RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

herfacechair -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/24/2006 9:17:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronBear

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.... 


Whether he is in the military or not is a non argument.  Had he been in the military, having served more than one tour in Iraq, what would have been said then?

Not saying that you do this, but I have witnessed numerous occasions where active military were accused of towing the line fed to them by their senior officers simply because they argued for the war.  It did not matter if they served in Iraq or not.  They have even been accused of being brainwashed. 

Now, for your theory to be true, the following, in red, should not have happened:

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Major Ben Connable

Believing in the mission, many Marines volunteered to return. I again found myself in the division headquarters.


And then there is this gem:

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Major Ben Connable

Nothing any talking head will say can deter me or my fellow Marines from caring about the people of Iraq, or take away from the sacrifices of our comrades. Fear in the face of adversity is human nature, and many people who take the counsel of their fears speak today. We are not deaf to their cries; neither do we take heed. All we ask is that Americans stand by us by supporting not just the troops, but also the mission.



herfacechair -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/24/2006 9:19:34 PM)

JohnWarren: Not to mention afterwards when you sit down and write those letters to wives and mothers who aren't going to see their loved ones again.  And, you lie through your teeth.... "and he died instantly."

First, he did not lie.  Second, not all gold star families see this in a negative light.  Cindy Sheehan does not represent every mother that have lost a son or daughter at war.  Matter of fact, there were a group of gold star mothers that crashed Cindy’s protest.



herfacechair -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/24/2006 9:21:10 PM)

quote:

MasterGentry:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12777489/
  Some folks have accused Me of intolerance on certain subjects and I've agreed with them on some of their points, but this is a subject that has My B/P spiking near the volatile verbiage stage.
   If you consider yourself an American, proud or not, if you consider yourself patriotic, flag waver or not, if you detest war and its consequences or happily unaware, I offer that your an unconcerned and overly indulged toe-jam scout if you refuse to pass this message onto at least one other group, mailing list, or booty call list.
Gentry


22 committed suicide out of how many that are deployed there as of the year of their suicides? From reading the article, those appear to be isolated incidents.

Also, keep in mind that when someone says they are going to “kill” themselves, they end up getting evaluated.  Even in boot camp, you had folks threaten to kill themselves.  They were taken to a shrink and evaluated.  Some cases were genuine, others were not.  The Article does not go into detail in each case. 



herfacechair -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/24/2006 9:22:45 PM)

philosophy: As to your suggestion that the recent military operations are all part of a War on Terror......well, i'm afraid that even a cursory glance at world history and politics suggests that isn't true.

A cursory glance at world history shows that this type of war is different from the types of wars that we have engaged in the past.  The War on Terror is an asymmetrical war, not a symmetrical one such as World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, etc. 

There are some aspects of past warfare that give guidance to this current one.  But we are comparing two different beasts. 

A cursory glance at world history will also show you that the history frowns on those that fail to grasp a new face of war.  The Romans learned the hard way with Hannibal. 

80,000 Romans slaughtered in one battle - because the centurionate failed to grasp a method outside of their frequency bandwidth.  Hannibal used a version of asymmetrical war by placing the strongest on the flanks and the weakest in the middle, creating a trap that he used to score victory after victory. 

The Global War on Terrorism is a new phase of war.

philosophy: If this were a war on terror then we could expect America to at the very least withdraw support from regimes that use terror tactics against civilian populations. They haven't done so, therefore there is no war on terror.....merely a series of wars against regimes that would be strategically useful if they were more onside. Iran or Syria next.......however not Zimbabwe because that has no strategic use to America.

Our war is a war against terrorists with global reach and any member of their network.  It is mainly against radical Islamic terrorists.  Now, we may come to a situation where we need to use divide and conquer.  Unlike Iran or Syria, Zimbabwe does not pose an asymmetrical threat against us. 

For a true understanding of the nature of the warfare that we are involved with now, I highly recommend reading the book, Unrestricted Warfare, by Colonels Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui.  Dammed good book. 



herfacechair -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/24/2006 9:24:58 PM)

MsMacComb: Sorry, but I didnt ever see your reply stating what branch of the armed services you were in or are still in? One would assume you must be writing us from Iraq as you are such a staunch supporter of this idiotic war.

Whether he is in the military or not is beside the point. There are people posting on the Protest Warrior Message Board (Liberty Forum) who are (1) staunch supporters of this necessary - not idiotic - war, who are (2) posting from Iraq, CENTCOM area of responsibility, other forward deployed locations.  Both active duty and veterans are arguing for the war on that forum.  There are also those that oppose.

The posters on this specific message board who are veterans do not represent the U.S. Military.  I have noticed that they do represent what appears to be the majority opinion on this message board. 

Besides, had he been posting from Iraq, some would have accused him of towing the “corporate” line of his superiors or worse, that he was brainwashed and that he needed to start thinking for himself because, “military folk just follow orders”.

A person’s attempt to downplay the arguments of a non veteran in reference to his support for the war would be like someone downplaying the arguments of the anti war people who have yet to go to Iraq to be human shields. This type of argument works both ways. 



herfacechair -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/24/2006 9:27:20 PM)

meatcleaver: They attacked a civil facility which is terrorism in anyones book and killed innocent civilians not military personel.

The Israelis attacked on a day they knew that the French were going to take the day off.  This shows the Israeli intention of reducing civilian casualties.  Intelligence confirmed Iraq’s intentions to use the technology to create nuclear weapons, prompting the Israelis to attack. 

meatcleaver: The facility was built by France to house a French reactor!!!!

To do what? Provide nuclear power to the French?

One could argue, like the Iranians are currently doing, that the facility was going to be only for peaceful purposes.  But again, in a country with oil resources, what use would they have of a nuclear reactor?  

meatcleaver: The attack was unprovoked and France was thinking of retaliation.

Intelligence that the Israelis had at the time pointed it out as a threat.  Others may say what they will about Israeli intelligence efforts, but they have a dammed good INTEL collection and analysis program.  I don’t blame them, the survival of their nation depends on it. 

meatcleaver: As for having no moral compunction about killing other Arabs, I have seen little moral compunction by the USA when it comes to looking after its interests.

This is a red herring statement.  DelightMachine did bring up a good point about potential nuclear weapons in Sadman’s hands.  Killing Arabs did not faze him.  He attacked two neighbors in the region, and used WMD extensively in the protracted war that resulted from one of the wars.  If he had no problem killing other Arabs, what’s stopping him from, say, wiping Tel Aviv of the map?

Heck, the Israelis were not the only ones that were concerned about destroying the nuclear reactor.  The Iranians made an attempt to destroy it during the Iraq-Iran war. 

meatcleaver: Your world is completely American-centric. Other people to you seem to do things for no other motivation or reason other than they are bad or evil, while the US always reacts out of self defence or for superior moral reasons.

That is not what I am reading in his posts.  He is not denying that every nation on Earth is going to pursue its interests, nor is he denying the fact that if North America were to sink beneath the waves, another nation would step in and do the exact things that we are doing.

What he is pointing out is that people should look at the bigger picture of what is going on in the Middle East and elsewhere.

meatcleaver:  I suggest you get a passport and travel around the world and see what the USA and its businessmen are doing in YOUR name.

What the U.S. is doing overseas in terms of business is no different than what other countries are doing.  Every major industrialized nation is taking advantage of resources and cheap labor in developing countries. 

Does it harm these countries? Lets see…

The “cheap” payroll that our companies give them far exceeds what they would get paid by non foreign employers. And get this, these “sweat shops” are relatively safer than what these workers would encounter in the fields. 

Don’t believe me? Rice is grown in plots of farm land that have standing water.  The water is murky most of the time.  You don’t know what is under all of that water.  In Thailand for example, you could inadvertently plant the rice right on top of a king cobra that was swimming past you. 

So, Joe Farmer generally gets paid less for his produce, risks sickness, or death in the hands of a wild animal, works from sun up to sun down, while Joe Shmoe working in the sweat shop gets paid better, works less hours, and has more time to spend with his family.

Environmental standards? In some of these countries, the family landfill is right in the back yard.  The toilet is anywhere you could dig a temporary hole, or anywhere you could plant your logs.  Sewage is transported straight from your home to visible canals right next to the street.  The corporate environmental standards are a step up in many of these countries. 

In the long run, what businessmen and women from all around the world are doing in other parts of the world will have an overall positive impact on the global economy.

meatcleaver:  You might realise that terrorism does not exist because certain people are intrinsically evil but they are reacting (albeit in a warped way) to things that are done to them and their people.

Now, instead of rebutting this, I will post another comment that supports what is being said here:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: Osama Bin Laden

(d) You steal our wealth and oil at paltry prices because of you international influence and military threats. This theft is indeed the biggest theft ever witnessed by mankind in the history of the world.

(e) Your forces occupy our countries; you spread your military bases throughout them; you corrupt our lands, and you besiege our sanctities, to protect the security of the Jews and to ensure the continuity of your pillage of our treasures.

(f) You have starved the Muslims of Iraq, where children die every day. It is a wonder that more than 1.5 million Iraqi children have died as a result of your sanctions, and you did not show concern. Yet when 3000 of your people died, the entire world rises and has not yet sat down.

(g) You have supported the Jews in their idea that Jerusalem is their eternal capital, and agreed to move your embassy there. With your help and under your protection, the Israelis are planning to destroy the Al-Aqsa mosque. Under the protection of your weapons, Sharon entered the Al-Aqsa mosque, to pollute it as a preparation to capture and destroy it.


Here is a part of the “solution” to end terror attacks against us, part I:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: Osama Bin Laden

(Q2) As for the second question that we want to answer: What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.


After the terrorist attacks on 9/11, Bin Laden thought that they were going to run out of Qur’an’s on the account that demand for them in America was going to “skyrocket”. 

For the women reading this who oppose this war, here is food for thought:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Osama Bin Laden

(d) The American people are the ones who employ both their men and their women in the American Forces which attack us.


If the Taliban are an example of what terrorists, not just Al-Qaeda, have in plan for when the world is unified under the banner of their version of Islam, you as women would not be entitled to the rights that you have right now. 

And for the women shaking their heads and saying that Iraq did not attack us, that it was Al-Qaeda, I highly encourage you to read the statement made by the two Chinese colonels that wrote Unrestricted Warfare (posted in one of my earlier posts).  Listen to the video clip where the cleric talks about “Ruling over America” (Also posted in one of my earlier posts).  Then read Bin Laden’s letter in its entirety. 



herfacechair -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/24/2006 9:30:33 PM)

IronBear: Got a question for you DM. In 'Nam we opperated well into North Vietnam uniudentifiable combat clothes, non US weaponary. Nothing to tie us to the US at all.. We subverted, spied, or collected valuable intel if you prefer, either assinated or set up local government officials so they were executed as traitors, bombed instiulatiuons and generally did what many terrorists do today... We also lived and worked with Montenyard tribsman who were fighting  for their freedom.... Now in todays terminology we were running covert opperations and black opps working and living with local Freedom Fighters..... In you opinion, were we Terrorists????

My dad did 6 combat tours in Vietnam, first as UDT and later as a SEAL.  Now, based on what he told us, I am going to add some perspective to what you described here.  The way that this statement is written, it is very loaded.

First, people targeted were people that were working for the enemy.  They were a part of the enemy’s plan against the allies.  This was determined by constant surveillance.  For example, a SEAL “merging” with a ditch and not flinching or moving (even if bugs decided to turn them into a major highway network) watched what went on for hours.  He would determine behaviors and patterns, watched for who did what, and who were the real bad guys.  Then they did their targeting from there.

Second, you were carrying out ops under the payroll and order of a government against targeted enemies who were involved with acts of war against your unit. 

The definition of terrorism:  http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorism

quote:

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.


You were not making an ideological or political statement.  You were carrying out acts of war against a group of people involved with carrying out acts of war against the U.S. military, South Vietnamese Military, and their allies.  

So no, you were not a terrorist.



herfacechair -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/24/2006 9:31:50 PM)

IronBear: It is because people debate such things, some with passion and some without, both here and in other forums and hopefully take their debates to local debates on the same or similar areana that we are able to express our views to those in power. What would you rather do, make you views known to those in the position to make chganges and possibly effect the way things are or sit like a timid mouse and let others make your decisions for you and cry in the dark whan things goe pear shaped aboput you and die wondering if you could have made a difference?????

If she wanted to express her views to those in power, she could always write to her senators and congressmen/women.  She could also start a petition to get a bill introduced for debate.  This would be a more direct and effective use of her time than, say, arguing on one of the thousands of forums on the Internet.

Debating on the Internet gives the public another forum to express their views, but just debating on these forums in hopes that it will indirectly lead to those in higher power is just as bad as sitting around, not expressing ones views, and crying when things don’t turn out just right.  



herfacechair -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/24/2006 9:33:00 PM)

Mercnbeth: MTV had more to do with the collapse of the Soviet system than President Reagan saying; "Mr Gorbachev, tear down that wall!" The "wall" was already down. Most of Russia, through the internet, and other "Western" sources had internal pressure to change.

There is allot more that lead to the fall of the Soviet Union than just MTV.  Socialistic economies are very inefficient.  During the 60’s and 70’s, the Soviets ramped up their military production so that they could surpass us militarily.  Ronald Reagan knew that they could not sustain this on their economy. 

His plan called for constricting the Soviet Union from lucrative money earning deals from the west, Radio and TV broadcasts in to the Iron Curtain, and a military buildup that would force them to go into overdrive in their attempts to keep up with us. He knew that they would fracture and fall apart once this happened.

The Soviets got to a point to where they were ahead of us militarily- but they were taking great strains on their economy.  We did not even get started, and we had the ability to surpass them without breaking a sweat.

Ronald Reagan knew that.  Their war in Afghanistan did not help them.  When the Soviets tried to end that war honorably, Ronald Reagan pounced on them.  Not only did he want to pay the Soviets back for Vietnam, but he also wanted to force another strain on their economy. 

The straw that broke the Camel’s back for the Soviets was when Reagan walked away from the negotiating table.  The Soviets were desperate to the point that they came up with a deal where they would have came out as the losers in the agreement, giving everything up but the kitchen sink.  If only we would stop with our Star Wars program.

Whether Star Wars was doable or not was up in the air.  But to the Russians, we could do anything technological.  They were more confident than we were that we could make it work.  They did not know the doubts that our scientist had of having something workable in the near future. 

But their assumption that we would succeed pressured them to keep up.  They knew that if we succeeded with Star Wars, the U.S. would be the sole strategic power on the planet.  Ronald Reagan walked away from the negotiating table when he was asked to sacrifice Star Wars in exchange for all the concessions that Russians were willing to give.

The Soviets had no choice but to try to keep up, which weakened them in the long run, allowing internal efforts to succeed from within.

According to Colonel Stanislav Lunev, highest ranking GRU officer to defect to the U.S., our policies toward the Soviet Union contributed to the success of the internal efforts that caused the Soviet Union to break up. 



herfacechair -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/24/2006 9:34:22 PM)

JohnWarren: I suspect many of the  people who lived through those times also came to realize there is "no perfect safety" :the mantra of the Right ("we can give you safety.")  The solution is not to bomb to rubble or to arrest indiscriminately, but careful, targeted police work coupled with diplomatic alliances.

No, that is not what the right is advocating, IE, “we can give you safety”.  Our attitude is that we will deal with threats in a practical manner.  And we will do it to increase our relative safety.  We know that we won’t be able to get absolute security.

We are engaged in a fluid war that uses fluid tactics.  This fluidity extends to alliances as well.  The idea that the exact same allies will show up in every action taken in the world is outdated.  What I am talking about here are COLD war type alliances like NATO.  The coalition of the willing fits the 21st century more on the account of the ever shifting nature of the war we are fighting. 

Police work was not effective with Taliban Afghanistan.  There is only so much that police work and serving court papers could do in the War on Terrorism, unless you are raiding terror cells in your own country.



prettyinchains -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/24/2006 9:34:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

Kedikat  The best way to win a war is to avoid it.

In order to win a war, you have to fight one.  You don’t win a war if you are not engaged in one.  Avoiding a war is not always the best policy either.  Iraq was playing games for 12 years, their leader was pursuing WMD programs, while the terrorist group that slaughtered thousands of people on American soil is actively seeking WMD.   We could try to avoid war alright but….


Interesting thread, I am borrowing My little girls persona to make this post.

Yes the best way to win a war is to avoid a war, but if you insist on fighting it, then fight it.

Daddy Bush was interveiwed the december before W went for Bagdad and he was asked; why when we had Saddam on the ropes after Kuwait , why we did not go for the kill and take Bagdad. His reply was simple and to the point, he said that while we could take Bagdad easily enough there was, after much analysis,  there was no way to extract our troops from Iraq once we had taken Bagdad. Something that W apparently never heard Daddy say.

That said  how to win a war you are in. It is easy, there are a few simple rules. The 1st being there are no rules. The American military took Bagdad in record time,  but essentially all they did was play capture the flag. They made a beeline for Bagdad and declared victory. After making an end run around and by countless thousands of enemy troops. Who once they saw that America was going to capture their flag simply removed their uniforms and melted away into the underground. A war has to be fought like a street fight, it has to be fought until someone stays down for the count. It cannot be fought with press riding along and filming every little thing that occurs. Hell saddam was watching CNN and using it to save what resources he had left.

We are at the moment stuck, we cannot get out of Iraqi, easily or safely, to pull out now would result in loses to our troops that are unwarranted and unnecessary. We need to do an about face, since we are there, and destroy verything that stands against us. It may sound harsh, but the last war that anyone really one WW2 was fought this way. It is the only way to win a war you are in.

We have time after time squandered our chances to show our resolve and dedication to the Iraqi's, the Iranian's, and the rest of the world. An example was early on in Falouja <sp>, here was an area that contained many enemy combatants. Along with many civilians, we had the troops and equipment to completely surround the town, to put forth an ultimatum. Simply come out, if you are a civilian, show your identification and we will take care of you, if you are not we will arrest you. You have 48 hours, then we will level the town, period. No discussion, no negotiation, daisy cutters for everyone. And what did we do? Stand around and let everyone we were after, again melt away.

We are not in a boxing match with Maquis of Queensburt rules we are, now in a dual to the death, but W has forgotten that. Iraqi served it's purpose, it got him a second term.

Take a page from Sunzi's Art of War. It applies to the middle eastern culture. You have to kill your enemy, his family, his friends, the people he owes money to and those who owe him money. Because if you kill the man you make enemies of the rest. W made enemies of a billion people,  now we have to live with the results.

We should have attacked Canada, they are our largest supplier of oil, then swept south and taken Mexico and worked our way down to Tierra Del Fuego and let the rest of the world rot. Hell we could have bought Russia to boot.


Just a random thought, we are all worried about suicide bombers, perhaps we need to hold auditions in the local nut houses and recruit some of our own. How would the terriorists react to being terrorized?


I wish we were not there, but we are. So win it, period. Quite bitching about who is at fault or to blame, W, Clinton, Daddy Bush or even Ronnie. Western civilization has pissed upon the heads of the arabs for hundreds of years and we are surprised that they are a bit pissed off???????


If it hadn't been for 9/11 W would have been a one trick pony, like Daddy.


Y'all have an intersting thread going here, have fun with it.


As I said I just borrowed this persona to post here, My views do not reflect pretty's views.



herfacechair -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/24/2006 9:36:49 PM)

DelightMachine: Why is it that so many people on these boards believe that someone has to have a certain set of experiences in order to be able to make a sound judgment? How ridiculous.

On this and other message boards, active/reserve/vets arguing for the war tend to be accused of being brainwashed and not thinking for themselves.  Or they are simply saying what their superiors want them to say.  (As if promotion boards plow through Internet forums in search of what potential selectees say under a “clever” nickname.) It is one of those blank if you do, blank if you don’t situations.



herfacechair -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/24/2006 9:38:14 PM)

meatcleaver: France had every right to build a civil nuclear power station for Iraq. It had every right to retaliate against Isreal if it so desired because Isreal was the country that carried out an action of aggression.

Again, why would France need a civil nuclear reactor in Iraq? Why not build that reactor in France? It would be more efficient both output wise and cost wise.  If they were doing it for the Iraqis, then they were getting paid by the Iraqi government in one way or another.

Israel had every right to attack a nuclear reactor in a country of a madman who had no remorse over killing his own country men.  Iraq was one of the countries that attacked Israel in the past.  The idea that a oil country needs a nuclear power plant for electricity raises red flags for some reason.

meatcleaver: You make assumptions of aggressive intentions were there is no evidence.

Intelligence indicated that Iraq had intentions of making nuclear bombs.  With the completion of the reactor, creating nuclear weaponry would have been within reach.  Given the attitude of many neighboring Arab countries toward Israel during that time, I don’t blame the Israelis for doing what they did.

meatcleaver: No doubt you are a Republican, you obviously think like one and have their limited grasp of international diplomacy.

The republicans have a better grasp of international diplomacy and policy than the democrats.  Allowing a country to run circles around you is not suave diplomacy.  It is taking the insane approach.  (Definition of insanity, doing the same thing and expecting different results). 

Good diplomacy does not entail putting our own interests below that of other allies so that we could continue having a potential threat to our security. 

We had a choice, improving our security lot, or allowing that security threat to fester so that our allies can continue making money illegally.  I vote for our security interests. 

meatcleaver: If you believe in the right to attack on suspicion then the terrorists on 9/11 were not terrorist but making a premptive defencive strike.

No, they were not making a preempting defensive strike.  They were obviously waging a war against us.  Al-Qaeda lobbed a series of attacks against us throughout the 90’s.  They carried out these attacks before we sent our first cruise missiles against them.  And they did these attacks because of perceived grievances. 

Saddam was not just a matter of suspicion.  To him, the Gulf War never ended.  He hosted radical terrorist conventions and made “Death to America” speeches.  He played games with the UN in reference to the WMD programs.  Bin Laden was - and still is - shopping for WMD.  It was a simple matter of connecting the dots.



herfacechair -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/24/2006 9:39:50 PM)

DelightMachine: Have you actually listened to the mad president of Iraq?

He made a lot of death to America speeches.  I also read that he allegedly made this statement during an interview: “Of course I don’t have a nuclear bomb! If I did, I would send it straight to Washington DC!”



herfacechair -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/24/2006 9:41:01 PM)

IronBear: I insulted you? Bloody hell 90% of your posts are an insult to my intelligence as well as that of many others here!

The real question is this, did he insult your intelligence - and that of many others here - or is he simply guilty of simply coming up with an opposing viewpoint?

DelightMachine did what most of the posters on this thread did not do, and that is present a well thought out, and logical argument against the points that were being made against him.  In fact, I would say that he did a good job in single handedly debunking the opposing side. 

I would also say that he is winning the debate with a reasoned argument.

On a different note, you need an opposing viewpoint to do this:

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronBear

It is because people debate such things, some with passion and some without, both here and in other forums and hopefully take their debates to local debates on the same or similar areana that we are able to express our views to those in power.


Those in power are entitled to both viewpoints, aren’t they? Assuming that this long cut method of getting this info to them is used?



herfacechair -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/24/2006 9:43:25 PM)

NeedToUseYou: hmmmm, this is strange, I read most of DM's threads and I haven't saw anything to rude.

Neither have I.  He was flamed and he flamed back, but other than that his posts were well through out.  It seams that his only guilt is that he is voicing an argument that is not shared by most of the posters on this thread.



herfacechair -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/24/2006 9:44:24 PM)

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

For what? Acting with the long term security interests - and survival - of this country in mind? Not happening.  But again, the UN could try to send a military to our shores to effect the capture.  They would have to do it without U.N. Security Council approval, as the U.S. and U.K. would veto such move.  Wouldn’t surprise me if the rest of the members of the U.N. Security Council shoot down such a move.

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

He he, this reminds me of another statement:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: Osama Bin Laden

If Sharon is a man of peace in the eyes of Bush, then we are also men of peace!!! America does not understand the language of manners and principles, so we are addressing it using the language it understands.



herfacechair -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/24/2006 9:45:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DelightMachine

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

On Israel. As an occupying power, under the UN charter, Israel has a duty of care for civilians under its occupation. It assassinates anyone it calls a militant without producing evidence,


They don't exactly have a government in the Palestine territories that is willing to arrest terrorists, do they? Israel is supposed to produce evidence that might get an informant killed? You do know what Palestinian mobs do to Palestinians they suspect of collaborating with Israel, don't you?


The Israelis have an excellent INTEL program going for them.  Those people that they are targeting? Actual terrorists plotting harm against Israel.  I saw BBC interviews with two of the leaders that were assassinated.  Both had no intentions of cooperating with Israel or working toward a peaceful solution.  They both advocated attacking Israel. 

Our media unfortunately doesn’t show the darker side of the Palestinians, so I thought that I would provide some links, very telling:

http://www.pmw.org.il

Click on “TV - Video Library” on upper left hand corner area

Click on “Topic I: Hamas in its own words.” (upper row)

Click on video “Post-Election Video: Gaza leads to Haifa”

To the Palestinians, ALL of Israel is “occupied” territories.



prettyinchains -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/24/2006 9:56:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

  During the 60’s and 70’s, the Soviets ramped up their military production so that they could surpass us militarily.  Ronald Reagan knew that they could not sustain this on their economy. 

His plan called for constricting the Soviet Union from lucrative money earning deals from the west, Radio and TV broadcasts in to the Iron Curtain, and a military buildup that would force them to go into overdrive in their attempts to keep up with us. He knew that they would fracture and fall apart once this happened.

Again I borrow My liitle girl's persona, these are My views not hers.

What Ronnie did is called an old fashioned pissing contest. Yes he helped bankrupt the Soviets, bravo. If they hadn't gone bankrupt we would have. Do you have any idea what the deficet was in this country when  the Soviet Union fell?


meatcleaver, you said that the reactor that the Israeli's crocked was built by the French.   So?

They were building a reactor capable of enriching uranium in violation of UN edicts. The Israeli's did the world a favor . Perhaps they need to do another in Iran?? 

Meat  do you know why the Israeli's did not partake in the Kuwait Offensive, one reason and one reason only. The US would  not give them the safe fly codes for their black boxes. In other words the US said to the Israeli's you fly and we will shoot you down.

As for the French retaliating against the State of Israel, I would have paid money to see that one. Hmmmm  Israeli bourdeau wine interesting,  the Tour De France would not be run on the sabbath. IMHO the French would have been the north bank.




JohnWarren -> RE: Incompetent administration, criminal war? (5/24/2006 9:59:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnWarren

What I found amazing was that the US administration said repeatedly they knew where the WMDs were and yet they couldn't turn over the information to Blix because his people weren't cleared for it.

At that point, I was certain the administration didn't know squat and was lying.  What I failed to understand was just how badly they were lying.


I don’t blame them for not wanting to turn over that information.  According to Colonel Stanislav Lunev, highest ranking GRU officer to defect to the U.S., there were spies among the first inspection team.  There is every reason to believe that there were spies in the second inspection team as well.  Even in the presentation that Powell gave to the UN, he showed the Iraqis clearing out a suspected location just prior to the inspection team arriving. 

Someone tipped them off.

Spies would be able to determine - in a heartbeat - what your surveillance capabilities were if you were to inform them where certain WMD was located. Telling Hans Blix where they were would have amounted to our shooting ourselves in the foot as warning would have been given to the suspected locations and the WMD would have been moved by the time the inspection teams got there. 


That might have been true if we had been telling the truth, but as we found out after being tricked into accepting an invasion, the Bush administration had no idea where any of the weapons were because there weren't any.

The reason they didn't tell was they were lying about their information and their capabilities.

By the way, forty one posts in less than an hour and a half all on the same topic.  Might I suspect some sort of group effort?   Is the Republican party getting nervous about poor little CollarMe?



Page: <<   < prev  6 7 8 [9] 10   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625