Possible Plan for Troop Reduction in Iraq
conn...@hotmail.com
14 U.S. Marines Killed in Iraq When Vehicle Hits a Huge Bomb
By DEXTER FILKINS
and ERIC SCHMITT
Published: August 3, 2005
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Aug. 3 - Fourteen marines were killed today when their
troop carrier struck a gigantic roadside bomb in the western town of
Haditha, marking one of the single deadliest attacks on American troops
since the invasion here in March 2003. An Iraqi civilian interpreter
working with the marines was also killed in the blast.
Articles by Vincent in National Review Online American officers said
the marines had been riding in an amphibious troop carrier "during
combat operations" on the southern end of the city at dawn today when
it struck the bomb. The explosion flipped the 31-ton troop carrier over
and caused it to burst into flames. It was not immediately clear how
many of the marines had died from the explosion or from the flames.
One marine was seriously wounded; everyone else on board was killed.
The attack offered new evidence to buttress the claims of American
officers here that insurgents in Iraq are building bigger and more
sophisticated bombs, some of which focus their blast in a single
direction.
The troop carrier, an amphibious vehicle, is designed for water-borne
assaults, and carries light armor. Even so, the vehicles are the
Marines' primary means of transporting troops and material in Iraq.
The attack brought the number of dead marines in Haditha to 20 in less
than two days. On Monday, guerrillas ambushed and killed a group of six
marine snipers who were moving through the town on foot. The snipers
had been deployed to hunt down and shoot insurgents trying to plant
roadside bombs like the one that exploded today.
Haditha is one of a string of cities that runs along the Euphrates
River from the Syrian border, and which American commanders believe
forms the network that shuttles insurgents from their sanctuaries
outside the country into Baghdad and other parts of the Iraqi
heartland.
The insurgent group, Ansar Al Sunna, claimed responsibility for the
ambush that killed the American snipers, and said in an Internet
posting today that it had captured one of the marines alive. The group
claimed it had killed eight Americans altogether, and that its fighters
had beheaded some of the Americans who were still alive after the
ambush.
There was no way to verify the claim that the group had taken an
American prisoner, and the posting did not contain any video or
photographs.
In the Internet message, Ansar Al Sunna's "military wing" promised that
a video of their American prisoner was forthcoming.
But later in the day, Ansar Al Sunna posted a video that apparently
depicted the attack on the snipers. The video shows what appears to be
two Humvees moving across the top of a desert ridge, and then, at
different times, six, and small figures walking in the desert off the
road.
"These are the crusaders," a caption on the video says.
Then the video, to the sound of a voice chanting "God is Great!" shows
three masked men shooting shells from atop a dune. Then the video shows
the body of what appears to be a dead American soldier, his shirtless
body burned and mangled.
The video zooms in on the soldier's face. Then a pair of hands reach
down and cut the soldier's dog tag from his neck. The closing frames
show an array of what appears to be captured American military
equipment, including machine guns and M-40 sniper rifles with scopes.
"Pray for us," a caption says at the end.
At a news conference at the Pentagon, Brig. Gen. Carter Ham denied that
any marines were in the custody of insurgents, saying that all of them
had been accounted for. He said there was "no indication" that any of
the marines killed on Monday had been beheaded.
American commanders did acknowledge that one of the marines caught in
Monday's ambush had become separated from the others, and that his body
was not found until later, about a mile away from the scene of the
ambush. That suggested that it was at least possible that one of the
marines had been captured alive by the insurgents and killed later.
General Ham did not rule out that possibility.
"We just don't know what happened," General Ham said.
A note sent out late today by the Marines in Iraq noted the existence
of the video purporting to show the dead American solider. The note
said the Marines were trying to determine whether it was authentic.
We are sorry that the family of the person shown in the video might be
subjected to such images," the unsigned note said. "This disregard for
all human life - Iraqi or American, men, women and even children - is a
trait of the criminals and insurgents we are fighting."
Articles by Vincent in National Review Online In the Internet posting,
Ansar Al Sunna said the insurgents had lain in wait for the Americans
for nine days, stepping up attacks on a nearby base so as to draw the
Americans into an ambush. The American base is near the Haditha Dam on
the Euphrates, a massive structure built during the time of Saddam
Hussein's rule.
The Americans said the marines caught in the ambush were members of
sniper teams going out to look for insurgents.
"The American marines fell into the trap," the Internet posting said.
As soon as the Americans got out of their vehicles, the posting said,
the insurgents surrounded them and ordered them to surrender. The
posting said the Americans started shooting, so the insurgents returned
fire.
That statement, also posted with Ansar Al Sunna, was inconsistent with
what was later shown on the video.
"After the attack the mujahedeen reached the marines, and some of them
were dead and the others were dying, so they beheaded those who were
still alive except for one, because he was not injured in the head,"
the message said. "So they took him a prisoner."
The Internet message said the insurgents were able to take away the
soldier and much of the Americans' equipment before American
helicopters arrived. On Tuesday, The Associated Press quoted witnesses
in Haditha as saying that masked men had come to the town's central
market passing out fliers boasting of the attack and brandishing
American military equipment they said had been taken from the dead
marines.
As for today's attack on the troop carrier, General Ham said it was not
clear whether the explosive was a mine - and thereby triggered on
impact - or whether it was detonated on command.
"We have seen over the past few months a general decline in the number
of improvised explosive device attacks," he said. "In volume they've
decreased, but the lethality has remained very, very high."
There was no immediate claim of responsibility for today's attack.
The attack today in Haditha follows at least half a dozen American
military offensives in Haditha and other parts of Anbar Province to
shut down that network. The previous operations have been met with
little resistance; the guerrillas have seemed to melt away, only to
mount attacks later on.
But an American officer said today that the most recent operation may
have been scoring some success, prompting the insurgents to strike
back. The Americans recently set up a base in Rawah, on the north side
of the Euphrates near the Syrian border, and moved an additional 1,600
troops to the area, substantially hindering the movement of insurgents
on both sides of the river, the American officer said.
Most of the marines killed over the past two days were part of the same
military reserve unit in Cleveland.
Today' attack was among the worst on American troops since the 2003
invasion. Last December, a suicide bomber struck a mess hall at an
American base near Mosul, killing 14 American servicemen and 4 American
contractors. In April 2004, up to 12 marines were killed when they were
attacked in the city of Ramadi.
Another marine was killed Monday in the nearby city of Hit when a
suicide bomber drove his car into a military convoy and blew himself
up. Hit is about 50 miles southeast from Haditha.
Responding to another Web posting claiming that a senior American
commander had been killed in Falluja, General Ham said, "Not to my
knowledge."
Dexter Filkins reported from Baghdad, Iraq, for this article, and Eric
Schmitt from Washington.
Enkidu the Atheist
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
> The attack offered new evidence to buttress the claims of American
> officers here that insurgents in Iraq are building bigger and more
> sophisticated bombs, some of which focus their blast in a single
> direction.
They have taken out M1A1's. Those were designed to take on Soviet battle
tanks! There is nothing tougher anywhere in the world. These Iraqis are
not stupid. They are focused, driven fanatics, and we seem to be driving
more into their camp.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding. When it
is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other
people's business.
-- Eric Hoffer
Colin Campbell
<jdwn...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>conn...@hotmail.com wrote in news:1123110051.530825.26300
>@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
>
>> The attack offered new evidence to buttress the claims of American
>> officers here that insurgents in Iraq are building bigger and more
>> sophisticated bombs, some of which focus their blast in a single
>> direction.
>
>They have taken out M1A1's. Those were designed to take on Soviet battle
>tanks! There is nothing tougher anywhere in the world. These Iraqis are
>not stupid. They are focused, driven fanatics, and we seem to be driving
>more into their camp.
And just how many have they 'taken out?'
(We have had more M1A1s destroyed in accidents than by the enemy in
Iraq.)
And can you please explain what moronic impulse caused you to cross
post your comment to a military newsgroup - where the people who
actually know what they are talking about are going to laugh at you?
--
"It's not American foreign policy, or the plight of the
Palestinians, or America's longstanding support for Israel.
A group of people with money and weaponry have simply
decided that we, as a civilization, are unfit to live, and
want, eventally, to exterminate us."
'Christian Century' magazine
Enkidu the Atheist
in news:c5s2f1t6u74k548gq...@4ax.com:
> On 4 Aug 2005 00:59:09 GMT, Enkidu the Atheist
> <jdwn...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>
>>conn...@hotmail.com wrote in news:1123110051.530825.26300
>>@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> The attack offered new evidence to buttress the claims of American
>>> officers here that insurgents in Iraq are building bigger and more
>>> sophisticated bombs, some of which focus their blast in a single
>>> direction.
>>
>>They have taken out M1A1's. Those were designed to take on Soviet
>>battle tanks! There is nothing tougher anywhere in the world. These
>>Iraqis are not stupid. They are focused, driven fanatics, and we seem
>>to be driving more into their camp.
>
> And just how many have they 'taken out?'
One. If one of those can be disabled, no other vehicle is safe. Don't
get me wrong, an Abrams is a magnificent piece of equipment, and and
soldier inside one is about as safe as can be. But very few soldiers are
in them, and many are out of them.
> (We have had more M1A1s destroyed in accidents than by the enemy in
> Iraq.)
The same could be said of every military vehicle, beginning with the
chariot. (Wait, I think we'd have to except WW1 and WW2 submarines.)
What's your point?
> And can you please explain what moronic impulse caused you to cross
> post your comment to a military newsgroup - where the people who
> actually know what they are talking about are going to laugh at you?
Check the original post. I don't know where it came from.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation
and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger
with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change
them.
-- Abraham Lincoln
Colin Campbell
<jdwn...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>> And just how many have they 'taken out?'
>
>One. If one of those can be disabled, no other vehicle is safe. Don't
>get me wrong, an Abrams is a magnificent piece of equipment, and and
>soldier inside one is about as safe as can be. But very few soldiers are
>in them, and many are out of them.
Anything can be disabled if the enemy gets luck enough. And if you
had bothered to look at casualty _rates_ you would discover that our
casualty rates are incredibly low.
>
>> (We have had more M1A1s destroyed in accidents than by the enemy in
>> Iraq.)
>
>The same could be said of every military vehicle, beginning with the
>chariot. (Wait, I think we'd have to except WW1 and WW2 submarines.)
>What's your point?
My point is that the enemy has been extremely ineffective at
destroying armored vehicles.
BTW, in the history of armored warfare it is extremely unusual that an
enemy have been able to take out fewer tanks than we are losing to
accidents and normal wear-and-tear.
Enkidu the Atheist
> On 4 Aug 2005 01:51:05 GMT, Enkidu the Atheist
> <jdwn...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> And just how many have they 'taken out?'
>>
>>One. If one of those can be disabled, no other vehicle is safe.
>>Don't get me wrong, an Abrams is a magnificent piece of equipment, and
>>and soldier inside one is about as safe as can be. But very few
>>soldiers are in them, and many are out of them.
>
> Anything can be disabled if the enemy gets luck enough. And if you
> had bothered to look at casualty _rates_ you would discover that our
> casualty rates are incredibly low.
But the dead are all 100% dead, each and every one of them. Don't make
light of their sacrifice.
>>> (We have had more M1A1s destroyed in accidents than by the enemy in
>>> Iraq.)
>>
>>The same could be said of every military vehicle, beginning with the
>>chariot. (Wait, I think we'd have to except WW1 and WW2 submarines.)
>>What's your point?
>
> My point is that the enemy has been extremely ineffective at
> destroying armored vehicles.
Yet the dead are still dead. How many men's lives are you willing to
sacrifice? Are you willing to sacrifice your own in this cause? Ever risk
it? The lives and the patriotism of our young men and women is a scarce
and valuable resource. I think it has been poorly used in this fight.
And is Iraq any better off? With a different approach years ago, would
Iraq be better off than it is? I think so.
> BTW, in the history of armored warfare it is extremely unusual that an
> enemy have been able to take out fewer tanks than we are losing to
> accidents and normal wear-and-tear.
Still, if tanks are subject to attack, what is safe?
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
When I think of all the harm the Bible has done, I despair of ever writing
anything to equal it.
-- Oscar Wilde
Colin Campbell
<jdwn...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>Colin Campbell <activa...@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote
>in news:0kt2f1l2pi2leuo2t...@4ax.com:
>
>> On 4 Aug 2005 01:51:05 GMT, Enkidu the Atheist
>> <jdwn...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> And just how many have they 'taken out?'
>>>
>>>One. If one of those can be disabled, no other vehicle is safe.
>>>Don't get me wrong, an Abrams is a magnificent piece of equipment, and
>>>and soldier inside one is about as safe as can be. But very few
>>>soldiers are in them, and many are out of them.
>>
>> Anything can be disabled if the enemy gets luck enough. And if you
>> had bothered to look at casualty _rates_ you would discover that our
>> casualty rates are incredibly low.
>
>But the dead are all 100% dead, each and every one of them. Don't make
>light of their sacrifice.
You are a real piece of work. I point out that we are doing an
extraordinarily good job in keeping the people whose lives are
entrusted to us alive and you seem to think that I am 'making light'
of the deaths of people we I knew personally.
>> My point is that the enemy has been extremely ineffective at
>> destroying armored vehicles.
>
>Yet the dead are still dead. How many men's lives are you willing to
>sacrifice? Are you willing to sacrifice your own in this cause? Ever risk
>it? The lives and the patriotism of our young men and women is a scarce
>and valuable resource. I think it has been poorly used in this fight.
last February I returned from a tour in Iraq. And this was my
_second_ war.
Do you have any more stupid things to say?
Enkidu the Atheist
> On 4 Aug 2005 03:15:20 GMT, Enkidu the Atheist
> <jdwn...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>
>>Colin Campbell <activa...@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote
>>in news:0kt2f1l2pi2leuo2t...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On 4 Aug 2005 01:51:05 GMT, Enkidu the Atheist
>>> <jdwn...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> And just how many have they 'taken out?'
>>>>
>>>>One. If one of those can be disabled, no other vehicle is safe.
>>>>Don't get me wrong, an Abrams is a magnificent piece of equipment,
>>>>and and soldier inside one is about as safe as can be. But very few
>>>>soldiers are in them, and many are out of them.
>>>
>>> Anything can be disabled if the enemy gets luck enough. And if you
>>> had bothered to look at casualty _rates_ you would discover that our
>>> casualty rates are incredibly low.
>>
>>But the dead are all 100% dead, each and every one of them. Don't
>>make light of their sacrifice.
>
> You are a real piece of work. I point out that we are doing an
> extraordinarily good job in keeping the people whose lives are
> entrusted to us alive and you seem to think that I am 'making light'
> of the deaths of people we I knew personally.
We have over 1800 dead. Each one was a son, daughter, father, mother,
wife, brother, husband, etc. I have seen families learn a father has
died. I would *never* ask a family or a man risk such a loss in any but
the most important causes. I think our current President led us into a
war that did not need to be fought, and certainly did not need to be
fought in this way. When I was young, my father was a Navy corpsman in
Vietnam. He was sent to risk his life in a war that should not have been
fought. He is my hero, a brave man. His bravery was misused.
>>> My point is that the enemy has been extremely ineffective at
>>> destroying armored vehicles.
>>
>>Yet the dead are still dead. How many men's lives are you willing to
>>sacrifice? Are you willing to sacrifice your own in this cause? Ever
>>risk it? The lives and the patriotism of our young men and women is a
>>scarce and valuable resource. I think it has been poorly used in this
>>fight.
>
> last February I returned from a tour in Iraq. And this was my
> _second_ war.
I applaud you bravery, I honor your service. I respect you. I also
think that *you* are too important to risk in any but vital causes. That
men willing to die for their country are asked to die for anything less
than the vital interests of their country makes me angry.
> Do you have any more stupid things to say?
I don't think I've said anything stupid. Is every opinion that differs
from yours 'stupid'? Is there no room for a difference of opinion in the
America you fought for?
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
If this is the best God can do, I'm not impressed.
-- George Carlin, Napalm & Silly Putty (2001)
Colin Campbell
<jdwn...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>> You are a real piece of work. I point out that we are doing an
>> extraordinarily good job in keeping the people whose lives are
>> entrusted to us alive and you seem to think that I am 'making light'
>> of the deaths of people we I knew personally.
>
>We have over 1800 dead. Each one was a son, daughter, father, mother,
>wife, brother, husband, etc. I have seen families learn a father has
>died. I would *never* ask a family or a man risk such a loss in any but
>the most important causes. I think our current President led us into a
>war that did not need to be fought, and certainly did not need to be
>fought in this way. When I was young, my father was a Navy corpsman in
>Vietnam. He was sent to risk his life in a war that should not have been
>fought. He is my hero, a brave man. His bravery was misused.
And your political opinions are not even mildly interesting. I am
here correcting some rather stupid comments about the enemy's
"effectiveness" in attacking us.
>> last February I returned from a tour in Iraq. And this was my
>> _second_ war.
>
>I applaud you bravery, I honor your service. I respect you. I also
>think that *you* are too important to risk in any but vital causes. That
>men willing to die for their country are asked to die for anything less
>than the vital interests of their country makes me angry.
Again, I am not interested in your political opinions.
>
>> Do you have any more stupid things to say?
>
>I don't think I've said anything stupid.
Then you have a short memory. Here are your own words.
"Yet the dead are still dead. How many men's lives are you willing to
sacrifice? Are you willing to sacrifice your own in this cause? Ever
risk it? "
I have recently returned from a tour of duty in Iraq. I have has
friends die as a result of their service in both peacetime and in war.
I have personal friends who are currently in Iraq. I have soldiers
whom I am responsible for serving in Iraq.
And you have the gall to ask me the questions quoted above.
Malachias Invictus
You didn't quote any of his questions, buckwheat.
--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.
from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
Enkidu the Atheist
> On 4 Aug 2005 04:09:16 GMT, Enkidu the Atheist
> <jdwn...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> You are a real piece of work. I point out that we are doing an
>>> extraordinarily good job in keeping the people whose lives are
>>> entrusted to us alive and you seem to think that I am 'making light'
>>> of the deaths of people we I knew personally.
>>
>>We have over 1800 dead. Each one was a son, daughter, father, mother,
>>wife, brother, husband, etc. I have seen families learn a father has
>>died. I would *never* ask a family or a man risk such a loss in any
>>but the most important causes. I think our current President led us
>>into a war that did not need to be fought, and certainly did not need
>>to be fought in this way. When I was young, my father was a Navy
>>corpsman in Vietnam. He was sent to risk his life in a war that
>>should not have been fought. He is my hero, a brave man. His bravery
>>was misused.
>
> And your political opinions are not even mildly interesting. I am
> here correcting some rather stupid comments about the enemy's
> "effectiveness" in attacking us.
Good men die over politics. Perhaps it should matter to you.
>>> last February I returned from a tour in Iraq. And this was my
>>> _second_ war.
>>
>>I applaud you bravery, I honor your service. I respect you. I also
>>think that *you* are too important to risk in any but vital causes.
>>That men willing to die for their country are asked to die for
>>anything less than the vital interests of their country makes me
>>angry.
>
> Again, I am not interested in your political opinions.
Good men die over politics. Perhaps it should matter to you.
>>> Do you have any more stupid things to say?
>>
>>I don't think I've said anything stupid.
>
> Then you have a short memory. Here are your own words.
>
> "Yet the dead are still dead. How many men's lives are you willing to
> sacrifice? Are you willing to sacrifice your own in this cause? Ever
> risk it? "
I asked. You had a very good answer.
> I have recently returned from a tour of duty in Iraq. I have has
> friends die as a result of their service in both peacetime and in war.
> I have personal friends who are currently in Iraq. I have soldiers
> whom I am responsible for serving in Iraq.
>
> And you have the gall to ask me the questions quoted above.
I asked. You had a very good answer. But how many is too many? Is
1,822? 18,220? 182,200? Is there no number that would make you
question the wisdom of this path? When a friend dies, don't you wonder,
even for a moment, if his death was necessary? When you are a soldier,
you follow orders. But you are a citizen too, responsible for directing
the civil government through your vote, through your support of one
political view among many competing views. Do you never wonder if there
is a better way? A cheaper way? A less deadly way? It sure doesn't
seem like it from your writings, but perhaps I misjudge you. You seem so
certain, more certain than I ever feel about my own opinions. Were I
President, every death, every wounded soldier would make me question the
wisdom of my policy. Perhaps I might come away convinced that the cost
was justified. Our current President shows no sign of introspection.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
Although the time of death is approaching me, I am not afraid of dying
and going to Hell or (what would be considerably worse) going to the
popularized version of Heaven. I expect death to be nothingness and, for
removing me from all possible fears of death, I am thankful to atheism.
--Isaac Asimov, "On Religiosity," Free Inquiry
Colin Campbell
<capt_ma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "Yet the dead are still dead. How many men's lives are you willing to
>> sacrifice? Are you willing to sacrifice your own in this cause? Ever
>> risk it? "
>>
>> I have recently returned from a tour of duty in Iraq. I have has
>> friends die as a result of their service in both peacetime and in war.
>> I have personal friends who are currently in Iraq. I have soldiers
>> whom I am responsible for serving in Iraq.
>>
>> And you have the gall to ask me the questions quoted above.
>
>You didn't quote any of his questions, buckwheat.
See the " thingies at the beginning and end of the top paragraph?
Those are called 'quote marks' and used to indicate that I was
repeating somebody else's words.
Anything else to say - "buckwheat?'" (Note the use of quote marks -
now do you know what they are for?)
Colin Campbell
<jdwn...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>> And your political opinions are not even mildly interesting. I am
>> here correcting some rather stupid comments about the enemy's
>> "effectiveness" in attacking us.
>
>Good men die over politics. Perhaps it should matter to you.
Only when it affects how I perform my duties. Otherwise people's
political opinions are just more horse manure.
>> Again, I am not interested in your political opinions.
>
>Good men die over politics. Perhaps it should matter to you.
The good men part - yes. But why should I be interested in people's
lame political opinions?
>> And you have the gall to ask me the questions quoted above.
>
>I asked. You had a very good answer. But how many is too many? Is
>1,822? 18,220? 182,200?
To put it quite bluntly - whatever it takes to get the job done.
Fortunately we are doing it and still being miserly with the lives of
our soldiers.
>Is there no number that would make you
>question the wisdom of this path?
No - because if I started asking that question I might look at you and
wonder if you are 'worth it.'
>When a friend dies, don't you wonder,
>even for a moment, if his death was necessary? When you are a soldier,
>you follow orders.
It is not a matter of 'necessary.' The question I ask is: "What can
we do differently next time to avoid that risk and still accomplish
the mission?"
>But you are a citizen too, responsible for directing
>the civil government through your vote, through your support of one
>political view among many competing views.
And I do this - in the privacy of a voting booth. Otherwise I am a
professional whose service is completely separate from his politics.
>Do you never wonder if there
>is a better way? A cheaper way? A less deadly way? It sure doesn't
>seem like it from your writings, but perhaps I misjudge you.
Define 'better.' Does 'better' involve not forcing the enemy to fight
us on our own terms? Does your 'better' identify the 'center of
gravity' that drives Conservative Islamic Terrorism?
Or are your strategic analysis as insightful and accurate as your
inane comments about the enemy's ability to destroy our tanks?
>You seem so
>certain, more certain than I ever feel about my own opinions. Were I
>President, every death, every wounded soldier would make me question the
>wisdom of my policy. Perhaps I might come away convinced that the cost
>was justified. Our current President shows no sign of introspection.
Then if you were President - we would lose. There is no easy answer
to the war on terror. Once the first soldier crosses the Line Of
Departure - you are either committed - or you are defeated and you
have just wasted everything those soldiers have done. And even worse
- you have just ensured that those soldiers died for nothing.
Do you think that I would ever feel comfortable risking my life and
the lives of my troops knowing that if any of them died you would
'question the wisdom of your policy' and thus ensure that their
sacrifice was for nothing?
The American soldier can and will win in Iraq - but only if people
like you let us.
Enkidu the Atheist
> The American soldier can and will win in Iraq - but only if people
> like you let us.
But what will we win? Safety from terrorists? The ones who attacked us
weren't Iraqis, didn't train in Iraq, hadn't been to Iraq, and weren't
supported by Iraq. Safety from Sadam's weapons? He had none, and
everyone who looked with open eyes knew that already. Freedom for the
Iraqis? Perhaps. But they may take that freedom and vote in an Islamic
fundamentalist regime. Would we stop them? Could we? Would it be right
to do so? After all, who are we to make such choices for a free people?
These are important *political* questions. War *is* politics, it is an
extention of US policy. If we've stumbled into this war in error, we
can't stumble back out of it. A vision, a long range plan is required.
Tell me, what are we fighting for? How will we know when we've won? You
seem to have answers that satisfy you. Nobody has given me answers.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
"My illness is due to my doctor's insistence that I drink milk, a whitish
fluid they force down helpless babies."
* W. C. Fields
(01/29/1880 - 12/25/1946)
US comic actor
Chris Hayes
That's a pure lie on your part. As much as I don't like Campbell, he
did quote the guy accurately:
Pay attention, fuckwit. You dropped the ball last thread when you
bought Mikey's trolling bluster and goalpost moving.
Chris Hayes
Enkidu the Atheist wrote:
> Colin Campbell <activa...@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote in
> news:j193f15ggruf2c271...@4ax.com:
>
> > The American soldier can and will win in Iraq - but only if people
> > like you let us.
>
> But what will we win? Safety from terrorists? The ones who attacked us
> weren't Iraqis, didn't train in Iraq, hadn't been to Iraq, and weren't
> supported by Iraq. Safety from Sadam's weapons? He had none, and
> everyone who looked with open eyes knew that already. Freedom for the
> Iraqis? Perhaps. But they may take that freedom and vote in an Islamic
> fundamentalist regime. Would we stop them? Could we? Would it be right
> to do so? After all, who are we to make such choices for a free people?
> These are important *political* questions. War *is* politics, it is an
> extention of US policy. If we've stumbled into this war in error, we
> can't stumble back out of it. A vision, a long range plan is required.
>
Not to mention that another important question would be: when is it
time to recognize that we can't win? I believe it was Gen. Myers who
said "We can't win militarily, but we can't lose militarily." Vietnam
lasted for around a decade and nobody wanted to face the obvious: that
US soldiers weren't doing a lick of good in offering an alternative to
the nationalism/socialist ideology the North did. There wasn't much
support in Vietnam for what the US did and it took them around a decade
to figure out it was time to pull out.
Michael Scott Brown
> Do you think that I would ever feel comfortable risking my life and
> the lives of my troops knowing that if any of them died you would
> 'question the wisdom of your policy' and thus ensure that their
> sacrifice was for nothing?
The logical fallacy in this argument is *staggering*.
Please don't be with the blatantly absurdist propaganda in public.
Oh no! We can't question ourselves! We must always do *only* what we
decided to do in the first place! Regardless of the outcome and regardless
of new information! Stay the course, or we will weaken and fail!
Do you have any idea how gods-damnned idiotic that sounds?
There is a difference between enlightened self-scrutiny and *cowardice*,
you fool!
Yes, I'm being harsh with you - because your public idiocy deserves it.
*Think*. A mission is initiated, 100 men die at the first stage. After
regrouping and contemplating the greater difficulty of the project, it is
determined that perhaps this mission isn't worth the cost it will wind up
incurring (say, 10,000 men). You would prefer to spend those 9,900 lives in
order to ensure that the first 100 to fall don't have their FEELINGS HURT?
What about the wives, sons, daughters, mothers, and fathers of those other
9900 soldiers???? I'm sure they'll be very relieved to know that their
loved ones died in droves so that none of them could be said to have died
"for nothing".
That is a case of *utterly* misplaced priorities.
The sacrifices of those first 100 could be described as having *saved*
9900 lives. That is hardly "nothing", sir.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
news:Xns96A7EB6...@130.133.1.4...
> to do so? After all, who are we to make such choices for a free people?
> These are important *political* questions. War *is* politics, it is an
> extention of US policy. If we've stumbled into this war in error, we
> can't stumble back out of it. A vision, a long range plan is required.
> Tell me, what are we fighting for? How will we know when we've won? You
> seem to have answers that satisfy you. Nobody has given me answers.
The current administration is fighting for no less than a total
reshaping of the Arab world, with all of its dictatorships shattered. Iraq
is only the first domino - that is, if we can finish pushing the bitch over
(all indications are, yes - but not at the comfortably cheap cost that had
been hoped for). Naturally, the arrogance of the Bush administration made
it impossible for them to undertake this effort competently. <sigh>
-Michael
Colin Campbell
<jdwn...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>Colin Campbell <activa...@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote in
>news:j193f15ggruf2c271...@4ax.com:
>
>> The American soldier can and will win in Iraq - but only if people
>> like you let us.
>
>But what will we win? Safety from terrorists?
Yes.
>The ones who attacked us
>weren't Iraqis, didn't train in Iraq, hadn't been to Iraq, and weren't
>supported by Iraq.
And your point is?
Hint: chasing terrorists is a losing strategy. Or you can try looking
at a map of the Middle East and pondering the strategic implications.
>Safety from Sadam's weapons? He had none, and
>everyone who looked with open eyes knew that already.
Actually, they did not. In fact we made some unpleasant discoveries
about a bunker full of chemical mustard and VX that was supposedly
under UN seal.
And you are aware that US soldier have been injured by Saddam era
chemical weapons?
>Freedom for the
>Iraqis? Perhaps. But they may take that freedom and vote in an Islamic
>fundamentalist regime.
And what makes you think that this is likely? I take it you have not
been paying attention to Iraqi politics.
>Tell me, what are we fighting for? How will we know when we've won? You
>seem to have answers that satisfy you. Nobody has given me answers.
The answers have been provided. Your failure to educate yourself on
the subject is not our fault.
BTW - what is your better solution to fix the social, religious,
political and economic issues that drive Islamic terrorism?
Colin Campbell
<mister...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>"Colin Campbell" <activa...@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote in
>message news:j193f15ggruf2c271...@4ax.com...
>> Do you think that I would ever feel comfortable risking my life and
>> the lives of my troops knowing that if any of them died you would
>> 'question the wisdom of your policy' and thus ensure that their
>> sacrifice was for nothing?
>
> The logical fallacy in this argument is *staggering*.
> Please don't be with the blatantly absurdist propaganda in public.
Is it? Are you saying that I am supposed to feel comfortable risking
the lives of my soldiers for a policy that can be dropped because the
person running it does not have the guts to see it through?
>
> Oh no! We can't question ourselves! We must always do *only* what we
>decided to do in the first place! Regardless of the outcome and regardless
>of new information! Stay the course, or we will weaken and fail!
Once we are committed we either succeed or fail. If you lack
commitment then you have no business committing troops in the first
place.
Enkidu the Atheist
>> The logical fallacy in this argument is *staggering*.
>> Please don't be with the blatantly absurdist propaganda in public.
>
> Is it? Are you saying that I am supposed to feel comfortable risking
> the lives of my soldiers for a policy that can be dropped because the
> person running it does not have the guts to see it through?
Fucking moron! You're never supposed "supposed to feel comfortable risking
the lives of ... soldiers".
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
I don't go to mythical places with strange men.
-Douglas Adams, The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul (1988)
Colin Campbell
<jdwn...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>Colin Campbell <activa...@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote in
>news:lv44f159rtpta4js6...@4ax.com:
>
>>> The logical fallacy in this argument is *staggering*.
>>> Please don't be with the blatantly absurdist propaganda in public.
>>
>> Is it? Are you saying that I am supposed to feel comfortable risking
>> the lives of my soldiers for a policy that can be dropped because the
>> person running it does not have the guts to see it through?
>
>Fucking moron! You're never supposed "supposed to feel comfortable risking
>the lives of ... soldiers".
In that case - I would not be able to do my job and return home sane.
Leave soldier leadership to people who know what they are talking
about.
And - BTW - you knew what I meant. Are you such a pathetic person
that you have to misrepresent my words?
Enkidu the Atheist
> On 4 Aug 2005 13:18:49 GMT, Enkidu the Atheist
> <jdwn...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>
>>Colin Campbell <activa...@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote
>>in news:lv44f159rtpta4js6...@4ax.com:
>>
>>>> The logical fallacy in this argument is *staggering*.
>>>> Please don't be with the blatantly absurdist propaganda in
>>>> public.
>>>
>>> Is it? Are you saying that I am supposed to feel comfortable
>>> risking the lives of my soldiers for a policy that can be dropped
>>> because the person running it does not have the guts to see it
>>> through?
>>
>>Fucking moron! You're never supposed "supposed to feel comfortable
>>risking the lives of ... soldiers".
>
> In that case - I would not be able to do my job and return home sane.
>
> Leave soldier leadership to people who know what they are talking
> about.
>
> And - BTW - you knew what I meant. Are you such a pathetic person
> that you have to misrepresent my words?
So, which is it? Am I an idiot who doesn't understand, or a pathetic
person who does understand but misrepresents you?
I'll tell you, I hope your full of shit and have never led men. You have
a cavalier attitude about other people's lives.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
"To limit the press is to insult a nation; to prohibit reading of certain
books is to declare the inhabitants to be either fools or slaves."
* Claude-Adriene Helvetius
(01/26/1715 - 12/26/1771)
French philosopher
Malachias Invictus
> On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 21:51:58 -0700, "Malachias Invictus"
> <capt_ma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> "Yet the dead are still dead. How many men's lives are you willing to
>>> sacrifice? Are you willing to sacrifice your own in this cause? Ever
>>> risk it? "
>>>
>>> I have recently returned from a tour of duty in Iraq. I have has
>>> friends die as a result of their service in both peacetime and in war.
>>> I have personal friends who are currently in Iraq. I have soldiers
>>> whom I am responsible for serving in Iraq.
>>>
>>> And you have the gall to ask me the questions quoted above.
>>
>>You didn't quote any of his questions, buckwheat.
My mistake. Apologies.
Malachias Invictus
"Chris Hayes" <hay...@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123137304.1...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Malachias Invictus wrote:
>> You didn't quote any of his questions, buckwheat.
> That's a pure lie on your part.
No, it was a *mistake* on my part, not that you have the wit to tell the
difference.
> Pay attention, fuckwit. You dropped the ball last thread when you
> bought Mikey's trolling bluster and goalpost moving.
I did not buy anything of the kind, kook. Now go back to your semicoherent
ramblings.
Malachias Invictus
"Michael Scott Brown" <mister...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:NokIe.658$WD....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Enkidu the Atheist" <jdwn...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns96A7EB6...@130.133.1.4...
>> to do so? After all, who are we to make such choices for a free people?
>> These are important *political* questions. War *is* politics, it is an
>> extention of US policy. If we've stumbled into this war in error, we
>> can't stumble back out of it. A vision, a long range plan is required.
>> Tell me, what are we fighting for? How will we know when we've won? You
>> seem to have answers that satisfy you. Nobody has given me answers.
>
> The current administration is fighting for no less than a total
> reshaping of the Arab world, with all of its dictatorships shattered.
Are you including Saudi Arabia?
Chris Hayes
Malachias Invictus wrote:
> "Chris Hayes" <hay...@fadmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1123137304.1...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Malachias Invictus wrote:
>
> >> You didn't quote any of his questions, buckwheat.
>
> > That's a pure lie on your part.
>
> No, it was a *mistake* on my part, not that you have the wit to tell the
> difference.
>
It's a flamewar. Deal with it.
> > Pay attention, fuckwit. You dropped the ball last thread when you
> > bought Mikey's trolling bluster and goalpost moving.
>
> I did not buy anything of the kind, kook.
Yes, you did.
Michael Scott Brown
> > Please don't be with the blatantly absurdist propaganda in public.
>
> Is it? Are you saying that I am supposed to feel comfortable risking
> the lives of my soldiers for a policy that can be dropped because the
> person running it does not have the guts to see it through?
The number of things about military service that defy the concept of
"comfort" are fairly staggering. Privation, killing, dying, post traumatic
stress... I don't see you having much of a leg to stand on with this
argument about "comfort". The *job* is to implement the will of the United
States of America - whatever it might be at the time. If each patriot does
that to the best of his ability, and lives every day to protect his
comrades, then his life is *never* "for nothing".
I notice you erased the part about having to kill 9,900 more soldiers so
that you could be more "comfortable".
You don't have anything to say about that?
Retreat and readjustment is part of war. This does not make the lives
lost before the change in course a wasted effort.
> > Oh no! We can't question ourselves! We must always do *only* what we
> >decided to do in the first place! Regardless of the outcome and
regardless
> >of new information! Stay the course, or we will weaken and fail!
>
> Once we are committed we either succeed or fail. If you lack
> commitment then you have no business committing troops in the first
> place.
Responding to new circumstances is not necessarily about lack of
commitment - though one who lacks commitment will of course respond
fecklessly. Your assertion that the two are one and the same is *flawed
thinking*.
I'd really prefer to imagine the boys at the tip of my spears had a
brain in their heads. Can you please improve your wisdom?
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
news:0LWdnW7oat6...@comcast.com...
> > reshaping of the Arab world, with all of its dictatorships shattered.
>
> Are you including Saudi Arabia?
I have no doubt that they are on the list of "things that need
attention", though I think everyone's hoping that the switch in kings will
produce improvements without the need to stomp the place.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> It's a flamewar. Deal with it.
For it to be a flamewar, you would have to be flaming people.
Thus far, this has been little other than the public humiliation of one
Chrissie Hayes, the poodle of Usenet.
-Michael
Kevin Lowe
> On 4 Aug 2005 06:08:12 GMT, Enkidu the Atheist
> <jdwn...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>
> >Colin Campbell <activa...@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote in
> >news:j193f15ggruf2c271...@4ax.com:
> >
> >> The American soldier can and will win in Iraq - but only if people
> >> like you let us.
> >
> >But what will we win? Safety from terrorists?
>
> Yes.
I find that unlikely. Iraq has never had anything to do with terrorist
attacks on the US homeland. They have come from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan
and so on.
> >The ones who attacked us
> >weren't Iraqis, didn't train in Iraq, hadn't been to Iraq, and weren't
> >supported by Iraq.
>
> And your point is?
>
> Hint: chasing terrorists is a losing strategy. Or you can try looking
> at a map of the Middle East and pondering the strategic implications.
You have to piss about with "hints" and hopes, because if you stated
your case clearly it would be really obvious that conquering Iraq had
absolutely nothing to do with protecting the USA from terrorist attacks.
> >Safety from Sadam's weapons? He had none, and
> >everyone who looked with open eyes knew that already.
>
> Actually, they did not. In fact we made some unpleasant discoveries
> about a bunker full of chemical mustard and VX that was supposedly
> under UN seal.
I never heard that one before. Cite please, because I think you are
making it up.
> And you are aware that US soldier have been injured by Saddam era
> chemical weapons?
Well, that justifies an invasion. Well done.
> >Freedom for the
> >Iraqis? Perhaps. But they may take that freedom and vote in an Islamic
> >fundamentalist regime.
>
> And what makes you think that this is likely? I take it you have not
> been paying attention to Iraqi politics.
That's fucking hilarious. The election came within a whisker of putting
fundamentalist loonies with strong sympathies towards the Iranian regime
in power, and according to reliable journalist Seymour Hersh that's
after some serious under-the-table efforts from the White House to rig a
palatable outcome. Iraq is, most probably, one honest ballot away from
being another Iran.
> BTW - what is your better solution to fix the social, religious,
> political and economic issues that drive Islamic terrorism?
I don't have a solution to fix the social, religious, political and
economic issues that drive the current mob you have in power, but I'm
still very much against bombing the crap out of Canada in the hope that
it somehow magically fixes the problem.
If you want to shoot some people to achieve a goal, you really ought to
be the one explaining how shooting those people will help. It's not our
job to come up with a better way, it's your job to justify the actions
of the side you support.
> "It's not American foreign policy, or the plight of the
> Palestinians, or America's longstanding support for Israel.
> A group of people with money and weaponry have simply
> decided that we, as a civilization, are unfit to live, and
> want, eventally, to exterminate us."
> 'Christian Century' magazine
Nice sig, but you can't live in denial forever. Trying to fight
terrorism while at the same time pretending that it doesn't arise for
recogniseable reasons is pure idiocy. The current crop of loonies need
to be shot, but if you want to prevent the next lot from appearing you
need to do more than just shoot people.
No, torturing people won't do it either.
--
Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.
Michael Scott Brown
news:me-E7865C.03...@news01.comindico.com.au...
> > >But what will we win? Safety from terrorists?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> I find that unlikely. Iraq has never had anything to do with terrorist
> attacks on the US homeland. They have come from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan
> and so on.
The neocons are not targeting Iraq because *Iraq* supported terrorism.
Rather, they assert that the easiest road to achieving massive influence
over those nations and cultures that foster anti-western terrorism (with or
without government sympathy) runs through Iraq. Of course, these same
people believed there would be no insurgency, and being wildly pro-Israel,
the couldn't see *any* change that could possibly be made to happen
there....
> You have to piss about with "hints" and hopes, because if you stated
> your case clearly it would be really obvious that conquering Iraq had
> absolutely nothing to do with protecting the USA from terrorist attacks.
It has nothing to do with protecting the US from terrorist attacks *by
Iraqis*, but transforming the stagnant middle east would have a very
positive effect. The islamic fundamentalists that yap about western
imperialism do so because they see the West's hand propping up the corrupt
leaders that are keeping them from having the theocracies that they believe
everyone in their countries secretly yearns for. By tearing at Western
support, they hope to simultaneously deprive their real target of its
foundation while inspiring with their bravery a revolution to overthrow
those leaders. Many people in the Arab world feel profoundly negative
about unjust American policies in the middle east, and about the corrupt
jackasses who hold the power in their nations, and so these radicals have a
lot of sympathy by virtue of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".
However, that whole equation gets turned on its head if their societies
become free - now the extremists are not fighting their enemies, but
fighting to conquer *them* and _impose_ that Islamic Caliphate (which looks
a lot less attractive once you experience it). And that is not going to go
over well.
That's the argument, at any rate. I suggest you learn something about
what you're discussing if you intend to do it in public.
-Michael
G*rd*n
> > >> like you let us.
Enkidu the Atheist:
> > >But what will we win? Safety from terrorists?
Colin Campbell <activa...@earthlink.net:
> > Yes.
Kevin Lowe <m...@private.net>:
> I find that unlikely. Iraq has never had anything to do with terrorist
> attacks on the US homeland. They have come from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan
> and so on.
That may have changed now. In any case, conventional war
does not deal with terrorism.
I think the question of what is to be won in Iraq is a good
one. If the war was merely to depose Saddam Hussein and
give George Bush a good little war to win an election with,
that mission was indeed accomplished a long time ago. If it
was to get Iraq's oil, the war need never have been fought,
as the U.S. could have bought all it wanted. The present
theory -- rung in after Saddam's WMD and association with
terrorists were exposed as fictions -- is that the U.S. is
turning Iraq into some sort of democracy. However, the
first action of a real democracy in Iraq is likely to be the
election of a Shiite government friendly to Iran (if that
has not happened already). Meanwhile, U.S. forces are
fighting a Sunni resistance which is obviously getting
supplies, technology and possibly leadership from outside
the country, probably from the many, many states, parties,
groups and persons who have an interest in seeing the U.S.
encouraged to shorten its visit to Iraq and not come back.
The more casualties they take, the more money is spent,
the more that outcome becomes probable.
In other words, the U.S. forces are fighting the main
competitors of the Shiites outside of Kurdistan. Once
the U.S. forces leave, I would expect the funding, supply
and reinforcement of the Sunni resistance to dry up,
although maybe the Saudis will keep it going against the
Shiites to try to offset Iranian influence. Recall that
private parties in Saudi Arabia also seem to have funded
such operations as the attacks on the World Trade Center.
So where does "safety from terrorists" come in to this?
It seems to me the more the U.S. becomes involved in the
Middle East, the more likely it is to become involved
with terrorists both as a target and in other ways. As
the proverb goes, You become like those you fight against,
so pick your enemies carefully. It also seems like a
good idea to figure out what is to be won, in the event
that one happens to win.
Chris Hayes
Mikey, Mikey. It's an honor to be one of your targets.
Michael Scott Brown
> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> > For it to be a flamewar, you would have to be flaming people.
> > Thus far, this has been little other than the public humiliation of
one
> > Chrissie Hayes, the poodle of Usenet.
>
> Mikey, Mikey. It's an honor to be one of your targets.
Target? *I* don't need to do any shooting, given your remarkable
facilities for self-injury.
-Michael
Chris Hayes
Ho hum........
Michael Scott Brown
> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> > > Mikey, Mikey. It's an honor to be one of your targets.
> >
> > Target? *I* don't need to do any shooting, given your remarkable
> > facilities for self-injury.
>
> Ho hum........
..though given your Pee Wee Herman fetish, perhaps the appropriate term
is self-abuse.
-Michael
Chris Hayes
Quack, Quack, Quack..........
Colin Campbell
<capt_ma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> The current administration is fighting for no less than a total
>> reshaping of the Arab world, with all of its dictatorships shattered.
>
>Are you including Saudi Arabia?
Yes.
The trick with Saudi is to do so without a Whabbi theocracy taking
over.
--
Colin Campbell
<mister...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Are you including Saudi Arabia?
>
> I have no doubt that they are on the list of "things that need
>attention", though I think everyone's hoping that the switch in kings will
>produce improvements without the need to stomp the place.
Not much of a change, the crown prince has been the de facto ruler of
Saudi Arabia for years.
Kevin Lowe
"Michael Scott Brown" <mister...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Kevin Lowe" <m...@private.net> wrote in message
> news:me-E7865C.03...@news01.comindico.com.au...
> > > >But what will we win? Safety from terrorists?
> > >
> > > Yes.
> >
> > I find that unlikely. Iraq has never had anything to do with terrorist
> > attacks on the US homeland. They have come from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan
> > and so on.
>
> The neocons are not targeting Iraq because *Iraq* supported terrorism.
Although they sure tried to link the two ideas in the mind of the public
to jack up support for the invasion, you have to admit.
> Rather, they assert that the easiest road to achieving massive influence
> over those nations and cultures that foster anti-western terrorism (with or
> without government sympathy) runs through Iraq. Of course, these same
> people believed there would be no insurgency, and being wildly pro-Israel,
> the couldn't see *any* change that could possibly be made to happen
> there....
It's amazing what people can convince themselves of. It would be
wonderful if I was proved wrong, but I think it is clear by now that the
road through Iraq has not led to any such place.
> > You have to piss about with "hints" and hopes, because if you stated
> > your case clearly it would be really obvious that conquering Iraq had
> > absolutely nothing to do with protecting the USA from terrorist attacks.
>
> It has nothing to do with protecting the US from terrorist attacks *by
> Iraqis*, but transforming the stagnant middle east would have a very
> positive effect. The islamic fundamentalists that yap about western
> imperialism do so because they see the West's hand propping up the corrupt
> leaders that are keeping them from having the theocracies that they believe
> everyone in their countries secretly yearns for. By tearing at Western
> support, they hope to simultaneously deprive their real target of its
> foundation while inspiring with their bravery a revolution to overthrow
> those leaders. Many people in the Arab world feel profoundly negative
> about unjust American policies in the middle east, and about the corrupt
> jackasses who hold the power in their nations, and so these radicals have a
> lot of sympathy by virtue of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".
>
> However, that whole equation gets turned on its head if their societies
> become free - now the extremists are not fighting their enemies, but
> fighting to conquer *them* and _impose_ that Islamic Caliphate (which looks
> a lot less attractive once you experience it). And that is not going to go
> over well.
>
> That's the argument, at any rate. I suggest you learn something about
> what you're discussing if you intend to do it in public.
I guess it comes down to whether you think the people making decisions
in the USA right now are utter idiots with the best of intentions and no
sense of proportion, or moderately idiotic people who simply don't care
about the harm they cause who use terrorism as an excuse for an
ill-conceived oil war.
If you go with the first story, the USA might well have decided to spend
billions invading Iraq because they honestly thought that was a sane and
cost-effective way to stop terrorist attacks. I do not buy it, but you
are welcome to. If you go with the second story, preventing terrorism
is just one of the long list of silly excuses.
--
Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.
Colin Campbell
>> >But what will we win? Safety from terrorists?
>>
>> Yes.
>
>I find that unlikely. Iraq has never had anything to do with terrorist
>attacks on the US homeland. They have come from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan
>and so on.
Now consider the economic, political, religious and social conditions
that create the Islamic terrorists. Iraq is the first step in forcing
reform in the Moslem world.
>> Hint: chasing terrorists is a losing strategy. Or you can try looking
>> at a map of the Middle East and pondering the strategic implications.
>
>You have to piss about with "hints" and hopes, because if you stated
>your case clearly it would be really obvious that conquering Iraq had
>absolutely nothing to do with protecting the USA from terrorist attacks.
So you claim to know what my case is? Why don't you tell me?
>> Actually, they did not. In fact we made some unpleasant discoveries
>> about a bunker full of chemical mustard and VX that was supposedly
>> under UN seal.
>
>I never heard that one before. Cite please, because I think you are
>making it up.
How about my eyeballs?
>> And what makes you think that this is likely? I take it you have not
>> been paying attention to Iraqi politics.
>
>That's fucking hilarious. The election came within a whisker of putting
>fundamentalist loonies with strong sympathies towards the Iranian regime
>in power, and according to reliable journalist Seymour Hersh that's
>after some serious under-the-table efforts from the White House to rig a
>palatable outcome. Iraq is, most probably, one honest ballot away from
>being another Iran.
Well, that what you get for thinking that Heresh is 'reliable.'
You really should start paying attention to Iraqi politics - unless
you are afraid of learning something?
Can you name these 'fundamentalist loonies?' Al Sadr was a big loser
with Al Sistaini's faction being the big winner. Do you consider
Sistiani a 'loonie?' (Or better yet - do you even know who he is?)
>> BTW - what is your better solution to fix the social, religious,
>> political and economic issues that drive Islamic terrorism?
>
>I don't have a solution to fix the social, religious, political and
>economic issues that drive the current mob you have in power, but I'm
>still very much against bombing the crap out of Canada in the hope that
>it somehow magically fixes the problem.
So you do not have any better ideas - but just want to criticize a
plan that you do not understand.
>
>Nice sig, but you can't live in denial forever. Trying to fight
>terrorism while at the same time pretending that it doesn't arise for
>recogniseable reasons is pure idiocy.
I agree, that is why I was required to study the subject before I
deployed to Iraq and during my time there.
Apparently, you have not studied the problem. Want me to give you
some book recommendations?
--
Colin Campbell
<jdwn...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>>>Fucking moron! You're never supposed "supposed to feel comfortable
>>>risking the lives of ... soldiers".
>>
>> In that case - I would not be able to do my job and return home sane.
>>
>> Leave soldier leadership to people who know what they are talking
>> about.
>>
>> And - BTW - you knew what I meant. Are you such a pathetic person
>> that you have to misrepresent my words?
>
>So, which is it? Am I an idiot who doesn't understand, or a pathetic
>person who does understand but misrepresents you?
>
>I'll tell you, I hope your full of shit and have never led men. You have
>a cavalier attitude about other people's lives.
Actually my answer was directed to the rest of the readers. My
pointing out your deliberate attempt to misunderstand me was directed
solely at you.
And what are your qualifications to judge my abilities to lead
soldiers?
And the interesting thing is that your comment about how you feel that
I have a 'cavalier' attitude is an indication that we have done a good
job of insulating you from the realities of warfare.
Kevin Lowe
> On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 17:55:47 GMT, Kevin Lowe <m...@private.net> wrote:
> >I find that unlikely. Iraq has never had anything to do with terrorist
> >attacks on the US homeland. They have come from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan
> >and so on.
>
> Now consider the economic, political, religious and social conditions
> that create the Islamic terrorists. Iraq is the first step in forcing
> reform in the Moslem world.
WTF? You don't think that maybe leaning on Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and
Israel to conduct reforms might have been a better first step, rather
than conquering a state which actively suppressed fundamentalist Islam?
> >> Hint: chasing terrorists is a losing strategy. Or you can try looking
> >> at a map of the Middle East and pondering the strategic implications.
> >
> >You have to piss about with "hints" and hopes, because if you stated
> >your case clearly it would be really obvious that conquering Iraq had
> >absolutely nothing to do with protecting the USA from terrorist attacks.
>
> So you claim to know what my case is? Why don't you tell me?
I claim that you have no sensible case at all. Prove me wrong if you
can.
> >> Actually, they did not. In fact we made some unpleasant discoveries
> >> about a bunker full of chemical mustard and VX that was supposedly
> >> under UN seal.
> >
> >I never heard that one before. Cite please, because I think you are
> >making it up.
>
> How about my eyeballs?
How about Reuters? Given your track record so far, I am not letting go
of the possibility that you're a freeper who has never been further away
from his mum's basement than the local 7/11, let alone to Iraq. Your
word alone is no good here.
> >That's fucking hilarious. The election came within a whisker of putting
> >fundamentalist loonies with strong sympathies towards the Iranian regime
> >in power, and according to reliable journalist Seymour Hersh that's
> >after some serious under-the-table efforts from the White House to rig a
> >palatable outcome. Iraq is, most probably, one honest ballot away from
> >being another Iran.
>
> Well, that what you get for thinking that Heresh is 'reliable.'
Tough call here. On one hand we have a respected journalist with a
lengthy pedigree of exposing similar government shenanigans. On the
other hand we have a keyboard warrior who insinuates a lot but is short
on facts or argument. Who should we assume to be more reliable?
> Can you name these 'fundamentalist loonies?' Al Sadr was a big loser
> with Al Sistaini's faction being the big winner. Do you consider
> Sistiani a 'loonie?' (Or better yet - do you even know who he is?)
You're a bit gunshy about making factual claims, I see. I can't blame
you. If you actually make factual claims, as opposed to pissing about
with "consider this" and "what do you know about that", you risk being
proven wrong.
I'll still be here if you decide to grow a pair.
> >I don't have a solution to fix the social, religious, political and
> >economic issues that drive the current mob you have in power, but I'm
> >still very much against bombing the crap out of Canada in the hope that
> >it somehow magically fixes the problem.
>
> So you do not have any better ideas - but just want to criticize a
> plan that you do not understand.
You're the one defending an invasion that has cost tens of thousands of
lives, so you're the one with the job of explaining why it was a good
idea and what goals it has achieved.
> >Nice sig, but you can't live in denial forever. Trying to fight
> >terrorism while at the same time pretending that it doesn't arise for
> >recogniseable reasons is pure idiocy.
>
> I agree, that is why I was required to study the subject before I
> deployed to Iraq and during my time there.
It sure doesn't show.
> Apparently, you have not studied the problem. Want me to give you
> some book recommendations?
I would prefer you to either make specific, factual claims you can back
up or shut the fuck up.
--
Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.
Colin Campbell
<mister...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> The number of things about military service that defy the concept of
>"comfort" are fairly staggering. Privation, killing, dying, post traumatic
>stress... I don't see you having much of a leg to stand on with this
>argument about "comfort". The *job* is to implement the will of the United
>States of America - whatever it might be at the time. If each patriot does
>that to the best of his ability, and lives every day to protect his
>comrades, then his life is *never* "for nothing".
If you do not see this - then that is your problem, not mine.
>
> I notice you erased the part about having to kill 9,900 more soldiers so
>that you could be more "comfortable".
> You don't have anything to say about that?
It was stupid so I ignored it.
>
> Retreat and readjustment is part of war. This does not make the lives
>lost before the change in course a wasted effort.
But it is wasted if your 'realignment' discards the work they have
done.
We can and are winning this war. Only you can lose it.
>> Once we are committed we either succeed or fail. If you lack
>> commitment then you have no business committing troops in the first
>> place.
>
> Responding to new circumstances is not necessarily about lack of
>commitment - though one who lacks commitment will of course respond
>fecklessly. Your assertion that the two are one and the same is *flawed
>thinking*.
Only if you are making that change as part of an AAR process. Only if
you are keeping the long term goal in sight.
Aborting a job half-done because you took counsel of your fears is a
waste.
> I'd really prefer to imagine the boys at the tip of my spears had a
>brain in their heads. Can you please improve your wisdom?
"your spears"?
>
>-Michael
Colin Campbell
>> Now consider the economic, political, religious and social conditions
>> that create the Islamic terrorists. Iraq is the first step in forcing
>> reform in the Moslem world.
>
>WTF? You don't think that maybe leaning on Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and
>Israel to conduct reforms might have been a better first step, rather
>than conquering a state which actively suppressed fundamentalist Islam?
No. Kuwait is not really a problem. Israel already is a democracy,
and Saudi Arabia would have collapsed into a Taliban-style anarchy.
What we need is an example of a functioning democracy.
>> So you claim to know what my case is? Why don't you tell me?
>
>I claim that you have no sensible case at all. Prove me wrong if you
>can.
So you really have no idea what my case is and are now backpeadaling
with lame insults.
Let me guess - you are posting from the Chomsky newsgroup - right?
Howard C. Berkowitz
activa...@earthlink.net (remove underscore) wrote:
> Apparently, you have not studied the problem. Want me to give you
> some book recommendations?
>
Qutb's _Milestones_ and Assim's _Join the Caravan_ might be good ones
for the list.
Phoenix
9...@earthlink.net says...
> On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 08:11:19 -0700, "Malachias Invictus"
> <capt_ma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> The current administration is fighting for no less than a total
> >> reshaping of the Arab world, with all of its dictatorships shattered.
> >
> >Are you including Saudi Arabia?
>
> Yes.
>
> The trick with Saudi is to do so without a Whabbi theocracy taking
> over.
The Wahabbis have taken over. They have been in control for years. Who
applauded the janitor who wouldn't open the gates to the girls school on
fire lest the females be seen in public? Who controls the social order?
Faisal and Abdul can sent their daughters overseas, but they don't mess
with the Wahabbis. It supports their program of control not to.
bel
Colin Campbell
wrote:
>> The trick with Saudi is to do so without a Whabbi theocracy taking
>> over.
>
>The Wahabbis have taken over. They have been in control for years. Who
>applauded the janitor who wouldn't open the gates to the girls school on
>fire lest the females be seen in public? Who controls the social order?
>
>Faisal and Abdul can sent their daughters overseas, but they don't mess
>with the Wahabbis. It supports their program of control not to.
It is not that simple. There is a power sharing arraignment between
the royal family and the religious authorities. Each has their own
turf and the other stays off.
Joseph
Interesting wording, perhaps you are familiar with this report from a
certain think tank.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,59695,00.html
That sounds rather extreme and rather... neoconservative.
I hope this think tank becomes more aware in the future, that their
important analysts, may include people like former Lyndon LaRouche
colleagues.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Laurent_Murawiec
Well, the former chairman (1981-1986) of this think tank in the 80's did
shake hands with the Butcher of Baghdad. Who is of course current Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. I wonder what else goes on behind closed doors
in these kinds of meetings between Rummy's Pentagon hacks and advisors,
which include members of this think tank he oversaw back in the day?
Michael Scott Brown
message
> On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 17:24:58 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
> >
> > I have no doubt that they are on the list of "things that need
> >attention", though I think everyone's hoping that the switch in kings
will
> >produce improvements without the need to stomp the place.
>
> Not much of a change, the crown prince has been the de facto ruler of
> Saudi Arabia for years.
De facto and "facto" (ugh!) are sometimes different animals. No-one can
use "the king wouldn't want this" as an excuse to say no any longer. Suffice
to say, though, "wait and see" has not been the most promising of strategies
anywhere in the Arab world.
-Michael
Phoenix
9...@earthlink.net says...
> On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 02:56:37 GMT, Phoenix <avian...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >> The trick with Saudi is to do so without a Whabbi theocracy taking
> >> over.
> >
> >The Wahabbis have taken over. They have been in control for years. Who
> >applauded the janitor who wouldn't open the gates to the girls school on
> >fire lest the females be seen in public? Who controls the social order?
> >
> >Faisal and Abdul can sent their daughters overseas, but they don't mess
> >with the Wahabbis. It supports their program of control not to.
>
> It is not that simple. There is a power sharing arraignment between
> the royal family and the religious authorities. Each has their own
> turf and the other stays off.
No, it's not that simple. There are no convenient divisions or turf
that make Saudi Arabis somehow moderate or pliant.
The Wahabbis have controlled Saudia Arabia for longer than this pseudo-
royal family. The family has had to bow and scrape from their
beginnings to the religious culture of SA to keep their rights over the
oil fields. The Sauds can only rule the land through Sha'ria laws which
are enforced by the Salufis/Wahhabs.
It's asinine to think that Saudi Arabia is anything other than a
militant religious state and a total theocracy like Iran. In many ways,
it's far worse than Iran in it's religious restrictions and oppression.
bel
Michael Scott Brown
news:Xns96A99D75...@199.45.49.11...
> >> Are you including Saudi Arabia?
> >
> > I have no doubt that they are on the list of "things that need
> > attention", though I think everyone's hoping that the switch in kings
> > will produce improvements without the need to stomp the place.
>
> certain think tank.
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,59695,00.html
Obviously, *you* are not. Fox News got almost every fact in that article
wrong. One: it was not analyst*s*, it was one guy. Two: the man in question
was a controversial French analyst who was well known in defense work across
the pond before he came to work with RAND. Three: The recommendations in
question were *his*, not a result of any RAND studies. Four: he was invited
to present his *personal* anti-Saudi theories to the Bushies as a result of
his former reputation, and was not representing the RAND corporation.
Again, Joseph, we see that whenever a topic related to RAND comes up,
you turn out to know *less than nothing*.
You're a fucking moron.
-Michael
Malachias Invictus
> "Joseph" <vo...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns96A99D75...@199.45.49.11...
>> >> Are you including Saudi Arabia?
>> >
>> > I have no doubt that they are on the list of "things that need
>> > attention", though I think everyone's hoping that the switch in kings
>> > will produce improvements without the need to stomp the place.
>>
>> Interesting wording, perhaps you are familiar with this report from a
>> certain think tank.
>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,59695,00.html
>
> Obviously, *you* are not. Fox News got almost every fact in that
> article
> wrong.
Well, it *is* Fox News...
--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.
from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
Chris Hayes
Malachias Invictus wrote:
> "Michael Scott Brown" <mister...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:NeEIe.1717$WD....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > "Joseph" <vo...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > news:Xns96A99D75...@199.45.49.11...
> >> >> Are you including Saudi Arabia?
> >> >
> >> > I have no doubt that they are on the list of "things that need
> >> > attention", though I think everyone's hoping that the switch in kings
> >> > will produce improvements without the need to stomp the place.
> >>
> >> Interesting wording, perhaps you are familiar with this report from a
> >> certain think tank.
> >> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,59695,00.html
> >
> > Obviously, *you* are not. Fox News got almost every fact in that
> > article
> > wrong.
>
> Well, it *is* Fox News...
>
Fox News? Isn't that an oxymoron?
Michael Scott Brown
> "Michael Scott Brown" <mister...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > The neocons are not targeting Iraq because *Iraq* supported
terrorism.
>
> Although they sure tried to link the two ideas in the mind of the public
> to jack up support for the invasion, you have to admit.
Admit? I bloody well condemnn the fuckers for their shameless abuse of
power. If they couldn't convince the majority of Americans to support their
true intentions, where the fuck do they get off implementing them through
deception? That's unacceptable, totally arrogant, and *utterly*
undemocratic. I'd go so far as to call it treasonous, in fact. *Dictators*
and lie to their citizens.
> > Rather, they assert that the easiest road to achieving massive influence
> > over those nations and cultures that foster anti-western terrorism (with
or
> > without government sympathy) runs through Iraq. Of course, these same
> > people believed there would be no insurgency, and being wildly
pro-Israel,
> > the couldn't see *any* change that could possibly be made to happen
> > there....
>
> It's amazing what people can convince themselves of. It would be
> wonderful if I was proved wrong, but I think it is clear by now that the
> road through Iraq has not led to any such place.
Clear? How so? The kids haven't even finished hacking out a
constitution, and you're ready to declare that they will never succeed at
creating a nation? That's absurd. The Bushies wildly underestimated the
challenge and costs involved (which really pisses me off) - and because of
that the transition is very uncomfortable *now* - but it could very well be
a case of "it will get worse before it gets better". Time is on our side in
this one. Every bomb that a jihadist detonates, killing innocent civilians,
is another testament to the Islamo-nazis' hypocrisy. The more they fight,
the more they delegitimize their movement in the entire Arab world. On top
of that, there are eventually going to be enough troops in action there to
actually control the territory - at which point the insurgency is done for
(hence the popularity of taking out recruits).
Further, the (ostensible) Syrian pullout from Lebanon says rather a lot
about whether having 100,000 American troops on their border can be used as
a successful negotiating tool.
I'm not convinced that this is the best way to go about reshaping the
middle east even it were "done right"; I'm certain we went about it the
wrong way (undermanned and w/o allies) and at a foolish time (what was the
rush?) - but that said, it's much too early to suggest that the effort will
fail in achieving its ultimate goals. The only accurate observation is that
the situation is quite a cockup compared to what it might have been if less
theology were involved in the planning.
> I guess it comes down to whether you think the people making decisions
> in the USA right now are utter idiots with the best of intentions and no
> sense of proportion,
Tsk. If we had invaded the place with the right force levels, you'd be
hailing them as geniuses. The policy wonks aren't stupid (though they are
not without their blind spots), and there are some very cogent arguments for
this approach to the situation (which America deserved to have debated).
However, having borked some key details on the execution side, it's hard for
amateurs to sort the intended policy from the current situation. You must
bear in mind that a key assumption was that we would be able to turn over a
functioning infrastructure to a happy people singing "ding dong, the bitch
is dead" - the idea that they would tear apart the remaining foundations of
their state in an orgy of looting and unleash massive factional violence
over who next gets to be in charge wasn't on the radar. That's not what
happened when we liberated France!
<sighs>
-Michael
Keith Davies
> message
>> On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 17:24:58 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
>> >> Are you including Saudi Arabia?
>> >
>> > I have no doubt that they are on the list of "things that need
>> >attention", though I think everyone's hoping that the switch in kings
> will
>> >produce improvements without the need to stomp the place.
>>
>> Not much of a change, the crown prince has been the de facto ruler of
>> Saudi Arabia for years.
>
> De facto and "facto" (ugh!)
'de jure', IIRC. ("of fact" and "of law")
Keith
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith....@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith....@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
Michael Scott Brown
> On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 17:23:34 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
> >"comfort" are fairly staggering. Privation, killing, dying, post
traumatic
> >stress... I don't see you having much of a leg to stand on with this
> >argument about "comfort". The *job* is to implement the will of the
United
> >States of America - whatever it might be at the time. If each patriot
does
> >that to the best of his ability, and lives every day to protect his
> >comrades, then his life is *never* "for nothing".
>
> If you do not see this - then that is your problem, not mine.
Please. Your agument implies that retreat has no value in war. You know
that's horseshit. The decision to insist that a decision to retreat somehow
dishonors the fallen is a choice *you* make, not one demanded by reason or
logic, and it's a gods-damnned stupid one. Condemnn leaders for being
negligent with lives, not for being responsible with them!
> > I notice you erased the part about having to kill 9,900 more soldiers
so
> >that you could be more "comfortable".
> > You don't have anything to say about that?
>
> It was stupid so I ignored it.
Pussy. It spanked your argument like a red headed stepchild.
> We can and are winning this war. Only you can lose it.
Quit being a fucking moron in public. I'm criticizing your *thinking*,
not the state of the war. Have I taken a position? Hmm? Thankyou.
> Aborting a job half-done because you took counsel of your fears is a
waste.
Sometimes fears are well founded, sir. You are absolutely right that a
goal worth achieving should not be abandonded because of "some" losses in
its pursuit - but it is often the case that we wildly underestimate the
costs, and priorities can change when those costs are re-evaluated. Or did
you fail to realize that losing 9900 additional soldiers is 9900 soldiers
you can't do *anything else* with any more?
> > I'd really prefer to imagine the boys at the tip of my spears had a
> >brain in their heads. Can you please improve your wisdom?
>
> "your spears"?
I manufacture policy and weapons. My spears.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
news:slrndf661s.7i...@kjdavies.org...
> Michael Scott Brown <mister...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> Not much of a change, the crown prince has been the de facto ruler of
> >> Saudi Arabia for years.
> >
> > De facto and "facto" (ugh!)
>
> 'de jure', IIRC. ("of fact" and "of law")
I was just punnin' - but the revelation of the correct Latin is
appreciated.
-Michael
Keith Davies
> "Keith Davies" <keith....@kjdavies.org> wrote in message
> news:slrndf661s.7i...@kjdavies.org...
>> Michael Scott Brown <mister...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >> Not much of a change, the crown prince has been the de facto ruler of
>> >> Saudi Arabia for years.
>> >
>> > De facto and "facto" (ugh!)
>>
>> 'de jure', IIRC. ("of fact" and "of law")
>
> I was just punnin' - but the revelation of the correct Latin is
> appreciated.
I figured you may have been drawing a blank. Happens to me quite a bit,
actually.
'X and... fuck. Not-X.'
A friend of mine is really bad for not knowing the right word... he
doesn't even use malapropism, he makes up new words a metasyntactics to
fill the blank. Sometimes several times in the sentence, and reusing
them -- he might use 'thingy' two or three times for different things.
The truly frightening thing is that I almost always understand him.
Michael Scott Brown
> Michael Scott Brown <mister...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> A friend of mine is really bad for not knowing the right word... he
> doesn't even use malapropism, he makes up new words a metasyntactics to
> fill the blank. Sometimes several times in the sentence, and reusing
> them -- he might use 'thingy' two or three times for different things.
I prefer "foo".
-Foo
Kevin Lowe
> On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 02:28:00 GMT, Kevin Lowe <m...@private.net> wrote:
>
>
> >> Now consider the economic, political, religious and social conditions
> >> that create the Islamic terrorists. Iraq is the first step in forcing
> >> reform in the Moslem world.
> >
> >WTF? You don't think that maybe leaning on Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and
> >Israel to conduct reforms might have been a better first step, rather
> >than conquering a state which actively suppressed fundamentalist Islam?
>
> No. Kuwait is not really a problem.
Except that it's a brutal, repressive regime that the USA supports,
which is precisely the kind of thing Al Qaeda loves to use as a rallying
point.
> Israel already is a democracy,
Kind of. Anybody can vote, but not anybody can run for office.
> and Saudi Arabia would have collapsed into a Taliban-style anarchy.
...like Iraq hasn't collapsed into anarchy?
> What we need is an example of a functioning democracy.
That's what I've been saying.
> >I claim that you have no sensible case at all. Prove me wrong if you
> >can.
>
> So you really have no idea what my case is and are now backpeadaling
> with lame insults.
Nice try. I understand the pathetic attempt at a case you've made, and
I claim that it is stupid. Now prove me wrong if you can.
> Let me guess - you are posting from the Chomsky newsgroup - right?
No cigar.
--
Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.
Kevin Lowe
"Michael Scott Brown" <mister...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Kevin Lowe" <m...@private.net> wrote in message
> news:me-8C5269.11...@news01.comindico.com.au...
> > "Michael Scott Brown" <mister...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Although they sure tried to link the two ideas in the mind of the public
> > to jack up support for the invasion, you have to admit.
>
> Admit? I bloody well condemnn the fuckers for their shameless abuse of
> power. If they couldn't convince the majority of Americans to support their
> true intentions, where the fuck do they get off implementing them through
> deception? That's unacceptable, totally arrogant, and *utterly*
> undemocratic. I'd go so far as to call it treasonous, in fact. *Dictators*
> and lie to their citizens.
We're on the same page.
> > It's amazing what people can convince themselves of. It would be
> > wonderful if I was proved wrong, but I think it is clear by now that the
> > road through Iraq has not led to any such place.
>
> Clear? How so? The kids haven't even finished hacking out a
> constitution, and you're ready to declare that they will never succeed at
> creating a nation? That's absurd.
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was saying that it hasn't led to any
decrease in the risk of terrorism to the USA or to anyone else, nor does
it seem likely to. The reverse if anything.
> > I guess it comes down to whether you think the people making decisions
> > in the USA right now are utter idiots with the best of intentions and no
> > sense of proportion,
>
> Tsk. If we had invaded the place with the right force levels, you'd be
> hailing them as geniuses.
Effective arseholes, perhaps. Powell at least knew how to do it right,
if it were to be done at all.
> The policy wonks aren't stupid (though they are
> not without their blind spots), and there are some very cogent arguments for
> this approach to the situation (which America deserved to have debated).
> However, having borked some key details on the execution side, it's hard for
> amateurs to sort the intended policy from the current situation.
My own feeling is that there were even more cogent arguments for giving
peace a chance in this instance.
--
Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.
Joseph
> Again, Joseph, we see that whenever a topic related to RAND comes
> up, you turn out to know *less than nothing*.
Thanks for the clarification; I thought having read a similar article
from the Israeli Haaretz website that it was somewhat trustworthy.
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=214635
I usually take notice when former top Israeli security officials make
these allegations even when it is anonymous. Probably, the story from
Haaretz just misquoted the source.
Speaking of RAND and Israel, I've come across this little tidbit from The
Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.
http://www.washington-report.org/archives/July_2005/0507013.html
After seeing this summary of the RAND reports...
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG146.1.pdf
I have to say this is one of the most farcical grand-scale architectural
fantasies masquerading as serious analysis of a future Palestine society.
Let's hop on the "Arc train" and make these linear cities! Millions of
Palestinian people moved into these new neighborhoods all along the
"ARC"! And let's not even deal with all those Jewish settlements because
that would disrupt our grand vision. Their vision of future Palestine
reminds me of something out of a Jules Verne adventure, not reality in
the Middle East.
But it is nice example of the The Portrait of the Architect Rational
(iNTp) going wild. http://keirsey.com/personality/ntip.html
Shame about wasting two million dollars on just one of the RAND reports,
but at least it is a source of a good laugh!
Oh, here's an interesting PDF file from the Congressional Research
Service about the "quasi-government"
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30533.pdf
Federally Funded Research and Development Centers
(FFRDCs)
... Commission each have one. Many FFRDCs conduct research principally in
classified fields for the Defense and Intelligence communities.
Critics have complained that FFRDCs provide fertile grounds for
activities that
inappropriately mix public funds and private interests. Critics see
favoritism when
FFRDCs receive large contracts without competitive bidding. Critics have
also
pointed to the interflow of personnel between government agencies,
FFRDCs, and
companies that work for FFRDCs. Critics say there is a revolving door
between
these entities and they decry "interlocking directorships" that arise
(such as when a
former Secretary of Defense took board positions at RAND and General
Dynamics
Corp.)50 This latter charge is especially troubling because FFRDCs are
supposed to
be expertise-based organizations that are to impartially oversee the use
of federal
funds that are to advance a governmental purpose.
The great strength of FFRDCs appears to lie in their flexibility to
assemble
teams of technical experts on a project basis. High on the list of
positive results
supporters claim for FFRDCs is their ability to promote technology
transfers between
the governmental and private sectors. The knowledge base created by the
agencies'
use of FFRDCs often serves as a foundation for commercially relevant
efforts in the
private sector. The U.S., many contend, is not as effective as other
nations in taking
the results of basic research and transforming them into commercially
viable products
to be sold in world markets.51 FFRDCs are intended to promote and
facilitate this
transfer and development process. Technology transfer, however, is
subject to many
interpretations and is not without controversy.
Congress has been interested in FFRDCs almost from their inception. Some
in
Congress have viewed the FFRDCs as a means to circumvent civil service
hiring
practices and salary limitations. While they operate as nonprofit
entities, FFRDCs
can be a substantial source of revenue for associations and contractors,
and there
have been problems with conflict of interest issues.52 FFRDCs are often
difficult to
hold accountable. They can have an advantage in competing with private
firms for
contracts: as nonprofit corporations, they are exempt from most taxation;
their
facilities and equipment are owned or financed, for the most part, by the
federal
government, and they receive fees for operating expenses without having
to assume
business risks or costs associated with competing for most federal work.
(CRS-15)
50 Steven Pearlstein, "Reining In Pentagon's Think Tanks," Washington
Post, July 28, 1991,
p. H-1.
51 CRS Issue Brief IB85031, Technology Transfer: Use of Federally Funded
Research and
Development, by Wendy Schacht. Michael M Crow, Mark A. Emmert, and Carol
I.
Jacobson, "Government-Supported Industrial Research Institutes in the
United States,"
Policy Studies Journal, vol. 19, Fall 1999: 59-74.
52 E.g., interlocking directorships and the co-mingling of FFRDC and
contractor interests
in ways that compromise the FFRDC's objectivity in overseeing the
contractor work.
My intuition about problems with accountability, and elitism, and
corrupting interlocking interests was not unfounded. At least some people
in Congress are trying to keep track of all these blurry powerful
intersections of public-private spheres.
Colin Campbell
<mister...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> If you do not see this - then that is your problem, not mine.
>
> Please. Your agument implies that retreat has no value in war. You know
>that's horseshit. The decision to insist that a decision to retreat somehow
>dishonors the fallen is a choice *you* make, not one demanded by reason or
>logic, and it's a gods-damnned stupid one. Condemnn leaders for being
>negligent with lives, not for being responsible with them!
My comment never implied that.
That is something you erroneously (or maybe deliberately) read into
it.
Enkidu the Atheist
news:1123226973.0...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Your problem is with the spelling. It's "Faux News". Well,
pronunciation too!
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need
strength in numbers. It tells people to go out and stick their noses in
other
people's business. I live by the golden rule: Treat others as you'd want
them
to treat you. The religious right wants to tell people how to live.
-- Gov. Jesse Ventura
tussock
> Tsk. If we had invaded the place with the right force levels, you'd be
> hailing them as geniuses.
They messed up a lot more than that. But yes, it would have been a
good start. See also dismantling the army, and sacking everyone in the
Baath party, instantly creating 80% unemployment. "Oops".
> The policy wonks aren't stupid (though they are not without their blind
> spots), and there are some very cogent arguments for this approach to the
> situation (which America deserved to have debated). However, having borked
> some key details on the execution side, it's hard for amateurs to sort the
> intended policy from the current situation.
You're assuming that they meant to go in and succeed, when their
actions have done little that could possibly acheive that.
The inevitable failures each time leading to fat, never-ending
contracts for Halliburton and it's subsidiaries.
Who's the vice-president work for again?
Oh, that's right, it's a /deferred/ salary, and they don't count.
Plus, you know, GWB is the real brains of the outfit. </sarcasm>
> You must bear in mind that a key assumption was that we would be able
> to turn over a functioning infrastructure to a happy people singing "ding
> dong, the bitch is dead" - the idea that they would tear apart the
> remaining foundations of their state in an orgy of looting and unleash
> massive factional violence over who next gets to be in charge wasn't on
> the radar. That's not what happened when we liberated France!
> <sighs>
It was quite plainly on the Department of State's radar, amongst
others. Hell, there was a string of retired US generals on TV pointing
out that the whitehouse was full of shit about how easy it would be with
less than 300k grunts.
Powell produced a 5000 page report for the whitehouse on how to
invade Iraq without fucking it up before the war, predicting the
looting, the factional violence, the resistance; infact pretty much
everything that's been a "surprise" failure.
The whitehouse apparently told him his plan wouldn't be required,
as they already had one. Officially, knowing anything about Iraq and
it's people wasn't part of that, the important thing was to secure
airbases, build military instillations along the oil pipelines, and get
the capital city (except Bagdad's too big, so just a bit of it).
Everything else would just work, or ... hmmm, nope, no plan B.
The only serious military moves made outside those initial land
grabs have been purely for the benefit of the US media. Sham battles for
Fox News to show.
Really, what the fuck was the point in levelling Fallujah? Crushing
the "Mahdi army"? Killing off the good examples I guess, can't let the
Iraqi's stabilise their own country; one week in and they'd arrested
some rich guy for trying to rebuild the infrastructure without
permission; or more importantly, without paying Halliburton.
It's not Vietnam again; Iraq is spelled quite differently.
--
tussock
Aspie at work, sorry in advance.
tussock
> I think the question of what is to be won in Iraq is a good
> one.
Cui Bono?
Follow the money.
> If it was to get Iraq's oil, the war need never have been
> fought, as the U.S. could have bought all it wanted.
Except that Saddam refused to sell Iraq's oil to US companies.
Letting him sell it to French and Russian ones would lower the world
prices, costing US/British oil companies a fortune in profit margins.
> Meanwhile, U.S. forces are fighting a Sunni resistance
> which is obviously getting supplies, technology and possibly
> leadership from outside the country, probably from the many,
> many states, parties, groups and persons who have an interest
> in seeing the U.S. encouraged to shorten its visit to Iraq
> and not come back.
Don't forget the old guard. The head men may have been bribed into
compliance, or been Gitmo'd, but few of those lower down the ranks were.
There's plenty of guys out there with over a decade of experiance
fighting against overwhelming odds, plus another couple years tweaking
that knowledge to fight the new enemy.
They sure are getting better at it anyway. I read a couple times
early on that some of the more reckless attacks seemed to be purely
aimed at discovering the patterns of response from the US; those sort of
tactics means the resistance are planning for a /long/ fight.
E Varden
as sig
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.
from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
What particular kind of horseshit is the above?
Go ahead, Malachias, explain the two words "strait" and "gate".
Make sense of that sentence, willya?
- My bulb is dim here; all I can see is horseshit, or a misspelling.
"How straight the gait" I could understand. (Sort of.)
Pe (waiting)
Michael Scott Brown
> "Michael Scott Brown" <mister...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Clear? How so? The kids haven't even finished hacking out a
> > constitution, and you're ready to declare that they will never succeed
at
> > creating a nation? That's absurd.
>
> Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was saying that it hasn't led to any
> decrease in the risk of terrorism to the USA or to anyone else, nor does
> it seem likely to. The reverse if anything.
Consider this: any military action, anywhere, anywhen, would have
produced a reaction that would inspire American-hating radicals. So you
have two choices in the long run - do nothing, because you are afraid of a
temporary increase in terrorism, and experience terrorist attacks at
whatever amounts to their "steady state" rate ... forever ... or act,
experience a spike in terrorism, and then see the post-intervention
terrorism rate greatly reduced or eliminated.
Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the idea of being deterred from acting on
the world stage because of a few murderous thugs.
> > The policy wonks aren't stupid (though they are
> > not without their blind spots), and there are some very cogent arguments
for
> > this approach to the situation (which America deserved to have debated).
> > However, having borked some key details on the execution side, it's hard
for
> > amateurs to sort the intended policy from the current situation.
>
> My own feeling is that there were even more cogent arguments for giving
> peace a chance in this instance.
Nah. The cogent argument was for sacking Iraq *later* (and with allies
that mattered). But there was never, ever going to be a time when Iraq was
allowed to run free like the buffalo again; Hussein's ambitions were such
that he could never be trusted to play nice. So the question you have to
ask is - if you believe that the no-fly-zone border patrol arrangement was
untenable in perpetuity, then how many more years *are* you going to let him
hold his citizens hostage? Iraq had to experience "regime change" - and it
was entirely up to us as to when that would happen.
Naturally, of course, such actions *had* to be made in time for the US
election cycle! Gotta have that war victory for the re-election!
<grits teeth>
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
news:42f3...@clear.net.nz...
> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> > Tsk. If we had invaded the place with the right force levels, you'd
be
> > hailing them as geniuses.
>
> They messed up a lot more than that. But yes, it would have been a
> good start. See also dismantling the army, and sacking everyone in the
> Baath party, instantly creating 80% unemployment. "Oops".
Don't be so quick to point to that as proof of a mistake. The
alternative was hardly attractive, either (retaining the apparatus of a
corrupt regime...). We only know the results of the decision that was
made, of course, but it's not in any way apparent that we are living in the
worst of all possible worlds. There are no easy solutions.
> > The policy wonks aren't stupid (though they are not without their
blind
> > spots), and there are some very cogent arguments for this approach to
the
> > situation (which America deserved to have debated). However, having
borked
> > some key details on the execution side, it's hard for amateurs to sort
the
> > intended policy from the current situation.
>
> You're assuming that they meant to go in and succeed, when their
> actions have done little that could possibly acheive that.
Don't be an idiot in public. There is a difference between trying to do
Iraq *on the cheap*, and doing Iraq halfheartedly.
> The inevitable failures each time leading to fat, never-ending
> contracts for Halliburton and it's subsidiaries.
What "inevitable" failures are these?
What "never ending" contracts are you describing?
> Who's the vice-president work for again?
>
> Oh, that's right, it's a /deferred/ salary, and they don't count.
It's very naughty to misrepresent facts in public, *asshole*.
> > You must bear in mind that a key assumption was that we would be
able
> > to turn over a functioning infrastructure to a happy people singing
"ding
> > dong, the bitch is dead" - the idea that they would tear apart the
> > remaining foundations of their state in an orgy of looting and unleash
> > massive factional violence over who next gets to be in charge wasn't on
> > the radar. That's not what happened when we liberated France!
> > <sighs>
>
> It was quite plainly on the Department of State's radar, amongst
> others. Hell, there was a string of retired US generals on TV pointing
> out that the whitehouse was full of shit about how easy it would be with
> less than 300k grunts.
Yup.
> The only serious military moves made outside those initial land
> grabs have been purely for the benefit of the US media. Sham battles for
> Fox News to show.
I have already warned you about being a fucking moron in public.
> Really, what the fuck was the point in levelling Fallujah? Crushing
> the "Mahdi army"?
The madhi army was not in Fallujah. Please. Stop with the ignorance.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> Speaking of RAND and Israel, I've come across this little tidbit from The
> Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.
> http://www.washington-report.org/archives/July_2005/0507013.html
> After seeing this summary of the RAND reports...
> http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG146.1.pdf
>
> I have to say this is one of the most farcical grand-scale architectural
> fantasies masquerading as serious analysis of a future Palestine society.
> Let's hop on the "Arc train" and make these linear cities!
Farcial, eh? Perhaps you can explain why it is that the Palestine
leadership disagree with you. When this vision was presented to them, they
literally choked up. Perhaps you can also explain what about the
rail-connected structure *doesn't* solve all of their awkward geographic
legacy problems? Hmm? Go on, little bitch. DO THE ANALYSIS THAT PROVES THE
REPORT IS A BAD IDEA.
While you are at it, perhaps you can explain why *you*, an ignorant
little pissant who lives in his mother's basement, are in any way qualified
to analyze the urban planning needs of the Palestinian people. Hmm?
> My intuition about problems with accountability, and elitism, and
> corrupting interlocking interests was not unfounded.
<raises hand> That was not your intuition, bitch. You didn't like think
tanks because they gave advice to the State. "Elitism" is not a critique
any of those reports mentioned. In the last decade, *some* think tanks
played fast and loose with their nonprofit status (which is why Congress
"cracked down" some years ago and passed legislation to restrict the maximum
size of FFRDCs).
Your reliance on a smattering of reports over a *decade*, taken
completely out of their context, gives you *NO* useful insights about think
tanks in general.
When are you going to learn? You are simply too fucking stupid to
understand the scraps of information you find.
-Michael
Chris Hayes
E Varden wrote:
> Malachias Invictus wrote:
>
> as sig
>
> It matters not how strait the gate,
> How charged with punishment the scroll,
> I am the Master of my fate:
> I am the Captain of my soul.
>
> from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
>
>
> What particular kind of horseshit is the above?
>
> Go ahead, Malachias, explain the two words "strait" and "gate".
>
> Make sense of that sentence, willya?
>
You do realize that it's the last verse of a classic Victorian Age poem
(the last two lines being what it is known for), don't you?
> - My bulb is dim here; all I can see is horseshit, or a misspelling.
> "How straight the gait" I could understand. (Sort of.)
>
He quoted directly. It's not his words but that of Henley. Here's the
whole thing:
http://users.ece.gatech.edu/~whrobins/invictus.html
It became a minor news item back when Tim McVeigh, the Oklahoma City
bomber, used it as his last words before execution.
>
> Pe (waiting)
anarc...@yahoo.com
Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> "Kevin Lowe" <m...@private.net> wrote in message
> news:me-8254E4.18...@news01.comindico.com.au...
> > "Michael Scott Brown" <mister...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > Clear? How so? The kids haven't even finished hacking out a
> > > constitution, and you're ready to declare that they will never succeed
> at
> > > creating a nation? That's absurd.
> >
> > Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was saying that it hasn't led to any
> > decrease in the risk of terrorism to the USA or to anyone else, nor does
> > it seem likely to. The reverse if anything.
>
> Consider this: any military action, anywhere, anywhen, would have
> produced a reaction that would inspire American-hating radicals. So you
> have two choices in the long run - do nothing, because you are afraid of a
> temporary increase in terrorism, and experience terrorist attacks at
> whatever amounts to their "steady state" rate ... forever ... or act,
> experience a spike in terrorism, and then see the post-intervention
> terrorism rate greatly reduced or eliminated.
> Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the idea of being deterred from acting on
> the world stage because of a few murderous thugs.
If you're "acting on the world stage" how can you spare time
to waste it on Usenet?
Jeff Heikkinen
said...
> > Really, what the fuck was the point in levelling Fallujah? Crushing
> > the "Mahdi army"?
>
> The madhi army was not in Fallujah. Please. Stop with the ignorance.
He didn't say it was. Stop with the shitty reading comprehension.
Mart van de Wege
> In article <r5k5f15cuds0rn5p3...@4ax.com>,
> Colin Campbell <activa...@earthlink.net (remove underscore)>
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 02:28:00 GMT, Kevin Lowe <m...@private.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> Now consider the economic, political, religious and social conditions
>> >> that create the Islamic terrorists. Iraq is the first step in forcing
>> >> reform in the Moslem world.
>> >
>> >WTF? You don't think that maybe leaning on Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and
>> >Israel to conduct reforms might have been a better first step, rather
>> >than conquering a state which actively suppressed fundamentalist Islam?
>>
>> No. Kuwait is not really a problem.
>
> Except that it's a brutal, repressive regime that the USA supports,
> which is precisely the kind of thing Al Qaeda loves to use as a rallying
> point.
Actually,
The Emir and his clan currently ruling Kuwait are pretty enlightened
when compared to such splendid examples of freedom and democracy as
Saudi-Arabia and Pakistan[1].
Yes, that's damning with faint praise, I know.
Mart
[1] Both have a longer history of supporting terrorists and destabilising
political factions in the Middle-East than Iraq, BTW.
--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
Uncle Buck
taking place, and the plan is simply to keep them there until they're all dead.
--
L8r,
Uncle Buck
BAAWA
a.a. #88
UU Minister # "=" - "Grand Equivocator of the Balanced Equal Sign"
~=^*=^=~-=^=-~=^=*^=~=-^=-=~^=*=^~=-=^-=~=^*=^=~-=^=-~=^=*^=~=-^=-=~^=*=^~=
"Surrendering To The Fall" - A blog about - what else? - me:
http://surrenderingtothefall.blogspot.com
(perpetually under construction)
~=^*=^=~-=^=-~=^=*^=~=-^=-=~^=*=^~=-=^-=~=^*=^=~-=^=-~=^=*^=~=-^=-=~^=*=^~=
Dan Clore
> I think the question of what is to be won in Iraq is a good
> one. If the war was merely to depose Saddam Hussein and
> give George Bush a good little war to win an election with,
> that mission was indeed accomplished a long time ago. If it
> was to get Iraq's oil, the war need never have been fought,
> as the U.S. could have bought all it wanted.
But why buy something when you can steal it? The Bush
administration predicted that the stolen oil would more than
pay for the cost of invasion and occupation, remember?
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1587154838/thedanclorenecro/
Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
Dan Clore
> On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 17:55:47 GMT, Kevin Lowe <m...@private.net> wrote:
>>>Actually, they did not. In fact we made some unpleasant discoveries
>>>about a bunker full of chemical mustard and VX that was supposedly
>>>under UN seal.
>>
>>I never heard that one before. Cite please, because I think you are
>>making it up.
>
> How about my eyeballs?
How about you try to provide some checkable evidence--if
your claim were true, it would have been reported widely in
the mass media, and Bush would have jumped on it as
vindication of the war.
Defendario
> G*rd*n wrote:
>
>> I think the question of what is to be won in Iraq is a good
>> one. If the war was merely to depose Saddam Hussein and
>> give George Bush a good little war to win an election with,
>> that mission was indeed accomplished a long time ago. If it
>> was to get Iraq's oil, the war need never have been fought,
>> as the U.S. could have bought all it wanted.
>
>
> But why buy something when you can steal it? The Bush administration
> predicted that the stolen oil would more than pay for the cost of
> invasion and occupation, remember?
>
And we all know how *that* has worked out.
Then there's the body count:
http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/USfatalities.html
G*rd*n
> > I think the question of what is to be won in Iraq is a good
> > one. If the war was merely to depose Saddam Hussein and
> > give George Bush a good little war to win an election with,
> > that mission was indeed accomplished a long time ago. If it
> > was to get Iraq's oil, the war need never have been fought,
> > as the U.S. could have bought all it wanted.
> But why buy something when you can steal it? The Bush
> administration predicted that the stolen oil would more than
> pay for the cost of invasion and occupation, remember?
When I heard that, I thought it was a joke. It's much more
expensive to steal it.
Kevin Lowe
"Michael Scott Brown" <mister...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Kevin Lowe" <m...@private.net> wrote in message
> news:me-8254E4.18...@news01.comindico.com.au...
> > "Michael Scott Brown" <mister...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > Clear? How so? The kids haven't even finished hacking out a
> > > constitution, and you're ready to declare that they will never succeed
> at
> > > creating a nation? That's absurd.
> >
> > Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was saying that it hasn't led to any
> > decrease in the risk of terrorism to the USA or to anyone else, nor does
> > it seem likely to. The reverse if anything.
>
> Consider this: any military action, anywhere, anywhen, would have
> produced a reaction that would inspire American-hating radicals. So you
> have two choices in the long run - do nothing, because you are afraid of a
> temporary increase in terrorism, and experience terrorist attacks at
> whatever amounts to their "steady state" rate ... forever ... or act,
> experience a spike in terrorism, and then see the post-intervention
> terrorism rate greatly reduced or eliminated.
> Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the idea of being deterred from acting on
> the world stage because of a few murderous thugs.
I think that's presenting the issue as a false dichotomy, because not
everyone in the world is either waving a US flag or strapping bombs to
themselves.
There certainly are people who would hate the USA wherever it used its
military, but there are also people whose reaction would have depended
on where, when and how the military was used. The current clusterfuck
is likely to have alienated more people than was necessary.
> > My own feeling is that there were even more cogent arguments for giving
> > peace a chance in this instance.
>
> Nah. The cogent argument was for sacking Iraq *later* (and with allies
> that mattered). But there was never, ever going to be a time when Iraq was
> allowed to run free like the buffalo again; Hussein's ambitions were such
> that he could never be trusted to play nice. So the question you have to
> ask is - if you believe that the no-fly-zone border patrol arrangement was
> untenable in perpetuity, then how many more years *are* you going to let him
> hold his citizens hostage? Iraq had to experience "regime change" - and it
> was entirely up to us as to when that would happen.
> Naturally, of course, such actions *had* to be made in time for the US
> election cycle! Gotta have that war victory for the re-election!
> <grits teeth>
Do you think so? Hussein waited for Gillespie to give him the green
light before he invaded Kuwait, and he seemed to be making an honest
attempt to extricate himself from Kuwait peacefully once he realised the
USA was not going to look the other way. He also had provocation, given
that Kuwait was drilling sideways under the Iraqi border to nick oil.
He's a revolting human being by any standards, but "Saddam-as-mad-dog"
seems to me to have been a creation of propaganda. As far as I can tell
he would have loved to conquer the entire Middle East but he knew his
limitations. As such while he was a monster I can't see how he can be
construed as having been a credible threat to his neighbours.
--
Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.
Kevin Lowe
Mart van de Wege <mvdwege...@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
> Kevin Lowe <m...@private.net> writes:
> >> No. Kuwait is not really a problem.
> >
> > Except that it's a brutal, repressive regime that the USA supports,
> > which is precisely the kind of thing Al Qaeda loves to use as a rallying
> > point.
>
> Actually,
>
> The Emir and his clan currently ruling Kuwait are pretty enlightened
> when compared to such splendid examples of freedom and democracy as
> Saudi-Arabia and Pakistan[1].
>
> Yes, that's damning with faint praise, I know.
I listed Kuwait not because it's the worst, but because it's the most
comprehensively under the US thumb. If the USA decided that Kuwait had
to conduct humanitarian and egalitarian reforms they would be in no
position to argue, and it would involve a lot less bombing than was
required in Iraq. Israel is in the same boat, since it's dependant on
the USA for its existence.
This might lead one to question whether humanitarian and egalitarian
reform in the Middle East in general is really on the top of the current
US administration's list of priorities.
--
Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.
Enkidu the Atheist
But not if the US taxpayer pays the soldiers to steal it for you. That's
much cheaper than buying it if you're Exxon.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
"The world is full of Laurel and Hardys. I saw them all the time as a boy
at my mother's hotel. There's always the dumb, dumb guy, who never has
anything bad happen to him, and the smart guy who's even dumber than the
dumb guy, only he doesn't know it."
* Oliver Hardy
(01/18/1882 - 08/07/1957)
US actor
Kevin Lowe
wrote:
Expensive for who? The taxpayer foots the bill.
--
Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.
Phoenix
m...@private.net says...
> In article <87zmrwp...@angua.ankh-morpork.lan>,
> Mart van de Wege <mvdwege...@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
>
> > Kevin Lowe <m...@private.net> writes:
>
> > >> No. Kuwait is not really a problem.
> > >
> > > Except that it's a brutal, repressive regime that the USA supports,
> > > which is precisely the kind of thing Al Qaeda loves to use as a rallying
> > > point.
> >
> > Actually,
> >
> > The Emir and his clan currently ruling Kuwait are pretty enlightened
> > when compared to such splendid examples of freedom and democracy as
> > Saudi-Arabia and Pakistan[1].
> >
> > Yes, that's damning with faint praise, I know.
>
> I listed Kuwait not because it's the worst, but because it's the most
> comprehensively under the US thumb. If the USA decided that Kuwait had
> to conduct humanitarian and egalitarian reforms they would be in no
> position to argue, and it would involve a lot less bombing than was
> required in Iraq. Israel is in the same boat, since it's dependant on
> the USA for its existence.
Hey but we won't ask for this from either, because our government
doesn't really care.
>
> This might lead one to question whether humanitarian and egalitarian
> reform in the Middle East in general is really on the top of the current
> US administration's list of priorities.
No.
bel
>
>
nemo_outis
> G*rd*n:
The main point was neither to steal it nor to buy it - the point was to
control it! Oil, that is.
Condensing a lot, the idea was that a subservient Iraq (puppet
government, colony, economic dependency, whatever) would be "wide open"
for capital investment (under some "free trade" rubric or other, spun as
being an essential aspect of democracy and free markets).
That capital investment would:
1) ensure that Iraq stayed in thrall to the US and did its (political
and economic) bidding.
2) increase oil production quickly (2-3 years or so) to as much as 8
million bpd (from a prewar 2.5+)
Net effect: Iraq would become the "swing" oil producer in the world
(displacing Saudi Arabia from that position) but it would really be the
US that, through its puppet Iraq, effectively controlled world oil prices
(i.e., OPEC itself if it survived, otherwise a new name for the de facto
cartel).
The US would, once again, be in the catbird seat with respect to CONTROL
of world oil supply and price. Moreover, this control could be leveraged
to shut out rivals (e.g., China) from access to oil and to ensure the US
dollar remained the world's reserve currency.
That was the plan - the reality has turned out rather differently.
Regards,
Malachias Invictus
"E Varden" <e.va...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:E3MIe.7428$z91.8...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Malachias Invictus wrote:
>
> as sig
>
> It matters not how strait the gate,
> How charged with punishment the scroll,
> I am the Master of my fate:
> I am the Captain of my soul.
>
> from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
>
>
> What particular kind of horseshit is the above?
That "particular kind of horseshit" is called "poetry," bubba.
Specifically, that of the rather famous Victorian poet William Ernest
Henley.
> Go ahead, Malachias, explain the two words "strait" and "gate".
"Strait" means "narrow," as any cursory examination of the word in a decent
dictionary will tell you. I sincerely hope you can figure out what "gate"
means.
> Make sense of that sentence, willya?
>
> - My bulb is dim here; all I can see is horseshit, or a misspelling. "How
> straight the gait" I could understand. (Sort of.)
?
--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^
Michael Scott Brown
> > Consider this: any military action, anywhere, anywhen, would have
> > produced a reaction that would inspire American-hating radicals. So you
> > have two choices in the long run - do nothing, because you are afraid of
a
> > temporary increase in terrorism, and experience terrorist attacks at
> > whatever amounts to their "steady state" rate ... forever ... or act,
> > experience a spike in terrorism, and then see the post-intervention
> > terrorism rate greatly reduced or eliminated.
> > Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the idea of being deterred from acting
on
> > the world stage because of a few murderous thugs.
>
> I think that's presenting the issue as a false dichotomy, because not
> everyone in the world is either waving a US flag or strapping bombs to
> themselves.
I think you're missing the point. A spike in terrorism is a certain
result of agitation by the international networks who we are tearing down -
what I'm talking about is not simply a spontaneous increase in "I'm so
pissed at the US I gotta go kill somebody" temper tantrums (though such
frustration is certainly easily tapped by jihadi propaganda machines when
they recruit).
> There certainly are people who would hate the USA wherever it used its
> military, but there are also people whose reaction would have depended
> on where, when and how the military was used.
Given the propaganda machines driving the jihadis, I'm not sure that
matters enough. There is really nothing that we can do that could not be
turned into a rallying cry for some faction of the nihilists. A free Iraqi
democracy will be used to inflame the theocrat islamo-facists. A shiite
Iraqi pseudo theocracy will inflame the Sunni islamo-facists. A progressive
and pluralistic islamic theocracy will inflame the wahabbi fucktards. A
failed Iraqi state inflames everyone because the destroyer crusaders
pillaged and left these poor people to rot. And so on - no matter what the
outcome (unless we put Al Queda in charge of the place, of course), the PR
machine will recruit more soldiers from the appropriately disaffected
faction. They *must* - for if America is allowed to intervene in ways that
prevent their creation of the mighty caliphate without any pain ...
> Do you think so? Hussein waited for Gillespie to give him the green
> light before he invaded Kuwait, and he seemed to be making an honest
> attempt to extricate himself from Kuwait peacefully once he realised the
> USA was not going to look the other way.
Your definition of "seemed" is a lot different from history's. And the
'green light' story seems to have taken on mythological aspects. Why on
earth would be green light an invasion if we didn't want an invasion (to the
degree that we would risk American lives to repel it?).
> He also had provocation, given
> that Kuwait was drilling sideways under the Iraqi border to nick oil.
To *invade their country*, destroy their oil wells, butcher their
people, and try to tell the world that Kuwait had always been their
province?
No. That's like saying that burning my house down was a result of
"provocation" because I took your parking spot at the office
> He's a revolting human being by any standards, but "Saddam-as-mad-dog"
> seems to me to have been a creation of propaganda.
If you read about his sons, you'd know it was dead-on accurate. Only a
mad dog creates rabid spawn like that. Hussein was a crafty and devious
megalomaniac.
> As far as I can tell
> he would have loved to conquer the entire Middle East but he knew his
> limitations.
If he knew his limitations, he would not have spent all those lives in
Iran.
> As such while he was a monster I can't see how he can be
> construed as having been a credible threat to his neighbours.
Then you're pitifully uninformed.
-Michael
Chris Hayes
Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> "Kevin Lowe" <m...@private.net> wrote in message
> news:me-343F7C.12...@news01.comindico.com.au...
> > He's a revolting human being by any standards, but "Saddam-as-mad-dog"
> > seems to me to have been a creation of propaganda.
>
> If you read about his sons, you'd know it was dead-on accurate. Only a
> mad dog creates rabid spawn like that. Hussein was a crafty and devious
> megalomaniac.
>
Mikey, give it up. *Nobody* in the Middle East considered Saddam
"Hitler" Hussein as a threat. His son, Uday, was a petty rapist.
While nobody's sad Uday is six feet under, could he have held Iraq
together? Doubtful. Saddam, OTOH, was not much of a threat either.
> > As far as I can tell
> > he would have loved to conquer the entire Middle East but he knew his
> > limitations.
>
> If he knew his limitations, he would not have spent all those lives in
> Iran.
>
Come off it. The Iran-Iraq war ended over a decade and a half ago.
Before Desert Storm, even. What do you think a decade of sanctions,
bomb strikes over a decade, and Desert Storm did to him?
> > As such while he was a monster I can't see how he can be
> > construed as having been a credible threat to his neighbours.
>
> Then you're pitifully uninformed.
>
Please Mikey, show us "peasants" how much of a threat to the rest of
the Middle East Saddam "Hitler" Hussein was after more than a decade of
sanctions. Why is it that *none* of the Middle East nations saw him as
such an imminent threat as to support a US-led invasion, hmmmmmm?
Before you go into your "containment" bullshit, remember this:
Afghanistan v. Soviets was *rollback.* Not containment. Come on,
Mikey. "Enlighten" us.
Michael Scott Brown
news:1123316153....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > seems to me to have been a creation of propaganda.
> >
> > If you read about his sons, you'd know it was dead-on accurate.
Only a
> > mad dog creates rabid spawn like that. Hussein was a crafty and devious
> > megalomaniac.
>
> Mikey, give it up. *Nobody* in the Middle East considered Saddam
> "Hitler" Hussein as a threat.
<raises hand> The question was whether or not the fucker was mad as a
hatter, not an immediate threat.
> > If he knew his limitations, he would not have spent all those lives
in Iran.
>
> Come off it. The Iran-Iraq war ended over a decade and a half ago.
<raises hand> The question was whether or not the fucker knew his
limitations. The way he pursued that conflict was clearly indicative of
someone whose boundaries are just a wee bit different than those of a sane
person.
> Before Desert Storm, even. What do you think a decade of sanctions,
> bomb strikes over a decade, and Desert Storm did to him?
Cemented his resolve to rearm and try again. The shithead was starving
his own people as it was so that he could get new weapons, after all.
Imagine what the first purchasing priority might be if those sanctions went
away...
> > > As such while he was a monster I can't see how he can be
> > > construed as having been a credible threat to his neighbours.
> >
> > Then you're pitifully uninformed.
>
> Please Mikey, show us "peasants" how much of a threat to the rest of
> the Middle East Saddam "Hitler" Hussein was after more than a decade of
> sanctions. Why is it that *none* of the Middle East nations saw him as
> such an imminent threat as to support a US-led invasion, hmmmmmm?
I think it's funny that you don't think, say, "5 years of shopping
later" isn't part of the threat equation.
<shakes head sadly>
You are *so* out of your depth, it boggles the mind that you actually
have the temerity to speak in public.
-Michael
Kevin Lowe
"Michael Scott Brown" <mister...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > I think that's presenting the issue as a false dichotomy, because not
> > everyone in the world is either waving a US flag or strapping bombs to
> > themselves.
>
> I think you're missing the point. A spike in terrorism is a certain
> result of agitation by the international networks who we are tearing down -
> what I'm talking about is not simply a spontaneous increase in "I'm so
> pissed at the US I gotta go kill somebody" temper tantrums (though such
> frustration is certainly easily tapped by jihadi propaganda machines when
> they recruit).
A spike in terrorism is consistent with the early days of a successful
campaign and also with a cockup, but the "war on terror" has been in
full swing for years now and even US military officers have stated that
there's no evidence headway is being made in Iraq. The safety of the
rest of the world speaks for itself. How many years of increased
terrorism do you think there have to be before it counts as evidence
that the WoT is a cockup?
> > There certainly are people who would hate the USA wherever it used its
> > military, but there are also people whose reaction would have depended
> > on where, when and how the military was used.
>
> Given the propaganda machines driving the jihadis, I'm not sure that
> matters enough. There is really nothing that we can do that could not be
> turned into a rallying cry for some faction of the nihilists. A free Iraqi
> democracy will be used to inflame the theocrat islamo-facists. A shiite
> Iraqi pseudo theocracy will inflame the Sunni islamo-facists. A progressive
> and pluralistic islamic theocracy will inflame the wahabbi fucktards. A
> failed Iraqi state inflames everyone because the destroyer crusaders
> pillaged and left these poor people to rot. And so on - no matter what the
> outcome (unless we put Al Queda in charge of the place, of course), the PR
> machine will recruit more soldiers from the appropriately disaffected
> faction. They *must* - for if America is allowed to intervene in ways that
> prevent their creation of the mighty caliphate without any pain ...
Don't worry so much about inflaming the fundamentalist militants, worry
about not inflaming the non-militants and non-fundamentalists.
> > Do you think so? Hussein waited for Gillespie to give him the green
> > light before he invaded Kuwait, and he seemed to be making an honest
> > attempt to extricate himself from Kuwait peacefully once he realised the
> > USA was not going to look the other way.
>
> Your definition of "seemed" is a lot different from history's.
How so? GW1 managed to bring about a war by insisting on total
capitulation or nothing, but you have no evidence that Hussein was not
willing to negotiate a compromise in good faith.
> And the
> 'green light' story seems to have taken on mythological aspects. Why on
> earth would be green light an invasion if we didn't want an invasion (to the
> degree that we would risk American lives to repel it?).
I'm not a mind reader, but who says you didn't want an invasion? You
can't have a military-industrial complex without the occasional
strategically convenient war, and the post-war oil embargo gave the USA
de facto control of Iraq's oil supply. All the high-minded PNAC reasons
why killing Iraqis is a good idea now applied back then too.
> > He also had provocation, given
> > that Kuwait was drilling sideways under the Iraqi border to nick oil.
>
> To *invade their country*, destroy their oil wells, butcher their
> people, and try to tell the world that Kuwait had always been their
> province?
> No. That's like saying that burning my house down was a result of
> "provocation" because I took your parking spot at the office
Try nicking any nation's strategic resources and see where it gets you.
I'm not saying it's right (any more than I am saying the US conquest of
Iraq was right) but it's the way of the world. It's not as if the
Kuwaiti rulers had any kind of moral legitimacy based on the consent of
the governed in the first place either.
> > He's a revolting human being by any standards, but "Saddam-as-mad-dog"
> > seems to me to have been a creation of propaganda.
>
> If you read about his sons, you'd know it was dead-on accurate. Only a
> mad dog creates rabid spawn like that. Hussein was a crafty and devious
> megalomaniac.
That's fairly tenuous, Dr Freud. Judging him by his actions, he was not
an out-of-control lunatic. An evil, crafty, devious megalomaniac sure,
but not one acting erratically.
> > As far as I can tell
> > he would have loved to conquer the entire Middle East but he knew his
> > limitations.
>
> If he knew his limitations, he would not have spent all those lives in
> Iran.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't an awful lot of the casualties
conscripts from ethnic and religious groups Hussein wasn't keen on?
There's also a difference of degree between tackling Iran and the USA.
> > As such while he was a monster I can't see how he can be
> > construed as having been a credible threat to his neighbours.
>
> Then you're pitifully uninformed.
I could be convinced that is the case, but right now I just don't think
so.
--
Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.
Joseph
news:nxYIe.1950$RS....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
And which violent offensive international networks do more terrorism to
actual individuals? It is State projection of all forms of power, or
radical, ideological, underground in most areas, violent networks.
Authority in radical Islam is derived from Allah. Allah can not literally
terrorize me. Only his followers can (or His ideas). And Islam's nature
is non-hierarchal and decentralized. I cannot say the same for the modern
state. Their politicians are quite real, and have a power from the top-
down mindset. Hierarchy, inequality, and conformity to many "laws"
compared to the Islamic idea of submission to the one law of Allah. There
is no official authority who decides whether a person is accepted into,
or dismissed from, the community of believers, known as the Ummah
("family" or "nation"). Islam is open to all, regardless of race, age,
gender, or previous beliefs. It is enough to believe in the central
beliefs of Islam. The Qur'an contains both injunctions to respect other
religions, and to fight and subdue unbelievers. And the Muslim interprets
that HIMSELF rather than in a catholic or universal legalistic sense. And
at least the radical Muslims may ignore you allowing you the chance at
"salvation", or the will of Allah, or leave you alive because Hell is so
much worse. Besides, I can hide not believing in a single god better than
obedience to all the laws and regulation of modern governments. And
traditional Islamic (state) civilization was far less opressive to the
individual than what we have now in much of the West politically. The
mighty caliphate is less destructive to the individual than the empire.
>> There certainly are people who would hate the USA wherever it used
>> its military, but there are also people whose reaction would have
>> depended on where, when and how the military was used.
>
> Given the propaganda machines driving the jihadis, I'm not sure
> that
> matters enough. There is really nothing that we can do that could not
> be turned into a rallying cry for some faction of the nihilists. A
> free Iraqi democracy will be used to inflame the theocrat
> islamo-facists. A shiite Iraqi pseudo theocracy will inflame the
> Sunni islamo-facists. A progressive and pluralistic islamic theocracy
> will inflame the wahabbi fucktards. A failed Iraqi state inflames
> everyone because the destroyer crusaders pillaged and left these poor
> people to rot. And so on - no matter what the outcome (unless we put
> Al Queda in charge of the place, of course), the PR machine will
> recruit more soldiers from the appropriately disaffected faction.
> They *must* - for if America is allowed to intervene in ways that
> prevent their creation of the mighty caliphate without any pain ...
Could you have used any more neo-conservative flaky buzzwords? You want
to know who is closer to the Thousand Year Reich. Look at the imperialist
and capitalistic foot-soldiers both civilian and military in their march
for their New World Order of modern "values". Extremists who want a
return to orthodox pre-modern Islam do not come close to the Nazis.
Fascism was forged in ancient Rome, not traditional Mecca. Fortunately,
the West has more to offer than what those patriots are shoving down the
throats of those in the Middle East right now.
Michael Scott Brown
> "Michael Scott Brown" <mister...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> A spike in terrorism is consistent with the early days of a successful
> campaign and also with a cockup, but the "war on terror" has been in
> full swing for years now and even US military officers have stated that
> there's no evidence headway is being made in Iraq. The safety of the
> rest of the world speaks for itself. How many years of increased
> terrorism do you think there have to be before it counts as evidence
> that the WoT is a cockup?
The thoughts you've strung together here have little relationship to one
another.
One - when the goal of the exercise is to literally reshape the middle
east and purge it of dictators (preferably as a result of dominoes resulting
from Iraq's transformation than a crusade of repeated regime changes), it's
a wee bit silly to think that this is a fast process. When I described the
"act and accept more danger - temporarily" model, I am talking about
*years*, not days, and you have no basis whatsoever to assert that "days" is
the correct metric.
Two - terrorism *in Iraq* is in some sense not the terrorism we give a
shit about save to the degree that it interferes with our goals there (which
it certainly has); the jihadis that are coming and dying would not have
attacked America as they had the wrong skillsets. However, the network
behind them is - and you can see in Iraq direct evidence of just how
destructive they can be if the middle east remains in a state where what
*they* have to offer is actually percieved as an improvement on the local
oppression.
Three - Remember Afghanistan? The haven for islamic radicals, training
to become terrorists and insurgents? Don't be so quick to assert that the
"WoT" is a failure just because the *Iraq* is taking longer to beat into
shape than Rummie had theorized. We've done major damage to Al Queda's
network, membership, and resources. We still are.
Four - "military officers" are speaking in a limited context (namely,
that of reducing the death toll from insurgent attacks); every new *Iraqi*
military officer (that's worth a shit) is headway in Iraq. The more time
that we hang on there, the more and more territory comes under real control,
and the insurgency will choke once its forces can't retreat and rearm easily
any longer. On top of that, the Iraqi people are getting fed up with the
mass murder campaign waged by Al Queda and the entire Arabic world is
beginning to confront the fact that perhaps the jackasses that take it upon
themselves to decide who is and is not a good Muslim and therefore deserves
to die as a heretic infidel collaborator .. aren't so holy after all.
As any US soldier who posts here has told you (after correctly pointing
out that we need more fucking troops)- all we have to do is hang on instead
of wimping out because we're taking the **least casualties of any sustained
campaign in the history of war**, and the problem will be self correcting.
The Sunni spoilers and the Al Queda maniacs have nothing to offer Iraq and
no chance whatsoever of taking back power; all they can do is throw the
mother of all temper tantrums. Al Queda's goal is to make Iraq's
transformation so painful that the US dare not do so again (because a
democratic Iraq starts a chain of events that means they will never have
their caliphate). When the inevitable solution to the Sunnis is reached
(unless that solution is genocide), Al Queda will turn on them, too, under
their "slaughter collaborators" policy. As long as we stay there and
shepherd a new government - whether it takes one more year or five - the job
will get done. The only legitimate critiques are not about potential
failure, but the costs associated with the strategies we used to do succeed.
It's patently obvious that the US military was woefully unprepared for the
peacekeeping phase of the conflict; and our choice to operate without
European allies deprived us of critical manpower.
> > > Do you think so? Hussein waited for Gillespie to give him the green
> > > light before he invaded Kuwait, and he seemed to be making an honest
> > > attempt to extricate himself from Kuwait peacefully once he realised
the
> > > USA was not going to look the other way.
> >
> > Your definition of "seemed" is a lot different from history's.
>
> How so? GW1 managed to bring about a war by insisting on total
> capitulation or nothing, but you have no evidence that Hussein was not
> willing to negotiate a compromise in good faith.
<raises hand> Hussein has *never* negotiated or compromised in good
faith.
> I'm not a mind reader, but who says you didn't want an invasion? You
> can't have a military-industrial complex without the occasional
> strategically convenient war,
You have to be fucking kidding me.
> and the post-war oil embargo gave the USA
> de facto control of Iraq's oil supply.
Which has benefitted us not at all.
> > If you read about his sons, you'd know it was dead-on accurate.
Only a
> > mad dog creates rabid spawn like that. Hussein was a crafty and devious
> > megalomaniac.
>
> That's fairly tenuous, Dr Freud. Judging him by his actions, he was not
> an out-of-control lunatic. An evil, crafty, devious megalomaniac sure,
> but not one acting erratically.
Did I say *erratic*? No.
> > If he knew his limitations, he would not have spent all those lives
in Iran.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't an awful lot of the casualties
> conscripts from ethnic and religious groups Hussein wasn't keen on?
This alternative hypothesis: "I will conscript my enemies and send them
to their deaths by the thousands" doesn't help Hussein's case, either.
> > > As such while he was a monster I can't see how he can be
> > > construed as having been a credible threat to his neighbours.
> >
> > Then you're pitifully uninformed.
>
> I could be convinced that is the case, but right now I just don't think
so.
Here's a simple mathematical formula for you:
[MASSIVE OIL WEALTH]+[Time]=[*NEW ARMY*]
[Wants to rule middle east]+[NEW ARMY]= [WAR].
An unrestrained Hussein regime was a ticking time bomb. Period.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
[snip]
Aww, how sweet, another incoherent kookrant.
Go back to your box, you myopic mouse-turd.
-Michael
Joseph
Incoherent? Like condemning neoconservatives, while you are using the very
same neoconservative linguistic terminology they use? Plus, your political
opinions you spew are like good cop neoconservative to Bushite bad cop
neoconservative. By the way, I don't take orders from a bullying
"guardian" who has pretensions of being a rationalist. You *embody*
fraudulence.
Michael Scott Brown
> "Michael Scott Brown" <mister...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> > Aww, how sweet, another incoherent kookrant.
> > Go back to your box, you myopic mouse-turd.
>
> Incoherent?
You obviously didn't read your post. Which is tricky, seeing as you were
writing it. I can only assume that you go off your meds for even a few
minutes and just start ranting at random.
Hey - have you bought that shotgun yet? I can give you the prescription:
Take orally. One dose.
> Like condemning neoconservatives, while you are using the very
> same neoconservative linguistic terminology they use?
You might want to consider the wildly inappropriate breaches of logic
that are implicit in your statement. On second thought, don't bother. The
issue is clearly beyond you.
> Plus, your political opinions you spew are like good cop neoconservative
to Bushite bad cop
> neoconservative.
What political opinions have I spewed, exactly?
> By the way, I don't take orders from a bullying
> "guardian" who has pretensions of being a rationalist.
So you're *not* going to kill yourself?
How do you square that declaration with previous impotent whinings about
how you just might, if someone told you to, and thus it was veryveryvery bad
to tell people that?
Hypocrisy, much?
>You *embody* fraudulence.
Prove the fraud, bitch.
You can't. You're just masturbating in public again. Please stop. Do it
for baby jesus. He loves you, you know.
-Michael
Howard C. Berkowitz
It's too bad, really. You've made some focused, thoughtful posts, in
which you've given well-writen, interesting perspective, on real events.
I find, however, that there is a certain level of noise and invective
from a given poster, beyond which I am simply not willing to hunt
through the chaff for the occasional grain of wheat.
If you want your views read seriously by more people, cool down a bit.
Joseph
> "Joseph" <vo...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns96AA93A2...@199.45.49.11...
>> "Michael Scott Brown" <mister...@earthlink.net> wrote in
>
>> > Aww, how sweet, another incoherent kookrant.
>> > Go back to your box, you myopic mouse-turd.
>>
>> Incoherent?
>
> You obviously didn't read your post. Which is tricky, seeing as
> you were
> writing it. I can only assume that you go off your meds for even a
> few minutes and just start ranting at random.
> Hey - have you bought that shotgun yet? I can give you the
> prescription:
> Take orally. One dose.
Keep on guessing, bitch. You should be embarrassed you waste time thinking
about me... and getting it so wrong in public. But you never are ashamed of
your anal-retentive bullying on Usenet are you, troll?
>> Like condemning neoconservatives, while you are using the very
>> same neoconservative linguistic terminology they use?
>
> You might want to consider the wildly inappropriate breaches of
> logic
> that are implicit in your statement. On second thought, don't bother.
> The issue is clearly beyond you.
I'll admit the post was a bit disorganized, but it was in response to your
blatant hypocrisy. Give me better material to work with, Mikey. That is
going to be difficult given your track record.
>> Plus, your political opinions you spew are like good cop
>> neoconservative
> to Bushite bad cop
>> neoconservative.
>
> What political opinions have I spewed, exactly?
Read the thread again. Your political opinion, about Hussein having to be
removed by America, is one example. Your only complaint was Bush did it too
early, and executed it wrong. Neoconservative all the way, but you disguise
that by saying he *lied*. No shit! He's a politician. And you called him a
dictator for that, kook. I'll mention your use of Islamo-nazis; please
don't abuse the English language like that again. Been reading too many
neoconservative propaganda magazines like Commentary and the Weekly
Standard, MSB?
>> By the way, I don't take orders from a bullying
>> "guardian" who has pretensions of being a rationalist.
>
> So you're *not* going to kill yourself?
> How do you square that declaration with previous impotent whinings
> about
> how you just might, if someone told you to, and thus it was
> veryveryvery bad to tell people that?
> Hypocrisy, much?
I was not talking about myself, dissembler.
>>You *embody* fraudulence.
>
> Prove the fraud, bitch.
> You can't. You're just masturbating in public again. Please stop.
> Do it
> for baby jesus. He loves you, you know.
>
> -Michael
Your use of Christianity as an insult against me shows your fraudulence.
You think Christianity is wacky, and you should know such insipid insults
don't bother me. So, you are a repetitive dolt as well.