Why my support for the Iraq War is falling
dun...@yahoo.com
wars to be a violent, non-essential component to human life.
Secondly, my support for the Iraq War -- at once neutral -- has now
shifted to less than positive feelings for the United States'
involvement in the conflict.
Thirdly, we are losing far too many soldiers in a needless war.
We have stayed too long. We need to get out of Iraq and start focusing
on rebuilding America. With New Orleans first.
Every day, I see images on the web and on television which are truly
heartbreaking. Cars in flames, people crying, men and women
screaming...all because of war. Why? Why do human beings feel the
senseless need to inflict violence on one another?
As I studied Sociology in college, I learned how truly pathetic we can
be as human beings. We are, at times, the worst and the best of
humanity. When we (as a country) ignore Africa's starvation, and the
AIDS epidemic, but place all of our resources into invading a sovereign
nation (for natural resources such as oil) we are then becoming the
devil of our own creation.
Why do we just sit back and watch this unfold? Why are we, as
Americans, forced to just accept whatever we see on television as
valid? Can't we think for ourselves anymore? Can't we vote without the
need for divided politics?
This country used to be really great -- about 100 years ago. We have
turned into an animal, attacking and circling every natural resource we
can consume while oppressing innocent people who have no use or need
for our continued presence. Iraq is a useless and bloody conflict.
There is nothing to gain by being in Iraq. Except more natural
resources gobbled up. And more innocent civilians lost.
I supported the 1993 campaign in Mogadishu because I felt the cause was
humanitarian in nature. And we were arresting (or attempting to arrest)
a leader who had corrupted his people and led them down a path of
violence and disgrace. This is the only American military operation I
have supported since birth.
Iraq cannot continue to be left in shambles by our military. We need to
pull out of Iraq NOW...not four years from now, not ten years from
now...NOW!
The cost is far too high, and we are ruining a country rich in culture
and history. And for what? More natural resources. Oil is not the most
important thing in the world, but you'd be surprised how important it
is in this case. We need to reprioritize our placement of values. Where
do we stand as a nation on this issue? And why do we lack the voice to
speak our minds fully? Can we not speak? Are we afraid to speak?
If we cannot (or are unwilling) to speak out against this war, then we
must vote with our ballots in the next election and elect a leader who
WILL NOT invade a nation without congressional and NATO approval.
I do not like war of any kind. And I don't see the logic in this one,
either. It's just another Vietnam.
Signed,
Paul Panks
NAU Class of 2002
Roedy Green
>Thirdly, we are losing far too many soldiers in a needless war.
>We have stayed too long. We need to get out of Iraq and start focusing
>on rebuilding America. With New Orleans first.
FOX news did a story on the latest casualty of the Iraq war a young
and rather silly Seattle man. He signed up to kill for his country
because of 9/11 -- dying, never realising the two had no connection
other than in Bush's lies.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Again taking new Java programming contracts.
Ross Langerak
<dun...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1126935635.1...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
are there, we can't just leave. We are obligated to leave Iraq with a
stable government. Otherwise, they could end up with another paranoid
dictator, or one of their neighbors could take advantage of their vulnerable
condition.
Michael Siemon
"Ross Langerak" <rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
....
> There was no valid justification for invading Iraq. However, now that we
> are there, we can't just leave. We are obligated to leave Iraq with a
> stable government. Otherwise, they could end up with another paranoid
> dictator, or one of their neighbors could take advantage of their vulnerable
> condition.
Yeah; but _we_ are not in any position where we _can_ do what we
_have_ to do to come out of this with the _slightest_ degree of
honor. We screwed the pooch going in, and there ain't _nothing_
we can do to put Humpty Dumpty together again.
There are some _very_ bitter dregs to swill in all of that, thanks
to Bush and his moronic neo-Con ideologues. Spending 30 years in
"think tanks" talking to themselves without the _slightest_ hint
of contact with reality. Yeah, that's just what we needed in the
White House.
Sigh.
Michael Siemon
Roedy Green <loo...@mindprod.com.invalid> wrote:
> On 16 Sep 2005 22:40:35 -0700, dun...@yahoo.com wrote or quoted :
>
> >Thirdly, we are losing far too many soldiers in a needless war.
> >We have stayed too long. We need to get out of Iraq and start focusing
> >on rebuilding America. With New Orleans first.
>
> FOX news did a story on the latest casualty of the Iraq war a young
> and rather silly Seattle man. He signed up to kill for his country
> because of 9/11 -- dying, never realising the two had no connection
> other than in Bush's lies.
You know, that's despicable. Why don't you go flush yourself
down your toilet? Lots of us, post 9/11, would have liked to
be able to make a positive contribution to resolving the mess
that showed up on our doorstep (I mean that literally, having
had a number of folks walk to our house from the WTC on 9/11,
while I was trapped in Brooklyn and not allowed over the bridge
to get back home.)
That some kid's honorable intentions got steamrollered by
the shitheads in power is not something to mock.
Matthew Isleb
Nah, they'll just have a nice, healthy civil war and split into three
peace loving countries.
-matthew
Bobby D. Bryant
> There was no valid justification for invading Iraq. However, now
> that we are there, we can't just leave. We are obligated to leave
> Iraq with a stable government. Otherwise, they could end up with
> another paranoid dictator, or one of their neighbors could take
> advantage of their vulnerable condition.
I'm tempted to agree in principle, but there are a couple of other
considerations that I'm having trouble ignoring:
o Your statement of the consequences will almost certainly come
about shortly after we leave, no matter how well we patch things
up before leaving. (Have a look at their history.)
o Meanwhile, we're asking our volunteer soldiers to _die_ to fix
a political screw-up.
Someone did indeed pick up some moral obligations when they decided
to knock off another country's government, but unfortunately the
burden is falling on others. We should bring our troops home and
send Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz over to clean up their
own mess.
But regardless of what you and I think, it looks like the Bush
Administration is prepping us for a cut-n-run under another "Mission
Accomplished" banner. The Republican Party isn't going to want an
unpopular war on their hands during the 2008 election campaign.
For that matter, they will be under intense pressure to show that
"we're starting to finish" before the 2006 congressional elections.
(Hence the frequent noises about a partial withdrawal next spring.)
Bush is still keen on "stay the course", but seems to be watering down
expectations for where that course takes us. Some observers are
already suggesting that he will ultimately settle for the least
distasteful dictator he can get.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Bobby D. Bryant
> That some kid's honorable intentions got steamrollered by the
> shitheads in power is not something to mock.
Indeed, it's something to mourn.
And we should hold said shitheads to account for their exploitation
of 9/11 for a base political agenda.
CathParks
news:dggkoc$8dt$1...@geraldo.cc
>
> Some observers are
> already suggesting that [the latest US President] will ultimately settle
> distasteful dictator he can get.
Which is, of course, how Saddam Hussein - a 'CIA asset' for 40 years! - came
to be inflicted on the Iraqi people in the first place...
*Plus ça change*...
C.
Dan Luke
"Ross Langerak" wrote:
>> I do not like war of any kind. And I don't see the logic in this one,
>> either. It's just another Vietnam.
>>
> There was no valid justification for invading Iraq. However, now that
> we
> are there, we can't just leave.
America is still in denial about the horrible inevitability of this
dilemma. Whatever we do, we are truly screwed, blued and tattoo'd. All
lives lost in Iraq are wasted.
> We are obligated to leave Iraq with a
> stable government.
Obligation does not imply possibility. This is not something America
can fix, now. It might have been remotely possible at the start, but
the Bush administration's criminal bungling since the fall of Baghdad
has ruined whatever slim hope there was.
> Otherwise, they could end up with another paranoid
> dictator, or one of their neighbors could take advantage of their
> vulnerable
> condition.
Expect both.
--
Dan
"Mission accomplished!"
- Banner welcoming George W. Bush aboard the USS Lincoln, May, 2003.
Matt Silberstein
<1126935635.1...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
[snip]
>This country used to be really great -- about 100 years ago.
You mean when we had just finished killing off most Native Americans?
My country has great principles, great ideals that we assert are our
reason for being. I wish we followed them even a bit more.
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
Robert J. Kolker
> First off, let me say that I do not condone wars of any kind. I believe
> wars to be a violent, non-essential component to human life.
I think wars should be fought to extermination of the enemy. I stopped
supporting our war in Iraq when it was clear we were not going to kill
the Iraqis. We are spending billions to help them. Feh!. I beleive in
killing them all and letting Allah (who is merciful and compassionate)
sort out the bodies.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> America is still in denial about the horrible inevitability of this
> dilemma. Whatever we do, we are truly screwed, blued and tattoo'd. All
> lives lost in Iraq are wasted.
Easy solution.
1. Withdraw our people.
2. Nuke the country into a slag heap.
Problem solved.
The problem of Al Islam has a solution.
Bob Kolker
Steven L.
>
> This country used to be really great -- about 100 years ago.
Wow.
I guess you've forgotten about such things as:
- Slavery
- The war against the Barbary Pirates
- The Civil War (bloodiest war in U.S. history)
- The Spanish-American War
- The Battle of Wounded Knee
- Women didn't get the right to vote until 1920 (19th Amendment)
What the hell are they teaching you young'uns in school these days???
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Bobby D. Bryant
> "Ross Langerak" wrote:
>
>>> I do not like war of any kind. And I don't see the logic in this one,
>>> either. It's just another Vietnam.
>>
>> There was no valid justification for invading Iraq. However, now
>> that we are there, we can't just leave.
>
> America is still in denial about the horrible inevitability of this
> dilemma. Whatever we do, we are truly screwed, blued and tattoo'd.
I'm still hoping to get out of it without a tattoo.
Bobby D. Bryant
That's the kind of stupidity that got us into this mess in the first
place.
Bobby D. Bryant
> dun...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> This country used to be really great -- about 100 years ago.
>
> Wow.
> I guess you've forgotten about such things as:
>
> - Slavery
> - The war against the Barbary Pirates
> - The Civil War (bloodiest war in U.S. history)
> - The Spanish-American War
> - The Battle of Wounded Knee
> - Women didn't get the right to vote until 1920 (19th Amendment)
>
> What the hell are they teaching you young'uns in school these days???
Presumably the same old propaganda they taught *us* when *we* were
young'uns.
Driven home with the Pledge of Allegiance.
chris.li...@gmail.com
Maybe it would be cheaper and easier to use gas chambers? It's neat
that we can now surgically implant microchips in their arms instead of
tattoing them, don't you think?
You're a fucking disgrace.
Chris Thompson
chris.li...@gmail.com
>
> There was no valid justification for invading Iraq. However, now that we
> are there, we can't just leave. We are obligated to leave Iraq with a
> stable government. Otherwise, they could end up with another paranoid
> dictator, or one of their neighbors could take advantage of their vulnerable
> condition.
And I am no longer sure we can stay. We have the obligation to fix
Iraq, but we can't do it. We've killed to many Iraqis and we've lost
too many good people ourselves. We have to leave, and foot the bill for
someone else to rebuild the country- perhaps European, perhaps Asian,
but preferably someone who'll do a decent job and who had no connection
to the devestation and slaughter, so they can start fresh.
Chris
Dan Luke
"Bobby D. Bryant" wrote:
>> America is still in denial about the horrible inevitability of this
>> dilemma. Whatever we do, we are truly screwed, blued and tattoo'd.
>
> I'm still hoping to get out of it without a tattoo.
<snicker>
Robert J. Kolker
>
> That's the kind of stupidity that got us into this mess in the first
> place.
No. It is different. My proposal has an exit strategy. In fact my
proposal IS an exit strategy. Al Islam exits from the world.
If thine enemy smite thee on thy cheek, rip his eyes out a piss in his
skull. Then kill his wife and children and destroy his property.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> Maybe it would be cheaper and easier to use gas chambers? It's neat
> that we can now surgically implant microchips in their arms instead of
> tattoing them, don't you think?
Don't be silly. Kill the lot and have done with them.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
> And I am no longer sure we can stay. We have the obligation to fix
> Iraq, but we can't do it. We've killed to many Iraqis and we've lost
> too many good people ourselves. We have to leave, and foot the bill for
> someone else to rebuild the country- perhaps European, perhaps Asian,
> but preferably someone who'll do a decent job and who had no connection
> to the devestation and slaughter, so they can start fresh.
>
The EuroTrash are corrupt and even more incompetent than we are. They
will never do a decent job.
We had to bail the EuroTrash out in two large wars because they could
not deal with a determined enemy.
Bob Kolker
Andrew F. Heil
> stopped supporting our war in Iraq when it was clear we were
> not going to kill the Iraqis.
a) We obviously are killing Iraqis.
b) If you mean, that we weren't going to try to exterminate the Iraqis,
I have to wonder how anyone could be so utterly moronic as to ever
think that was the goal.
Bobby D. Bryant
Even if you have no concern for the morality of such things, do you
really suppose that kind of behavior will leave you with fewer enemies
than you already have?
Robert Sveinson
"Robert J. Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:3p31abF...@individual.net...
> chris.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
>
> We had to bail the EuroTrash out in two large wars because they could
> not deal with a determined enemy.
amerikkka got into both world wars for
its own selfish motives.
Nothing to do with helping anybody but
themselves.
WWII ameriKKKa was losing the ability
to make a profit selling to Nazi Germany
and sales to the British was a safer bet.
>
> Bob Kolker
>
Matt Silberstein
Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> in <3p2kquF...@individual.net>
wrote:
Are you going to "nuke" Syria and Iran and Saudi as well? How about
Pakistan and Afghanistan? Do you think that the Indonesians might
object and how are we going to get their oil?
To the nearest 20 million, how many are you willing to kill?
Matt Silberstein
Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> in <3p2ko6F...@individual.net>
wrote:
So what was our purpose in the war that you supported? It was not to
free the people from Saddam, obviously. It was not to deal with those
who had attacked us on 9/11. Were you fooled regarding WMD or did you
have another reason?
Paul J Gans
Agreed.
The bad guys want to paint everyone who is against the
war as being against our troops, anti-American, and
pro-Saddam.
By mocking folks who believe that it is their duty to
serve when their country calls, we play right into the
hands of the bad guys.
It *is* the duty to serve if your country calls. If I
had some expertise to offer and Bush called me, I'd go.
I'd do my damnedist to resist idiocy, but I'd try to
do my bit.
And I think most others would also.
So while I understand the revulsion at the man and his
policies, those are my fellow citizens out there in
the military. And yes, I'd pay more in taxes to
ensure that they had armored vests and proper vehicles.
It isn't me who isn't supporting our troops.
---- Paul J. Gans
PS: Let me be even more clear: I recognize that we've
lost in Iraq. Lost in the sense that outside of the aim
of physically removing Saddam, we've not attained *any*
of the many stated goals for the invasion.
I also recognize that it is beyond our power to put the
situation right. It's an egg. We broke it. It's gone.
And I *also* recognize that it is our duty to leave Iraq
as soon as feasible. And that means leaving while doing
the least damage to what is left of Iraq. That's hard.
It might mean leaving tomorrow or it might mean staying
for another year or more. It might mean sending *more*
troops. And it might cost enough to force even Bush to
rescind his tax cuts. But it would be the right thing
to do.
I'm old. The damage this administration has done to
the nation's finances will not be repaired in my lifetime.
I'm sorry about that. You younger folks can stop worrying
about social security and worry about the financial
integrity of the entire nation instead.
Michael Siemon
Do this moron even know how bloody _many_ Muslims there are?
Robert J. Kolker
It should have been. Starting on 12 September 2001, the U.S. should have
formulated and implimented a plan to expunge Al Islam from the face of
the Earth. A good response to 9/11 would have been the nuking of Meccah.
Use the Qabbah as the aiming point.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Even if you have no concern for the morality of such things, do you
> really suppose that kind of behavior will leave you with fewer enemies
> than you already have?
If your enemies end up dead what difference does it make. The last one
standing is the Winner.
And when it comes to fighting off the shrieking savages of the 3-rd
world, I have no moral qualms whatsover. These creatures do not matter.
Bob Kolker
>
Robert J. Kolker
> On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 09:42:53 -0400, in talk.origins , "Robert J.
> Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> in <3p2kquF...@individual.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Dan Luke wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>America is still in denial about the horrible inevitability of this
>>>dilemma. Whatever we do, we are truly screwed, blued and tattoo'd. All
>>>lives lost in Iraq are wasted.
>>
>>Easy solution.
>>
>>1. Withdraw our people.
>>
>>2. Nuke the country into a slag heap.
>>
>>Problem solved.
>>
>>The problem of Al Islam has a solution.
>
>
> Are you going to "nuke" Syria and Iran and Saudi as well? How about
> Pakistan and Afghanistan? Do you think that the Indonesians might
> object and how are we going to get their oil?
We have oil reserves and we can convert to coal in no time flat. The
South Americans seeing us in high dudgeon will provide us with all the
oil we require (or else).
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Do this moron even know how bloody _many_ Muslims there are?
1.6 Billions. Which is why we have to use nukes world wide.
Bob Kolker
>
Robert J. Kolker
> On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 09:41:25 -0400, in talk.origins , "Robert J.
> Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> in <3p2ko6F...@individual.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>dun...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>First off, let me say that I do not condone wars of any kind. I believe
>>>wars to be a violent, non-essential component to human life.
>>
>>I think wars should be fought to extermination of the enemy. I stopped
>>supporting our war in Iraq when it was clear we were not going to kill
>>the Iraqis. We are spending billions to help them. Feh!. I beleive in
>>killing them all and letting Allah (who is merciful and compassionate)
>>sort out the bodies.
>
>
> So what was our purpose in the war that you supported? It was not to
> free the people from Saddam, obviously. It was not to deal with those
> who had attacked us on 9/11. Were you fooled regarding WMD or did you
> have another reason?
Initially I thought Saddam was going to restart his nuclear program. We
know he had chimical weapons with which his cousing "Chemical Ali"
killed 15,000 Kurds (not that the matter, mind you).
In any case our strategy starting on 12 Sept 2001 should have been the
extirpation of Islam. Al Islam is the enemy, not Saddam. If we were
going to attack a single Moslem country, it should have been Iran and
not Iraq. Why? Because Iran is Shi'ite Central and one of the biggest
backers of Terrorism. Also Saudi Arabia should be on our list. Every
time you buy a gallon of gas you are sending a quarter to Al Quedah by
way of the Saudis.
Iraq was a thoroughly bad place to start our war against Islam as
subsequent events have proved.
Bob Kolker
Jeffrey Turner
They don't need taxes, they'll just borrow the money...
--Jeff
--
"Believing... that religion is a matter which lies solely
between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for
his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of
government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate
with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people
which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between
Church and State."
- Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists, 1802
wade....@gmail.com
>
> > On 16 Sep 2005 22:40:35 -0700, dun...@yahoo.com wrote or quoted :
> >
> > >Thirdly, we are losing far too many soldiers in a needless war.
> > >We have stayed too long. We need to get out of Iraq and start focusing
> > >on rebuilding America. With New Orleans first.
> >
> > FOX news did a story on the latest casualty of the Iraq war a young
> > and rather silly Seattle man. He signed up to kill for his country
> > because of 9/11 -- dying, never realising the two had no connection
> > other than in Bush's lies.
> You know, that's despicable. Why don't you go flush yourself
> down your toilet? Lots of us, post 9/11, would have liked to
> be able to make a positive contribution to resolving the mess
> that showed up on our doorstep (I mean that literally, having
> had a number of folks walk to our house from the WTC on 9/11,
> while I was trapped in Brooklyn and not allowed over the bridge
> to get back home.)
> That some kid's honorable intentions got steamrollered by
> the shitheads in power is not something to mock.
I wonder here. You've reacted rather harshly to the use of
the term "silly". That's the only thing that comes close to
_mocking_ in the above posting.
Now from my perspective, my son was in his senior year of
high schoo beginning in 2001, I spoke with a number of
young men who wanted to join the Army. A significant
number of them were basically responding to a frustration
that led them to want to do something, anything, but
didn't know who to hit. And there was an undercurrent
of joining up to go kill "them damn towel heads".
I think some were silly and immature. That is afterall
something you expect with the young. I don't know what's
happened to most of those kids. A number changed their
minds before finishing high school.
Now it's significantly true that there are others who
joined up to serve from that same sense of wanting to do
something but with a more mature understanding of what
that meant: that a soldier is part of a machine used
by a government. I don't consider that person silly.
I don't mock either archtype. I recognize that young
men are often inspired to act in what can seem reckless
ways. They can do this for the most noble of reasons
or for more youthful reasons but the two aren't exclusive
in any sense.
So I really wonder Michael if you aren't over reacting
to that posting. Perhaps the characterization of that
particular case was unfair but, despite the tragedy
of it all, some of the young men who signed up were
in fact doing so for what amounts of rather silly
reasons. Young people do things like that. That doesn't
make his personal sacrifice less tragic or less noble
in my view.
If you want to object to the characterization as "silly"
because you don't think Roedy really has any reason
to know that or not, fine. I don't know if he does.
If you want to urge caution in speaking about those
who have sacrificed for their country, I wholeheartedly
agree. But your response seems far more stifling than
that. I know nothing of the particular case of the young
man in question but sadly I'm sure the comment accurately
fits to a number of young men who've died in Iraq. I
don't see the truth of it as mocking them.
Paul J Gans
>On Sat, 17 Sep 2005, Michael Siemon <mlsi...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> That some kid's honorable intentions got steamrollered by the
>> shitheads in power is not something to mock.
>Indeed, it's something to mourn.
>And we should hold said shitheads to account for their exploitation
>of 9/11 for a base political agenda.
I hope so. But I've been diagnosed with terminal
cynicism, so I don't think it will happen.
---- Paul J. Gans
Michael Siemon
"wade.hines@g_ood_no_spa_mail.com" <wade....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Michael Siemon wrote:
....
> > That some kid's honorable intentions got steamrollered by
> > the shitheads in power is not something to mock.
>
> I wonder here. You've reacted rather harshly to the use of
> the term "silly". That's the only thing that comes close to
> _mocking_ in the above posting.
I acknowledge that my reaction may have been disproportionate
to the offense. It is possible that I read more into the
comments than was actually there. Neither am I trying to
claim that all young enlistees are noble, blah, blah, blah...
[insert sick-making "patriotic" noises]. But I dislike the
characterization of a low-level grunt lately killed as "silly",
whether or not he bought into Bush's propaganda, or joined up
for reasons that might look to his family as inadequate in
light of the consequences.
Some of this is a "flashback" to Viet-Nam, when many in my
cohort started bad-mouthing every poor schmuck who was caught
in the military steamroller. That is no better than the
"Swift Boat" style of counter-crap that we saw flung at us by
_some_ of the Viet vets.
Paul J Gans
>Dan Luke wrote:
>>
>>
>> America is still in denial about the horrible inevitability of this
>> dilemma. Whatever we do, we are truly screwed, blued and tattoo'd. All
>> lives lost in Iraq are wasted.
>Easy solution.
>1. Withdraw our people.
>2. Nuke the country into a slag heap.
>Problem solved.
>The problem of Al Islam has a solution.
Yup. You forgot
3. Make everyone forget Nazi Germany as a new standard
of death and inhumanity declares itself.
And
4. The nations of the world band together to put an
end to "the most inhumane regime that the world has
ever known". They do.
----- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
Nah. It tops the kind of stupidity that got us into this
mess in the first place.
----- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
You may well be right. But we can't afford to do that.
And we need their oil badly. The Administration has set
up a number of policies aimed at guaranteeing that we
remain dependent on Middle Eastern oil.
----- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
No. And he has no notion of how vulnerable the US is to
an international alliance against us. We need to import
almost everything, especially money. An anti-US boycott
would be far more successful than ours against Cuba.
I figure we'd collapse in a year without a shot being fired.
---- Paul J. Gans
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> Yup. You forgot
>
> 3. Make everyone forget Nazi Germany as a new standard
> of death and inhumanity declares itself.
>
> And
>
> 4. The nations of the world band together to put an
> end to "the most inhumane regime that the world has
> ever known". They do.
The EuroTrash will not lift a finger against us, nor Japan. Why. The
U.S. is essential to their economies. Similar for China.
You forgot how the EuroTrash sold out the Czecks. Neville Chamberlain
went on his knees to Berlin to give Hitler and Von Ribbentrop a blow job.
The French will not lift a finger and most likely the Brits will not. In
fact they might use our attack as an ocassion to clean out their
domestic Islamic mess, which is long overdue. Germany, Italy, Holland
and the Scandanavian countries do not matter. They haven't got the
military muscle. The Russians wills use the occasion to clean up their
Moslem problem. It will be open season on Moslem (at long last!).
Bob Kolker
Mark Isaak
<rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
><dun...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1126935635.1...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>[...]
>> I do not like war of any kind. And I don't see the logic in this one,
>> either. It's just another Vietnam.
>>
>There was no valid justification for invading Iraq. However, now that we
>are there, we can't just leave. We are obligated to leave Iraq with a
>stable government. Otherwise, they could end up with another paranoid
>dictator, or one of their neighbors could take advantage of their vulnerable
>condition.
There is an alternative. Leave Iraq now, but leave a strong military
presence in Kuwait and/or other places nearby. Also leave behind a
message spelling out a few reasonable demands of what we expect from
Iraq after we pull out (e.g., no genocide, no supporting terrorism),
with the warning that we will be back if they are not met.
I don't know if that is an entirely workable solution, but I know it
is a hell of a lot more workable than our current plans of destruction
as usual.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Mark Isaak
<now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>Dan Luke wrote:
>>
>>
>> America is still in denial about the horrible inevitability of this
>> dilemma. Whatever we do, we are truly screwed, blued and tattoo'd. All
>> lives lost in Iraq are wasted.
>
>Easy solution.
>
>1. Withdraw our people.
>
>2. Nuke the country into a slag heap.
>
>Problem solved.
Problem barely started. Nuking a country will make you lots of
enemies (myself among them). Your solution only aggravates the
problem until the whole world gets nuked.
chris.li...@gmail.com
> chris.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > And I am no longer sure we can stay. We have the obligation to fix
> > Iraq, but we can't do it. We've killed to many Iraqis and we've lost
> > too many good people ourselves. We have to leave, and foot the bill for
> > someone else to rebuild the country- perhaps European, perhaps Asian,
> > but preferably someone who'll do a decent job and who had no connection
> > to the devestation and slaughter, so they can start fresh.
> >
>
> The EuroTrash are corrupt and even more incompetent than we are. They
> will never do a decent job.
Hm. That must be why we courted them as allies in this miserable
abortion of a war.
In fact, your attitude is rather dusgustingly smug, arrogant,
Americentric, and wrong.
> We had to bail the EuroTrash out in two large wars because they could
> not deal with a determined enemy.
>
> Bob Kolker
You know little of history if you think that. World War I was a
foregone conclusion. by the time we got there. The entry of the US
hastened the surrender of Germany et al., but it was going to happen
anyway. I suggest you read Keegan on WWI- you might learn something.
Chris
chris.li...@gmail.com
Troll, troll, troll your post,
Gently o'er the net!
Angrily, angrily, others respond;
With words you hope they'll regret!
Michael Siemon
Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlinkNOSPAM.next> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 09:42:53 -0400, "Robert J. Kolker"
> <now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >Dan Luke wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> America is still in denial about the horrible inevitability of this
> >> dilemma. Whatever we do, we are truly screwed, blued and tattoo'd. All
> >> lives lost in Iraq are wasted.
> >
> >Easy solution.
> >
> >1. Withdraw our people.
> >
> >2. Nuke the country into a slag heap.
> >
> >Problem solved.
>
> Problem barely started. Nuking a country will make you lots of
> enemies (myself among them). Your solution only aggravates the
> problem until the whole world gets nuked.
Not to mention what the hell his "final solution" is for all
the Muslim US Citizens -- they won't all fit at Gitmo, you
know. I mean, the Prez has zero interest (despite his oath)
in the Constitution, but there _are_ practical difficulties...
Raymond Griffith
at mlsi...@sonic.net wrote on 9/17/05 6:57 PM:
I agree that not every military person joined for machismo and meanness. I
would even agree that most military people are honorable.
However, I would also argue that we have a much larger percentage of
strutters in the military today than we had during Vietnam. A huge lot of
those sent to Vietnam came via the draft, co-opted into military duty by a
government who needed to uphold its misguided policies.
We do not have the draft today, although it is uncertain how long that
situation will remain (seeing the poor enrollment in the recruiters'
offices). The war has been fought on the backs of the reservists, people who
sought a limited military service. So far, no one who has not chosen a
military lifestyle has been sent to war in Iraq.
Again, I stress that most people in the military are good, honorable people.
But no matter what our intentions, or the intentions of those who are
fighting the war, I believe the way we are going about this is wrong.
Regards,
Raymond E. Griffith
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> No. And he has no notion of how vulnerable the US is to
> an international alliance against us. We need to import
> almost everything, especially money. An anti-US boycott
> would be far more successful than ours against Cuba.
Our economy is absolutely vital to Europe, Japan and probably China.
There will be no war against us.
We can count on one thing above all. The wallet and the bank account
trumnps morality each and every time. Nations act on their perceived
interests, not on moral principles.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> There is an alternative. Leave Iraq now, but leave a strong military
> presence in Kuwait and/or other places nearby. Also leave behind a
> message spelling out a few reasonable demands of what we expect from
> Iraq after we pull out (e.g., no genocide, no supporting terrorism),
> with the warning that we will be back if they are not met.
Right. And the Al Queda operatives now operating in Iraq are really
going to abide by that. Sure.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
We can build camps for them. And the Constitution will be shredded if it
is a matter of our survival. The COnstitution was suspended for all
practical purposes during WW2. Ask any Japanse American.
Bob Kolker
>
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> Problem barely started. Nuking a country will make you lots of
> enemies (myself among them). Your solution only aggravates the
> problem until the whole world gets nuked.
Let it come then. That idea is not for us to win, but for us not to be
the loser. Once the world grasps that fact, they will make no move
against us. Doing that will only bring the roof down upon them.
Bob Kolker
Josh Hayes
@individual.net:
Breathtaking.
You, sir, are a madman. Please do not presume to say "us" to mean the
United States, because you don't speak for anyone but your own sad little
twisted excuse for a self.
(You're also a troll, but that's a different issue.)
-JAH
Mitchell Coffey
<sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>dun...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>
>> This country used to be really great -- about 100 years ago.
>
>Wow.
>I guess you've forgotten about such things as:
>
>- Slavery
>- The war against the Barbary Pirates
>- The Civil War (bloodiest war in U.S. history)
>- The Spanish-American War
>- The Battle of Wounded Knee
>- Women didn't get the right to vote until 1920 (19th Amendment)
>
>What the hell are they teaching you young'uns in school these days???
Ok, explain to me why goin' to the Shores of Tripoli merits inclusion
in that list?
Mitchell
Wakboth
Robert J. Kolker kirjoitti:
How or why are you any different from the Nazis?
-- Wakboth
Mitchell Coffey
<now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>chris.li...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> And I am no longer sure we can stay. We have the obligation to fix
>> Iraq, but we can't do it. We've killed to many Iraqis and we've lost
>> too many good people ourselves. We have to leave, and foot the bill for
>> someone else to rebuild the country- perhaps European, perhaps Asian,
>> but preferably someone who'll do a decent job and who had no connection
>> to the devestation and slaughter, so they can start fresh.
>>
>
>The EuroTrash are corrupt and even more incompetent than we are. They
>will never do a decent job.
>
>We had to bail the EuroTrash out in two large wars because they could
>not deal with a determined enemy.
>
>Bob Kolker
Please explain: it would logically follow from what you say above that
Germany does not fall under your definition of "EuroTrash." Can we
deal with them?
Mitchell Coffey
Dan Luke
"Robert J. Kolker" wrote:
> Easy solution.
>
> 1. Withdraw our people.
>
> 2. Nuke the country into a slag heap.
>
> Problem solved.
>
> The problem of Al Islam has a solution.
Do not assume that the above pinheaded, genocidal babbling is the point
of view of an isolated usenet loon. Even if it is mere trolling, it
pretty well sums up the opinions of many people I encounter in Alabama
and Texas.
--
Dan
"These are exciting times for the Iraqi people!"
-George W. Bush
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> How or why are you any different from the Nazis?
I am going after real enemies. I dislike Islam because it conduces to
terror. Muslims have never been able to live in peace with others. That
goes back to the beginning. It is inherent in the religion. Al Islam is
infected by the Jihad Meme.
Killing enemies is what one does to survive. Let us hope that the people
we kill because we call them ememies truly and really are enemies. As
for the "innocent" folk who will be killed, collateral damage is one of
the infellicities of modern war. During WW2, the Good War, we killed
500,000 civillians, many of them women and children. It was a necessity
of war. If an enemy ever finds out that we are deterred by pity and
mercy, they will line their roofs with cradles and cribs filled with
infants.
My dislike of Islam and Moslems is religious and philosophical. If you
took a little Moslem baby from his mothers breast and brought him up as
a Southron Baptist, he would be a Southron Baptist, a litter darker than
the average Baptist, but never the less a Baptist. The problem with
Moslems is not their genetics (which is highly diverse) but their
religion, their worldview and their philosophy. They are dangerous to
human life.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> Do not assume that the above pinheaded, genocidal babbling is the point
> of view of an isolated usenet loon. Even if it is mere trolling, it
> pretty well sums up the opinions of many people I encounter in Alabama
> and Texas.
After the Wogs do New York City (where the Jews are) or Washington DC
with a WMD you will hear it even more often. Prior to Sept 11, ethnocide
never entered my mind. After Sept 11 it his been very much in my mind
and heart. Sept 11 was my Wakeup Call. The enemy is not a nation, but
the Islamic Ummah. I had read the Q'ran thoroughly (in translation,
because my Arabic is not that good) many years before Sept 11 and it
never occurred to me what the practical consequence of the utter madness
of the Q'ran. But I finally got the message. Kill them all and let Allah
(who is merciful and compassionate) sort out the bodies.
Bob Kolker
>
Mark Isaak
<now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>Mark Isaak wrote:
>>
>>
>> Problem barely started. Nuking a country will make you lots of
>> enemies (myself among them). Your solution only aggravates the
>> problem until the whole world gets nuked.
>
>Let it come then. That idea is not for us to win, but for us not to be
>the loser.
Case closed, then. You are already the biggest loser I have ever come
across.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
Prior to Sept 11, ethnocide
> never entered my mind. After Sept 11 it his been very much in my mind
> and heart.
Sieg heil. Amerika ober alles.
Asshole.
NOTE TO REST OF THE WORLD; this is why the United States has become
such a danger to the rest of the world. PLEASE stop us before it is
too late.
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation email list:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> Case closed, then. You are already the biggest loser I have ever come
> across.
You would rather face the Death of a Thousand Cuts and not put up a
fight? Who is the loser? At one time, this nation had cojones. Recall
what we did to the Japs in retaliation for the Pearl Harbor Attack. We
should do at least as much to the Moslems.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
>
> Sieg heil. Amerika ober alles.
Fucking-A man! Consider the alternative. A thousand years subjected to
the cry of Muzzein in the Shadow of the Minarett.
The war is between rational western thought and Islam. What side are you on?
Bob Kolker
Larry Moran
>
>>>I think wars should be fought to extermination of the enemy. I
>>>stopped supporting our war in Iraq when it was clear we were
>>>not going to kill the Iraqis.
[snip]
> Starting on 12 September 2001, the U.S. should have formulated and
> implimented a plan to expunge Al Islam from the face of the Earth.
> A good response to 9/11 would have been the nuking of Meccah.
> Use the Qabbah as the aiming point.
There's more than one way to achieve peace between Christians and
Muslims.
Eliminating all Christians would also work.
Larry Moran
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> There's more than one way to achieve peace between Christians and
> Muslims.
I am not the least be interested in peace between Chritians and Muslims.
I am interested in eliminating the Ummah so the world has a half-way
decent chance to become a decent place to live.
>
> Eliminating all Christians would also work.
I infer from this remark you hate Western civilization and you are not
concerned that it might sucomb to Islamic barbarism.
Do you want you children to live with the sound of the Muzzein in their
ears and in the shadow of the Mosque?
Bob Kolker
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
The side that idiots like you, aren't.
Richard Clayton
> Larry Moran wrote:
>
>>There's more than one way to achieve peace between Christians and
>>Muslims.
>
> I am not the least be interested in peace between Chritians and Muslims.
> I am interested in eliminating the Ummah so the world has a half-way
> decent chance to become a decent place to live.
>
>>Eliminating all Christians would also work.
>
> I infer from this remark you hate Western civilization and you are not
> concerned that it might sucomb to Islamic barbarism.
"You don't support my violent militarism, therefore you HATE AMERICA!"
Herr Rove, is that you?
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"During wars laws are silent." -- Cicero
Richard Clayton
Fallacy of the excluded middle. There are Muslims who are rational and
reasonable people. There are non-Muslims who are dangerous irrational
lunatics.
unrestra...@hotmail.com
The side without you and Osama.
Kermit
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> "You don't support my violent militarism, therefore you HATE AMERICA!"
> Herr Rove, is that you?
Did I say that? Either you agree that militant Islam is currently at war
with Western civilization or you don't. I think it is. Do you have
evidence to the contrary?
How many planes going into tall buildings will it take to wake you up.
Will a dirty bomb exploding in New York City (that is where the Jews
are) or in Washington (the home of the Great Satan) wake you up?
Bob Kolker
Paul J Gans
>Paul J Gans wrote:
>>
>>
>> Yup. You forgot
>>
>> 3. Make everyone forget Nazi Germany as a new standard
>> of death and inhumanity declares itself.
>>
>> And
>>
>> 4. The nations of the world band together to put an
>> end to "the most inhumane regime that the world has
>> ever known". They do.
>The EuroTrash will not lift a finger against us, nor Japan. Why. The
>U.S. is essential to their economies. Similar for China.
Oh? You mean I have the bank twisted around my little
finger because I have a huge mortage and can't pay?
You've bought the entire ball of wax, haven't you?
>You forgot how the EuroTrash sold out the Czecks. Neville Chamberlain
>went on his knees to Berlin to give Hitler and Von Ribbentrop a blow job.
Which is why WWII started. *We* didn't start it and we didn't
join in. The Eurotrash had to fend for themselves. And they
did as best they could. By the time we got into it two of the
three major allied powers were still fighting and showed no
signs of quitting.
>The French will not lift a finger and most likely the Brits will not. In
>fact they might use our attack as an ocassion to clean out their
>domestic Islamic mess, which is long overdue. Germany, Italy, Holland
>and the Scandanavian countries do not matter. They haven't got the
>military muscle. The Russians wills use the occasion to clean up their
>Moslem problem. It will be open season on Moslem (at long last!).
They will do this while running their cars, trucks, and
industry on the mystical emanations of Jesus, because
there sure as hell won't be any oil -- either then or for
a long time to come.
No oil, no fertilizer, no munitions, no rocket fuel. Not
even any electricity. No planting the crops and no harvesting
them.
Enjoy starvation.
----- Paul J. Gans
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> The side without you and Osama.
People who stay in the middle of the road are squashed flat by traffic
from both directions. If you value Western Civilization, consider ways
of protecting it against the Islamic extremists.
Bob Kolker
Paul J Gans
>On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 07:18:27 GMT, "Ross Langerak"
><rlan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>><dun...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:1126935635.1...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>[...]
>>> I do not like war of any kind. And I don't see the logic in this one,
>>> either. It's just another Vietnam.
>>>
>>There was no valid justification for invading Iraq. However, now that we
>>are there, we can't just leave. We are obligated to leave Iraq with a
>>stable government. Otherwise, they could end up with another paranoid
>>dictator, or one of their neighbors could take advantage of their vulnerable
>>condition.
>There is an alternative. Leave Iraq now, but leave a strong military
>presence in Kuwait and/or other places nearby. Also leave behind a
>message spelling out a few reasonable demands of what we expect from
>Iraq after we pull out (e.g., no genocide, no supporting terrorism),
>with the warning that we will be back if they are not met.
>I don't know if that is an entirely workable solution, but I know it
>is a hell of a lot more workable than our current plans of destruction
>as usual.
I don't think it is workable only because they will not
believe that we will be back. I don't either.
One of the things that the Idiot didn't learn from all
of this is that the *threat* of the use of force is far
more powerful than the actual use of it.
Having seen us in action, everyone now knows how to deal
with us. Just melt away and offer no resistance and then
spend happy days running up the US casualty count until
folks in the US actually get unhappy.
But your main point is, I think, the real point. We have
no workable solution. We have to decide on the least bad
option and do that.
My solution:
In my opinion we ought not to worry about dictatorship in
Iraq. That might even be in our best interest because a
two or three way civil war there will *NOT* be in our
interest because it is apt to spread.
So we need to get the new "constitutional" government
installed ASAP and then leave that government with
tons of used equipment to arm itself with. Then ship
the troops home.
The Swift Boat people can take out ads on TV extolling
our brave fighting men (and they are that) and proclaim
to the world that we have won a mighty battle with the
forces of evil.
This will be followed by the issuance of medals to
everyone ever in Iraq above the rank of lieutenant.
By the 2008 election the nation will be so happy with
the Republicans and their defense of liberty and
democracy that they will win the next Presidential
election by a landslide.
----- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>in article mlsiemon-80E159...@typhoon.sonic.net, Michael Siemon
>at mlsi...@sonic.net wrote on 9/17/05 6:57 PM:
>> In article <1126995767.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
>> "wade.hines@g_ood_no_spa_mail.com" <wade....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Michael Siemon wrote:
>> ....
>>
>>
>>>> That some kid's honorable intentions got steamrollered by
>>>> the shitheads in power is not something to mock.
>>>
>>> I wonder here. You've reacted rather harshly to the use of
>>> the term "silly". That's the only thing that comes close to
>>> _mocking_ in the above posting.
>>
>> I acknowledge that my reaction may have been disproportionate
>> to the offense. It is possible that I read more into the
>> comments than was actually there. Neither am I trying to
>> claim that all young enlistees are noble, blah, blah, blah...
>> [insert sick-making "patriotic" noises]. But I dislike the
>> characterization of a low-level grunt lately killed as "silly",
>> whether or not he bought into Bush's propaganda, or joined up
>> for reasons that might look to his family as inadequate in
>> light of the consequences.
>>
>> Some of this is a "flashback" to Viet-Nam, when many in my
>> cohort started bad-mouthing every poor schmuck who was caught
>> in the military steamroller. That is no better than the
>> "Swift Boat" style of counter-crap that we saw flung at us by
>> _some_ of the Viet vets.
>>
>I agree that not every military person joined for machismo and meanness. I
>would even agree that most military people are honorable.
>However, I would also argue that we have a much larger percentage of
>strutters in the military today than we had during Vietnam. A huge lot of
>those sent to Vietnam came via the draft, co-opted into military duty by a
>government who needed to uphold its misguided policies.
>We do not have the draft today, although it is uncertain how long that
>situation will remain (seeing the poor enrollment in the recruiters'
>offices). The war has been fought on the backs of the reservists, people who
>sought a limited military service. So far, no one who has not chosen a
>military lifestyle has been sent to war in Iraq.
>Again, I stress that most people in the military are good, honorable people.
>But no matter what our intentions, or the intentions of those who are
>fighting the war, I believe the way we are going about this is wrong.
>Regards,
>Raymond E. Griffith
I mostly agree with you. The military is against a draft
because it does not produce full-time soldiers. The
advantage of the draft is that it becomes much more difficult
to send Mr. and Mrs. America's children off to die in
strange places for obscure reasons. They tend to want
to know *why* that kid they tended and raised for almost
20 years ended up bleeding to death watching his guts lying
on the ground in front of him.
----- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>> an international alliance against us. We need to import
>> almost everything, especially money. An anti-US boycott
>> would be far more successful than ours against Cuba.
>Our economy is absolutely vital to Europe, Japan and probably China.
>There will be no war against us.
What do we sell them?
Sure, they like us as a market, but they can survive
without us. *WE* can't survive without them.
In fact they are getting close to cutting off our
credit.
>We can count on one thing above all. The wallet and the bank account
>trumnps morality each and every time. Nations act on their perceived
>interests, not on moral principles.
We have no wallet and no bank account. You have the quaint
idea that the borrower is somehow in control.
Yes, the lender takes a hit if he cuts off the money. But
the US become a third world nation overnight. We can't
afford to import ANYTHING from oil to TV sets.
----- Paul J. Gans
Bobby D. Bryant
> I mostly agree with you. The military is against a draft because it
> does not produce full-time soldiers. The advantage of the draft is
> that it becomes much more difficult to send Mr. and Mrs. America's
> children off to die in strange places for obscure reasons. They
> tend to want to know *why* that kid they tended and raised for
> almost 20 years ended up bleeding to death watching his guts lying
> on the ground in front of him.
Also, I would suppose, reduces the risk of praetorianism, which has
been the downfall of many a republic.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Bobby D. Bryant
> Having seen us in action, everyone now knows how to deal with us.
> Just melt away and offer no resistance and then spend happy days
> running up the US casualty count until folks in the US actually get
> unhappy.
For better or worse, for the past 40 years we've been giving the world
a demonstration once per decade or so that the US public has a low
tolerance for allowing US troops to die overseas, and US politicians
will ultimately go with the current on it.
Paul J Gans
The Muslims did NOT attack 9/11. The attackers of 9/11
happened to be Muslims. They also happen to be both
male and white.
Are you suggesting that we kill all the male whites?
----- Paul J. Gans
Richard Clayton
against warmongering lunatics of *every* stripe.
Richard Clayton
On top of that, we have clearly demonstrated our weakness against
guerrilla tactics and harassment by cell-based organizations. There ARE
people out there who want to see the United States fall, and believe me,
they're taking notes.
Richard Clayton
> Richard Clayton wrote:
>
>> "You don't support my violent militarism, therefore you HATE AMERICA!"
>>Herr Rove, is that you?
>
> Did I say that? Either you agree that militant Islam is currently at war
> with Western civilization or you don't. I think it is. Do you have
> evidence to the contrary?
Some violent religious organizations and individuals are, yes. I
disagree that it's a mandate for policy of scorched earth and genocide
against all Muslims, regardless of combatant status or even inclination
to violence.
> How many planes going into tall buildings will it take to wake you up.
> Will a dirty bomb exploding in New York City (that is where the Jews
> are) or in Washington (the home of the Great Satan) wake you up?
I've got a better idea. Let's stop buying oil from governments that
fund terror attacks.
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Having seen us in action, everyone now knows how to deal
> with us. Just melt away and offer no resistance and then
> spend happy days running up the US casualty count until
> folks in the US actually get unhappy.
And that is why a nuclear holocaust is the anwer. The only body count is
the enemies. We can launch missiles remotely and not place troops on the
ground.
How many Americans were killed in the A-bomb attacks on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki. Answer -- 0. How many Japs were killed. Answer --- about
200,000. Do you get the idea?
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
> In talk.origins Robert J. Kolker <now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>Paul J Gans wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>No. And he has no notion of how vulnerable the US is to
>>>an international alliance against us. We need to import
>>>almost everything, especially money. An anti-US boycott
>>>would be far more successful than ours against Cuba.
>
>
>>Our economy is absolutely vital to Europe, Japan and probably China.
>>There will be no war against us.
>
>
> What do we sell them?
Raw materials and airplanes.
>
> Sure, they like us as a market, but they can survive
> without us. *WE* can't survive without them.
Yes we can. We dp not need to import food and we can supply our energy
needs domestically if you switch to coal and nuclear power generation.
>
> In fact they are getting close to cutting off our
> credit.
So what? We just will print our money. We have done it before.
>
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Also, I would suppose, reduces the risk of praetorianism, which has
> been the downfall of many a republic.
Only one. The Roman Republic.
Bob Kolker
>
Robert J. Kolker
>
> On top of that, we have clearly demonstrated our weakness against
> guerrilla tactics and harassment by cell-based organizations. There ARE
> people out there who want to see the United States fall, and believe me,
> they're taking notes.
If we commit a nuclear holocaust that kills a billion and a half, they
will have a lot to write about, if they survive to write more notes. We
fool these people by going balls out and kill on a scale never before
seen in human history.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> I've got a better idea. Let's stop buying oil from governments that
> fund terror attacks.
Breaking the Filthy Oil Habit is a laudible goal and we should have done
it forty years ago.
Bob Kolker
CreateThis
> ... kill on a scale never before seen in human history.
....thereby creating more evil than our enemies are remotely capable of.
CT
Paul J Gans
I think that's because for the last 40 years we've gotten
involved in wars that seem to have no reason. Korea was
one thing because we had the UN with us. Still it quickly
grew into a stalemate and lost the public.
Other wars were worse.
My feeling is that if we were attacked and mobilized for
all out war, including a draft and sacrifices on the home
front, we'd have support and patience to see it get done.
On the other hand, the Second World War only lasted what,
less than five years?
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Sep 2005, Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Having seen us in action, everyone now knows how to deal with us.
>>>Just melt away and offer no resistance and then spend happy days
>>>running up the US casualty count until folks in the US actually get
>>>unhappy.
>>
>> For better or worse, for the past 40 years we've been giving the world
>> a demonstration once per decade or so that the US public has a low
>> tolerance for allowing US troops to die overseas, and US politicians
>> will ultimately go with the current on it.
> On top of that, we have clearly demonstrated our weakness against
>guerrilla tactics and harassment by cell-based organizations. There ARE
>people out there who want to see the United States fall, and believe me,
>they're taking notes.
Of course. Part of *that* problem is the Kolker approach which
I interpret to mean that the way to confront problems is to
blow it up.
The tactics needed to fight cell-based organizations are totally
different. They involve infiltration, intelligence operations,
covert disruption of the bad guys money and supplies, and the
removal of the problems that give the bad guys public support.
Nuclear weapons, tanks, and cruise missiles are useless in this
fight.
One might take a lesson in how the Israelis have fought off
terrorists and suicide bombers. One ingredient is the
admission right up front that NO technique will make them
100% safe. There is no such thing as total safety.
Our government has refused to face this. And they have
allowed folks to conclude that if we just allow enough
warrantless searches and arrests, arbitrary regulations,
and a total prohibition of tweezers on airplanes we WILL
be safe.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
Yeah. You put your trust and survival in the
hope that the rest of the world would not give
a damn about the worst genocide in world history.
I'd not take that bet, not for me and not for
my children.
It would, I know, be useless to point out to you
that we have folks in the US just as bloodthirsty
as some Muslims.
Shall we nuke them too?
--- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>Paul J Gans wrote:
>> In talk.origins Robert J. Kolker <now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Paul J Gans wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>No. And he has no notion of how vulnerable the US is to
>>>>an international alliance against us. We need to import
>>>>almost everything, especially money. An anti-US boycott
>>>>would be far more successful than ours against Cuba.
>>
>>
>>>Our economy is absolutely vital to Europe, Japan and probably China.
>>>There will be no war against us.
>>
>>
>> What do we sell them?
>Raw materials and airplanes.
Nope. Many of the parts in our airplanes are
made overseas. And we need to import all sorts
of raw materials. This was even a serious problem
in WWII. It is worse now.
>>
>> Sure, they like us as a market, but they can survive
>> without us. *WE* can't survive without them.
>Yes we can. We dp not need to import food and we can supply our energy
>needs domestically if you switch to coal and nuclear power generation.
Wrong. We can't do that switch without money and time. And
we would have neither.
Without gasoline we will have difficulty planting and
harvesting. Distributing food will be difficult. Many
of our industries will collapse, and so on. Work it out.
>>
>> In fact they are getting close to cutting off our
>> credit.
>So what? We just will print our money. We have done it before.
Who will take it?
What you have forgotten is that China lends us money to buy
Chinese products. It amounts to close to a BILLION dollars
a day. This is not chicken feed.
China can, at any time, stop lending US the money and simply
pay their own industries a subsidy.
You've just reacted viscerally and not thought this out at
all. We are a *very* dependent nation. Previous presidents
have known this. Bush, of course, is an idiot, especially
in foreign policy.
---- Paul J. Gans
John Wilkins
> Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>
>
>>... kill on a scale never before seen in human history.
>
>
>
> CT
>
Hell, if the US tried to nuke its enemies without direct danger to its own
security of a commensurate nature, *I'd* fight against the US. [For whatever
good that might do - I could try to pun them to death.]
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
"Darwin's theory has no more to do with philosophy than any other
hypothesis in natural science." Tractatus 4.1122
Robert J. Kolker
So what? We survive and they don't which is the point of the excercvise.
Never let a moral issue stand between you and your survival or that of
your progeny.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
> In talk.origins Robert J. Kolker <now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>Paul J Gans wrote:
>>
>>>Having seen us in action, everyone now knows how to deal
>>>with us. Just melt away and offer no resistance and then
>>>spend happy days running up the US casualty count until
>>>folks in the US actually get unhappy.
>
>
>>And that is why a nuclear holocaust is the anwer. The only body count is
>>the enemies. We can launch missiles remotely and not place troops on the
>>ground.
>
>
>>How many Americans were killed in the A-bomb attacks on Hiroshima and
>>Nagasaki. Answer -- 0. How many Japs were killed. Answer --- about
>>200,000. Do you get the idea?
>
>
> Yeah. You put your trust and survival in the
> hope that the rest of the world would not give
> a damn about the worst genocide in world history.
The experience in Europe during the years that led up to WW2 support
that view. Europeans are almost incapable of righeous indignation. The
French spread their legs and their buttocks for the Germans and the
Brits barely avoided caving into to Hitler (think God for that drunken
bigot Winston Churchill).
Europe has not moral stamina at all. Just look at Germany and France.
The French would sell their grandmother for a plugged sous. They have
laid down and spread their legs for their troublesome Moslem minority.
Sweden stayed neutral in WW2 and the only Norway and Denmark were
involved is because they were occupied by the Nazis. The Danes, on
occvasion show a decent impulse but they are not warlike, so they are no
danger to the U.S. under any circumstances.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>>
>
> Hell, if the US tried to nuke its enemies without direct danger to its own
> security of a commensurate nature, *I'd* fight against the US. [For whatever
> good that might do - I could try to pun them to death.]
That is what Europe will do to us. They will use foul language and call
us names. The EuroTrash have proven again and again what gutless wusses
they are.
Bob Kolker
>
Robert J. Kolker
We have more than enough domestic crude oil supplies to keep our truck
fleet and our harvesters in operation. The U.S. survived gasolne
rationing during WW2 and it couldf do so again. Once our government
recognizes that we are at war with the Islamic Ummah we can manage, even
with some discomfort.
I lived through gas rationing, tire rationing, food rationing during WW2
and we were never really mortally deprived. Everyone was clothed and fed
just fine. We had to plant our own gardens to suppliment the food
rations so we never lacked for fresh vegitables. Americans eat too much
any way an a little belt tightening would do wonders for our health,
individually and collectively.
It will take another major attack by the Moslems to put America in all
out war mode. The sooner it happens the better. There is not attack that
Al Quedah can make, that will really break us, but such an attack will
get us really pissed off. That was the mistake the Japs made in 1941.
They thought wrecking our fleet would drive us in to making a settlement
in the Pacific. On the contrary, the attack on Pearl Harbor sealed their
doom. There is a straight path from Pearl Harbor to Hiroshima/Nagasaki
by way of Los Alamos. We took it.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> If we nuke a billion people, which is what was suggested
> (not by me) the resulting world disaster would make you
> forget any loss on capitol invested here. You'd have
> no choice.
>
> You certainly aren't telling me that after we did that
> you'd continue to lend us money so that we can buy your
> output, do you?
>
> Besides, our economy would be ruined by Asian reaction
> and the total loss of imported oil. So you won't get
> either your interest or your money back anyway.
We have enough hydrocarbons in north america to survive very nicely.
Plus we can get fission reactors on line in under five years, after
repealling silly environmental laws.
The U.S. can survive in isolation. Life will not be as cushy, but it is
possible.
Bob Kolker
Nantko Schanssema
>In talk.origins Nantko Schanssema <nan...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com>:
>
>>>Enjoy starvation.
>>I'm not sure we EuroTrash can afford to let the USA starve. We have
>>considerable amounts of capital invested in the USA. A decreasing
>>population will probably drive up wages and decrease US internal sales
>>and therefore ruin returns on our money.
>If we nuke a billion people, which is what was suggested
>(not by me) the resulting world disaster would make you
>forget any loss on capitol invested here. You'd have
>no choice.
I wasn't very serious. It was an attempt at KolkerThink[tm],
apparently not a complete failure.
I suppose that loss of capital would be the least of our problems were
such a disaster to happen. I'm glad Kolker doesn't have a briefcase
with nuclear launch codes.
That said, my remark isn't complete nonsense. If the US would end up
with big fuel shortages its economy *would* collapse and starvation
might well be on the agenda. You don't need nuclear war for that.
Try and feed the US population without fuel to drive agricultural
machines and lorries to transport the produce. Even production of
sufficient fertiliser and pesticides might become a serious problem.
Such a crisis would hit EuroTrash economies seriously, even if we were
able to cope with petrol shortage.
>You certainly aren't telling me that after we did that
>you'd continue to lend us money so that we can buy your
>output, do you?
Difficult to say, or even to contemplate.
>Besides, our economy would be ruined by Asian reaction
>and the total loss of imported oil. So you won't get
>either your interest or your money back anyway.
If us EuroTrash would be in any position to assist in rebuilding the
US economy by lending lots of dough for the purchase of our capital
goods, it might well be a good way to avoid that a ruined US gets in
the hands of a nasty dictatorship. Similar things have been done
before.
I doubt, however, that Europe can avoid becoming part of large scale
nuclear war if the USA would start one.
regards,
Nantko
--
FDR calmed a nation when he said, "We have nothing to fear but fear
itself." But the Bush and Blair slogan is, "We have nothing to sell
but fear itself." - Greg Palast
http://www.xs4all.nl/~nantko/