REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Our Mission in Iraq

POSTED BY: DREAMTROVE
UPDATED: Saturday, February 18, 2006 10:27
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3478
PAGE 1 of 2

Sunday, February 12, 2006 8:19 PM

DREAMTROVE


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2038149,00.html

Yep, more troll bait. But I'm serious. Warmongering isn't traditionally our thing, I don't know when the republican hawk was born, but it should curl up and disappear now. This is war, guys, if you read this and don't like what you see, well then here's a news flash: This is what happens when you start a f^&king war. Sure, the people here are brits, as they were in the dismemberment, I don't know how bad the worst things Americans have done are, but that's not the point, the point is, start a war, and this is what happens.

Let's rewind to 2001. You're GWB, dead set on removing Hussein from power. Here's an alternative solution: You find someone in Saddam's own govt. who feels the same way, and you stage his coup. Then he can introduce democratic reforms etc. And Saddam is a pretty evil guy, don't tell me there aren't people in his own govt. willing to participate in the plan.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 13, 2006 11:21 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


May very well be an excessive act of brutality, as does happen in war. Or, it may be that these very same lads had some part in any number of things which ended up in the deaths of civilians or soliders. Maybe they danced and mocked at the soldiers themselves in an earlier event, perhaps at the death of a fellow British solider. The video does not show anything, but what only goes on right then and there.

And yes, it could be their only crime was tossing rocks at soldiers. Seems a bit unlikely, though. There's far more to this than meets the video's eye.

dream, your distorted, edited view of history is sad to see. Saddam had 12 years to come clean w/ the U.N., and instead decided to bribe Euro businessmen, UN and possibly Gov't officials. And long beofre Bush decided to run for the office of President, the White House ( Bill Clinton ) made it US policy to oust Saddam from power. ) But eveyr time I hear the charge of warmongering, I think of The Two Towers, and Grima Wormtonge

"Why do you lay these troubles on an already troubled mind? Can you not see?
Your uncle is wearied by your malcontent, your warmongering...."

Open War Is Upon You, Whether You Would Risk It Or Not.

If the Brits are to be ruled as committing crimes in this one case, fine. Punish them. But don't view all that has occured through the window of this one event.





" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 13, 2006 11:29 AM

CARTOON


Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Saddam had 12 years to come clean w/ the U.N., and instead decided to bribe Euro businessmen, UN and possibly Gov't officials.


Exactly. And, thanks to the United Nations, Saddam had another 4 months (after he knew the U.S. would come calling) to hide or relocate any WMD's.

Speaking of which... http://www.nysun.com/article/27183


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 13, 2006 1:58 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:
Originally posted by Cartoon:
Exactly. And, thanks to the United Nations, Saddam had another 4 months (after he knew the U.S. would come calling) to hide or relocate any WMD's.

Which is why none have been found, they're hidden under a berry bush in Syria.

This incident doesn't surprise me, we already know that British and American troops have been mistreating Iraqis, and it happens in every war.

It happened in Ireland, pickup a few locals, give them a kicking and then hand them over to the RUCs...


More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 13, 2006 2:12 PM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:
Or, it may be that these very same lads had some part in any number of things which ended up in the deaths of civilians or soliders. Maybe they danced and mocked at the soldiers themselves in an earlier event, perhaps at the death of a fellow British solider.


The story cited that they had thrown stones at the soldiers, which was their first and only encounter with them, which prompted the response detailed above.

Quote:
And yes, it could be their only crime was tossing rocks at soldiers. Seems a bit unlikely, though. There's far more to this than meets the video's eye.


This is, of course, irrelevant information. The behavior of terrorists, even aspiring would-be terrorist minors, does not dictate the bahavior of coalition forces. We, strange as this may seem, neither take orders from, nor allow our policies to be set by, Osama Bin Laden, or anyone under his command. I hope. Ergo, the behavior of Iraqis is irrelevant to the behavior of Brits or Americans, since eye-for-an-eye is not actually law, and is in fact illegal virtually everywhere in the world, including international law. But Law aside, this is not who we are. We do not seek to ourselves behave like terrorists.

Quote:
dream, your distorted, edited view of history is sad to see.


Every post from you is really a gift to be cherished.

Quote:
Saddam had 12 years to come clean w/ the U.N., and instead decided to bribe Euro businessmen, UN and possibly Gov't officials. And long beofre Bush decided to run for the office of President, the White House ( Bill Clinton ) made it US policy to oust Saddam from power. )


Since, as a republican, and not a democrat, I despise Clinton, I don't think that your attempt to paint Bush as just following Clinton's idea is going to carry much weight here. But then you know this already.

But since you also know that no one here is a sharper critic of socialism, and the Baath Socialists are true to their name, socialists, I clearly have no love of Saddam, or his corrupt deals with leaders in Europe.

But also, taken aside for a moment, consider this. There are people in this town I disagree with, right here at home. I go into town meetings and they tell me, Oh we've decided to close the school, because the state is giving us 15 million as an incentive to merge. I strongly vehemently disagree with them. Bussing children out of town to go to a large conglomerate school is bad for a community. But I did not go into the meeting with a shotgun to shoot them all.

Saddam Hussein was a leader whose policies I disagreed with. That doesn't justify what Clinton did, which was inhuman, and it doesn't justify what Bush did. Opposing Saddam Hussein is about winning the support of his people, and if need be, supporting an opponent to oust him in a coup, but preferably, getting him to step down. I know this is probably too conservative for your tastes. But going and beating him over the head with a shovel is hardly a civilized solution.

Quote:
But eveyr time I hear the charge of warmongering, I think of The Two Towers, and Grima Wormtonge "Why do you lay these troubles on an already troubled mind? Can you not see?
Your uncle is wearied by your malcontent, your warmongering...." Open War Is Upon You, Whether You Would Risk It Or Not. If the Brits are to be ruled as committing crimes in this one case, fine. Punish them. But don't view all that has occured through the window of this one event.


I tend to see Bush as Theoden, and Cheney as Grima Wormktongue. But this is not about war being upon us, it's about creating war. There was war in Darfur, but Bush could not be bothered. There was war in Rwanda, but Clinton could not be bothered. I am by no means an opponent of defending when open war is upon you.

But we are the orcs. We are the forces of Sauron. We went in, and we created war, where it did not already exist.

We have a war with Bin Laden, who I firmly believe to be living it up in Somalia. We have chosen to ignore that war. When we invaded afghanistan, our intelligence actually said that he was in France, which he probably was.

Saying "Iraq is part of the war on terror" if that's where this is headed, is really not worth saying at all. This spin works with the feeble minded, like neo-christian voting blocks. You're among educated people here, don't waste your time and ours with this sort of rhetoric.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 13, 2006 2:34 PM

CARTOON


Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Which is why none have been found, they're hidden under a berry bush in Syria.


The above link I provided from the New York Sun article indicates the opposite may be true.

BTW, we now also have recordings of Saddam talking with his generals discussing these "non-existent" WMDs. Of course, Saddam apparently had a tendancy to be somewhat fanciful at times in what he imagined (and still imagines, for that matter). As such, recordings of his talking with his generals about them probably shouldn't carry much weight with me.

Anyone who thinks Saddam's WMDs never actually existed is being somewhat naive. That we haven't found them, does't mean they don't exist and we won't someday find them. Iraq is a big place, and the UN covered Saddam's posterior for 4 months. Heck, if I was a dictator with his resources, I could've hidden Baghdad in four months.

Personally, I believe any WMDs Saddam had were scooted out to Syria or Iran. More likely Syria, as Saddam was no fan of his neighbors to the east, nor they of him.

Realistically speaking however, we all know this is Bush's fault -- like the collective wrongs of all mankind -- so it really doesn't matter if the WMDs turned up tomorrow -- people would still want Bush's hide.

Personally, I think we (or someone) could've encouraged insiders to take Saddam out without a war. However, I can't blame the hesitancy on the part of any possible Iraqi insiders who might've considered such an act, thinking we wouldn't be there to support them, like we abandoned the Kurds in 1991.

The whole thing was a disaster waiting to happen, and I think the whole region (and the world) is better off without Saddam. We may not have handled it the best way possible, but hindsight is always 20/20. Just ask Neville Chamberlain.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 13, 2006 2:44 PM

CITIZEN


I know Saddam did have WMD at some point, we all do and we’ve still got the receipts to prove it. Those were destroyed though and Saddam’s vast resources weren't all that vast.

I have to profess I don't understand your argument, we've been going over Iraq with a fine toothcomb, we managed to find Saddam so why not his WMDs? It makes no sense to me why we should accept that WMD has not been found, but that just proves it's very well hidden? So it's there, if we find it, it proves it’s there, if we don't it proves it's really well hidden?

BTW I'm not disagreeing with you because your name is Cartoon, I'm disagreeing with you because I think you’re wrong.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 13, 2006 2:57 PM

CARTOON


Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
BTW I'm not disagreeing with you because your name is Cartoon, I'm disagreeing with you because I think you’re wrong.




I may well be. But, I think it's far too premature to be dogmatic either way.

And according to that article (and no, I don't believe everything I read in the press -- particularly these days), someone with some reasonably credible involvement in the whole thing claims to have found what appears to be at least four hidden, flooded bunkers.

BTW, even though that article is about a week old, I just heard about it today -- which goes to show you how one-sided the press is. If someone came forward with an acknowledgement of findings to the contrary, it probably would've been splattered over the front page of every paper in the galaxy.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 13, 2006 3:21 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
May very well be an excessive act of brutality, as does happen in war.
Well, that didn't take long. I had hoped to see more personal, real life comments here, instead of the standard political rhetoric.

I guess all's fair.

:dissapointed:Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 13, 2006 3:28 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I don't know when the republican hawk was born, but it should curl up and disappear now. This is war, guys, if you read this and don't like what you see, well then here's a news flash: This is what happens when you start a f^&king war.
D, why be so negative? Some think this goes with war like rice and beans, death and taxes, politics and corruption.

And some ought to be shot, to know what pain they're dealing with (just in the leg, don't want anyone dead- anyone).

Chrisisall, Dreamtrove fan, Citizen sidekick and SignyM follower...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 13, 2006 4:30 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
...The behavior of terrorists, even aspiring would-be terrorist minors, does not dictate the bahavior of coalition forces. We, strange as this may seem, neither take orders from, nor allow our policies to be set by, Osama Bin Laden, or anyone under his command. I hope...


If wishes were horses...

The unfortunate truth is that we've allowed Osama to dictate our foreign policy for years. We've followed his script to the letter, fleshing out all his outrageous claims.

He'd been ranting for years that the US lusted for the middle east oil fields, that they wanted to usurp traditional Islamic culture and governance and replace them with western values. He claimed we'd do this through force of arms. When we weren't moving fast enough to rally support for his fearmongering, he poked at us. Sadly, the idiot fantasies of the neo-cons were well primed for his passion play. They couldn't resist and played their part as ordered. That's what the Bushies are most ashamed to admit. Their 'fearless leader' has been a pawn, not only of the neo-cons, but of the man responsible for 9-11 in the first place.

I'd like to say we deserve better, but 'we' is a relative term.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 13, 2006 5:06 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:


I'd like to say we deserve better, but 'we' is a relative term.

Another welcome voice of reason.
Nice to see ya 'round, Sarge.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 13, 2006 5:08 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:
But we are the orcs. We are the forces of Sauron. We went in, and we created war, where it did not already exist.


That is the single greatest line of go se you've posted yet. If anything, we are the Lords of Gondor, beating back the orcs in Mordor. It can't possibly be put any plainer than that.

Such events are as tragic as they are rare. Many many, if not most, Iraqis actually are thankful for the change of Gov't and their new found freedoms...despite the challenges which they face.
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 13, 2006 5:17 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Let's rewind to 2001. You're GWB, dead set on removing Hussein from power. Here's an alternative solution: You find someone in Saddam's own govt. who feels the same way, and you stage his coup. Then he can introduce democratic reforms etc. And Saddam is a pretty evil guy, don't tell me there aren't people in his own govt. willing to participate in the plan.
It’s not like it hasn’t been tried. In fact we came pretty close in 1995, but according to the man in charge, the operation was sabotaged in its final stages of preparation by the Clinton Administration. After that, Hussein tightened his grip on his military and shored the loose ends. I doubt it could have been tried again anytime soon.

But that kind of thing carries its own kind of problems. It’s difficult to control the outcome, which can have unpredictable consequences. It can be done. God knows the Soviets were masters at it, but we have never been. Our covert operations have always paled in comparison to the Soviets, because we’ve never had the gumption to do it. It’s too easily exploited by the minority party for political gain and too difficult to keep secret. And that’s just in carrying out the operation. In taking care of the consequences we are even worse at.

If we're going to do it, then we really need boots on the ground.

Also Iraq is part of the war on terror.



Oh, he's so full of manure, that man! We could lay him in the dirt and grow another one just like him.
-- Ruby

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 13, 2006 7:04 PM

WALKERHOUND


see the thing is we tried the ignore him rout with Osama, and all it got us were staidly escalating body count's.

ya the man wanted a war (one must assume he felt he could wine it) he's said as much several times (over and over). and the thing about starting a war is it's fairly easy to do, all he had to do was keep trying.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 13, 2006 7:18 PM

FLETCH2


The British Foreign and Commonwealth Office had the following solution.

1) Invade
2) Depose and preferably kill Sadam
3) Find another Sunni hardman to put in power.
4) Look for and destroy any WMDs
5) Leave, making it clear to the new generalisimo that if he dabbled in WMDs or persecuted any Kurds, we'd be back to do to him what we'd just done to Sadam.

But then again, we were never really interested in the whole democracy thing....

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 13, 2006 7:34 PM

WALKERHOUND


evan simpler.

how about when we pulled sadam out of his hole. we just tooke him aside and explanded.

"look this is your second chance, you work for us now. if we have to come back agine, were just going to tose a grenade down there with you."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 13, 2006 7:55 PM

DREAMTROVE


I want to say this, because almost no one ever does. It was only mentioned once or twice by the most sensible members of the senate, but here it is again:

WMDs. Who cares. If Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of WMDs up to his neck, it's no kind of justification for war. This is Nazi-logic. I'm sorry, Godwin be damned. It's Nazi-logic. If you can say, hey, the enemy has weapons, that's a good enough reason to invade, let's start a war. That's absurd. Of course he has weapons, he's the enemy. This was somehow glossed over in the whole WMDs, no WMDs. If there had been WMDs we would have successfully become the Nazis. As it was, we just looked really stupid. I think it was a godsend for us that there were no WMDs, not only because that meant they didn't get used against us, which they would have in the war, though they wouldn't have if there hadn't been a war, but because it just makes us look dumb rather than fascist. Or we look fascist and dumb, but the dumb pre-empts the fascist.

I want people to seriously look closely at the doctrine of pre-emptive war. This is the 'Bush Doctrine,' but before it got that name, it was the Hitler Doctrine.'

This is reality. Pre-emptive war is probably the most evil idea on the planet, apart from genocide and deforestation. Of course Bush is all over deforestation lately, as was Clinton, and like Clinton, he is turning a blind eye to Genocide.

I'm downgrading Bush to 'Evil.' Not just a puppet of TE, but actually himself, evil. It still doesn't make him worst president ever. Remember, Jackson ordered a genocide, and Truman ordered a nuclear attack on two civilian populations *after* he saw what nukes could do. Bush is not *as evil as* Truman, but he's below that 50/50 line of good/evil.

That said, Rumsfeld sold Hussein those WMDs in the 80s, that's where the info came from, Rummy was the real source. He intended them to be used against Iran, and many of them were. With desert winds it was hard to get only the enemy, and Saddam had to cut back, so he still had some in 1990, but he destroyed them for fear of their presence being discovered during the conflict.

Fear because these weapons were against Geneva conventions. Now, I hope that no one here is going to claim that Bush is justified because Saddam was in violation of Geneva conventions. This would be George W. "The Geneva conventions no longer apply" Bush we're talking about.

Finally, no, I'm no less republican than I used to be, and no more likely to vote for the democrat in the next election, unless my GOP nominee is Cheney. Who shoots lawyers.

I thought about this one, I decided it's not probably homocide, but it is enough by itself to remove Cheney from office. He showed a remarkable lack of cool.

First, he clearly panicked and fired when he heard someone coming up. He probably thought he was going to be assassinated, a thought which preoccupies his mind because a) he's paranoid, and b) he's really really hated, and people probably really are trying to kill him.

Anyway, he lost his cool and shot Whittington, not a level head. Not what you want in a commander in chief. Now it gets worse. He then lost his head and spent time hiding and trying to cover up the story, which leaked anyway, and he didn't make a statement to authorities or the press. Now I'm not saying Cheney was "Ted Kennedy" level of uncool, he didn't sit there and let Whittington die, but still, not the levelest of heads.

Quote:
when you start a f^&king war.


Yeah, well, my qualifier is when you *start* a f^&king war. Some wars are already started and you can go in and end them, and if you can do so on our minimum death rule, then by all means, it's worth fighting for. But making war out of naught but greed and ambition is what we have here. I still maintain that the main purpose to this war was this:

In order to fulfill the agenda of a one world state, the world needs to be organized into a series of multinational entities, such as NAFTA, teh EU, ASEAN, the African Union, and a MidEast Union. Such a union has some pretty clear holes, like Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and Syria. Everyone else would sign on to the idea, but these four need to be taken out to make it a reality.

Stealing the oil is really a side benefit, which we hand back to the people who paid to put these bastards in office.

Now Bush is burnt out. I'm upping my ante from "Bush should be impeached after the '06 election" to "Bush and Cheney should be impeached after the '06 election, and then tried for high crimes against the United States of America." I think that'll do for now. I'm not ready to send them to Gitmo just yet. If Bush will give up Cheney and testify against him, I guess I'd concede to let him go back to Crawford.

But the Bush Admin is about to become Hillary. After Hillary's sweeping victory in '08 against a completely discredited GOP (Bush is routinely seeing to that daily... *Intentionally*, I might add. Of this I feel as close to absolutely certain as I've felt about anything in politics for a long time) she, Hillary, will then proceed with her invasion of Iran. At least a million people will die. Remember guys, this is a democrat war, so none of this 150,000 troops, we're probably talking full on conscription one million men on the ground, chemical toxins from the air defoliating the landscape, blockades preventing food and medical supplies from arriving, 8-year time investment. Oh, it's going to be fun. I'm sure all y'all with the Iraq jones will catch every episode on videotape.

Sorry, I'm in a bit of a negative mood about our leaders. By 1992 we were doing so well, countries were starting to fall in line behind our ideas, there was widespread recognition in the developing world that American was the best model of a free society, Muslim nations were pushing towards freer, more secular societies, market reforms, political reforms were still aways away, but there were talks. Now the jihadist rule everything and want to burn us to the ground. And some how I don't think "oh, they're just that way." We f^&ked up. We brought this on our own heads, our dumb ass arrogant neo-leaders who completely forgot everything about foreign policy, internationalism, diplomacy and soft power, lessons of the cold war, and decided "hey, duh, uh, we have all the guns, let's kill everyone."

And guys, terrorism is nothing new. The world didn't "Change on 9/11." It's still pretty much the same as it always was.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 13, 2006 7:57 PM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:
Originally posted by Sgt. X:

The unfortunate truth is that we've allowed Osama to dictate our foreign policy for years. We've followed his script to the letter, fleshing out all his outrageous claims.

He'd been ranting for years that the US lusted for the middle east oil fields, that they wanted to usurp traditional Islamic culture and governance and replace them with western values. He claimed we'd do this through force of arms. When we weren't moving fast enough to rally support for his fearmongering, he poked at us. Sadly, the idiot fantasies of the neo-cons were well primed for his passion play. They couldn't resist and played their part as ordered. That's what the Bushies are most ashamed to admit. Their 'fearless leader' has been a pawn, not only of the neo-cons, but of the man responsible for 9-11 in the first place.


I don't really have anything to say to this, I just thought it was so good it needed quoting again.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 13, 2006 8:07 PM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:
It’s not like it hasn’t been tried. In fact we came pretty close in 1995, but according to the man in charge, the operation was sabotaged in its final stages of preparation by the Clinton Administration.


Typical. I'm not at all convinced that Clinton could get anything right in foreign policy.

Quote:
But that kind of thing carries its own kind of problems. It’s difficult to control the outcome, which can have unpredictable consequences. It can be done.


Who cares about predictable. The objections to Saddam Hussein were pretty obvious, he was a vicious killer. Not-vicious killer is an easy standard to meet.

Quote:
If we're going to do it, then we really need boots on the ground.


I thought you were a republican? This is the democrat drum beat. No, we don't. We need to lead. It's what the US does best. If we were the champions of justice that we say we are, no one would be getting free samples of the oil, no one would be torturing Iraqis, and the people of Iraq would be signing up to fight for us instead of the terrorists, and then we would not need any more boots on the ground. We would have them, Iraqi boots. And this is the way it should be, not because Iraqis should die for Iraqi freedom, because an army of Iraqis is going to be met with passive resistance, but an army of westerners is seen as the plague of zion.

Quote:
Also Iraq is part of the war on terror.


No, it's not. It's really really not. It's part of the neo-con agenda to create a mideast union, which they laid out back in the 70s, and then posted on the web and printed in the Chicago Sun Times in the 90s. As someone who was a regular visitor to the page at the time, the whole plan had in it not one mention of terrorism until after the September 11th attacks, at which point they updated the language to spin it as if it had always been about terrorism, but they did not change one detail of the plan or it's objective.

If someone wants to argue whether or not a mideast union is a good idea, or whether it's an objective that the US should be working towards, then fine, but don't pretend it is what it is so very clearly not.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 13, 2006 8:14 PM

DREAMTROVE


Yeah, the new neocon mideast union is a democracy, that''s the plan, but if we're even going to debate this, people have to admit that this is what the debate is about, and that it's not about the war on terror.

But I think Tony wanted a little piece of empire back.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 13, 2006 8:39 PM

DREAMTROVE


Okay, it's struck me that all my renewed antipathy towards Bush is going to provoke a reaction, which it wasn't really intended to do. Here's my problems with Bush in a nutshell.

1. The Budget. I thought a GOP administration would mean four things economically:
a) A return to and passage of the balanced budget amendment. Instead I got budget deficits larger than some small planets.
b) a reduction of payroll taxes to make america more competitive with asia. Instead I got very slight impact on fed inc tax and higher payments for big moma medicare, and the overall impact was payroll taxes went up.
c) Support for american business and initiatives, like stem cell research, alternative energies, information tech. Instead, most of this development is in asia, and bush has attacked all of these sectors at home.
d) A good Bull Market. Instead, it's been a raging bear brought on by an ever-sinking dollar brought on by huge deficit spending, and major american corporations are being sold to saudis, germans and chinese communists, and others are going benkrupt.

2. I thought this would mean an end to serial war. Clinton managed to have military conflicts running at all times, and touched every corner of the globe with them. I thought this was globally destabilizing and thought it would stop. Amazingly, it stepped up. Now everyone hates us.

3. I thought that we would see an end to harsh anti-conservationist policies of the Clinton Admin, and instead, they're getting worse. I was pleasantly surprised by Bush's 2000 campaign position on automobile polution. I didn't expect this from people with oil connections. It never occurred to me that he was just lying.

4. I expected a little more respect for the constitution, less of this, I can do whatever I want. Limited govt. That sort of thing.

Now, US savings have just dipped below zero. This is the definition of depression. A recession is when savings go down, and a depression is when they are actually negative, as in debt.

I think it's a naive position to say "depressions happen" because it's pretty easy to look and see how Hoover caused the depression in the 1930s.

So now I have:

1. Poverty, Depression and Debt, Trillions of Dollars in Debt.

2. The wholesale irreversible environmental catastrophe and the possible ultimate destruction of the Earth.

3. An endless war with the entire world, and terrorist recruitment so high that the man who wants us most dead is more popular than Jesus.

4. A govt. so huge and invasive that it is beginning to rival if not a socialist state, at least a paranoid monarchy.

5. A leader who not only lies constantly, cannot be expected to understand the world situation, or even simply things like words or numbers.

6. A govt. that simply does not care about defending America, and can't be bothered to respond to a natural disaster.

Now I'm not saying that Bush/Cheney are directly responsible for all of these things, but it was their job to see that none of it happen. Now, they have both contributed to each of these things, and in no way have slowed their coming in to being.

Since this is the case, I humbly suggest that we now fire them from that job we hired them to do, and find someone else to do the job. I'm not saying elect a democrat, I'd presonally prefer a normal, sane, republican. Someone like Dick Lugar or John Warner.

But at the moment, I'll take an actual trained monkey if someone has one available. I guess I've become the anyone but Bush republican. Or maybe the *anything* but Bush republican. Okay, not Bin Laden. But an American trained monkey. A dog, even, if it were something smart like a border collie, and not a mini-pinscher. Forest Gump. A school of goldfish. A giant spider. Cthulu. Even a third party candidate.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 13, 2006 9:51 PM

FLETCH2


Vote Cthulu! -- Why settle for the lesser of two evils?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 14, 2006 2:23 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Who cares about predictable. The objections to Saddam Hussein were pretty obvious, he was a vicious killer. Not-vicious killer is an easy standard to meet.

Evidently, you do.
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
. . . and the people of Iraq would be signing up to fight for us instead of the terrorists, and then we would not need any more boots on the ground. We would have them, Iraqi boots.
That is exactly what is happening. And it very likely may not have happened without coalition personnel in the field to lead the way.
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
No, it's not. It's really really not.
I suppose the war against Japan wasn’t part of World War II. You can disagree with the strategy of the Iraq campaign as affecting the goals of what you think the War on Terror should include, but to suggest that it is some “neo-con” conspiracy is simply revisionist history.



Oh, he's so full of manure, that man! We could lay him in the dirt and grow another one just like him.
-- Ruby

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 14, 2006 5:55 AM

DREAMTROVE


Finn,

Quote:
I suppose the war against Japan wasn’t part of World War II.


It wasn't part of the war against Germany. It was FDR and Truman having a wargasm over Pearl Harbor, doing exactly what Tojo, who was insane, and hated by Hirohito, who was pressured into appointing him, wanted us to do.

Quote:
You can disagree with the strategy of the Iraq campaign as affecting the goals of what you think the War on Terror should include, but to suggest that it is some “neo-con” conspiracy is simply revisionist history.


No, it's not. This idea that the Cheney plan do invade Iraq, which he devised in the 70s and strategically planned out for decades, even to the point of losing his temper at G.H.W. Bush for not invading Iraq. This is Cheney and PNAC who could not make even one (1) mention of terrorism prior to 9/11.

The idea that this premeditated act somehow fit perfectly into the new paradigm of a battle against Al Qaeda is pure fantasy.

Not even a shred more. Al Qaeda was hated by Saddam, and they hated him. At the moment, things have worked out perfectly for Al Qaeda, their enemy Saddam deposed, and now they, Al Qaeda, control the majority fo territory in Iraq, which has become a major recruiting ground for them.

The whole thing is a godsend to Osama Bin Laden.

Go team.

Now, While I'm at it, I want to mention a few things I forgot to slam the Bush Admin for:

1. Torture.
2. The Patriot Act.
3. Doing nothing on North Korea

I'm sure I'll think of more.

I'm leaving out all the stuff I basically agree with. I don't think no child left behind is a bad idea, it's sometimes badly done, I think privatization of social security would be excellent, but they haven't actually gotten anywhere with that. I think the tax cuts were a good idea *if* they could have reduced spending to match.

Still not as bad as Kerry, but really really bad.

Cheney seems to be trigger happy in addition to paranoid and delusional.

I have this to say to my fellow republicans: This is *good enough*? Raise your standards people. Better than Clinton, which has become debateable, is stll not anywhere near acceptable.

Teddy Roosevelt, Taft, Coolidge, Eisenhower, Nixon, These were great men.

Harding, (okay, not Hoover) Ford, Reagan, Bush Sr., these were at least good men.

At this moment, we have a completely republican controlled govt. If we depose Bush right now, we can have anyone we want. Any republican president you want, any republican policies.

Now, given that this is the reality of the situation, you *still* would choose Bush? Are you brain dead? Just the spending alone, to say nothing of civil liberties and the rest of it,

Here are some other names to throw out, see if anyone thinks they might be better men than Dick Cheney.

Colin Powell
John McCain
Larry Craig
John Sununu
Chuck Hagel
Lincoln Chafee
John Warner
Lindsay Graham
Richard Lugar

And some women

Olympia Snowe
Susan Collins

just off the top of my head.

Virtually any republican on the Senate Floor.

If we had a democratic controlled govt., I would understand if the situation was such that ousting Bush would lead to a democrat, but it wouldn't. It would lead to a republican who would have two and a half years to prove himself or herself before running for re-election. Cheney has a popularity of 25%, there is no way he can run for the presidency, and he's announced that he wouldn't.

You really truly and sincerely believe that Dick Cheney is the best man for the job? That it's worth sacraficing your own freedom, and fortune to huge deficit spending because you really believe in a global social revolution through serial warfare?

Or is there maybe someone else in the GOP you like better than Cheney.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 14, 2006 6:12 AM

CARTOON


I am now convinced that apparently some minors have access to computers, and are speaking of things about which they know absolutely nothing.

The biggest problem with the U.S.A. is that we give a damn about what happens to people in other countries.

I have relatives who fought, and I know people who were maimed and killed fighting to free Europe and Asia from militaristic barbarians who'd just as well rape, kill, burn and steal everything that wasn't nailed down.

Ask the people of Korea, Manchuria, Hong Kong, the Philippines and everywhere in between if they were grateful we stopped the militaristic Japanese agression.

Ask the people of western Europe (those who were actually alive at the time -- unfortunately, it seems that all the generations after that have either forgotten or become the most damnable ingrates this world has ever seen) about what Hitler did to their people and countries. Ask the 9,000,000 murdered civilians (6 million of whom were Jews -- approximately half the Jewish population of the world at that time).

(BTW, I've personally spoken with several holocaust survivors. Ask them if they appreciate Hitler being stopped, and then ask them why they've chosen to live HERE in the U.S.A. instead elsewhere in the world).

Ask the Soviet Union (who lost more people than all of the other nations in the war combined), and had a third of their country overrun by madmen, if the Nazi's had to be stopped. (And the U.S. certainly didn't defeat Germany alone -- it needed both the U.S.S.R. and Britain, so I'm not overlooking their essential contributions.)

I can only surmise that from some of the outlandish theories I've seen espoused in this forum that the posters are either unlearned, or have been indoctrinated by leftist idiots who condemn this country while simultaneously enjoying the richest of its rewards, freedoms and protections (-- which they certainly wouldn't be afforded were they speaking from any of the nations of the middle east, as well as parts of Africa and the far east).

I'm serving notice, I'll no longer read any post by anyone who badmouths this country with delusional conspiracy crap. Fair criticism, is one thing... as this country (and its President) is far from perfect. But, these ridiculous, way-out-of-left-field "Bush is behind the British bringing slaves from Africa to the western hemisphere in the 17th century" conspiracy-type fantasies, no!

If I wanted far-fetched fiction, I'd read The Inquirer.

P.S. This post has been heavily edited. I was a bit more irate with my initial response.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 14, 2006 9:24 AM

DREAMTROVE


Cartoon

Quote:
I am now convinced that apparently some minors have access to computers, and are speaking of things about which they know absolutely nothing.


Wow, there's something worse than mindless rhetoric.

Quote:
The biggest problem with the U.S.A. is that we give a damn about what happens to people in other countries.


For a moment, I thought I was going to agree with you on something.

Quote:
I have relatives who fought, and I know people who were maimed and killed fighting to free Europe and Asia from militaristic barbarians who'd just as well rape, kill, burn and steal everything that wasn't nailed down.


Okay. This changes nothing. I have a couple of friends who were killed in war, a couple who were wounded. Oddly, that doesn't earn my support for the idea. Just irrational I guess.

Quote:
Ask the people of Korea, Manchuria, Hong Kong, the Philippines and everywhere in between if they were grateful we stopped the militaristic Japanese agression.


Many of those subjects of Japanese agression, as a result of our actions, became subjects of Chinese agression, which btw, if you've forgotten, was more brutal, and some 5 million in those areas alone were killed. We of course didn't do it to stop Japanese agression, which could have been done much easier, but I would even question whether or not it should have been done. Japan has been our ally for 150 years. At this point, for 85 or so, and it would have logically followed that we would have allied ourselves with Japan, and tried to dissuade them from some of the paths they were starting down. Certainly there was no reason for an outright war with Japan. Who are still our allies, in spite of it all.

Quote:
Ask the people of western Europe (those who were actually alive at the time -- unfortunately, it seems that all the generations after that have either forgotten or become the most damnable ingrates this world has ever seen) about what Hitler did to their people and countries. Ask the 9,000,000 murdered civilians (6 million of whom were Jews -- approximately half the Jewish population of the world at that time).


No one is challenging the decision to go to war with the Nazis in WWII, since, after all, they started that war, they were the orcs. I don't think anyone is questioning the decision ot go to war to defend Kuwait, though on a smaller scale, for the same reason.

Quote:
(BTW, I've personally spoken with several holocaust survivors. Ask them if they appreciate Hitler being stopped, and then ask them why they've chosen to live HERE in the U.S.A. instead elsewhere in the world).


My father's entire extended family was killed in the holocaust. I don't think I'm ready to hear a lecture on the subject.

Quote:
Ask the Soviet Union (who lost more people than all of the other nations in the war combined), and had a third of their country overrun by madmen, if the Nazi's had to be stopped. (And the U.S. certainly didn't defeat Germany alone -- it needed both the U.S.S.R. and Britain, so I'm not overlooking their essential contributions.)


Again, no one is argueing whether or not orcs should be stopped. But orcs aren't always German. Anyway, I also did study history for many years, I am aware of all of this. This doesn't mean we can't turn into orcs if we're not careful.

I would also offer that the USSR which became a monster itself, was stopped through soft power and diplomacy. Aside for the occasional misunderstanding, there was not a shot fired between the Soviet Union from its formation in 1927 to its fall in 1991. And to say that the USSR represented a threat to the world which dwarfed all the enemies we face today seem be so obvious it would not need saying.

Quote:
I can only surmise that from some of the outlandish theories I've seen espoused in this forum that the posters are either unlearned, or have been indoctrinated by leftist idiots who condemn this country while simultaneously enjoying the richest of its rewards, freedoms and protections (-- which they certainly wouldn't be afforded were they speaking from any of the nations of the middle east, as well as parts of Africa and the far east).


I am neither a leftist nor an idiot.

Quote:
I'm serving notice, I'll no longer read any post by anyone who badmouths this country with delusional conspiracy crap. Fair criticism, is one thing... as this country (and its President) is far from perfect. But, these ridiculous, way-out-of-left-field "Bush is behind the British bringing slaves from Africa to the western hemisphere in the 17th century" conspiracy-type fantasies, no!


I think that at this moment America's most serious enemy is George W. Bush, since he has done far more damage to the institutions of America, and has indeed been responsible for the deaths of more Americans, than Osama Bin Laden.

I'm fighting for the survival of our great nation.

You're people are killing it.

I intend my posts as a wakeup call to this effect.

They won't work if you don't read them. We must always be on guard to prevent ourselves from being own worst enemy.

Anyway, it occurs to me at this point that your comments weren't directed at me. You might be talking to Pirate Jenny and co, and I agree, a lot of british empire jew conspiracy rant and not a lot of fact there. But sure, this is mostly bunk, but that doesn't mean everything that isn't the official word is bunk. Remember when the holocaust was actually happening, the fact that it was happening, was at the time, a conspiracy theory. A one held by some right wing extremists that everyone ignored until it was too late.

I think, in the end, we will reach an accord. At the moment this is a road that some of us are not willing to go down, the road to empire.

Honestly, Geezer, your rant sounded to me like a solidly left wing one.

But, for clarification, America has been wrong before, and it's been a struggle to get her back on track.

1. Extermination of the Indians
2. Slavery
3. Southern Seession
4. War with Japan
5. Korea
6. Vietnam

Come to mind as the most off course positions of the US of the past.

Also, point of fact, all six were democratic party platform positions. These probably go a long way to explaining why I'm a republican.

The most recent time in which the democratic party was dead wrong was when Bill Clinton decided that the role of the US was to attack other countries through invasion or blockading food and medical supplies, to tell them how to run their affairs.

This kind of social militarism is an old idea of the extremist far left. Communists and fascists have used it to try to effect global social change.

Just because Bush/Cheney was elected on a republican ticket doesn't make their government a conservative one. It also has to behave as such.

I don't mean this opposition to simply be partisan, but this kind of extremism is dangerous. It's dangerous for the world, for the people involved, and for the institutions of the United States of America.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 14, 2006 11:44 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
May very well be an excessive act of brutality, as does happen in war.
Well, that didn't take long. I had hoped to see more personal, real life comments here, instead of the standard political rhetoric.

I guess all's fair.

:dissapointed:Chrisisall


Why don't you just shut the hell up ? My post was relevent to the thread. Jesusfuckinchrist.....

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 14, 2006 11:58 AM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:
Why don't you just shut the hell up ? My post was relevent to the thread. Jesusfuckinchrist.


Well, that didn't take long. I had hoped to see more standard political rhetoric, instead of the
personal, real life comments here.

Auraptor, it was intended as humor, don't blown up at Chris.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 14, 2006 2:44 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
It wasn't part of the war against Germany.
So what? I didn’t say anything about Germany.

Any time there is a belligerent foreign rogue state there will always be people within the world powers who favor force as a solution, and there will always be purpose in preparing for the possibility of armed conflict. The same was true during the Hoover and Roosevelt Administration when the Japanese seized Manchuria from the Chinese. But does the fact that some people may have prepared to respond to Japanese aggression in 1932 with force mean that the Pacific Campaign was not a part of World War II?

But whether or not there were proposed strategies for the invasion of Iraq before 9/ll doesn't change the importance of Iraq in the War on Terror. A key source of Islamic terrorism is the disillusionment and turmoil created by unstable totalitarian regimes and belligerent brutal dictators that control the Middle East, in fact it is probably the principle source. The implementation of an Islamic Republic that would spread democratic ideals to Middle Eastern states and presumably alleviate the main source or a large part of terrorist recruitment is a strong motivation for the Iraq Campaign. Iraq was a perfect choice for this experiment since it was clearly an unstable totalitarian state run by a madman with clear ties to terrorism and terrorist factions, including Al Qaeda. Iraq had made itself a target of the world powers when it invaded Kuwait and thereafter refused to recognize cease fire agreements and constantly harassed the weapon’s inspection program. This meant that action against Iraq was legal under international law and the ceasefire agreements. Iraq is not only a part of the War on Terror, but possibly the most important campaign that will be fought in the War on Terror, since if the theory is correct and the campaign in Iraq is successful it may result in a significant long term decrease or almost elimination of Islamic terrorism.



Oh, he's so full of manure, that man! We could lay him in the dirt and grow another one just like him.
-- Ruby

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 14, 2006 4:02 PM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:
So what? I didn’t say anything about Germany.


No, but I did. You spun the question so that my position if I took it would become an automatic lie, because the "world war" is a collection of simultaneous wars in asia, africa, the middle east and europe. Saying something is not part of WWII would be blatantly not true. It was not, however, part of our plan to get rid of the Nazis and stop the holocaust. Instead, it was a pointless distration which prevented us from getting rid of the Nazis fast enough to stop the holocaust, and as a result, we failed.

Similarly, this war is a distraction from the war on terror, and not a part of it, and as a result, we are failing, and Osama Bin Laden is now stronger than ever. By the time we capture and make a martyr out of him his army could become the largest on earth.

Quote:
Any time there is a belligerent foreign rogue state there will always be people within the world powers who favor force as a solution, and there will always be purpose in preparing for the possibility of armed conflict.


That's not what happened. Not in Japan, and not in Iraq. War was the only intention set forth. There are many other solutions which weren't considered. Truman's assistance on unconditional surrender showed his absolute unwillingness to make deals.

Quote:
The same was true during the Hoover and Roosevelt Administration when the Japanese seized Manchuria from the Chinese. But does the fact that some people may have prepared to respond to Japanese aggression in 1932 with force mean that the Pacific Campaign was not a part of World War II?


I'm saying this whole thing is largely a separate issue, Tojo and his secret deals aside.

Quote:
But whether or not there were proposed strategies for the invasion of Iraq before 9/ll doesn't change the importance of Iraq in the War on Terror.


Sure it does.

Quote:
A key source of Islamic terrorism is the disillusionment and turmoil created by unstable totalitarian regimes and belligerent brutal dictators that control the Middle East, in fact it is probably the principle source.


This is not even close to reality. It's not even in the same time zone as reality. Terrorism grows out of chaos. Totalitarianism is the result of too much order. Sure, terrorism grows least in a free society, which sure ain't Iraq, but terrorism was really coming from chaos, palestine, afghanistan, sudan, somalia, and from saudi arabia, and response to aggression.

Quote:
The implementation of an Islamic Republic that would spread democratic ideals to Middle Eastern states and presumably elevate the main source or a large part of terrorist recruitment is a strong motivation for the Iraq Campaign.


Sure, I grant this, but I don't grant that this was ever the goal. These people want ownership, control of the ME, not to free its people from tyranny.

Quote:
Iraq was a perfect choice for this experiment since it was clearly an unstable totalitarian state run by a madman with clear ties to terrorism and terrorist factions, including Al Qaeda.


Again this is just way off base. It's not even remotely true. Iraq was highly stable. Too stable, almost police state. It supported jihadists in palestine, but only nominally, and had no connection to Al Qaeda which it depised and sought to destroy. The current rule in Iraq is Al Qaeda.

The absurdity of your statement is that Bush would not even make that statement. He keeps saying Saddam-terror, terror-Al Qaeda, but recently I saw someone press him at a press conference, and he wouldn't say it. That's because he knows it's not true. I know it's not true.

But this isn't the point. You're trying to paint Iraq as if it were Afghanistan, which is just blatantly not so. Iraq is a breeding ground for Ak Qaeda *NOW* as a result of our actions. I certainly beyond even the slightest a shadow of a doubt was not then.

Quote:
Iraq had made itself a target of the world powers when it invaded Kuwait and thereafter refused to recognize cease fire agreements and constantly harassed the weapon’s inspection program.


Long before that. Iraq became a threat when it invaded Iran. Iraq was a threat to the region. Always. Now that threat is much greater. I don't oppose taking out Saddam Hussein, but I oppose doing it at this cost, which is estimated by some conservatives at $2T over the long haul, not to mention that it has fed anti-Americanism worldwide, which has helped push our trade deficit to a record $750B a year.

The inspections thing was just spin. Saddam was trying to do whatever he could to not be invaded, which he knew was on the table. Iran is doing the same thing right now. The point of this is that these guys want to force a negotiation. The problem is that we refuse to negotiate, because we are orcs. I wish to God it weren't so, but it quite clearly is. We've got Grima Wormtongue in the White House and his name is Dick Cheney, and he works for Saruman, and Bush is Theoden, and we need to remove Grima in order to put the house of the elephant back on its feet.

Quote:
This meant that action against Iraq was legal under international law and the ceasefire agreements. Iraq is not only a part of the War on Terror, but possibly the most important campaign that will be fought in the War on Terror, since if the theory is correct and the campaign in Iraq is successful it may result in a significant long term decrease or almost elimination of Islamic terrorism.


Even if this were true, which I strongly feel it is blatantly not, why would it ever be worth the risk?

Consider this: In any conflict there is the possibility of defeat. If you open Iraq to a conflict between the west and Al Qaeda, which it certainly was not before, but because when we removed Al Qaeda's enemy, Mr. Saddam Hussein from power (also our enemy, but for different reasons) then the result was Al Zarqawi and company came in and set up shop, and now, yes, NOW, it is us vs. Al Qaeda in Iraq.

But why would you intentionally do such a think if you were trying to defeat terrorism? What happens if you lose? Al Qaeda gets Iraq, and all of the oil, which it then can use to buy nuclear weapons.

This is still the most probable outcome, but even if it were a 1% risk it wouldn't be worth it.

If Bush actually gave a damn about terrorism, which he very very very clearly doesn't, as was evident before and after 9/11 through the whole hearing process, then he would have attacked Al Qaeda where they live: Saudi Arabia, UAE, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Chad, Egypt, Jordan. This little circle around the Red Sea is and has been Al Qaeda central, and yet not only are we not stopping it, we're actually unintentionally funding it. We funded Deby of Chad to stablize the Cameroon pipeline area, and he turned an gave the money to an active Al Qaeda cell, which then invaded Darfur with it, which is when all that mess started, something which also doesn't come up much. Because no one seems to give a damn about Africa.

Anyway, I don't buy this whole "Iraq is part of the war on terror" story. Iraq is part of the MEU agenda, end of story, and the MEU idea is part of a longstanding neocon agenda. And if the neocons wanted to come out and admit this, they could discuss whether or not is was a good idea.

I'm not convinced on the outset that a MidEast Union is a terrible idea. There may be a lot of merit in it. But if we discussed it, then we'd have to discuss how it would be done, and then it might come out that there were ways to do it without a big war, and then that would threaten the special interests.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 14, 2006 5:02 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I think our mission in Iraq is to turn it into the same kind of failed state as Afghanistan.


Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 14, 2006 5:38 PM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:
I think our mission in Iraq is to turn it into the same kind of failed state as Afghanistan.


Lol. I don't think this is the intentional mission, but yes, this is the effect so far.

Anyway,

Finn,

Sorry, didn't mean to rant at you. I don't disagree with you that much, but I do on this point. I think it was spin that connected these events, and it's something often done. Someone has an interest in X and Y happens, and so they try to connect Y to X. We had an interest in pacific expansion already. We weren't on a mission to defeat Germany. We became so later when the brits begged us, which they did because they were afraid, not of the Germans, but of the Soviets. Churchill became convinced that Russia would defeat the Nazis, and then conquer the entirety of Europe if the US did not intervene. It's always been suggested that the final deal had some connection to the dismantling of the british empire, but I've never really looked into that end, I don't know if someone else has a thought on that, but it's what I've always heard.

Anyway, I don't see Iraq as part of the war on terror, I think it's a great distraction from it. The war on terror would be best served cold. Hot war creates chaos, Bin Laden and co are well served by chaos.

I get what you're trying to say, which I think casts it in a better light than Bush/Cheney did, I just disagree with it. It could be that you're right, and I'll bear it in mind, but bear what I said in mind, because I also could be right.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 14, 2006 6:20 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Quote:
Why don't you just shut the hell up ? My post was relevent to the thread. Jesusfuckinchrist.


Auraptor, it was intended as humor, don't blown up at Chris.


Seems that's his only response to any post anymore. Whether I'm posting or not. It's such an inane quote that has no relevence beyond the context which I used it in the first place. Mildly amusining for at time or two, but it's gotten old, real quick.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 14, 2006 8:22 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Quote:
but it's gotten old, real quick
It was old, dead and rotting the first time out.


Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 14, 2006 9:13 PM

MERCHANTMARINE1


In response to our "mission in Iraq"

Western Democracy has known the problem of terrorism and has DONE NOTHING

1. Munich Germany Olympic games.. see the movie, doubt anyone pays attention
2. Tehran, Iran 444 days, I bet Carter would have wished for the invasion of Iran rather than Iraq, his habitat for humanity would have rushed in and rebuilt the embassy for sure.
3. how many airline highjackings, don't forget how the Israelis handled the Uganda situation
4. the first world trade towers attack 1993
5. loss of two embassies to car bombings in Africa by Al Queda and Bin Laden
6. Kobi towers military housing complex in Saudi Arabia also by Bin Laden
7. USS COLE by.. you guessed it..
8. 9/11

History is loaded, Why is anyone comparing the events that shaped WWII and now is beyond me, both have nothing to do with the other.. Germany had already occupied all of Europe long before Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, in fact, Germany insisted the U.S. not be attacked. Japan needed badly needed raw materials, we withheld them while japan occupied China, read the "rape of Nanking" believe it or not, that book is banned from Japan, its also a crime to have it in your possession if you visit japan.

You can label republicans as warmongers, democrats as liberal cowards avoiding responsiblity or what ever.. this was unaviodable, we have already seen what the UN is capable of with the wide spread corruption, OIL for Food program, the pay offs of Weapons inspectors and their lucrative parties and orgies at Hussein's expense, well now its our expense. Do I blame any president, no I blame ourselves, we are a democracy, one voice one vote, a government of the people, by the people and for the people. Its not about OIL, has not been since the oil embargo of the 1970's can't remember, go ask, go research.. long lines, rationing, highjacking of fuel trucks because the fuel was worth more than gold. Our allies have done the opposite for us, yes allies, our oil supply is purchased from Canada, Mexico, Venezuala and Africa (mainly Nigeria). Examine that list.. Canada, well .. 1999.. one solo terrorist captured with explosives and detinators in Washinton (entering from Canada) to blow up the space needle or a target in Los Angeles, and his associates also captured in New York also with plans with targets on the East Coast. Mexico, even as we speak, tunnels, hit lists of our border agents discovered, more effort and expendature on our part for border security than seen on the Mexican side. Guess what folks this cycle has been turing for along time and now, the first time I visited New York was 1999, and I have a picture of the Twin Towers (magnificent view) now look, can someone tell me what you see now. A&E just release their version of flight 93, just wonder how many people will take time to watch it, or just turn the channel to Lost or Desparate Housewives. To me what is sad, if the people of Iraq turned and just shipped the oil to the U.S. for nothing and you got your SUV's filled up at .90 a gallon you would not hear anything spoken about our war. I remember the price was .90 in 1997, why did it change? Bush was not in Office? Politicans promised to investigate, 2004 Senator Kerry in San Diego, CA proposed a nation wide gas price? why did he let that go off the topic list after he left California? We want our lives free, easy and fast. We want to good life but no one wants to pay for it. Here is a good idea, buy a home in a hurricane area, expect no help from your taxes you pay to your local and state governments and watch a cat. 5 hurricane blow through, my house is flooded, and instead of me.. the home owner stepping in and building myself up, I fight for the right to stay in a hotel at taxpayers expense.. 3 meals and the works.. and when asked, what is wrong with going back and fixing up your house that you own.. I repeat the same words spoken by a homeowner on CNN, why, I can sell it for 5 million, my asking price, since all the charity and money drive benefits that were created and produced several billion dollars to aid Katrina victims.. My point, no one cares, we care less for our neighbors, our cities, our state and government. The media makes more out of a hunting accident than what is really important. We have changed, and now we are not the shinny glimmering beacon of hope and liberty after all.. Al Gore is right.. Arabs are treated differently.. but.. its not the government, its the people, right now, take 2 or 3 or more men, look like arab decent, dress in traditional arab clothing, buy airline tickets for a cross country flight, wait in the gate with everyone else and 20 minutes before the first class boarding takes place.. pray a muslim prayer.. guess what.. the passengers will not allow that group to board.. power of the passengers is more powerful than a government body. or an airline.

We should have taken action on alot of things long ago but didn't.. any solutions.. like to hear them.. because we are in dark times and that is reality.

Merchantmarine1

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 14, 2006 10:36 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


What I think you are addressing is the rot at the heart of the American myth.

America is not the greatest country on the planet. Its people do not have the highest standard of living. Its role is not as world arbitor. America's democracy is not more than a wheezing feeble wreck.

After WWII the US was the only developed country left standing - literally. There was a brief shining golden time. That people said, meant the US was blessed with THE ANSWER. Whether the question was political, economic, social, moral, the US had THE ANSWER. And it looked at everything it did and called it good.

But times changed. Devastated countries rebuilt. Other countries rose up with new strength from the mud.

And Americans could not let go of the fantasy - the drug - the addiction.

It is still broadcast every day. Brayed by politicians. Advertized in slick sales pitches. Given mis-shapen form in entertainment.

Eveyone is doing well. (But don't go downtown after close of business hours.) America is righteous. (Government corruption is just normal business.) Americans are peaceful. (Bombing a country into the stone age is good.)It is a land of freedom. (As long as you say the right things.) And so on.

Some of its cultural. And some of it's deliberate propagandistic manipulation - granted of existing pathologies.

Personally, I don't see it changing from the inside. That is why the US will go stumbling and careening down a blind path until the end.




Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 15, 2006 1:50 AM

CITIZEN


Rue:
Something I've thought myself, but I hesitate to voice it as, since I'm British, I'll just be labeled as an anti-Amercan ingrate...


More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
You should never give powers to a leader you like that you’d hate to have given to a leader you fear

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 15, 2006 2:55 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:
I think our mission in Iraq is to turn it into the same kind of failed state as Afghanistan.
Nah, it's to turn it into the same kind of failed state as America.

couldn't resist!

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 15, 2006 3:13 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:
America is not the greatest country on the planet. Its people do not have the highest standard of living. Its role is not as world arbitor.
People who behave like this are called "anger addicts". They feel they have the RIGHT to control others, by any means possible- but especially if it means getting angry and righteous and beating up on people- because it makes them feel in control again.

I read an interesting study once that had to do with the causes of war. This group of researchers tried to tie war instigation with a number of variables- anything from protein per kg per day (expect an inverse relationship) to level of technology to religion across a number of civilizations, both current and extinct. The only variable that consistently connected with aggression was the level of perceived uncertainty in the population as a whole.

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 15, 2006 4:55 AM

DREAMTROVE


Merchant Marine,

The problem you outlay exposes the reality: We live in a Mediacracy. So for that matter do the Enlish. But they have the advantage that their media more or less tries to keep them informed. 80% of the people are sheep, probably anywhere, and here they are being told what to think. You like Bush or Clinton, you like pepsi or coke, you like the mets or the yankees. What if you like both or neither? Well that doesn't sell, we need to pit you against each other, because only then can we be sure that you will always choose, in one way or another, New York Baseball, Cola Sodas, and Team Evil.

I don't think America is alone in thinking it is the greatest country on Earth. I think that's the nature of nationalism, and everyone does it. But we do okay, overall. It's usually America showing up to help when problems arise. I remember I was in Europe recently, a position in which an American is always under unsolicited fire for the policies of their govt. and someone said to me "Where was the US when Rwanda broke out?" My reply was, "Blah blah blah Clinton" but I added "Good Question. Where was Europe?" The truth is, even when our govt. is corrupt and failing to do what it should, our people still swarm to help. I remember reading that Americans were something like twice as likely to contribute to Tsunami victims as the next contributing country, as in individuals. Maybe that's changed, now, I can't find the stats, but it does show that even when the Bush govt. was slow and unwilling to respond, America was still ready.

I'm really not up for an argument on whether or not America has done this right or wrong, I'm just making the point, before you throw out the baby with the bathwater, that "We do ok."

For America to be a great nation again in the eyes of the world, it would need great leadership. Another Eisenhower. Even a Reagan or a Nixon would do. It's Clinton/Bush that are destroying our govt.

Quote:
People who behave like this are called "anger addicts".


Actually, without getting into an argument about it, I call them "the political left."

It's pretty much true everywhere. What the left in the US has done to this effect, when in power, is exactly what the EU is doing right now, forcing it's will on everyone else (in Europe.) The illusion here is that it is Europe doing it to itself, but it's not. It's Brussels, with a lot of French and German influence, forcing it's will particularly on points East, but also on points north.

Furthermore, it's what China is doing right now in Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau, Bhutan, and Nepal. It's what the Soviet Union did. This is what the left does, it's its raison detre. To save the world from itself.

The fooler here is that Bush, elected as a republican, is really just a monkey in a suit stomping for Clinton, and is really the political left. The only reason the left got up in arms against Bush is not that he's too far to the right. He's not to the right at all. He's exactly like Clinton, because he is Clinton. It's that because he's technically the right, the media has attacked him, though not as much as it should, and so people know when Bush is evil.

The reason Bush exists at all is that Clinton never got a majority of the vote, and this always creates an air of illegitimacy to the office. Clinton was elected, as you all know, twice because of a right wing vote splitter H. Ross Perot.

Because of this, People were always forced to compare Clinton to Bush Sr., who would have won if Perot had stayed out. This forces the comparison more than it would otherwise, just as people in compare Bush to Gore, because of the questionable outcome, more than they would, say, compare Reagan to Mondale, who, after being defeated in a landslide, was really never thought of again.

So, what happened was the people of America were getting upset with the level of Clinton corruption, and there was an increasing feeling of, we should go back to Bush. The Clintons thought up this brilliant scheme whereby they would play on their own unpopularity by becoming Bush.

What I find most curious on this forum is that most people get this. Most of the folks here stomping for Bush also think Clinton is aces, and most who are appalled by Bush are appalled by Clinton.

But outside, that is not the case. We, alas, do not represent the voting public. Most people either love Clinton and hate Bush, or love Bush and hate Clinton, in spite of the near identical policies. They do this because the media has played them against each other. So these otherwise intelligent, educated people cannot see what's right in front of their eyes because they simply do not pay enough attention. The consume one sided media, either pure left or pure right, in which one president has been demonized and the other not.

I don't have a solution yet to this problem, but I'm open to any suggestions.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 15, 2006 5:24 AM

CARTOON


You know, Dream, I'm wondering if you're one person or two. LOL

I was about to right you off as one of the multitude of weirdos whose posts I have to avoid (because they damage my calm), when you post something which sounds like -- well, not like you.

Is there two of you? Does someone else have access to your computer?

Darn it!! Now, I'm going to have to continue reading your posts -- at least for now.

Blast!! I can't even remember why I was leary of you in the first place!! This isn't fair!!

You've thrown some shades of gray into my theories about you, and (in the process) have me totally confused (something which admittedly isn't that difficult a thing to do).

(I still think there's two of you. That's the only logical explanation.)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 15, 2006 5:31 AM

CARTOON


Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
I can't even remember why I was leary of you in the first place!! This isn't fair!!


I just remembered what it was!!

Nevermind!! I'm still mad at you.

Ignore the above post.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 15, 2006 8:23 AM

MERCHANTMARINE1


Dream,

very well said. I was a participant in the tsunami relief efforts, my ship was alongside the hospital ship USNS MERCY, there is support from a large segment of America, we have seen that from the relief efforts of all natural disasters. What is troubling is how easy and convient memory loss can be. We entered the Balklins, Kosovo, Yugoslovia, remove their president and charge him with war crimes and crimes against humanity at the Hague, still hunt nazi's even deported a suspected concentration camp guard living in Ohio revoking his citizenship. Now people ask where is the weapons of mass destruction? I was in Kuwait in 1990-1991, I remember our cease fire accourds does anyone else? we planted our weapons inspectors, they were denied access to numberous facilities, but after 1993 no one cared, the UN took over in 1994, said to be able to its political and security arm, along with the OIL for FOOD program and we now know how that worked. The inspectors were eventually kicked out by the regime in 1998, and nothing done, the UN as well as everyone else stood by and did nothing. You mentioned Rwanda, you were in Europe, you should have asked, "why did the French paratroopers stood at there garrison and do nothing during the massacre in Rwanda?" The Rwanda mission was complete UN, even our beloved Secretary General was in charge of UN Security during that mission. Politics and sloopy journalism have clouded our minds for way too long, you are right, our media no longer is interested in educating or keeping the people informed. I did not personally vote for clinton or Bush, I was a Perot fan, liked his honesty, alot of my shipmates say he ducked out, I say, perhaps we were watching and witnessing an attempt to actually limit our countries leadership to a two party system. I believe Mr. Perot when he said he was receiving threats against his family... why.. he told the truth... look later at Larry King Live and his debate with Vice President Al Gore and NAFTA? Guess what they are back with CAFTA, no doubt SAFTA (something for south america) or we can all say shafta its the same.

Merchantmarine1

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 15, 2006 10:17 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Quote:
but it's gotten old, real quick
It was old, dead and rotting the first time out.


Thank you, Rue, that was my point in using like that. I can let it go now.

Maybe...

Beatin' that horse Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 15, 2006 10:18 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"we have seen that from the relief efforts of all natural disasters" Except Katrina

You've got an uniformed version of what happened in Iraq. The UN withdrew its inspectors DUE TO US BOMBING. They weren't 'kicked out'.

You seem to think that all the corruption in the oil for food program was due to the UN. US OIL COMPANIES made BILLIONS from illegal Iraq oil, all arranged on their own - and the US turned a blind eye.

The French and Belgian troops in Rwanda were peacekeepers only, monitoring an existing truce. They did not have the mandate, equipment or numbers to intervene in Rwanda. 10 Belgian peacekeepers were captured and tortured to death.

Both the UN and the US refrained from calling it genocide and setting into motion a capable response.

I too believe Perot.


Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 15, 2006 10:19 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Chrisisall,

You're welcome. I got it the first time. Some people just need it spelled out, is all.


Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 15, 2006 12:52 PM

DREAMTROVE


Cartoon,

I am only one person. I'm fairly consistant. I know where I stand on most things. Sometimes I change my mind. In case you are confused, here's my current position more or less:

1. I'm a republican, still pretty solidly.

2. I oppose Bush, largely because I think he's Clinton, more or less, and his policies are more far left than far right. But essentially, both of them have been led too far off course by Cheney and his pack of former socialists, the old social democrats, richard perle, paul wolfowitz et al.

3. On military issues, I follow a rule I call "least death." If military action results in less death than no military action, as in Nazi Germany, or probably would have in Rwanda, then military action should be taken. If military action results in more death then no military action, then no military action should be taken. A few examples where no war would have been a better idea are support for the russian civil war and campaigns against the indians.

4. On the Iraq war, initially, though I'm always appalled by the creation of war, they did have me going on the idea that it was least death. But now, clearly with Zarqawi feeding and breeding terrorists this isn't the case. But the real point where they lost me was when I found out when and where the idea came from. It's a concoction of Max Schactman and co., the old socialist workers party, and it's all about reforming the middle east, which I think falls into 'not our problem' terrorism aside, and not worth all out war. If you fight war to end perceived oppression than it becomes possible to make an argument that everyone should be at war with everyone else all the time.

This reminds me of something I read by one of the Soviet foreign ministers a long time ago. He said, from a Soviet perspective, America is an oppressive state because it is possible for someone to be refused healthcare, housing or employment. I don't agree with him, but I see the point, who is or isn't oppressive is a matter of perspective. If we, as a country, take the attitude that we can attack other nations to end what we see as oppression, everyone else will do the same. Already we have various little petty dictatorships starting their own 'war on terror' and a few in places like haiti and the sudan have been little more than a cover for genocide.

These are dangerous ideas. We should be exercising a lot more caution than we are.

Ps. I think I flamed your first post, I don't remember the issue though. I tend to respond to the individual post, so I'm likely to be on the side of someone one minute and against them the next. I think I've even been on Fletch's side a couple of times.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 15, 2006 2:11 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Okay, so, jumping late into a thread I haven't fully read, I have a question about the original topic: Do we HAVE a mission in Iraq? I mean, I get confused- we seem to have had a multiplicity of missions, or maybe none at all. What IS our mission in Iraq anway???

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 15, 2006 2:42 PM

CARTOON


Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I am only one person.


Hmmm...

And which of you is telling me this?

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
1. I'm a republican, still pretty solidly.


Same here. As if you (and the whole rest of the world) couldn't tell.

P.S. I'm a real republican. Not like my state's senior Senator Specter, who is a democrat in republican's clothing (except when it's convenient to be pretend to be otherwise).

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
2. I oppose Bush, largely because I think he's Clinton, more or less, and his policies are more far left than far right.


This is where you lose me. I see them as diametrically opposed... both personally and politically (politically, both socially & economically). Could you clarify (not for the point of argument, but I'm curious as to how you've arrived at this view)?

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
3. On military issues, I follow a rule I call "least death." (snip, for sake of brevity)


No argument from me there.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
4. On the Iraq war, initially, though I'm always appalled by the creation of war, they did have me going on the idea that it was least death. But now, clearly with Zarqawi feeding and breeding terrorists this isn't the case.


You'll probably be surprised to know that I believe the current business in Iraq falls into the latter category -- and it probably could've been resolved with a good, old fashioned coup or assassination. Nonetheless, hindsight is always perfect, and now that we're there, we need to finish the job right or it was all for nothing.

I do believe, however, that Zarqawi would breed terrorists regardless. The terrorists strike me as the kind of people who don't need an excuse to act. Sure, their "excuses" (as feeble as they always are) may go over well with the bleeding heart press (who is likely to be sympathetic to the murderers anyhow), but sane folks see right through their crazy rhetoric.

Eventually, (hopefully soon) I believe the Iraqi people will be able to stand on their own and keep this to a minimum. Unfortunately, I think it'll always be part of that region, but the aim has to be to control and minimize it as best as possible.

P.S. Eventually, Saddam could've easily turned this into your former category, but we'll never know what might've happened. Best we could do is speculate, and that would be pointless.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
But the real point where they lost me was when I found out when and where the idea came from. (snip, for the sake of brevity)


How can this be anything but speculation, though, unless Bush and his inner circle have confided in you (or elsewhere, where I haven't seen it)? On what do you base this view? Again, not for the sake of argument, but just to satisfy my curiosity.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
This reminds me of something I read by one of the Soviet foreign ministers a long time ago. (snip, for sake of brevity)


I can totally understand the former U.S.S.R.'s paranoid attitude about the West (and even the USA). After what happened to them in WWII, they had every right to be paranoid, initially. But, I would imagine that after a while they would've seen that the U.S. wasn't interested in conquest -- or else we would've annexed Germany & Japan, much in the way the Soviet Union controlled eastern Europe for decades. We never did, and they should've seen that. That's a whole other bag of worms, though, and I see your point about perspective.

I do think most of the hatred people feel for the U.S., though, is due to envy. The guy on top is always hated. The late 18th through the early 20th century, it was the British Empire. Prior to that, Bourbon France, the Spanish Hapsbourgs, etc. And like those nations, our time on top will also be temporary. Of this, I have no doubt -- and personally, I hope its ending doesn't happen in the lifetime of my nephew & niece, as our fall won't be subtle as other nation's falls have been -- as I fear that when we go, it's going to be big.

I do believe, though, that the U.S. never sought a position of global superiority. We came out on top solely because of reasons I stated in another thread -- that we were blessed not to have fought the Second World War at home (two vast oceans separating us from either aggressor), and we had the industrial infrastructure to support our military. Otherwise, the same fate could've befallen us as that of Poland, France, the Philippines, etc.


Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
These are dangerous ideas. We should be exercising a lot more caution than we are.


Agreed. Unfortunately, I don't think any single nation has the resources to exercise the degree of caution necessary for protection. And, also unfortunately, the world seems too divided to get together long enough to stand up to aggression.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Ps. I think I flamed your first post (snip)


I don't recall. Being flamed is part of the job. I was only on the internet a few hours before I was doused in a napalm bath. Something about me, I suppose. Anyhow, I have some good flame-retardant underwear. Just wish I could get the smell of smoke out of them.






NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Trump, convicted of 34 felonies
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:56 - 44 posts
Thread of Trump Appointments / Other Changes of Scenery...
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:51 - 48 posts
Where Will The American Exodus Go?
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:25 - 1 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Wed, November 27, 2024 23:34 - 4775 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:47 - 7510 posts
What's wrong with conspiracy theories
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:06 - 21 posts
Ellen Page is a Dude Now
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:05 - 238 posts
Bald F*ck MAGICALLY "Fixes" Del Rio Migrant Invasion... By Releasing All Of Them Into The U.S.
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:03 - 41 posts
Why does THUGR shit up the board by bumping his pointless threads?
Wed, November 27, 2024 16:43 - 32 posts
Joe Rogan: Bro, do I have to sue CNN?
Wed, November 27, 2024 16:41 - 7 posts
Elections; 2024
Wed, November 27, 2024 16:36 - 4845 posts
Biden will be replaced
Wed, November 27, 2024 15:06 - 13 posts
 VIEW MORE TOPICS 

FFF.NET SOCIAL