Re: make no mistake
Ken Gardner
>FOREIGN POLICY
>Operation Comeback
>By Joshua Muravchik
[...]
[Insert "Attention John Alway" here.]
Ken
Bill Carson
news:1163600940.3...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> FOREIGN POLICY
>
> Operation Comeback
> By Joshua Muravchik
>
>
> bomb Iran's nuclear facilities before leaving office. It is all but
> inconceivable that Iran will accept any peaceful inducements to abandon
> its drive for the bomb. Its rulers are religio-ideological fanatics who
> will not trade what they believe is their birthright to great power
> status for a mess of pottage. Even if things in Iraq get better, a
> nuclear-armed Iran will negate any progress there. Nothing will
> embolden terrorists and jihadists more than a nuclear-armed Iran."
>
> "The global thunder against Bush when he pulls the trigger will be
> deafening, and it will have many echoes at home...
This "resident scholar" lives in his own zip code. No American president,
especially Bush, would so boldly act against public will. The
administration didn't begun to lay the groundwork for such a policy even
before the withdrawal from terror party was elected.
The WOT withdrawal promoted by the new American congress will have to be
demonstrated a failure before voters commit to renew it against Iran.
Bill Carson
Puppet_Sock
[snip]
> The WOT withdrawal promoted by the new American congress will have to be
> demonstrated a failure before voters commit to renew it against Iran.
I am very much afraid you are correct.
This is an unpleasant thought. It means I will now have to prepare for
nuclear war. I'm getting too old for this shit. Oh well. Gonna need to
buy and prepare that land way-up-north. There was a pretty little
plot of land on the north shore of lake Superior. Quite cheap and
access to the highway. Probably the best I can do with what I've got.
Let me start making my shopping list.
Socks
Reggie Perrin
>
> On Nov 15, 7:33 am, Bill Carson <newsgro...@nobsys.net> wrote:
>> No American president,
>> especially Bush, would so boldly act against public will.
>
Impeachment?
x
x
x
x
x
Bill Carson
>> especially Bush, would so boldly act against public will.
>
Presidents value representative government more than their opinion,
especially Bush who's string of moderate compromises is without any
exception I'm aware of.
>
> The
>> administration didn't begun to lay the groundwork for such a policy even
>> before the withdrawal from terror party was elected.
>
> On the contrary, they've been doing little else. "See? All peaceful
> measures have failed."
I don't know what you're thinking. Attacking Iran has potential consequences
far beyond toppling some banana republic. There've been no campaigns for
military action, no organized media promotions, few if any specific
accusations, no specific threats, no consultations with congress, no
arm-twisting for regional leader support, no plans for managing fallout and
no public polling for congressional debate and authorization. Most, if not
all, that and then some happens first, and every bit leaks early.
>
>> The WOT withdrawal promoted by the new American congress will have to be
>> demonstrated a failure before voters commit to renew it against Iran.
>
> Who cares what *they* think?
Virtually every American politician highly values representative government.
That's why we're not shooting one another over this.
Bill Carson
Bob Vogel
Agent Cooper wrote:
> FOREIGN POLICY
>
> Operation Comeback
> By Joshua Muravchik
>
>
> "Prepare to Bomb Iran.
I don't think it'll happen. For starters, you've been prepping us for
about a year (or more) that something in Iran was imminent, and that
hasn't happened. Now you've moved the line back from the recent
mid-term elections to when Bush leaves office.
Also, Bush's confidence by now has been diminished by some of the worst
timing and judgement calls in the history of the presidency. Shit, he
even botched the firing of his defense secretary.
cr113
If wimpiness makes you a target you better leave Canada because you'll
get hit before the US does.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Atlas Bugged
news:1163606440.0...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> This is an unpleasant thought. It means I will now have to prepare for
> nuclear war. I'm getting too old for this shit.
LOL, that's some pretty funny stuff, Socks.
Seriously, though, not to worry, I have two words for you: Duct tape. Get
some Saran-wrap type plastic with it.
Oh, and I forgot, you can always duck underneath your desk.
potr...@gmail.com
.......
"Prepare to Bomb Iran. Make no mistake, President Bush will need to
bomb Iran's nuclear facilities before leaving office."
Buddy is living in a dream world.
A. Bush's hands are already tied in the mess in an unpopular war in
Iraq. Pullout is coming soon..
B. Unless some major terrorist activity occurs before his term ends....
it will be very difficult to win support for such a risky venture since
he's lost congress (which was effectively a referendum on the issue)
Now he's losing Blair, has no other allies in the world and heck even
the Neocons jumped ship. Dumping Rummy and taking on Gates should be a
very clear sign to you he's done with the stick.
C. No cowboy Republican has a chance in hell of winning a Presidency
next election. So pending an unforeseen calamity.....all out war seems
very unlike in the next few years.
D. But lets suppose one day Bush wakes up with a little extra
testosterone and decides to attack Iran (a dwindling possibility). Is
it likely in his current political position he'll use nukes or a
massive bombing campaign?
Of course not!!! Precision strikes if anything...... and those WON'T
WORK.
(Incidentally I did predict all of this to you way back when)
The US has been making the exact same mistakes Israel has been making
for 50-60 years. You antagonize them with occasional military ventures
but then you don't finish them off. I already know the reason for this
but you seem to be in some sort of denial.
You simply don't have the political clout to finish the job. Not
everyone has the stomach to be wholesale deathmongers without some sort
of proportionate attack first. Terrorism doesn't provide that and when
it eventually has enough firepower to do so... it will be too late.
So in the end you are only adding fuel to the fire with
unconstructive rhetoric and every year they grow a little stronger.
Even if Israel attacked Iran instead now.... it would still be a
halfassed job which won't do significant damage to their program but
will lose you even more political points.
So....
are you just going to keep making the same mistakes until they finally
detonate 50-100 nukes under your asses? You might wish to pretend you
know exactly what your doing but I hardly think so considering the
events 60 years ago. Are you going for a new record now because MAD
certainly won't work on someone that already thinks they're going to
heaven.
(and the Taliban will certainly survive in their plush caves)
IMHO what it comes down to AC is do you believe in the power of
philosophy or are you just one more shmoe that thinks dinky guns are
what ultimately decide matters?
Did you notice English language Al Jeezera recently? Why do you
think those TV stations are being funded so heavily? And who do you
think has gained political ground globally since 9/11..... Arabs or the
US/Israel?
The media route is really the only viable option I can see out of
this mess without major damage to you. If you keep reaching for your
peashooters when you should be reaching for ideology you are done for
sir. Israel has nukes and has even been attacked many many times... and
still it has not used them. What makes you think Americans will behave
any differently in the coming decades? After decades the pattern should
make it clear to you that there are no other easy "shortcuts" within
your political reach.
Islam needs to be detoxified just like Christianity and Judaism has
been.
However, to do so its clear something needs to appended to it or else
it won't work. For America it's the term "capitalism". Unfortunately I
don' t think that will work in the short term in the middle east. I
would therefore focus on bringing a great deal of media attention to
Islamic pacifists (ala Ghandhi). If you can turn Arab pacifists into
heroes.... then they then become celebrities worth emulating. Pacifists
are much more reasonable than jihadists. (or so I like to think :)
Or....
You just continue with your nightly "kill em all" rants against Islam
which have a long track record of accomplishing ......?????
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Bush doesn't want to go down in history as having defined the Axis of
> Evil and then proceeding to be defeated by each of them in turn.
> Frankly, if it doesn't happen now, I'll be really surprised. He had to
> demonstrate that every diplomatic avenue had been exhausted, and he had
> to get past the mid-term elections. He's done that. So in my book, it's
> any minute now. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but it definitely ain't over.
> Iran is still building nukes, still has the destruction of Israel as
> its policy, and Bush is still president. The midterms? That was then.
> This is now.
The Israelis will go in and do what we should have done. They will bomb
the Iranian bomb-works. That did it to Iraq in 1981, they will do it to
Iran in 2007.
Bob Kolker
Bob Vogel
potr...@gmail.com wrote:
> @AC
> .......
> "Prepare to Bomb Iran. Make no mistake, President Bush will need to
> bomb Iran's nuclear facilities before leaving office."
> .......
>
> Buddy is living in a dream world.
>
> A. Bush's hands are already tied in the mess in an unpopular war in
> Iraq. Pullout is coming soon..
Not only is pullout coming, but a, Iraqi civil war and subsequent
bloodbath is damned near inevitable, IMO, and it would have happened
*regardless of how long we stayed*. The only question is the scale of
the bloodletting that will occur when we leave.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/floyd/floyd39.html
>
> B. Unless some major terrorist activity occurs before his term ends....
> it will be very difficult to win support for such a risky venture
"Military adventurism" is the correct term, I believe. Either way, I
concur. Why open a potential third front when the other two are open
and one is festering like a sore?
> since
> he's lost congress (which was effectively a referendum on the issue)
> Now he's losing Blair, has no other allies in the world and heck even
> the Neocons jumped ship.
Which is too bad, because it's the rat fink neocons that brought us
here. I almost pity Bush.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Bob Vogel
Agent Cooper wrote:
> But consider: Bush's political career is over. He will never
> stand for election again. He has absolutely no personal stake in any
> particular candidate for 2008 because Cheney isn't running. He's very
> unlikely to be impeached (unless the Dems are really really stupid,
> which they're not--they want a slow bleed leading up to 2008, not a big
> explosion that inspires the public to think that they're too
> extreme--and they still need to deal with the "weak on defense"
> perception). His only concern now is with his legacy, and his only
> sphere of action is in foreign policy. Iraq and North Korea are lost.
> The only thing he has left is Iran. He needs a win.
I doubt he gets it your way. Why is Iraq a loss? Was it because we
occupied it for too long, or that we occupied it at all? Would a
bombing campaign without an occupation have sufficed to neutralze the
Iraqi "threat"? If not, what makes you think it would work with Iran?
Besides, I always thought that overconfidence was a liability, not an
asset, so if Iran is indeed overconfident, then why the rush to bomb?
But you are right, there is nothing legally stopping Bush from bombing
Iran, except for the political consequences at home ... it would ensure
a dem shoe-in in 2008, because the public (while it is well aware of a
continuing and very real terrorist threat) is tired of neocon foreign
policy.
Atlas Bugged
news:ejht5g$ah0$1...@victor.killfile.org...
> The Israelis will go in and do what we should have done. They will bomb
> the Iranian bomb-works. That did it to Iraq in 1981, they will do it to
> Iran in 2007.
I gotta go with Bob on this one. Bush has been wildly disappointing in any
and all public pronouncements regarding Iran. He has said everything wrong
*except* a ruling-out of an attack. Compare and contrast his public face on
this to the one he took prior to Iraq.
I do realize I have complained a lot about how he *didn't* do things he said
he would, and vice-versa. But he's built up quite a record of appeasement
by now. I'd be surprised to see that turn around on a dime.
Israel, on the other hand, had two soldiers kidnapped, then almost turned
lebanon into a crater in retaliation, that's in addition to Iraq '81, but
much more recent.
Once Israel makes her move, it will be moment-of-truth-time for *us*. I can
just see the Israeli PM getting up and making a speech, directed at the USA,
the essence of which is that you are either with Israel, or with the
terrorists.
Then we'll see, in a single blinding moment, whether the United States has
hopelessly lost all moral authority in foriegn affairs (which is what Bert
has suggested.)
It is indeed intolerable for the *world* to allow a nuclear-tipped Iran, but
I think the Israelis will easily see this as unequivocally clear.
Bill Carson
> On Nov 15, 11:36 am, Bob Vogel <bobvogel2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ... His only concern now is with his legacy, and his only
> sphere of action is in foreign policy. Iraq and North Korea are lost.
> The only thing he has left is Iran. He needs a win.
It looks like you're projecting issues brought to public attention about
Clinton's personality onto Bush. (I think it was Dick Morris that reported
a series of meetings actually took place manage Bill's legacy.) There's
little or no indication that Bush is such a narcissist, though every
successful politician has a touch of it. My read on him is that he's
unusually committed to principles behind his presidency and happy to let his
legacy ride on them. I think abandoning such a fundamental one as his
deference to popular support in order to manipulate his personal legacy,
placing it above all else, is uniquely Clintoneque and would be ridiculously
abhorrent to Bush.
But regarding that legacy, I think that for every failure an equal or
greater argument can be made for a success.
- Iraq? No Middle East democracy model (yet), but no longer a terrorist
supporting, WMD building, anti-American leadership state.
- Iran? Now the responsibility of Old Europe, Russia and China through the
UN, but still very out of control.
- North Korea? Boxed in with regional powers taking responsibility.
Bush pursued specific solutions for all three axis. His greatest failing is
his inability to consistently articulate them and manage their promotion.
If Democrats force an Iraqi withdrawal (unlikely), if the UN lets Iran go
nuclear and start destabilizing pro-Western neighbors (very likely) or if
Asia caves to North Korean nuclear blackmail (unlikely), they will more than
share Bush's blame. I think members of Bush administration are confident
that historical hindsight will clear the noise surrounding their legacy.
Bill Carson
>
> OK, I'll modify my prediction. Either Bush will bomb the shit out of
> Iran, or he will astonish everyone by announcing a Grand Bargain, going
> to Iran to hug and kiss Ahma. Peace in our time, they've agreed to
> dismantle voluntarily, etc. (Part of his Reagan Complex). I wouldn't
> dismiss that possibility, except that it is simply inconceivable that
> Iran will go for it. They are mind-bogglingly overconfident. Al
> Jazeera's (and no, I'm not under any misapprehension that Al Jazeera is
> an agent of Iran) page one story? A new day dawns in Congress because
> we've elected one Muslim to Congress. They're completely delusional.
>
> Bush doesn't want to go down in history as having defined the Axis of
> Evil and then proceeding to be defeated by each of them in turn.
> Frankly, if it doesn't happen now, I'll be really surprised. He had to
> demonstrate that every diplomatic avenue had been exhausted, and he had
> to get past the mid-term elections. He's done that. So in my book, it's
> any minute now. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but it definitely ain't over.
> Iran is still building nukes, still has the destruction of Israel as
> its policy, and Bush is still president. The midterms? That was then.
> This is now.
>
> OK, I'm going to shut up now, so that when it happens, I'm not accused
> of being a stopped clock.
Atlas Bugged
news:1163691869....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> But you are right, there is nothing legally stopping Bush from bombing
> Iran, except for the political consequences at home ... it would ensure
> a dem shoe-in in 2008, because the public (while it is well aware of a
> continuing and very real terrorist threat) is tired of neocon foreign
> policy.
The answer to this (quite realistic) observation is that a *real* war may
actually do the opposite of what the fake war (which I call a welfare
program) did, which was cause disaster in every way, including politically.
There is a logic to this, no?
A proper bombing campaign against Iran would yield basically zero loss of
troops and zillions less dollars-down-the-drain. The bang for buck would be
enormous, and there'd be virtually no American casualties. Only recently,
Israel inflicted enormous "collateral damage" on Lebanon, and the expected
political backlash has been surprisingly muted.
I believe a firm hand, hehe, laid upon Iran would also reverberate back into
Iraq, improving conditions there. Weaken Iran and you cut off a lot of the
terror money that makes Hamas and others tick.
Folks with conventional notions of left and right, conservative and liberal,
and so on (I won't mention any [KENKENKENKEN] names) ought to keep in mind
that both candidates in '08 will have been folks who voted "yes" on Iraq.
That was when the whole thing looked a little dicey. But there is nothing
dicey about Iran. In short, I think it's worse for the Islamics if war
comes with Hilary at the helm rather than Bush. McCain, too, will likely be
worse than Hilary.
Mark_S...@yahoo.com
> On Nov 16, 7:15 am, Bob Vogel <bobvogel2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > > A. Bush's hands are already tied in the mess in an unpopular war in
> > > Iraq. Pullout is coming soon..
>
> I take it that that is the "send an additional 20,000 troops
> immediately" pullout?
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1948748,00.html
Probably. As the article you cite quotes:
"You've got to remember, whatever the Democrats say, it's Bush still calling
the shots. He believes it's a matter of political will. That's what [Henry]
Kissinger told him. And he's going to stick with it," a former senior
administration official said. "He [Bush] is in a state of denial about Iraq.
Nobody else is any more. But he is. But he knows he's got less than a year,
maybe six months, to make it work. If it fails, I expect the withdrawal
process to begin next fall."
General Abizaid says the tipping point will come in the next 4-6 months.
Additional US troops, mainly for training Iraqis, may be committed during
that time, but if there isn't some clear evidence of increasing stability
after 6 months, a withdrawal seems likely.
--
Mark Sieving
Bill Carson
news:1163677946....@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>And who do you
> think has gained political ground globally since 9/11..... Arabs or the
> US/Israel?
I think a much better question is "Who do you think has gained the most
ideologically, politically, and militarily around the globe since 9/11.....
radical islamists or everyone else?"
Bill Carson
Bill Carson
>
>
> On Nov 16, 9:04 am, Bill Carson <newsgro...@nobsys.net> wrote:
>> I think abandoning such a fundamental one as his
>> deference to popular support
>
Why would that puzzle you, refusing to take profound executive action
without popular support as a fundamental political principle? I referenced
it twice yesterday in a reply to you.
Bob Vogel
Atlas Bugged wrote:
>
> The answer to this (quite realistic) observation is that a *real* war may
> actually do the opposite of what the fake war (which I call a welfare
> program) did, which was cause disaster in every way, including politically.
> There is a logic to this, no?
Actually, one argument for ending the occupation that I haven't voiced
until now is that if we have the wherewithall to tell welfare
recipients in our own country that they have to get off thier duffs in
a given amount of time and do what they need to do to make their lives
work, then why can't the same principle be applied to Iraq?
>
> Folks with conventional notions of left and right, conservative and liberal,
> and so on (I won't mention any [KENKENKENKEN] names) ought to keep in mind
> that both candidates in '08 will have been folks who voted "yes" on Iraq.
You speak as though the dem nominee were a foregone conclusion.
Obama has opposed Iraq from the get go, but. I've been paying
particular attention to him because I find Hillary shrill and
uninspiring. (Besides, I find dynasties unbecoming of American
politics, and I frankly would be disgusted to find that Americans might
put up with 4 years of a Bush, 8 years of a Clinton, 8 years of another
Bush, and then 4 or 8 years of another Clinton, just in time for Jeb
Bush to run, then Chelsea comes of age, etc. ... bleh)
http://tinylink.com/?z8UgwX2Fce
"Obama not only was against the war when he ran for the Senate but he
can claim -- as could the 21 Democratic senators who voted against the
war resolution -- that it was possible to accept the "facts" at the
time and still see that the war was unnecessary, if not downright
stupid. It just makes me wince every time I hear John Kerry or John
Edwards or Joe Biden or Chris Dodd or Hillary Clinton say they were
misled, fooled, lied to or some other version of seduced and abandoned
-- otherwise they would have voted the right way. This is
disingenuous."
Of course, it's still early, and Obama has to flesh out his foreign
policy, but at this point, I find him very imaginiative for a
parliamentary politician, and the more time he spends in the Senate,
the worse.
>
> That was when the whole thing looked a little dicey. But there is nothing
> dicey about Iran.
As long as "regime change" isn't the policy, but to take wind out of
their sails, sure. But do you think Iran will view it as such?
Bill Carson
> But shifting blame on Iran is a meaningless achievement if there was an
> available alternative. I doubt very much that anyone is rubbing their
> hands with glee, saying "we've avoided blame for the eventual nuclear
> annihilation of Israel! Cool!" Here I will quote you back atcha: Bush
> is too principled to regard that as a win... or even an option.
To Bush administration members' discredit or not, I imagine they're
embittered by the way they and America were demagogued, sabotaged and
punished over Iraq. If I were them, I'd at least be solaced by my Iraqi
policy opposition's inability to manage Iran after blocking my consistent
and specific attempts to disarm it within the "Democrat Party/UN/World
Court/Arab League/Council on American-Islamic Relations" framework they
insist I should have used on Iraq. But maybe Bush is a bigger man than I and
you're right.
Also, I don't think Israel annihilation is inevitable with a Nuclear Iran,
but I agree that even a 25% chance can't be tolerated as a policy success.
I think it's more likely that Iran will technically use its nukes as a
deterrent, believing it makes them more free to radically expand their proxy
war in Israel, Lebanon and beyond. It remains to be seen whether that's a
correct calculation. Being a nuclear power could also work against them.
Bill Carson
Atlas Bugged
You jest. Try out the question on some non-Jews, maybe they will be less
likely to LAUGH THEIR FACES OFF AT THE QUESTION.
> (2) Is there any explanation in terms of rational choice that would
> make sense of why someone intending to bomb Iran might want to (a) wait
> until the campaign season is over and (b) paint allies into a corner by
> being able to *credibly* claim that all diplomatic efforts have been
> exhausted?
>
> In other words, is there *any* evidence that supports the thesis that
> Bush has no intention of bombing Iran?
Well, yes, his words, unequivocally. I realize that with Bush, words,
especially verbs, are an uphill battle. But he's been very unequivocal that
no plans for Iranian war are anywhere near the front-burner.
Now, I realize that some may easily take issue with what I've said. In
fact, there is growing evidence that Bush's most serious challenge is with
nouns.
>Are you aware of the various low
> profile deployments that occurred in October?
Mostly through your posts and references, and I take them at face value.
Giving all such information the benefit of every favorable inference still
fails to convince me.
Atlas Bugged
> Actually, one argument for ending the occupation that I haven't voiced
> until now is that if we have the wherewithall to tell welfare
> recipients in our own country that they have to get off thier duffs in
> a given amount of time and do what they need to do to make their lives
> work, then why can't the same principle be applied to Iraq?
America has gone insane on this axis. There is strict scrutiny of any
countryman who applies for help, especially at the federal level.
But a bunch of bums overseas are getting billions thrown at them, literally
two or three a week, and they couldn't be less deserving. They literally
hate us, and most of the welfare assistance has been literally stolen or
destroyed.
Even the American forces there are not warriors - they are instead a "free,"
charity police-force, expressly understaffed so that they *cannot protect
their own,* never mind the intended recipients who hate their guts.
There is no Iraq war, never was one. Instead, there is a welfare operation,
on a scale that dwarfs anything in America's history, and for the ostensible
benefit of people who are divided, but share one thing in common: hatred for
their benefactors.
The mind reels.
>
> You speak as though the dem nominee were a foregone conclusion.
>
> Obama has opposed Iraq from the get go, but. I've been paying
> particular attention to him because I find Hillary shrill and
> uninspiring.
This is where the difference in our ages (I believe I am older than you)
becomes most apparent.
I know the whole story on Obama. Don't spend a whole lot of money betting
that he'll rise to the top and get nominated. It Will Not Happen.
Fahgeddaboudit. Trust me on this.
I understand the factors you're considering, they're all sensible
individually. But in the end, fahgeddaboudit.
> Of course, it's still early, and Obama has to flesh out his foreign
> policy, but at this point, I find him very imaginiative for a
> parliamentary politician, and the more time he spends in the Senate,
> the worse.
He cannot and will not leapfrog the party machine. Many have spent their
entire lives scratching their way to power, and they would literally have
the guy killed first. He's been around, what, two years? Fahged.....well,
you know.
Mark N
> Even the American forces there are not warriors - they are instead a "free,"
> charity police-force, expressly understaffed so that they *cannot protect
> their own,* never mind the intended recipients who hate their guts.
>
> There is no Iraq war, never was one. Instead, there is a welfare operation,
> on a scale that dwarfs anything in America's history, and for the ostensible
> benefit of people who are divided, but share one thing in common: hatred for
> their benefactors.
Then is it safe to conclude that all the chatter that I've been hearing
about "victory" vs. "defeat" is essentially meaningless?
Mark
potr...@gmail.com
............
"I take it that that is the "send an additional 20,000 troops
immediately" pullout?":
............
I think its just a last push to walk away with some semblance of a
government.... then gone. The longest you'll be there is until the end
of his term then the Democrats have a very high probability of winning
the election (since it's pretty obvious no progress will be made).
Even during Vietnam the house of cards was argued but without a clear
achievable mission... you did withdraw.This isn't a case of fighting
communism... poll after poll shows most Iraqis simply don't want you
there. (not to mention most Americans and the rest of the world)
Forget your personal feelings here and just use common sense. Do you
really think 20,000 troops is going to remotely make any sort of
difference? All you need do is look at Palestinians (in an area a
fraction its size) to get your answers. The attacks won't stop and the
American public doesn't want to keep funding this war. That's reality.
The funny thing is PNACs and long telegrams aren't bad ideas.... as
long as they have a low tempo like the cold war. (another of which I
personally see this as)
Putting aside my views on lethal force.... strategically speaking
this invasion was a very bad idea from day one. America was warned by
ALLIES (keyword) this was a bad idea but you were more concerned with
your pride rather than authentically listening to legitimate third
party options on the matter. Worse yet you took constructive criticism
and warped it into full blown xenophobia
Anyhow, Bush should have known he'd eventually lose public support
as this started to drag out. To make matters worse he has taken one
mostly secular dictator hated and isolated by the Arab world... and
spent hundreds of billions of (what could have been useful) dollars to
replace him with a soon to be Islamic state. (As soon as the troops are
gone anyone that dealt with America will be viewed as a collaborator)
You mentioned to someone else...
"In other words, is there *any* evidence that supports the thesis
that Bush has no intention of bombing Iran?"
The right question would be is there any evidence to support such a
campaign would be large enough to be permanently effective during our
lifetime? Extremely unlikely. A few strikes here and there aren't going
to achieve much other than appeasing Bush's ego.... which won't do
anyone else much good. Even if it sets them back a bit.. they'll learn
from the lessons and just fortify more effectively (as they did in
Lebanon). The only real effect such strikes have is to further erode
Americas already seriously lagging international reputation... which
will continue to fuel extremism..
AC,
politically speaking I've been relentlessly slamming your policies the
last few years but ultimately I don't hate America nor Israel. I just
think you've been behaving irrationally because of your emotional
involvement. In fact I think both groups of people are wonderful and
have given a great deal to the world. I do slam the rightwing but again
not because you're wrong about rational self-interest... we just
disagree in some ways what rational actually means (in terms of
specific policy).
Be honest... have your hard nosed attitudes worked or has the threat
actually grown?
If you can't convince others of what use are such attitudes other
than to make you look like hatemongers? From my perspective this
"kill em all" approach seems like a threat to you if anything. I
wonder how many Muslims have surfed to this group to read horrific
first hand accounts how "the jews" wish to exterminate them? What
do you expect them to do? Forget their families and dignity? What would
be your own reaction?
You need to ask yourselves is your goal to preserve your security or
has your goal devolved into simply killing and insulting others? Even
if Bush or Israel attacks Iran with shock-and-awe.Junior it won't stop
them from eventually getting weapons. Pride is big force in people's
lives and the harder you hit them... the more Allah-glorious the
response will eventually be.
The truth is hawks like Sharon could have nuked the middle east long
ago but even he didn't have the clout or the stomach to do it. What
this should say to you is you can't achieve your all out war before it
is too late... therefore I continue to advise you to start working
towards the peace instead.
potr...@gmail.com
Incidentally Obama is not a bad pick for President. He's
charismatic, fresh faced and from a purely asthetic standpoint he'd
certainly help ease some of the xenophobia plaguing the world these
days. I still need to know a bit about his foreign policy views to
formulate a firmer opinion though.
Atlas Bugged
news:ejitrj$u2u$1...@victor.killfile.org...
> Then is it safe to conclude that all the chatter that I've been hearing
> about "victory" vs. "defeat" is essentially meaningless?
It's like conservative and liberal and all the other false alternatives.
There never was any "war" in Iraq, the term no longer has any meaning.
I originally applauded Bush for his stupidity (when an agency is very
dangerous, it's good for everyone if they're stupid.)
But Bush was a lot stupider than I even dreamed. You know the escalating
violence in Iraq? It isn't happening *despite* our efforts - it's happening
*consistent* with our efforts. The amount of troops is absolutely
irelevant.
Ahhh....shit, it's all shit.
potr...@gmail.com
Just before i go....
don't wish to criticize without offering alternatives. (I have my
reasoning for each point but won't get into it at the moment. )
A. Help Israel fix Palestinian situation. (until this happens there
will never be peace)
- Needs to be viable state with access to the sea
- exchange populations like Cyprus and setup up buffer zone
- Involve UN instead of undermining it (or else anything you do will be
viewed with hostility)
- don't have a cow every time some kook blows himself up (it'll take
time).
- respect borders of sovereign nations just like you expect your own to
be respected
- Disputed Jerusalem should be made a self-contained city state or
equally partitioned.
B. Use your media
- instead of relying on limited audience of former inside edition
pundits perhaps consider a global public relations campaign (tourism?)
- Fund groups like Memri and redivert NSA to spying on foreign
nationals.. not your own citizens. Books and hate outlets need to be
monitored. Imagine if those 100,000 troops were actually 100,000
analysts doing that.
- Apply political pressure to change books and programming
- give jihadists an alternative... the pacifist Muslim.
C. Open channels of communication
- stop accusing everyone of being an antisemite simply because they
criticize you
- stop turning all Muslims into cartoon character stereotypes There are
plenty of Muslims that HATE extremists. Work with them.
- have a dialog with Iran and Hamas (in secret if need be)
If you have some unspoken quasi-mystical reasons for not doing this
you'll make excuses
If you're really authentic when you say you're secular and want
peace... you'll accept its just land.
Upto you.
Ken Gardner
>I doubt he gets it your way. Why is Iraq a loss? Was it because we
>occupied it for too long, or that we occupied it at all? Would a
>bombing campaign without an occupation have sufficed to neutralze the
>Iraqi "threat"? If not, what makes you think it would work with Iran?
For the record, I have the same question as well. Bombing campaigns
are grossly overrated. Troops on the ground ultimately win wars.
Ken
Atlas Bugged
>>I doubt he gets it your way. Why is Iraq a loss? Was it because we
>>occupied it for too long, or that we occupied it at all? Would a
>>bombing campaign without an occupation have sufficed to neutralze the
>>Iraqi "threat"? If not, what makes you think it would work with Iran?
There *was no* bombing campaign in Iraq. Of course it would have "worked."
Afghanistan, not Iraq, posed this sort of problem, because there was nothing
to bomb.
In Iraq, America should have announced that Mosques would not be bombed.
Then, the location of all the weapons and terrorists would have been known,
and could have been bombed to oblivion in a single, conventional stroke.
But nooooooooooo........
"Ken Gardner" <kesga...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:rjdql2p4jeouivhpv...@4ax.com...
> For the record, I have the same question as well.
Cat-Toy as guide? Not Recommended. Who will guide you next, Nancy Pelosi?
>Bombing campaigns
> are grossly overrated.
Yeah, they never solved anything. Well, except fascism.
>Troops on the ground ultimately win wars.
You keep saying this, and it doesn't make it any less wrong. Dead Men Don't
Wear Plaid, nor do they annoy anyone further. Live men, too, get the
message.
Have you been counting the number of cross-border kidnapping raids over at
the Lebanon border? I have zero so far. What total have you accumulated?
The historical record is unequivocal. Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, etc., wars
are won through air power. Troops on the ground are for clean-up, sure, but
where are you getting this "essentials" shit? Air Power Saves Lives, which
would be my motto, if I ever start having a motto.
And theUnited States has expended trillions developing ownership of the
skies since the 1940's, only to now be told wars are won by ground troops?
Say what?
And if there were any parity any more with nations vis-a-vis air power, why
the hell would you want yourself or your boy on the goddam ground?
The reality of foriegn affairs is that evil regimes invariably hold their
citizens hostage. Negotiating with hostage-takers just creates more
hostages. A lot of innocent civilians may wind up as collateral damage in
Iran, but it will save a billion more Muslims down the line.
--
"....that's my motto...or it might be, if I start having a motto." - Mr.
Universe, from SERENITY.
http://tinylink.com/?3Q2O27Z1bx
Ken Gardner
>> For the record, I have the same question as well.
>Cat-Toy as guide? Not Recommended. Who will guide you next, Nancy Pelosi?
Uh, no.
>>Bombing campaigns
>> are grossly overrated.
>Yeah, they never solved anything. Well, except fascism.
WARS have never solved anything, well, except fascism, communism,
etc., etc. But my point is that if you really want to win a war, you
must go in with ground forces. Bombing campaigns are necessary but
only rarely sufficient to winning a war.
> >Troops on the ground ultimately win wars.
>You keep saying this, and it doesn't make it any less wrong. Dead Men Don't
>Wear Plaid, nor do they annoy anyone further. Live men, too, get the
>message.
Bombing campaigns can work if they alone are enough to break the
enemy's will to fight you. This is rarely the case. I certainly
don't see that this would work in Iran or any other country infested
by Islamo-psychos. Well, unless you are bombing them with nuclear
weapons (e.g. Japan during WWII), but that's not going to happen in
Iran.
>Have you been counting the number of cross-border kidnapping raids over at
>the Lebanon border? I have zero so far. What total have you accumulated?
Wait a few more weeks or months. Israel and Hezbollah will soon be
fighting again. Hezbollah has been restocking their supply of
rockets, while the Israelis are putting more armor on their tanks and
otherwise preparing for the coming war.
>The historical record is unequivocal. Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, etc., wars
>are won through air power. Troops on the ground are for clean-up, sure, but
>where are you getting this "essentials" shit? Air Power Saves Lives, which
>would be my motto, if I ever start having a motto.
You have it exactly in reverse. Firebombing Dresden and Tokyo did not
lead to victory. Capturing Berlin and then the remains of the German
Army a few weeks later ended the war against Germany. The bombing of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the war against Japan, but that was a
special case because we used nuclear weapons.
>And theUnited States has expended trillions developing ownership of the
>skies since the 1940's, only to now be told wars are won by ground troops?
>Say what?
You need air supremacy to win a war. No one disputes that. But it is
a necessary condition only -- only rarely a sufficient condition
unless you use nuclear weapons. I simply don't think this strategy
will work in Iran, although I have absolutely no objection putting it
to a rigorous test.
>And if there were any parity any more with nations vis-a-vis air power, why
>the hell would you want yourself or your boy on the goddam ground?
To occupy the country; take possession of key military, political, and
economic objectives; to gather intelligence; to bring your enemies to
justice (in the sense that President Bush uses that phrase); to
destroy their capacity (not merely will) to fight; to transform their
political institutions -- just to name a few.
>The reality of foriegn affairs is that evil regimes invariably hold their
>citizens hostage. Negotiating with hostage-takers just creates more
>hostages. A lot of innocent civilians may wind up as collateral damage in
>Iran, but it will save a billion more Muslims down the line.
I agree.
Ken
Robert J. Kolker
>
> But Bush was a lot stupider than I even dreamed. You know the escalating
> violence in Iraq? It isn't happening *despite* our efforts - it's happening
> *consistent* with our efforts. The amount of troops is absolutely
> irelevant.
Here is a hypothetical for you, Bugged. If Iraq had been thoroughly
nuked east to west and north to south, would any of this be happening?
Bush-baby and his buddies; they lied. They said no Nation Building.
Liars, liars, pants on fires.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
> - Apply political pressure to change books and programming
> - give jihadists an alternative... the pacifist Muslim.
Why not a four side triangle? There are no pacifist Muslims. Only
Muslims who have not been Jihad activated. They carry the Meme which
makes them dangerous to the human race.
The only Pacifists Muslims are dead Muslims. They wish to be martyrs and
go to Paradise to fuck 72 virgins non-stop. I say we should grant them
their wish, speedily and in our day. We should make martyrs of the lot
of them. They will be happy. We will be happy. It is a win-win situation.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> For the record, I have the same question as well. Bombing campaigns
> are grossly overrated. Troops on the ground ultimately win wars.
Only because there were people left alive on the ground. That is easy to
fix.
You overlook nuclear genocide. No troops were required to neutralize
Hiroshima and Nagasaki. By the way, air power effectively won Gulf I.
The Iraqis threw in the towel on day four of the active ground war,
after six weeks of thorough bombardment. It was the first time air power
delivered what had been promised for nearly fifty years.
If the U.S. had an arsenal of A-bombs in 1942 do you think the Germans
would have stood up to it? Nuclear weapons are so ..... thorough. They
do not respect age or gender. Dead people do not fight back. Ever. Kill
them all and the war is ever for once and for good. Did the Cathars ever
rise again after the slaughter at Beziers? You bet they didn't. BTW, it
was the Arch Bishop of Beziers who uttered the immortal words (in French
of course) "Kill them all -- God will know His own". And thus was
Beziers virtually wiped out of human life.
Like the words of the old Civil War balled: A cannon ball don't pay no
mind, to who was gentle or who was kind. It don't care 'bout the folks
behind, all on a Sunday morning. Substitute A-bomb for cannon ball and
you have it.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
> You keep saying this, and it doesn't make it any less wrong. Dead Men Don't
> Wear Plaid, nor do they annoy anyone further. Live men, too, get the
> message.
I love it when you write like that! You have learned well, young Jedi.
Obi-Bob is proud of his young acolyte. You are learning the ways of The
Force. Use the Force, Bugged, use the The Force.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> WARS have never solved anything, well, except fascism, communism,
> etc., etc. But my point is that if you really want to win a war, you
> must go in with ground forces. Bombing campaigns are necessary but
> only rarely sufficient to winning a war.
They are if you kill everyone. And even without killing every one, air
war finally paid its dues in Gulf I. After six weeks of air sorties and
the destruction of the elite Guard forces of Iraq by A-10 Warthogs, the
Iraqis threw in the towel. Air war finally did it.
Here is a hypothetical for you Ken. If the U.S. had an arsenal of
A-bombs and the B-29 in 1943 (a year before Normandy) could the Germans
have stood up? Once the nuking started German would be begging for terms
inside of month. The infantry would be needed mostly for police work on
the ground and gathering up the corpses.
Bob Kolker
Mark N
But note your young disciple's disturbing reference to "live men." This
shows that he does not yet possess the wisdom and courage necessary to
implement full genocide. I'm afraid that Bugged has much to learn before
he will be able to snatch the pebble from your hand, O Perfect Master.
Mark
Bob Vogel
Atlas Bugged wrote:
>
> This is where the difference in our ages (I believe I am older than you)
> becomes most apparent.
By my estimation, probably by a dozen years or so, hehehe.
>
> I know the whole story on Obama. Don't spend a whole lot of money betting
> that he'll rise to the top and get nominated. It Will Not Happen.
> Fahgeddaboudit. Trust me on this.
Well, I haven't invested to much in him yet, for now I simply enjoy
listening to him. He strikes me as genuine, and I guess I haven't
become so cynical as to assume that the powers that be would literally
send in their goombas to eliminate such an obvious political asset.
After he's elected president? Sure, I'd believe that.
Mark N
> The only Pacifists Muslims are dead Muslims. They wish to be martyrs and
> go to Paradise to fuck 72 virgins non-stop.
What about the female martyrs? Do they each get 72 male virgins? :-\
> I say we should grant them
> their wish, speedily and in our day. We should make martyrs of the lot
> of them. They will be happy. We will be happy. It is a win-win situation.
What about all of the ordinary Muslims who just mind their own business
and are not involved in jihad? They would not be martyrs, would they? Or
do all Muslims who get killed by infidels automatically attain martyr
status? Enquiring minds want to know.
Mark
Robert J. Kolker
>
> But note your young disciple's disturbing reference to "live men." This
> shows that he does not yet possess the wisdom and courage necessary to
> implement full genocide. I'm afraid that Bugged has much to learn before
> he will be able to snatch the pebble from your hand, O Perfect Master.
First chop the hand off at the wrist, then snatch the pebble. Also read
Sun Tzou. It is an honour to be Sun Tzou's padawan.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
> What about all of the ordinary Muslims who just mind their own business
> and are not involved in jihad? They would not be martyrs, would they? Or
> do all Muslims who get killed by infidels automatically attain martyr
> status? Enquiring minds want to know.
There are no "ordinary" Muslims. They are just Muslims waiting to be
Activated by the right Imam. Muslims come in two varieties. Those who
have strapped on the explosives and those who have -not yet- strapped on
the explosives. Only people born into Muslim families and have rejected
their hearth religion might be reasonable human beings. In which case,
they are no longer Muslims. The no longer Submit.
Bob Kolker
Mark N
> Mark N wrote:
>
>> But note your young disciple's disturbing reference to "live men."
>> This shows that he does not yet possess the wisdom and courage
>> necessary to implement full genocide. I'm afraid that Bugged has much
>> to learn before he will be able to snatch the pebble from your hand, O
>> Perfect Master.
>
> First chop the hand off at the wrist, then snatch the pebble. [...]
That's cheating. :-)
Mark
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> That's cheating. :-)
How do you like my solution to the Kubiyashi Maru problem, Captain?
Bob Kolker
potr...@gmail.com
We are born essentially blank slates and become the sum of our
intellectual inputs. Even any synergy from that is still dependent on
our initial conditions.
Philosophy is the most succinct method to describe those inputs but
it can be watered down and packaged for more consumer friendly
consumption. Big media is the most suited to spread message X. Why
are billions of dollars a year spent associating beer brands with
pretty girls if it didn'tt work?
I'm a nobody but there are others that do agree with my view.
http://tinyurl.com/urqc9
"The only Pacifists Muslims are dead Muslims. "
Someone once told me an old Italian parable about a young crooked
tree that was bent back into place with a little effort. According to
the story the older one's roots are too deep and is an unlikely
candidate for realignment
:)
Acar
"Atlas Bugged" <atlasbug...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ejio8r$mrb$1...@victor.killfile.org...
>
> There is no Iraq war, never was one. Instead, there is a welfare
> operation, on a scale that dwarfs anything in America's history, and for
> the ostensible benefit of people who are divided, but share one thing in
> common: hatred for their benefactors.
Why are you so hostile to the teachings of Rand and capitalism? The
investment in Iraq is supposed to be an egoistic investment. At least that
was the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeldt rationale.
.
.
potr...@gmail.com
The little known CIA Political Instability Task Force actually looked
at it that way. They seem to believe there is a co-orrolation between
extreme poverty and national security threats. Altruism that isn't
altrusism.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/reveron200502090752.asp
Acar
"Bob Vogel" <bobvog...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1163700402....@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> policy, but at this point, I find him very imaginiative for a
> parliamentary politician, and the more time he spends in the Senate,
> the worse.
Oboma is a lightweight and not just physically. Just because he gave a
charismatic well polished but clearly sophomoric speech in the Democratic
convention too many people are filling his head with ambitions that he has
no logical right to hold. He is one of many bright lights that may well be
ready in 8 to 12 years, but let him go to end of the line, mature a little
and show what he can do.
There is one man that has the credentials, the resumee, the experience, the
intelligence and even the looks for the Presidency and that is Gen. Wesley
Clark. The man has even been a Republican for Christ's sake. How much more
of a perfect fit can anyone imagine? Too bad that nobody seems to notice.
Since I discarded McCain as the bum that he really is I'm left with a choice
between Giuliani and Hillary. I like Biden more than any of those two and
think that he would be fine a President, but he won't get the nomination.
Giuliani vs. Hillary would be a really difficult choice. With any other
Republican opponent, Hillary gets my vote.
Robert J. Kolker
> @bob
>
> We are born essentially blank slates and become the sum of our
> intellectual inputs. Even any synergy from that is still dependent on
> our initial conditions.
Not true. For an extended refutation of this canard read -The Blank
Slate- by Steven Pinker.
>
> "The only Pacifists Muslims are dead Muslims. "
>
> Someone once told me an old Italian parable about a young crooked
> tree that was bent back into place with a little effort. According to
> the story the older one's roots are too deep and is an unlikely
> candidate for realignment.
Young Muslims are brought up steeped in the Jihad and Martyrdom Meme. By
the time they are ten it is way to late to change any basics. Their
parents transmform them from human beings into Jihadis.
Bob Kolker
Bob Vogel
Mark_S...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> General Abizaid says the tipping point will come in the next 4-6 months.
Why do you think they're switching out about 50,000 troops come Spring?
This has been in the works for a few months now. When we do reduce
troop numbers, just in case the fit hits the shan, we want the troops
on the ground to be frosty so they're not shooting everything that
moves upon exiting out of sheer fatigue, anger and frustration.
> Additional US troops, mainly for training Iraqis, may be committed during
> that time, but if there isn't some clear evidence of increasing stability
> after 6 months, a withdrawal seems likely.
Ken Gardner
>> WARS have never solved anything, well, except fascism, communism,
>> etc., etc. But my point is that if you really want to win a war, you
>> must go in with ground forces. Bombing campaigns are necessary but
>> only rarely sufficient to winning a war.
>
>They are if you kill everyone. And even without killing every one, air
>war finally paid its dues in Gulf I. After six weeks of air sorties and
>the destruction of the elite Guard forces of Iraq by A-10 Warthogs, the
>Iraqis threw in the towel. Air war finally did it.
We have the capacity to kill everyone. But the American people will
not permit it to happen. And besides, that would be overkill (no pun
intended).
As effective as the air war was during Desert Storm, the Iraqis didn't
surrender until we moved in on the ground. I doubt very seriously
that the Iranians would fight us the same way. In any event, I am
currently unaware of any viable strategy (both militarily and
politically) for victory against Iran that doesn't involve ground
troops.
Ken
Robert J. Kolker
> As effective as the air war was during Desert Storm, the Iraqis didn't
> surrender until we moved in on the ground. I doubt very seriously
> that the Iranians would fight us the same way. In any event, I am
> currently unaware of any viable strategy (both militarily and
> politically) for victory against Iran that doesn't involve ground
> troops.
Nuke them to flinders. Not one pair of boots on the ground except to
clean up the corpses. After the next big Muslim attack on the U.S. at
home, the people will not only permit the genocide of the Muslims. They
will demand it.
Observe what happened to Japan. The American people would not settle for
a negotiated peace. They wanted Japan wrecked and her people miserable.
They got their wish. Japan capitulated. No infantry was needed on the
Jap mainland. They throw in the towel after only two nukes. Now if two
underpowered nukes can take the japs down, what about several dozen high
powered nukes, say on Iran? When we get through there won't be enough
people alive to give us any trouble.
Bob Kolker
potr...@gmail.com
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> "Not true. For an extended refutation of this canard read -The Blank Slat
> e- by Steven Pinker."
Clearly there are a few hardcoded items (tendencies not absolutes)
and a finite range of behavior available to us (we generally don't
behave like fungi or tree frogs). However I think we're just playing
with words.
When I say "blank slate" I don't intend to imply there aren't any
genetic predispositions but its pretty darn obvious for day-to-day
living people are indeed trained to exist within a range of acceptable
behavior (be it an official full blown philosophy/religion or a
collection of random family/social snippets). We don't run around
randomly wanking it and crapping all over the place like our ancient
ancestors and we don't jump out of our mother's punani civilized.
We are trained.
Some natural mutation occurs (which I identify with 'I') but
relatively speaking its usually not too radical from that which existed
before it (there are exceptions). To what ends this is all headed? Heck
if I know.
Besides, I don't think you really disagree. Why else would you
waste your time with philosophy if you really didn't think this was so?
The algos that run our kids heads can be tinkered with just like our
heads were tinkered with.
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>Young Muslims are brought up steeped in the Jihad and Martyrdom Meme. By t
>he time they are ten it is way to late to change any basics. Their parents
> transform them from human beings into Jihadis.
I don't know if ten is too late but its true that the old haters
will probably go to their grave that way (shoulders shrugging). That's
why it's important to get to work on the young ones ASAP. We can't let
this problem fester or the results are very predictable. May as well
since we really don't have anything better to do in meantime. (at least
until such time as someone in a position of influence advocates your
methods)
We are polar opposites on the use of lethal force Bob but it's
nothing personal against you. I wouldn't kill to save the life of my
own family so there is little chance you'll convince me for your ends.
(although I always try to keep an open mind to arguments).
There really isn't a single magic reason for my pacifism but if I
had to choose one it would be the observation that weapons technology
is unlikely to get less advanced and IS likely to get FAR more
advanced. The ability of even a single individual to do tremendous
damage to civilization has increased dramatically and it seems very
likely this trend will continue (especially with an educated
workforce).
This is a real threat to our survival. Colonization of space
wouldn't help. If spacecraft can reach another planet... so can
advanced weapons. Assuming we can survive this very serious problem
(of which Oklahoma/Jihadists are just manifestations of this larger
issue) it seems to indicate one of two eventual outcomes.
OPTION A. Government that enviably enslaves its citizens in utter
paranoia.
They'll call it preserving liberty but in reality it would simply be
a an attempt to preserve survival. 9/11 brought some of us the Patriot
Act, torture, loss of a fair trial, and loss of the 4th. What do you
think a few cities actually disappearing would do? And a few more after
that? And a few more after that? It won't happen all at once, it'll
happen in spurts as a self-preservation reflex after large scale
destruction.
Reagrdless what happens with Islam this terrorism threat is permanent
issue with modern technology. There is no reason to believe the
government won't continue to pass law after law after each major
incident. A permanent "war on terror" will inevitably result in big
government meet the Amish. No freedom, suppression of
science/technology.... and therefore a slow decline of civilization
somewhat akin to what happened in antiquity.
OPTION B. Exterminate the lethal force meme like we did smallpox so
progress can continue.
Whether we achieve it naturally or through advanced medical testing
and therapy it must be achieved with 100% penetration. The trick part
of this is we can't use lethal force to achieve it since of course this
effectively perpetuates the problem. .
I know the end of war is a tall order but I've run through this
scenario countless times in my head and I can't see how how we have a
realistic chance at long term growth without choosing between these two
options (please feel free to show me where I went wrong with my
reasoning) Pacifism does seems to be a better long term strategy for
man (at least according to my perspective)
Any how, I am not privy to all the details of your life and the way
I see it is something affected you in a profound way that makes
genocide seem reasonable to you.. Perhaps one of us is being more
reasonable than the other or perhaps neither of us is. It's hard to say
as there are too many variables/uncertainty to provide indisputable
arguments. Even though you remain unconvinced I really do understand
that you have to run with what you believe to the best of your
knowledge to be true.
Chris Cathcart
On Nov 17, 5:08 am, Atlas Bugged <atlasbuggedBYs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Have you been counting the number of cross-border kidnapping raids over at
> the Lebanon border? I have zero so far. What total have you accumulated?
I skim over a Bugged post and catch the letters Leb and z and o and
figure he's gotta be making a veiled reference to something. I propose
a thorough investigation of Bugged's post for a pattern of this kind of
thing. He's obviously trying to catch readership however subliminally
he can.
Every fucking Bugged post, it's like this. He could slip in a
reference at any point. A Bugged post showing up in a newsreader is
like a teaser in itself.
So Bugged, what ranks up there with bombing runs on mosques, amongst
the great things in life? Just wondering.
potr...@gmail.com
While we waste our time yelling rhetoric at each other continued
proliferation of uber-technology ....
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1996321846673788606
is meeting this.......
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~jhale/Soc134/Crowd.jpg
http://www.planetofspeed.net/slots/crowd_background_2.jpg
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9801/22/pope/link.crowd.jpg
With easy instantaneous communication all it takes is one slip up of
weapons schematics (by any country... by any scientist.. at any moment
in time) and the cat is permanently out of the bag globally forever
(assuming others won't be able to figure it out themselves by
deduction)
I have no reason to believe enriching fissionable materials won't get
easier and easier to produce thus making it even more accessible to
John Q. This also applies to nextgen conventional high explosives,
potential biological weapons and some future technology I can't even
imagine but no doubt would make our balls turn inside out and catch
fire.
Sometime in the next century it seems highly probable huge numbers of
people will have access to the materials and technical knowledge
necessary to be capable of wiping out cities...power that used to be
reserved only for the checks and balances of entire nations.
At that point its only a matter of time before one of them cracks for
this or that reason, then all hell is going to break out once people
fully grasp what's happened under their very noses. They'll be rounding
up scientists as if they're the Taliban and no doubt martial law will
be declared indefinitely as they trade freedom for security (which will
be essentially the security of a jail cell and government monitoring)
9/11 was just a warning shot across our bow to wise up..
Large scale government intervention after future major terrorist
attacks seems inevitable given our past reactions. Squeezing harder
doesn't work... it will only generate more factions that hate something
or another... which will try even harder to use deadly technology...
which will cause government to squeeze even harder..etc. Its a
negative feedback loop which you and jihadists are real world working
examples of Bob.
We can't have potentially millions of violent people running around
with WMDs The state will enevitably be forced to suppress our rights,
suppress science and suppress anything else that stands in the way of
our very survival. It won't happen in our lifetime but this round of
civilization seems doomed to a slow death with or without the aid of
jihadists I'm afraid. There are plenty of future Oklahoma bombers
waiting in the wings to pick up the slack with WMDs
The only hope I see for us at this juncture is government needs to
drastically revise its policies regarding the use of leathal force and
speed up globalization. We have been advocating to billions of people
that it's appropriate to use leathal force to secure ones interests..
Those billions are going to teach those lessons to billions more and
somewhere along the line......thousands (if not millions) of indviduals
will be capable of producing the firepower of WWs.
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Any how, I am not privy to all the details of your life and the way
> I see it is something affected you in a profound way that makes
> genocide seem reasonable to you.. Perhaps one of us is being more
9/11. It was an epiphany. I did not even imagine genocide on 9/10. On
9/12 I was convinced it was the only way. 'nuff said.
Two Pearl Harbors in one lifetime is more than enough.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
> 9/11 was just a warning shot across our bow to wise up..
Yup. Time to nuke the Muslims abroad. The principle is very simple. You
cherish and protect your friends. You destroy your enemies and be polite
to the neutrals.
We will have to be more subtle in North America but at least we will
have to round the Muslims up and deport them to a killing zone. Then
kill them. I imagine that some infants could be saved. Prior to being
infused with the Jihad/Martyrdom meme Muslim youngsters are no different
from any others.
Bob Kolker
Atlas Bugged
>> I know the whole story on Obama. Don't spend a whole lot of money
>> betting
>> that he'll rise to the top and get nominated. It Will Not Happen.
>> Fahgeddaboudit. Trust me on this.
"Bob Vogel" <bobvog...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1163781610.7...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Well, I haven't invested to much in him yet, for now I simply enjoy
> listening to him. He strikes me as genuine, and I guess I haven't
> become so cynical as to assume that the powers that be would literally
> send in their goombas to eliminate such an obvious political asset.
> After he's elected president? Sure, I'd believe that.
You still miss the point slightly, I shouldn't have mentioned assassination
since it distracted you. No one is going to get killed, it will never come
even slightly close to that.
I should have simply said all *necessary* measures would be taken. There
are a zillion ways and reasons why an Obama candidacy is off the table.
You grew up in a generation that still thinks politics work as they did for
Bobby Kennedy. I did too, but I know better.
I guess the best way to put it is that the filters - the ones which
systematically exclude honest and/or sincere people from politics - have
been greatly strengthened since the days of dark horses like Bobby Kennedy.
Atlas Bugged
news:18t7h.32648$OE1...@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
> Why are you so hostile to the teachings of Rand and capitalism? The
> investment in Iraq is supposed to be an egoistic investment. At least that
> was the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeldt rationale.
Bush and co are Objectivists? And they said so in so many words?
You are off your meds today! Nurse! Nurse! (Acar now running...)
Orderly! Orderly.....
Atlas Bugged
> There is one man that has the credentials, the resumee, the experience,
> the intelligence and even the looks for the Presidency and that is Gen.
> like Biden more than any of those two.....Hillary gets my vote.
ORDERLY! Stop him! He's climbing the fence.....
Atlas Bugged
>> Have you been counting the number of cross-border kidnapping raids over
>> at
>> the Lebanon border? I have zero so far. What total have you
>> accumulated?
"Chris Cathcart" <cath...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1163838658.9...@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I skim over a Bugged post and catch the letters Leb and z and o and
> figure he's gotta be making a veiled reference to something. I propose
> a thorough investigation of Bugged's post for a pattern of this kind of
> thing. He's obviously trying to catch readership however subliminally
> he can.
Yes, Master Of Subtlety am I. Despair not that some of it goes over your
head.
>
> Every fucking Bugged post, it's like this. He could slip in a
> reference at any point. A Bugged post showing up in a newsreader is
> like a teaser in itself.
Lately my posts boil down to just a few topics, with only the picayune
details varying here and there:
1. Kill Islam.
2. "Ken, you really understand Objectivism well, but I think you are missing
a small detail. Yes, yes, seig hiel to you too, but I don't think you're
listening to what I'm saying...."
3. "No, Bob, we can leave some of them alive."
4. That's right, if you don't vote, then you are responsible for the entire
government. So don't complain. The voters are free of blame, so they can
talk.
5. Find lesbian pix and videos at this link:
<www.whateveritisatthemoment.com> (This *particular* moment, you ask? It's
here: <http://tinylink.com/?DIDk3xCRXy>)
6. Coops posts are too long, which would be alright, except that lately he
keeps making promises no one is going to keep. See #1.
7. Mal's posts are incomprehensible.
8. Watch lesbians
9. Kill Islam.
I am sure the list had 10 items, but one escapes me right now.
>
> So Bugged, what ranks up there with bombing runs on mosques, amongst
> the great things in life? Just wondering.
Very LittLE compares to BomBing runZ on mosquEs
Atlas Bugged
> Observe what happened to Japan.
Indeed!
>Now if two underpowered nukes can take the japs down, what about several
>dozen high powered nukes, say on Iran?
[visualize logic itself, somehow, nuked, poisoned, and beaten to death.]
Okay, let's start again:
"Now if two underpowered nukes can take the japs down...why would the
application of vastly advanced conventional weapons be expected to produce a
different result against a weaker foe?"
>When we get through there won't be enough people alive to give us any
>trouble.
Who is we? You and Steven Speicher? Get through with what? A case of
beer?
Surprise! Politics is the art of the possible.
Oh well, the joke's really on me. The government's full with Chamberlains.
Nothing at all is going to happen to Islam unless and until something awful
happens to us first. And 9/11, as we've learned, wasn't nearly sufficiently
awful.
I have decided to hate Bert, going forward, instead of Islam, because he
brought me the news.
Robert J. Kolker
> 9. Kill Islam.
Kill Islam. The alpha and the omega.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
> Nothing at all is going to happen to Islam unless and until something awful
> happens to us first. And 9/11, as we've learned, wasn't nearly sufficiently
> awful.
How about a carried in nuke in downtown New York (where the Jews are)?
Actually the Bush-Babies missed an opportunity to demonize Islam
following 9/11. That is going to cost us.
Bob Kolker
potr...@gmail.com
> "Yup. Time to nuke the Muslims abroad. The principle is very simple. You
> cherish and protect your friends. You destroy your enemies and be polite
> to the neutrals."
You're caught up in your personal biases/paranoia and missing the
larger issue. Even if you achieved your wildest genocidal dreams this
technology/terrorist problem WOULD STILL EXIST.
There are crazy people out there. 500 years ago a stray nutjob could
maybe manage a few dozen kills during his lifetime. Today one dedicated
man can kill hundreds and a small team has been demostrated to be
capable of killing thousands. Tomorrow it's going to be millions. This
technological aided killing capacity is going to get worse not better.
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> The principle is very simple. You cherish and protect your friends. You
> destroy your enemies and be polite to the neutrals.
Sure. Just like you were "polite" to me by suggesting pacifists
should be rounded up and killed? Just like you are "polite" to the
assortment of other groups you slander with sweeping xenophobic
statements? Com'mon Bob use some common sense. How do you expect others
to react? The truth as best I can tell is you'd argue anything and kill
anyone to achieve your own jihadist goals. That's not ethics... that
opportunism.
You may find it offensive what I have to say but I'm actually trying
to be constructive and give you a no bullshit explanation why I
personally think the US/Israel have become alienated on the
international front (even though we share virtually everything in
common)
Let's take the European example of sweeping statements like their
backwards (especially your obsession with French bashing).
I've been to the States many times and I know firsthand its
completely absurd to suggest Europe has a lower overall quality of life
(I have never heard of a trailer park in Europe) Europeans have
listened to this sort of negative rhetoric before you know. They don't
hate you... they fear you because (unlike Americans) they know what its
like to have their countries leveled and millions of their citizens
killed. (and why they are almost universally against the inhumanity of
leveling Muslim nations to get to a few extremists)
They are not "appeasers" nor are they genocidal maniacs. They have
just learned to compromise through very hard lessons.
What it sounds like is a significant portion of the US population is
attempting to set the stage for war against pretty well everyone. Name
me one friend you haven't alienated? Britain? Blair is hugely
unpopular. Canada? I read a recent poll that puts Bush on par with
North Korean Elvis. Working for your interests doesn't mean you have
to work against the interests of others just because they don't always
do what you want. Doing so.... in case you haven't noticed... works
against everyone's interests.
I'm not nationalistic at all (my interests fall in continuing the
trend towards globalization) but it's obvious if you insult other
nations then other nations won't work with you effectively to combat
extremists and terrorism. No one wants an ally where they have to sleep
with one eye open and deal with constant insults. Take what you can get
because if you continue to pursue an extremist agenda I am certain you
will continue to be isolated. (which serves no one)
The jihadists are idiots that need to be stopped but it won't be
achieved by your outlandish methods Bob. It seems like its going to be
another long term cold war filled with rhetoric and close calls with
Armageddon. I'm not happy about that that situation but I'm not willing
to throw away my humanity for the alternative.
.
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>We will have to be more subtle in North America but at least we will have
> to round the Muslims up and deport them to a killing zone. Then kill them.
I wonder if any Muslim Americans surf to this site? You just
threatened to kill millions of your fellow Americans. How many other
people that cause you some sort of displeasure would you round up?
(liberals, pomos, pacifists?) I understand your paranoid about another
Holocaust Bob but lets not forget that tens of millions of others died
during that war too (I had people in my family die too). There is more
to this earth then Bobs interests.
Please try and see why I say your words serve no constructive use.
All you do is divide us against a common threat.
Robert J. Kolker
>
> I wonder if any Muslim Americans surf to this site? You just
> threatened to kill millions of your fellow Americans. How many other
> people that cause you some sort of displeasure would you round up?
> (liberals, pomos, pacifists?) I understand your paranoid about another
> Holocaust Bob but lets not forget that tens of millions of others died
> during that war too (I had people in my family die too). There is more
> to this earth then Bobs interests.
I find your point non-intimidating. The Muslims have declared war on the
Jews since the Battle of the Ditch. Read the Q'ran and the jucier
Hadiths for expressions of Islamic hostility to Jews. I want the
Muslisms in this country to be afraid. Very afraid. Its their turn to be
on the Death Lists.
Bob Kolker
Acar
Orderly: "He's your doctor. He's inspecting the fence. Now, take your
medicine."
.
.
.
Acar
"Puppet_Sock" <puppe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1163606440.0...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Bill Carson wrote:
> [snip]
>> The WOT withdrawal promoted by the new American congress will have to be
>> demonstrated a failure before voters commit to renew it against Iran.
>
> I am very much afraid you are correct.
>
> This is an unpleasant thought. It means I will now have to prepare for
> nuclear war. I'm getting too old for this shit. Oh well. Gonna need to
> buy and prepare that land way-up-north. There was a pretty little
> plot of land on the north shore of lake Superior. Quite cheap and
> access to the highway. Probably the best I can do with what I've got.
>
> Let me start making my shopping list.
Don't buy the land. There will be no nuclear war. Are you assuming that the
Iranian capos want to be martyrs? You are talking, albeit in jest, about the
confrontation of a power with not nearly enough centrifuges to build one
nuclear bomb with a power that has thousands, many of them already trained
on them. Even if they were to attack (they won't ) it wouldn't be Toronto.
But they won't because they don't want to be rained upon. Their motto -
"Martyrdom is for expendable suckers." My guess is that they are bluffing
their way into world status.
.
.
.
Chris Cathcart
On Nov 18, 6:04 pm, "Robert J. Kolker" <nowh...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> Atlas Bugged wrote:
> > 9. Kill Islam.Kill Islam. The alpha and the omega.
Meanwhile, KAL's image processors being as impervious as his humor
processors duly noted.
Chris Cathcart
On Nov 18, 5:49 pm, Atlas Bugged <atlasbuggedBYs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 4. That's right, if you don't vote, then you are responsible for the entire
> government. So don't complain. The voters are free of blame, so they can
> talk.
As I've pointed out, Bugged has better things to do with his time than
schlep to the polling place.
> 5. Find lesbian pix and videos at this link:
> <www.whateveritisatthemoment.com> (This *particular* moment, you ask? It's
> here: <http://tinylink.com/?DIDk3xCRXy>)
Now this is a gentelman of taste and sophistication, my friends.
> 6. Coops posts are too long, which would be alright, except that lately he
> keeps making promises no one is going to keep. See #1.
> 7. Mal's posts are incomprehensible.
> 8. Watch lesbians
How 'bout combining 7 and 8 and go watch a Lynch film or something.
"Now, what the fuck just happened? Who's Camilla? I thought it was
Rita. Huh? How did she just pop back up out of nowhere again? I
thought uh . . . woah, hey! [mouth agape] Nice going, Lynch! All is
forgiven."
> 9. Kill Islam.
>
> I am sure the list had 10 items, but one escapes me right now.
Well, I'm sure you could come up with a good one, links included.
Mark N
> How do you like my solution to the Kubiyashi Maru problem, Captain?
Well, you did think outside the box. Not bad for an Algorithm. :-)
Mark
potr...@gmail.com
Forget the middle east foir a moment and consider that our society's
typically preachs the use of lethal force is an acceptable methodology
to solve problems.
Many people are becoming technically aware of what it takes to wipe
out cities (and far more in the future). The Internet makes
proliferation of this technology a virtual certainty. Without a
dramatic attitude adjustment for humanity (from the top down)......its
only a matter of time before someone decides to put their name in the
history books..
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061119/NEWS03/611190639
Robert J. Kolker
> Many people are becoming technically aware of what it takes to wipe
> out cities (and far more in the future). The Internet makes
> proliferation of this technology a virtual certainty. Without a
> dramatic attitude adjustment for humanity (from the top down)......its
> only a matter of time before someone decides to put their name in the
> history books..
Then let us get them before they get us.
Bob Kolker