughout the world? He doesn't. UG rewrites history.
So who also advocated torture? Who also agrees with UG's versions of morality? Nazis. Religious extremists (Jewish, Christian, and Islamic). N Vietnamese prison guards. African dictators. Papa and Baby Doc Duvailer. Serbian ethnic cleansers such as Milosevik. Saddam. Interesting are those who think just like Urbane Guerrilla.
So a shitface is an expert on crap. TheMercenary - how would you know. You did not even get an education.
How would you know?
Now prove this claim:
Originally Posted by tw
TheMercenary lied about his service record.
Put up or STFU.
pssst:
[stage whisper]
no one believes it. stop giving credence to his untruthful insults by responding to them. do not justify them by acknowledging them.
I'm just sayin...
[/stage whisper]
You're right. I guess it is best to hit the old igore button.
Eventually throwing money at the rich to make an economy look good; permitting off sheet entities and other free form spread sheet games; now the government is offering free money to more and more comers. A discount window once open to investment banks will now be open to insurance companies? This is socialism as we should expect from extremist politician who always work for themselves – not in the interests of America.
By Monday morning, you should know Merrill Lynch is gone - a victim of a liquidity crisis. Lehman Bros is in such bad shape that no one is willing to buy them. And AIG - the biggest insurance company - has just gone begging to the Fed for money because, well, it has been obvious for at least five years that their accounting sucked.
Meanwhile, the FDIC (who insure your back accounts) has also quietly discusses a government cash extension. Legg Mason has been added to a list of companies maybe on the verge. Auto loan companies are rumored to now be suffering from non-performing car loans. And of course another anti-American company (who has obviously been playing spread sheet games for decades while stifling innovation) GM keeps suggesting it will beg for government money.
As Cheney said, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter". It has been noted many times here. These ponzi schemes that made the economy look good eventually cause economic forces to take revenge. The fiscal mismanagement of four and seven years ago is now resulting in an appropriate response.
Why is the economy not in free fall? It would have been if this was 1920 economics. But we have numerous safety nets. Many if not most are now in operation. For example, something over 700 American banks have failed. It is no loner certain how many mortgages are non-performing. Something like one in three in California may be on the verge of default.
More obviously encouraged were money games by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They too have been legally buying politicians to get a slice of the free money
Only the strong survive - isn't that how it is in the real world? Perhaps we are cleaning up a bloated mess and will be left with only those that should have been around.
Hell lets get rid of GM too while we're at it.
Only the strong survive - isn't that how it is in the real world? Perhaps we are cleaning up a bloated mess and will be left with only those that should have been around.
Merrill Lynch customers can thank Bank of America for saving their investments from a similar glaring disaster called Lehman Bros. But again, every such problem is directly traceable to spread sheet accounting that perverts those spread sheets to claim profits. Good companies know the purpose of a company is its products. Bad (or for those who need to see things in religious terms) or evil companies foolishly think the purpose of a company is its profits. George Jr and the extremists he fronts for agree with the latter.
Companies that chase profits rather than better products must eventually use spread sheet games to claim profits. GM has been doing that for decades. When the employee retires, his pension fund is supposed to be fully funded. To claim profits, GM stopped funding those pension funds. Now GM claims legacy costs - an unfair advantage. GM forgets to mention that no profits existed through 1990s and early 2000s if GM had been properly funding those pension funds. But again, money games because too many foolishly think the only purpose of a company is its profits.
Under George Jr (especially obvious with his SEC commission Harvey Pitts), spread sheet games were openly encouraged. It makes an economy work better - according to the evil ones. Now the government must bail out companies who also pay those executives multi-hundred $million termination bonuses.
See why Chrysler is probably in trouble. Same executive that was slowly driving Home Depot under was given $200million to leave. Now he is doing same for Chrysler. His job as described to me by another (drunk) executive who was doing the same thing. "___ makes the spread sheets say what they must say." ____ was his accountant.
Only the strong survive - isn't that how it is in the real world? Perhaps we are cleaning up a bloated mess and will be left with only those that should have been around.
Hell lets get rid of GM too while we're at it.
I'd support that. Let's close them out and go with Ford. They make a diesel that gets 60mpg in the UK. But we can't get that here becasue they don't think there is a market for it? Someone please give them a call because I would gladly pay $5/gallon for gas if my car got 60mpg.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_37/b4099060491065.htm?chan=autos_autos%20--%20lifestyle%20subindex%20page_top%20storiesApparently the outcry about George Jr's administration doing socialism for rich companies struck a nerve last week. From the Wall Street Journal of 15 Sep 2008:
When Paulson called Wall Street CEOs Tuesday and Wednesday to inform them at his no-bailout stance, some argued to him that the government needed to structure a rescue like that of Bear Stearns Cos., according to people familiar with t he matter. To prevent Bear's collapse in March, the fed agreed to put up $30 billion to J P Morgan Chase & Co, the acquiring bank. The government also took on some of Bear's riskier assets. ...
Mr Paulson was also irked that Wall Street saw him as someone who would always ride to the rescue. And because Lehman's troubles have been known for a while, Mr Paulson felt the market had had time to prepare. Also, on Friday, federal officials monitoring talks to sell Lehman to Bank of America, which had started the day before, realized the big Charlotte NC bank would likely balk without federal backing. ...
Mr Paulson told the group it was in their interest to find a solution. "Everybody is exposed" to Lehman, Mr Paulson said ...
Why? Why would everyone do business with a firm that had financial statements that read like a black box? Nobody knew whether Lehman (and others) was fiscally stable for years. The same mentality that made home loans routinely to NINJA (no income, no job apparent) applicants also did business with anyone under the new philosophy of profit without considering risk; that the spread sheets need not be honest.
GM is worth $5billion. AIG (whose accounting has been speculated a black hole for maybe 5 years) attempted to raise capital through private sources. AIG could not. Nobody could trust AIG's financial reports. Despite the public outcry against corporate socialism and Paulson's warning, last weekend, AIG went begging to the government for $40billion. When will it end? When corporate executive start being removed in mass number for being so incompetent.
Merrill Lynch's CEO Stanley O'Neal was warned by his senior VP that O'Neal had created a massive subprime loan problem. Instead, the VP was fired. One year later, those financial myths became a threat to Merrill's existence almost 100 year existence. O'Neal was fired (with $hundreds of millions in bonuses). New CEO John Thain is credited with doing so much so quickly to save enough of Merrill as to make Merrill a useful purchase for Bank of America. By replacing the only problem in Merrill (Stanley O'Neal) with a responsible CEO, then Merrill Lynch account holders are not stuck in the mess that Lehman Bros clients are now suffering. Just another example of what had to be removed to fix the problem - top management.
Meanwhile, those who are the problem have finally heard the word. They, not the government, must fix the problem. In many cases, that means the CEO must be removed by overt threats of bankruptcy. Otherwise the employees lose their jobs. Merrill is a perfect example of what must be done to save those jobs and customer investments. Lehman and AIG are perfect examples of how ignorant and myopic CEOs are.
How did we save NYC? The New York Post said it on the front page. Ford to NY - drop dead. That is the only way to get the attention of narcissist and corrupt people.
Cheney cannot stop hyping hidden enemies everywhere. Fear still promotes loyalty from poorly educated wacko extremists. From the Washington Post of 8 Jan 2009:
The White House yesterday raised anew the possibility that North Korea has an active program to enrich uranium, an issue the administration had played down in recent years as it sought to persuade Pyongyang to give up its nuclear programs.
With just 12 days left in the Bush administration, national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley made the allegation in a speech reviewing the president's foreign policy legacy. ...
Administration officials said the new concerns were largely based on in-depth scientific analysis of enriched uranium traces that were discovered on smelted aluminum tubes and reactor documents that had been provided by North Korea in an effort to rebut allegations that it had a uranium program. The Defense Intelligence Agency in particular has pressed this case, backed by the vice president's office and some parts of the CIA, but the Energy Department has opposed it, officials said.
It reads like a list of the usual suspects. Those who *know* are the same liars who said Saddam had WMDs and that are politically allied to Cheney and other wacko extremists. The Energy Department was one source for facts that strongly disputed the 'Saddam WMD' myths. Also opposing those myths were many parts of the CIA that do not support the Cheney alarmism. The same Cheney supporters are still trying to incite war with North Korea. Instead look deeper at the facts.
David Albright, a former U.N. weapons inspector and president of the Institute for Science and International Security, said he had been briefed recently on the findings by government officials. He said "very few particles" had actually been discovered on the documents and the tubes, and that the DIA was basing its analysis on a single particle that, through age-dating techniques, was believed to be about 3 1/2 years old.
UN weapons inspectors were also a responsible agency that provided facts disputing George Jr's Saddam WMD intentional lies. But TheMercenary and other wackos will now use this to blame fails on Obama - as soon as Rush Limbaugh and Hannity tell him to.
Most important fact is not N Korea uranium. The most important fact is how pathetic American White House credibility has fallen. They keep inventing bogeymen while making no serious attempt to get bin Laden. Protect bin Laden and wacko extremists with low education will believe enemies are hiding everywhere waiting to destroy us. Wacko extremism is still alive and well; complete with hyping fears based only on a single particle.
Wacko extremists need lies to revive fears of the mythical axis of evil. Such lies get the least educated among us to vote for wacko extremists. N Korea is planning the destruction of America because a single particle was found. Same reasoning also proved Saddam had WMDs.
Cheney.....wacko extremists. ....Saddam had WMDs .....Cheney.....wacko extremists.....'Saddam WMD'....CIA .....Cheney .....Cheney....weapons inspectors....George Jr's .....TheMercenary......wackos......Rush Limbaugh.........American White House.......bin Laden......bin Laden......wacko extremists.......Wacko extremism......Wacko extremists......wacko extremists. .......Saddam had WMDs.
:lol2:
Wacko extremists need lies to revive fears of the mythical axis of evil. Such lies get the least educated among us to vote for wacko extremists.
Obama got an overwhelming percentage of this vote.
Do you really have a point here?
Obama got an overwhelming percentage of this vote.
Do you really have a point here?
Cite?
Or should I just post as you do - nothing to support your claims?
Did you joing the large numbers of higher educated Americans who voted for Obama?
Did you joing the large numbers of higher educated Americans who voted for Obama?
Is that a sentance?
Is that a sentance?
How would you know what a sent
ance is? That requires learning something other than Limbaugh insult techniques.
....Limbaugh.....
What about Bin Laden?
Cite?
Or should I just post as you do - nothing to support your claims?
Did you joing the large numbers of higher educated Americans who voted for Obama?
Based upon the exit polls. . .
Now before we go off on another tangent what was your original point? Because this one was flatly refuted.
Note* I don't think it matters either way, as we all have the right to vote and they are all counted irrespective of ones education.
they are all counted
Maybe. :haha:
Now before we go off on another tangent what was your original point? Because this one was flatly refuted.
And you completely ignored the question. Did you join the larger numbers of more intelligent people who voted for Obama? Why did you post irrelevant percentages. The question was whether you joined the more intelligent people who voted for Obama.
Meanwhile the original fact you have obfuscated was "Cheney cannot stop hyping hidden enemies everywhere." and then demonstrated by example. How strange that a factual post results in mocker by a scumbag like you.
Wacko extremists need lies to revive fears of the mythical axis of evil. Such lies get the least educated among us to vote for wacko extremists.
Your claim
Obama got an overwhelming percentage of this vote.
Do you really have a point here?
My response
Cite?
Or should I just post as you do - nothing to support your claims?
Did you joing the large numbers of higher educated Americans who voted for Obama?
Your rebuttal - **Note that there is no citation for your claim.**
Based upon the exit polls. . .
Now before we go off on another tangent what was your original point? Because this one was flatly refuted.
Note* I don't think it matters either way, as we all have the right to vote and they are all counted irrespective of ones education.
My response, with cites and even a chart.
And you completely ignored the question. Did you join the larger numbers of more intelligent people who voted for Obama? Why did you post irrelevant percentages. The question was whether you joined the more intelligent people who voted for Obama.
An attempt at diverting the real subject. and then as usual....
Meanwhile the original fact you have obfuscated was "Cheney cannot stop hyping hidden enemies everywhere." and then demonstrated by example. How strange that a factual post results in mocker by a scumbag like you.
...a personal attack.
Is it me? Is it really? Where in any of that is a personal attack on a poster? I repeatedly attack unsubstantiated claims, but not the poster. Nowhere in there is a personal attack - except by tw.
Your claim
My response
Then where is the answer to the question. Did you join the intelligent people in voting for Obama. Oh. You need to avoid that question with more nonsense?
Meanwhile the original fact you again obfuscate was "Cheney cannot stop hyping hidden enemies everywhere.". How strange that a factual post results in mockery. How strange that you avoid admiting that reality by instead accusing me. Why is your wife so ugly? Fair is fair. You don't want to stay on topic. Then I don't either.
Then where is the answer to the question. Did you join the intelligent people in voting for Obama. Oh. You need to avoid that question with more nonsense?
Meanwhile the original fact you again obfuscate was "Cheney cannot stop hyping hidden enemies everywhere.". How strange that a factual post results in mockery. How strange that you avoid admiting that reality by instead accusing me. Why is your wife so ugly? Fair is fair. You don't want to stay on topic. Then I don't either.
So now you are going to attack Classics wife. Nice.
Then where is the answer to the question.
That is exactly what classicman is asking. classicman laid it out for tw as plain as day and yet tw still has no response. Who classicman voted for is no ones business. We all know that tw does not care who classicman voted for nor was that tw's point.
Such lies get the least educated among us to vote for wacko extremists.
tw's point was clearly that only an uneducated person would have voted for McCain and statistics provided by classicman have flatly refuted that assumption.
How strange that a factual post results in mockery.
Cite - Show the mockery. Prove your point. You have again been called out and have no basis in truth nor proof for your claim - tw=FAIL
Why is your wife so ugly? Fair is fair. You don't want to stay on topic. Then I don't either.
tw must have classicman confused with someone else. classicman has repeatedly stayed on topic and tried to keep tw on topic as well. tw has chosen to attack my wife.
tw, I know your real name and what town you live in. Do not EVER mention my wife or family again. That is way outta line. Nothing I have said justifies this type of response.
