Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? - 5/20/2006 10:53:53 AM   
DelightMachine


Posts: 652
Joined: 1/21/2006
Status: offline
I wasn't very clear in the second paragraph of my reply to philosophy in post 115
(here:  http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=380390 )
 
Here's what I meant to say, in case anyone still reading this thread was scratching his head:
 
Given the amount of damage one criminal can do, or even one criminal gang, and the enormous damage one country or terrorist group with one WMD can do, we can afford to give criminals civil rights that we can't afford to give nations that we have good reason to believe may give WMDs to terrorists. So, as a practical matter, we need to be able to do whatever is necessary when the danger is high enough that an evil dictator is going to get his hands on WMDs, right? Or do you disagree with that?

_____________________________

I'd rather be in
Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg

(in reply to DelightMachine)
Profile   Post #: 121
RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? - 5/20/2006 12:32:52 PM   
IronBear


Posts: 9008
Joined: 6/19/2005
From: Beenleigh, Qld, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DelightMachine

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou
hmmmm, this is strange, I read most of DM's threads and I haven't saw anything to rude. I also read IronBears posts and didn't see anything highly offensive. hmmmmm, You both seem reasonable to me most of the time. Maybe I missed it, why do you guys dislike each other. Is it just because you guys don't agree on the US's role in the world? Well, okay, but that's hardly a reason to dislike someone. If that's the case I guess I better get into my fighting stance. Maybe a common enemy will bring you together, LOL. Because I disagree with some of what both of you said during the course of reading various threads not mention the 50 posters I've disagreed with from time to time.

Really, what's the problem? Is it just you guys don't agree on some ideas? Come on, I thought everyone was bigger than that here. Ok, maybe not everyone but most.


Yeah, you must've missed it. I did a quick search and couldn't find the post where the old man challenged me to a fight. Maybe the mods took it down.

Here are two others:

http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=346544

http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=347255

It's not that I hate him, I'm just tired of trying to deal with someone who's palsy-walsy one day and full of venom the next. I think it's the earlier post above that he started attacking me after I criticized someone else. And when I've tried to put it past us, I've been laughed at for it. Best to ignore him.


Edited to add:
Oh, it's right there. The second one is where he challenges me to a fight like we're in elementary school.


No DM here you are wrong in two areas and right almost in one.

The two links you posted was to an earlier thread where we both got clost to the limit regarding to being sinned binned but I never challanged you to battle I simple commented that i doubted if you would make the same comments to me face to face nose to nose... I question if you like but not a challange. To have issued a challange would cause either or both of us to be booted permanantly I'm reasonably certain.. No not a challange but a test.. That thread is ended and whilst I did refer to it which you took exception to and I agree it was uncalled for on my part.

We have both been guilty in taking arguments against each other to a personal level and I can ,iuve with that. Damned if I know a man who hasn't for some reason or other got childish at times.... We both quallify for that.

OK on this thread you were also wrong in that we never went to grade school together as mosy of my school life was in boarding school and I still am in contact with those Americans who attended the same school as me.. (OK son so I'm being pedantic but it is with a grin)

Now regarding this thread, I've only posted a couple of times and in my first post,  I said this:

quote:

"One of the issues we'll always see in any type of discussion like this is the difference between those who comment from a permanent civilian position (never having had military service or at least no combat experience) and those who have and are vets.. Nothing like feeling the dirt kick up in you face or the rounds whistling about you and seeing mates die to give you a whole new outlook on war... 
 
DM, I'd like to offer for thought four quotes (sorta) from four different areas of thinking for your perusal and I'm sure you and others will be able to enjoy them....  "



You can find the entire post here:-  http://www.collarchat.com/m_369715/mpage_4/key_/tm.htm   Post 79


Not an attack in any way shape or form, unfortunately you saw it as one. That did not provoke me at all. In my response to you believing that I had attacked you but as you stated that you were tired and was off to bed you also challanged (asked if you like) to show you why it wasn't an attack.... I stated this:-

quote:

DM, I was not accusing you of anything. I was merely offering four aspects of life to look at.... Considering my previous employment and what i do now as both Counsellor/Therapist and Priest I'd say I am more than sensitive to the horrors of peace. Even more so seeing trhat yearly I have to deal with natural disarsters which bring their own Horrors of Peace. I truely hate to disappoit you old son but there is nary a critical comment in anything I posted. I'm the first to agree that civilians also suffer the horrors of war far too many first hand and far too many die on a battle field. men, Women, Children, The Aged and Infirm..... I still have vivid memories of that too and still get chocked up and yep still have nightmares wondering if we couldn't have rescued at least some from the slaughter....

Still I';m just a silly aging grizzly who has too many memories, too much information and far to many secrets which can never be shared.....


I was also replying to John Warren in the poem I posted in the rest of that post

You can find the entire post here:-

http://www.collarchat.com/m_369715/mpage_5/key_/tm.htm

NeedToUseYou is possibly correct we may well stand side by side and argue many things in support of each other and even agree with each other often enough and the rest of the time we'd probably stand nose to nose tossing shit at each other which is a pointless exercise anyway.... Using your own words regarding this thread, you sirih used a preemptive strike at me when there was no need and instead of possiblt having an amusing and informative discussion on the philosophical aspects of the four thoughts I gave you in my first post we are at this point. I now have to factor in that this is possibly going to be your response to anything I adress to you so I am done with this.. Play time is over and I have better things to do... I bid you well enough....



< Message edited by IronBear -- 5/20/2006 12:34:16 PM >


_____________________________

Iron Bear

Master of Bruin Cottage

http://www.bruincottage.org

Your attitude, words & actions are yours. Take responsibility for them and the consequences they incur.

D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F.

(in reply to DelightMachine)
Profile   Post #: 122
RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? - 5/21/2006 4:15:28 AM   
philosophy


Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline
"Given the amount of damage one criminal can do, or even one criminal gang, and the enormous damage one country or terrorist group with one WMD can do, we can afford to give criminals civil rights that we can't afford to give nations that we have good reason to believe may give WMDs to terrorists."
 
i think this quote amply illustrates our difference of opinion. Because if you can simply waive due process for a country based on the devastation a WMD is capable of inflicting, it isn't long before you waive due process for everyone. Quite frankly WMD's are easy to make, if one doesn't mind hitting soft targets they're easy to deliver. Therefore if we fear such attacks as you appear to do, it is only a pre-emptive strike to simply deny civil rights to everyone and have a martial state...but at least we'll be safe in our beds and i bet the trains run on time.

(in reply to IronBear)
Profile   Post #: 123
RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? - 5/21/2006 5:13:34 PM   
DelightMachine


Posts: 652
Joined: 1/21/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: DelightMachine

I think European nations have failed in their moral duty to maintain military forces that could, for instance, help patrol the Darfur region of Ethiopia to prevent further massacres there. Those massacres are blood on the hands of today's European governments who haven't done enough for Darfur.


Er.. what exactly has the US done in Darfur and why is this a perculiarly European problem?

What good would an invasion of Sudan do?

What good has an invasion of Iraq done?

I don't think anyone is saying the US is bad or worse than anyone else but if you take the moral high ground you set yourself up to be judged by those standards on which you tell the world you are basing your actions, people will tend to judge you on those standards.

I could make a long list of positive things Britain has done but I open myself up to the accusations of what Britain has done wrong and I'm not blind to the list of wrongs Britain has done, which is why I don't do it.


I take it back about Darfur. I was misremembering something I'd read. At this point, I don't even feel like discussing Darfur. Maybe that would be a good thread itself.

About the rest of your post, I'll say it again:

If you just ignore the bad a country does you present an unfair picture of it, if you just ignore the good, you do the same.

If you barely acknowledge either the good or bad, you again present an unfair picture, only slightly less unfair than the other options.

I've already made my point that the United States has done so much good that it not only shouldn't be condemned as harshly as it is, but deserves gratitude, respect and, when it can use help with a moral, reasonable project, should get it from people in other countries.



_____________________________

I'd rather be in
Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 124
RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? - 5/21/2006 5:51:27 PM   
DelightMachine


Posts: 652
Joined: 1/21/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

"Given the amount of damage one criminal can do, or even one criminal gang, and the enormous damage one country or terrorist group with one WMD can do, we can afford to give criminals civil rights that we can't afford to give nations that we have good reason to believe may give WMDs to terrorists."

 
i think this quote amply illustrates our difference of opinion. Because if you can simply waive due process for a country based on the devastation a WMD is capable of inflicting, it isn't long before you waive due process for everyone.


Countries don't have due process. People do. And international relations is not something that takes place in court, and it shouldn't be, at least until we can get a world police force that we all can trust. For the sake of everyone concerned, we should be prudent when dealiing with another country, but prudence also means we need to act quickly sometimes.

Due process is for courts. You don't want to make foreign policy decisions in a court, using due process, any more than you want to make most decisions in a court.

And when we're dealing with murderous dictators who are reasonably suspected of creating threats against people in other countries, the onus should be on the murderous dictator to prove he isn't trying to create that threat, not on the rest of us. In a court (at least in most civilized countries) the onus is always on the prosecutor or the plaintiff.

quote:

Quite frankly WMD's are easy to make, if one doesn't mind hitting soft targets they're easy to deliver. Therefore if we fear such attacks as you appear to do, it is only a pre-emptive strike to simply deny civil rights to everyone and have a martial state...

If they're so easy to make and deliver, shouldn't we fear them? If you refuse to believe we're at war, then I guess anything we do would sound to you as if we're overreacting.
 
"Deny civil rights to everyone"? Exaggeration isn't really an argument. For me to say that we should do something is a bit different from saying we should do anything or everything. I think actions against murderous dictators already oppressing their people, trying to build WMDs and consorting with terrorists is a pretty safe place to start.
 
quote:

but at least we'll be safe in our beds and i bet the trains run on time.

What's that they say about every discussion thread, anywhere on the Web eventually devolving into someone bringing up the Nazis or Hitler? I guess fascism will do. There's a name for it. Someone's "Law" of Internet discussions.



_____________________________

I'd rather be in
Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg

(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 125
RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? - 5/21/2006 11:40:18 PM   
MsMacComb


Posts: 808
Joined: 3/30/2005
From: My Mothers womb.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DelightMachine
Countries don't have due process. People do. And international relations is not something that takes place in court, and it shouldn't be, at least until we can get a world police force that we all can trust. For the sake of everyone concerned, we should be prudent when dealiing with another country, but prudence also means we need to act quickly sometimes.
Due process is for courts. You don't want to make foreign policy decisions in a court, using due process, any more than you want to make most decisions in a court.
And when we're dealing with murderous dictators who are reasonably suspected of creating threats against people in other countries, the onus should be on the murderous dictator to prove he isn't trying to create that threat, not on the rest of us. In a court (at least in most civilized countries) the onus is always on the prosecutor or the plaintiff.
 

i·de·al·ism    (-d-lzm) KEY  

NOUN:

  1. The act or practice of envisioning things in an ideal form.
  2. Pursuit of one's ideals.
  3. Idealized treatment of a subject in literature or art.
  4. Philosophy The theory that the object of external perception, in itself or as perceived, consists of ideas.
 Reality is a bit different. However, when you only discuss things in theory, and not real life, I guess thats fine.


_____________________________

Not looking for anyone for anything, any time.

(in reply to DelightMachine)
Profile   Post #: 126
RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? - 5/22/2006 4:55:38 AM   
JohnWarren


Posts: 3807
Joined: 3/18/2005
From: Delray Beach, FL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DelightMachine
And when we're dealing with murderous dictators who are reasonably suspected of creating threats against people in other countries, the onus should be on the murderous dictator to prove he isn't trying to create that threat, not on the rest of us. In a court (at least in most civilized countries) the onus is always on the prosecutor or the plaintiff.


Then when can we expect Bush to be hauled into the international court?

It's sad when it gets harder and harder to tell them from us.

_____________________________

www.lovingdominant.org

(in reply to DelightMachine)
Profile   Post #: 127
RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? - 5/22/2006 11:32:37 AM   
caitlyn


Posts: 3473
Joined: 12/22/2004
Status: offline
A group will probably be established to try to carve his face into a mountain at taxpayer expense.

(in reply to JohnWarren)
Profile   Post #: 128
RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? - 5/22/2006 3:37:55 PM   
philosophy


Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline
"Countries don't have due process. People do."

No such thing as international law? Because if there is such a thing, then no country should hold itself above it. No country has the right to assume its national interests are synonymous with justice.

(in reply to caitlyn)
Profile   Post #: 129
RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? - 5/22/2006 5:58:51 PM   
DelightMachine


Posts: 652
Joined: 1/21/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

A group will probably be established to try to carve his face into a mountain at taxpayer expense.


Yes indeed! Right next to Ronald Reagan's!

_____________________________

I'd rather be in
Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg

(in reply to caitlyn)
Profile   Post #: 130
RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? - 5/22/2006 6:44:58 PM   
DelightMachine


Posts: 652
Joined: 1/21/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

"Countries don't have due process. People do."

No such thing as international law? Because if there is such a thing, then no country should hold itself above it. No country has the right to assume its national interests are synonymous with justice.


Self-defense is a right under international law. Threatening others without provocation (by building WMDs and issuing threats, for instance, or coddling terrorists) is not a right under international law.



_____________________________

I'd rather be in
Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg

(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 131
RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? - 5/22/2006 6:55:41 PM   
IronBear


Posts: 9008
Joined: 6/19/2005
From: Beenleigh, Qld, Australia
Status: offline
I'm probbly wrong in this, and I've not sufficient time to research the matter, however I hav memories that when Poland became "Free" of Soviet control and held elections several acquaintences of mine in Western Australia who were displaced Polish Nobility (There were a couple of Polish Counts driving taxies for a living amongst them), went to the International Court in the Hauge and were successfull in reclaiming their family estates. Thus I immagine this was one use of International Law. What I am curious about, is the poweres etc of the Hague Court and how could they police their decisions other than perhaps looking to the UN to help impose sanctions..... 

_____________________________

Iron Bear

Master of Bruin Cottage

http://www.bruincottage.org

Your attitude, words & actions are yours. Take responsibility for them and the consequences they incur.

D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F.

(in reply to DelightMachine)
Profile   Post #: 132
RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? - 5/24/2006 8:20:23 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
Not too many people understand the true nature of this war, and that is tragic.  The media makes things worse by being very selective about how it reports things.  This is unfortunate as people need to come up with their own conclusion based on balanced - not slanted - reporting. 

Two Chinese Colonels wrote a book titled, “Unrestricted Warfare”, which is basically asymmetrical warfare.  They explained how a weaker organization could defeat a powerful nation using methods outside of what others think are normal methods - or manners - of war. 

“Whether it be the intrusions of hackers, a major explosion at the World Trade Center, or a bombing attack nby Bin Laden, all of these greatly exceed the frequency bandwidths understood by the American military….
This is because they have never taken into consideration and have even refused to consider means that are contrary to tradition and to select measures of operations other than military means.. (Col. Qiao Liang and Col. Wang Xiangsui, 1999).

“Means contrary to tradition”

Tradition:  Threatening nation deploys military to threatened nation.  (Iraq was “not” threatening because their military is not capable, etc)

Tradition:  Threatening nation is directly responsible for visible attacks on threatened nation. (Iraq did not fly planes into the World Trade Center, therefore, attacking Iraq was “wrong”.)

Unrestricted warfare destroys common norms in favor of tactics outside the imagination of those that refuse to see beyond current war traditions.

Person A builds WMD, Person B deploys them.  Person A has everything to lose if his cover is blown.  Person B wants to brag to the world about his successful missions.  Person A turns over WMD to Person B.  Person B sends someone to slaughter thousands of people.  Meaning, Iraq builds the WMD, Al-Qaeda deploys its martyrdom brigade with said WMD and kills thousands of Americans on American soil. 

Iraq has plausible deniability and Al-Qaeda jumps up and down bragging about its latest accomplishment.  They could hide anywhere and attack anywhere.  They are not signatories to international treaties.  The UN Security Counsel does not bound them, nor do they need to consult another nation for permission to launch an attack.

Their elusiveness and fluidity make them hard to pinpoint.  They could take the bullet, unlike an established nation like Iraq.  Both have satisfaction that they struck a blow to the heart of their common enemy.


THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is unrestricted (asymmetrical) warfare at work. the war god has a new mask and is proudly sporting it. As history has repeatedly demonstrated, a superpower that fails to adopt to a new type of war - a type of war that becomes the norm - soon ceases to be a superpower.

We are locked in a mortal combat with an organization that sees us as a cancer to what they see is the ideal world.  We are in their way.  They are hell bent on re-creating the world, or “saving” us as they would argue.  Their warped version of their religion promises them the land of the infidels.  Their ultimate goal is to unite the world under the terrorist’s version of Islamic Law. 

To those that say that history does not give us precedence, or does not give us a hint as to how we should behave now, there are numerous instances in the past that give us guidance to what we should do now. 

For example,
Rome did not fall until her freedmen gave up the will to fight. I am not just talking about someone saying that they don’t feel like fighting because they are tired.  I am talking about a population that REFUSES to see the reasons to why a war should be fought.  The reasons could be arrogance, stubbornness, pure hatred of the warriors, their leaders, the system or way of life, or any combination of these and other reasons not listed here.

Like the Romans, we are at a crossroads.  The Celtic Tribes could have caused the Rome to fall centuries prior to its actual fall.  We keep on fighting and doing what we set out to do after 9/11, we will be doing what the Romans did when they took the fight to their enemies.  This action bought them five more centuries of existence.

Or we could do what the anti war people want us to do, which would be a mistake.  If we do this, two thousand years from now historians will be examining the drastic fall of the west the same way we examine the fall of the Roman Empire.
  The dark ages that fallow - after the West falls and the terrorists get their way - would make the medieval period look like a golden age. Remember, to them the ideal life is one that they had in the 7th century. In order to get there, we would have to be culturally be set back by 13 centuries. If this happens, anybody that hopes for “peace for all mankind” could forget about it.  Not only would we be in a perpetual dark age, but we would be perpetually factionalized like the Moors were.


_____________________________

As long as I have a face, beautiful women have a place to sit.

http://herfacechair.blogspot.com/ & http://twitter.com/herfacechair

Final Say: http://vox-ultima.blogspot.com/2011_08_01_archive.html

(in reply to IronBear)
Profile   Post #: 133
RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? - 5/24/2006 8:21:48 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
JohnWarren I could give similar quotes from Vietnam.  OOOPS we lost that one didn't we.

Militarily, we won it.  Matter of fact, the last of the US combat units departed Vietnam well before the fall of Saigon. 

The North Vietnamese knew that they could not take us on militarily.  They held out with hopes that the anti war movement in the U.S. would succeed and win the war for them on American soil.  It worked. 


quote:

By General Vo Nguyen Giap

If it were not for the disunity created by … stateside protests, Hanoi would have ultimately surrendered.


JohnWarren  Korea, a bloody tie settling nothing,

We were darn near pushed out to sea before that. It could have been worse, all of Korea could have been communist.

JohnWarren  The best way to look at war is to expect bad things to come from them.  Both during and after the fighting. 

Bad things do come from them, but many also result in good.  It was not enough that our founding fathers declare independence for example.  We had to be able to back that up.  Without war, we would not have gained our independence.  Keep in mind that there were lots of excuses and reasons given as to why we should not fight for independence. 

JohnWarren  That's why diplomacy is so damned important. 

We tried that with Saddam Hussein - since the cease fire of 91.  Keep in mind that the cease fire was a temporary break in war, not a declaration of peace.  We had the right to invade them the moment they violated their part of the agreement.  We tried for 12 years to get him to comply, yet it was a repeat of the same thing.  As the cliché goes, insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results.  We came out of this insanity on March of 2003, when we had enough.

JohnWarren  War is like a mutation.  99% of them are unqualified failures that lead to the death of the orgasm.

The 99% figure is stretching it.  But there are many wars that result in a winner and a loser and, as they say, to the victor goes the spoils.  The west has fought wars in the past and, well, look at us today.

JohnWarren  War is sometimes necessary, but leaders should think long and hard not only about "can we win" but about "what will be the cost." 

Through my readings of the following books: Murders on the Nile, Holy War Incorporated, Why We Fight, Open letters from Osama Bin Laden to the USA, and watching various Middle Eastern Tapes, a pattern sticks out.

The goals of our enemies can be laid out as follows:

1. To bankrupt Western Civilization, starting with the US.

2. To fracture Western Alliances, and that between the west and the Middle East.

3. To drive Western Civilization, Israel, and non Muslims out of the Middle East.

4. To destabilize and overthrow the current Middle East governments.

5. To reacquire Andalusia (Spain), and re-establish the Original Caliphates from the Iberian Peninsula to the Middle East; with the addition of the Muslim lands from the Middle East to the Southern Philippines.
(read: Islamic Nation)
 
6. To suppress all opposition to their form of Islam internally and spread it externally throughout the world by force.

7. Expand the Islamic Caliphate beyond the original boundaries of the Moorish Caliphates and unite the world under the banner of Islam.

I highly recommend watching the whole clip, very revealing to those who have not come across something like this, especially at 3:30 and 4:10. He builds his case before that. 

The kinds of things that are said when they think the west is not listening in. :D


http://switch5.castup.net/frames/20...D=60227&ak=null

Remember the remarks of the Iranian president? About wiping Israel off the map? Here is another gem that you do not hear about on CNN:

http://www.isratv.com/video/filmpmwadsl.asx

Finally, the saying, “an enemy of my enemy is a friend”.  That is an Arabic one.  Also note that their method of warfare is Asymmetrical warfare.  This is warfare that uses non conventional tactics.  These guys are waging a type of war whose concepts are outside the imaginations of many westerners.  One person builds WMD, the other delivers them to the heart of the enemy and slaughters thousands or even millions.  The one that built the WMD has plausible deniability while the takes all the credit.  This is an example of asymmetrical warfare. 

History has frowned negatively on those who failed to adjust to new ways of carrying out warfare.  And this is what our enemies are relying on to get rid of an obstacle to carrying out their version of governing - the West. 

This is a life and death battle that we are engaged in.  The Iraq war, along with the greater war on terrorism, is a necessary war.


JohnWarren  While they are thinking about that I'd recommend their having the corpse of a burned little girl in one corner, a wheelbarrow of  "renten-marks," the amount needed to buy a loaf of bread in 1925 Germany in the other.

They should also imagine their wives or sisters being summarily executed because they were caught walking the sidewalk with men that were not their relatives.  They should imagine their daughters being kidnapped from their homes to be whored off to horny members of the militia.  They should imagine a Sesame Street episode where Big Bird tells kids that it is alright to slaughter people that transgress against them. 

Finally, they should imagine a world where natural law based governing systems doesn’t exist, where we are governed by strict Islamic law that makes the Taliban government look like a democracy.


JohnWarren  It should not be because a minority president wants to "make his bones."

Call him “minority president”, but bear in mind that unlike Clinton, he was able to receive a majority vote (2004), albeit a simple one.  This done with a record number of ballots cast in his favor. 

Second, this had nothing to do with him making bones about things that happened in the past.  Iraq was the logical next step on the War on Terrorism.  Just ask the Russians what it is like trying to wage a full blown war in Afghanistan.  Why take on a jihad in hostile terrain when we could draw that jihad to terrain more favorable to our forces? Going into Iraq was a smart move.  If we did not go into Iraq, we would have faced stiffer resistance in Afghanistan these past years. 


_____________________________

As long as I have a face, beautiful women have a place to sit.

http://herfacechair.blogspot.com/ & http://twitter.com/herfacechair

Final Say: http://vox-ultima.blogspot.com/2011_08_01_archive.html

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 134
RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? - 5/24/2006 8:22:53 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
ArtCatDom: I don't feel the comparison is at all apt.

The first post was a very good comparison, and it is justified given those that oppose this necessary action.

ArtCatDom: Iraq did not attack us.

To many people are in the conventional warfare mindset. In this mindset, a war takes place only in one country, or set of countries, where the visible threat lies. This is the kind of mindset that the terrorists expect us to have. Under asymmetrical warfare, you NEVER wage a war on the enemy in a way that the enemy expects you to wage that war.

Hannibal was an example of a man that utilized this concept. He was able to defeat one Roman legion after another by engaging the Romans with unconventional methods, or acts of war outside of conventional methods. One example was when he placed his weak troops in the middle of his formation to absorb the mass of the Roman army, which placed its strong troops in the middle.  The Romans followed the common/expected practice, Hannibal thought outside the box.  Right when the mass of the Roman army went pass Hannibal's flanks, which were stronger than their Roman counterparts, they closed in and trapped the Romans. He succeeded in slaughtering 10's of thousands of Romans in a single battle. In one battle alone, Hannibal's forces were able to kill over 80,000 troops.

How are Hannibal's concepts being applied today on a strategic level? The terrorists are entrenched in more than one country. Afghanistan represents the "weak" middle flank, which is supposed to absorb our military might and resources (just ask the Russians). In the meantime, Bin Laden succeeds in his decades long wish to obtain WMD, sneak it past our Southwest border (no matter how tight we seal it), and slaughter 10's of thousands of Americans in an American City. Iraq, Syria, Iran, form the flanks in this example.

Do we, put our strongest forward into the middle flank, or do we take out one of the flanks and upset the enemy commander's strategic plans? We did the latter by going into Iraq.

By going the Iraq route, we force the enemy away from their flanks and toward the battlefield that we have chosen.


ArtCatDom: Iraq was not engaging in drastic expansionism.

They invaded Kuwait under eerily similar excuses that the Germans used for taking one territory after another during the beginning of World War II.  They also invaded Iran in the early 80’s.  They had a track record.

ArtCatDom: Iraq had not aligned with other enemies with similar levels of aggression and expansion.

Under non asymmetrical warfare, this is the case, but the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) is an asymmetrical war.  Under asymmetrical warfare, the actions that Saddam engaged in did make him more of a threat to us than Hitler was.  He hosted terrorist conventions in Iraq, he made death to America threats, and he had full intentions of forging ahead with his WMD programs.  

Bin Laden was looking to get his hands on WMD, and was looking for ways to maximize his US kills.  Al-Qaeda did send people over to Iraq.  Around this time, Al-Qaeda removed Iraq from its sights, and the Salman Pak terror training camp was opened near Baghdad.  Hijacking aircraft with box cutters was one of the things that was taught at the terror training camp.  Iraq may not have had a direct involvement with 9/11, but that does not mean that there was no operational relationship between the two.  This alone is dangerous to our security when it comes to asymmetrical warfare.


ArtCatDom: Iraq did not have fully functional, let alone drastically expanding military.

Under asymmetrical warfare, you don’t need one.  One of the aims of asymmetrical warfare is to wage war with non military methods of war.  Saddam did not have the power projection that the U.S. has, but with a terrorist group willing to cross our southern border and commit a homicide terrorist attack, he had the means of hitting us where it hurt.  Remember, Bin Laden was looking for WMD, and members of his organization were ready to deliver said WMD to its target via a suicide attack. 

ArtCatDom: To compare a war rooted in a very real and direct threat to one based on vague suppositions, jumps to conclusions and selective attention is a weak arguement. You're right, you have to take the full context into consideration. In full context, the comparison doesn't hold.

Hitler did not send bombers to our shores.  I don’t know of a U.S. city that was leveled by German V2 rockets, or by the German Air force.  The Japanese did attack us from their submarines, and using balloons, but these were not effective.  But with a suitcase nuclear weapon, a terrorist has the ability to do what the Germans and Japanese wished they could do during World War II. Iraq’s failure to live up to its end of the cease fire agreement RE WMD posed a very real threat to our security.

_____________________________

As long as I have a face, beautiful women have a place to sit.

http://herfacechair.blogspot.com/ & http://twitter.com/herfacechair

Final Say: http://vox-ultima.blogspot.com/2011_08_01_archive.html

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 135
RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? - 5/24/2006 8:25:11 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
NeedToUseYou: I don't see how history really plays a role

History gives us precedence, we already have stores of human activity and counter activity that took place in the past.  What happens when you let one country up and capture another region that is normally not its own? We could have found out if we did not care if Iraq took Kuwait or not, but we had a precedent before that - appeasement and World War II. 

Then we had the 9/11 attacks.  If you take the terrorist attacks from the last three decades, there is a general trend of increased violence and increased kill efficiency.  We lose an embassy here and there, have some military installations hit.  Then we have airliners slam into our buildings.  What is stopping the next terrorist to come into our borders with a biological or chemical agent ready to use to kill thousands of people? What is stopping someone from walking not far from the Capitol, saying “God is Great”, operating some controls in his briefcase, releasing a mushroom cloud?

HMMM, where could he get such technology? Bin Laden was on the lookout for such, Sadman refused to come clean with his.  After 9/11, we could not take any chances.


NeedToUseYou: As in we need to stop Iran from making nuclear weapons for the sake of everyone in the world barring other crazy dictators.

Here is an interesting Devils Advocate monkey wrench.  The world’s militaries have emergency destruction and evacuation procedures to prevent the enemy from getting their hands on the sensitive weapons.   Iraq did it, I refuse to believe the nonsense that he did not have WMD because a limited search of the country turned up nothing.  It is simple military common sense to move classified weapons away from possible capture. 

What is stopping the Iranians from doing the same thing? The world could close ranks, send their militaries in, and find nothing substantiating an Iranian nuclear weapon program beyond what has already been seen. 

Who is up for dealing with Iran the way the anti war folk claim we should have done to Iraq? Anybody?


NeedToUseYou: No I think it's foolish to wait for someone to strike us, but history doesn't tell us that.

Over two millennia ago, the Romans were facing a threat to their survival.  Raids by tribes outside their boarders were threatening their survival.  Tired of waiting for more raids, which could have brought Rome to an early end, the Romans decided to take the fight to the barbaric tribes.  The threat was neutralized and the Romans bought five more centuries of existence. 

The Europeans made a similar move in relation to the Moors during the middle Ages.  The Moors were set to overrun western Europe, but they were stopped.  The Europeans were not content with just holding the area where they stopped the invasion.  They lobbed raids into the Iberian peninsula.  Then we had the reconquista and the crusades. 

We are in a similar situation today, where we face threats to our existence as a civilization and culture.  Sitting back and waiting for a threat to materialize would not be acceptable, given what happened in 9/11.


_____________________________

As long as I have a face, beautiful women have a place to sit.

http://herfacechair.blogspot.com/ & http://twitter.com/herfacechair

Final Say: http://vox-ultima.blogspot.com/2011_08_01_archive.html

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 136
RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? - 5/24/2006 8:27:16 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
NeedToUseYou: It's strange how we beat the germans using the most brutal methods possible, and haven't heard a peep from them since, We nuked Japan and they've been a perfect country. But everywhere we don't fight a brutal efficient war like Iraq and vietnam. We get into protracted battles, and the casualties mount and progress stalls. My view is if you're going to war go to freakin war, don't pussy foot around. We did it properly at the opening of the war, but then became to focused on winning the hearts and minds of the populace. Sorry, but you win the obedience of the populace by moving fast hitting hard and scaring the crap out them. That's the way real wars work.

Germany was not clean after World War II as many believe.  After the Germans surrendered, we fought an insurgency there for two to three years.  There was a terrorist group called the SS Werewolf.  They carried many of the same tactics the Iraqi insurgents carried out.  They mined the roads that the allies used, they strung decapitation wires, they assassinated Germans that helped the allies out, etc.  The German that organized them believed that he could use terror tactics to intimidate the people from helping the allies, to get the allies to become brutal in their retaliation, thus causing the Germans to sympathize with the SS Werewolf.  Germany did not fully recover until years later.  The Iraqis are politically and economically further ahead now than the Germans were at this point after the end of WW II in Europe.

_____________________________

As long as I have a face, beautiful women have a place to sit.

http://herfacechair.blogspot.com/ & http://twitter.com/herfacechair

Final Say: http://vox-ultima.blogspot.com/2011_08_01_archive.html

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 137
RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? - 5/24/2006 8:29:40 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
meatcleaver: The invasion of Iraq was dumb because it was unnecessary,

It was necessary.  Saddam had full intentions of carrying his WMD ambitions to fruit.  He made death to America threats and hosted terrorist conventions in Iraq.  As far as he was concerned, the Gulf War never ended and he was at war with America.  He wanted to bring his ambitions - RE WMD - to maturity and Bin Laden was looking for an opportunity to use WMD.  Saddam, meet Bin Laden, Bin Laden, meet Saddam, time to light the fireworks.

One of the many reasons to why the invasion of Iraq was not dumb is because there is a strategic advantage to our going into Iraq. If we did not go there, we would be fighting the insurgency in Afghanistan, not in Iraq. Had this been the case, the environment would have been in their favor, not ours! Just talk to the Russians that fought there.  Afghanistan is called the graveyard of empires, ask the Russians for clarification.


meatcleaver: the lid was shut firmly on Saddam and he couldn't make a move.

Not true.  The sanctions were being violated, people were making out with lucrative deals.  Then we had the Oil for Food scandal witch helped violated the integrity of the sanctions that we had in place. 

He did not need a conventional army to make a threatening move against the US.  Just ask former President Clinton:


http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

“And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them”

How would he deploy and use them?

Conventional methods: Military platforms against neighbors.

Asymmetrical methods: Members of Al-Qaeda’s Martyrdom brigades carry said WMD into U.S. territory to slaughter thousands of Americans.


_____________________________

As long as I have a face, beautiful women have a place to sit.

http://herfacechair.blogspot.com/ & http://twitter.com/herfacechair

Final Say: http://vox-ultima.blogspot.com/2011_08_01_archive.html

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 138
RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? - 5/24/2006 8:31:34 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
meatcleaver: He didn't have any WMD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Even Blair has apologized (OK in a very meally mouthed way) and admits there weren't any!

Actually, he did.  Both Sarin and Mustard gas are chemical weapons - thus WMD.  Both were found in Iraq.  The only thing that they did not find were WMD stockpiles. 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

Based on a limited search of the area, we can’t blanket an entire country and say that WMD does not exist. 

For example, prior to your seeing my first post, you did not have any evidence of my existence.  Does it follow that I did not exist before making my first post?

I left some Brazilian money on the dresser.  Later, when I came back to this dresser - where I thought they would be - they were not there.  I looked everywhere but could not locate them.  Does that mean that the Brazilian money that I left on the dresser does not exist? Even though I know for a fact that they do?

Even the last inspection team that we sent in could not rule out their being moved out of the country.


meatcleaver: As for making WMD, with the definition Bush and Blair had of WMD my daughter could make some with her chemistry kit!

If that is the case, then the military could use her, because the definition that they used fit with the description that I read in a military training manual.  I don’t recall making any such chemicals in Honors Chemistry back in High School.

meatcleaver: There is absolutely no evidence that Saddam had anything to do with terrorists.

http://www.defenddemocracy.org/research_topics/research_topics_show.htm?doc_id=283338&attrib_id=7580

quote:

One month ago, Jordan's King Abdullah explained to the Arabic-language newspaper al Hayat that his government had tried before the Iraq war to extradite Abu Musab al Zarqawi from Iraq. "We had information that he entered Iraq from a neighboring country, where he lived and what he was doing. We informed the Iraqi authorities about all this detailed information we had, but they didn't respond." He added: "Since Zarqawi entered Iraq before the fall of the former regime we have been trying to have him deported back to Jordan for trial, but our efforts were in vain."


And then there is this gem:

quote:

Beyond what people are saying about the Iraq-al Qaeda connection, there is the evidence. In 1992 the Iraqi Intelligence services compiled a list of its assets. On page 14 of the document, marked "Top Secret" and dated March 28, 1992, is the name of Osama bin Laden, who is reported to have a "good relationship" with the Iraqi intelligence section in Syria.


An interview with a guy that was involved with the Iraqi terror training camp:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html

quote:

What kind of training went on, and who was being trained?

Training is majorly on terrorism. They would be trained on assassinations, kidnapping, hijacking of airplanes, hijacking of buses, public buses, hijacking of trains and all other kinds of operations related to terrorism.


meatcleaver:  If you are refering to Al queda terrorists they were the enemy of Saddam!

This would be like denying that the U.S. and U.S.S.R. were allies during World War II because one was capitalist, the other communist, and they were enemies.  But, as an old Arab cliché goes, an enemy of my enemy is my friend.  Bin Laden hated the US more than he hated Sadman.  He even ordered his people not to attack Sadman and his assets.

meatcleaver:  In fact the Reagan administration had given far more weaponry to terrorists than Saddam and there is not much evidence he has given anything to terrorists.

That is arguable.  If you are talking about Afghanistan, we sent money to the Pakistanis, who disbursed the money and training to the Afghans. 

In Central America, it was the communist governments that were carrying out terrorist acts:


http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/18/interviews/sobalvarro

quote:

ORIGINAL: Former Contra

It was the repression carried out by the Sandinistas which forced me to take the decision to fight,


He also said this:

"One of these coordinators came to our house, and this person
turned out to be a Soviet, and in his speech he said that God didn't exist, that God was Fidel Castro, and that it was necessary to serve Fidel Castro; that the government of Nicaragua was at the disposal of Fidel Castro, and that it was necessary to serve the government, and all this kind of thing -- which we the Nicaraguans weren't used to, because we've been very Catholic, especially my family." Oscar Manuel Sobalvarro

History Note: Spain invaded Central America using Cuba as the Command Headquarters and the invasion launch point. That was like Hernando Cortez and company telling the Indians that they were no longer going to worship their ancestral gods, etc. History repeating itself.

Note: That was a Soviet agent involved in undermining a democratic country to replace it with a Soviet puppet one.
This, according to Colonel Stanislav Lunev, highest Russian GRU officer to defect to the United States, was a nationalist, or a member of the legions of Soviets sent out to third world countries to carry out Soviet policies. Many of them wore the uniforms of the "host" nations and fought as part of their units. The Soviets were making advances in our own back yard until the Gipper came along and changed that. :D

Here is another gem:


http://www.reds.msh-paris.fr/public...22/ds022-03.pdf

They came to power by force, but were voted out when their future was put in the hands of a free market type of selection.

meatcleaver: Lincoln was fighting a civil war and not invading another country, though maybe southerners think he was.

Doesn’t matter, he was still fighting a war.

meatcleaver: You had the resources to sustain yourselves in Vietnam but there comes a point when even the dumbest of the dumb realise they are that, just plain dumb!

We had the resources to sustain ourselves in Vietnam, yes.  During our military engagement, we wiped the floor with the North Vietnamese’s hind quarters.  Then we left things to the South Vietnamese and pulled our combat troops out after we forced the North to the negotiating table with our brutal bombardments. 

But thanks to the anti war activists here in the U.S., and their liberal allies in congress, those resources were cut off and the South was not able to hold up against the following northern invasion.


meatcleaver: Iraq is fucked up and it has been fucked up by the invasion, not by Saddam who had fucked it up enough but he wasn't a threat to the west.

From someone’s first hand account:

http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.18615/article_detail.asp

quote:

Our editor returned to Iraq in April and May of 2005 for another embedded period of reporting. I could immediately see improvements compared to my earlier extended tours during 2003 and 2004. The Iraqi security forces, for example, are vastly more competent, and in some cases quite inspiring. Baghdad is now choked with traffic. Cell phones have spread like wildfire. And satellite TV dishes sprout from even the most humble mud hovels in the countryside.


meatcleaver: I know American brass thought the invasion was dumb or at least that was the reports we received over here and I know the British military thought the invasion was just plain dumb because there was no idea what to do about Iraq once they had it.

If you are talking about the few retired generals - as far greater number that we have - that spoke up, even they are allowed to have an opinion.  Our press has a bad habit of giving heavier weight and voice to the dissenters than they do to the ones that support the effort.  The majority of the active flag officers were in favor of the invasion.

_____________________________

As long as I have a face, beautiful women have a place to sit.

http://herfacechair.blogspot.com/ & http://twitter.com/herfacechair

Final Say: http://vox-ultima.blogspot.com/2011_08_01_archive.html

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 139
RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? - 5/24/2006 8:33:18 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: skosterow

My post will be short and sweet:

MARINES DIE - BECAUSE BUSH LIES!

- S.S. Kosterow, Gunnery Sergeant, USMC


George Bush did not lie. In order for one to lie, they would have to deliberately give out information they knew for a fact was wrong. However, the information that the president gave out was matched by the information that other nations – friends or foe – had.

If intelligence prior to the invasion indicated that he had an X amount of WMD and they were at Y location, and they were subsequently moved out of country January 2003, this intelligence report automatically becomes wrong effective January 2003.
 
The last inspection team that we sent in refused to rule out the possibility that they were moved out. Intelligence services of foreign countries indicate that this is what happened. The fact of the matter is that some of his inventory is not accounted for.

Another point to note here is that we found things buried in the desert that we did not know were there until they were brought to our attention.  The fact of the matter is that none of the inspection teams dug up every square inch of soil on Iraqi territory.


History has fatally frowned on those that assumed that a weapon did not exist simply because said weapon was not sighted.

Thought you would read what this marine said:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-05-18-connable_x.htm

quote:

Written by Major Ben Connable

But as a professional, I have the luxury of putting politics aside and focusing on the task at hand. Protecting people from terrorists and criminals while building schools and lasting friendships is a good mission, no matter what brush it's tarred with.


Both inspection teams sent in found elements of a WMD program, both mustard and sarin gas have been found in Iraq.

Let us put this into perspective using history.  Columbus planed on sailing straight to the Indies (Asia) by going west.  In the interim, he ran into the Americas.  Did it follow that he lied about being able to sail straight to the Indies?

Our ancestors used to believe that the universe and everything went around the Earth.  They voiced such.  When it was subsequently reasoned that the Earth went around the sun, did it automatically follow that the earlier people lied about the universe going around the Earth?

Going back to my Brazilian money.  I left them on the dresser.  Months later, I came back and they were not there.  Had I told someone to go to the dresser and retrieve the money prior to my discovering that they were not there, does it follow that I lied about the money being there in the first place?

In order to lie, you have to outright say things that you know for a fact is false.  The vast majority of Americans shared Bush’s views back in 2003.  George Bush did not do lie.


_____________________________

As long as I have a face, beautiful women have a place to sit.

http://herfacechair.blogspot.com/ & http://twitter.com/herfacechair

Final Say: http://vox-ultima.blogspot.com/2011_08_01_archive.html

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 140
Page:   <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109