Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Hortlund on December 16, 2003, 03:37:52 PM
-
BY ORSON SCOTT CARD
Tuesday, December 16, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST
In one of Patrick O'Brian's novels about the British navy during the Napoleonic wars, he dismisses a particularly foolish politician by saying that his political platform was "death to the Whigs." Watching the primary campaigns among this year's pathetic crop of Democratic candidates, I can't help but think that their campaigns would be vastly improved if they would only rise to the level of "Death to the Republicans."
Instead, their platforms range from Howard Dean's "Bush is the devil" to everybody else's "I'll make you rich, and Bush is quite similar to the devil." Since President Bush is quite plainly not the devil, one wonders why anyone in the Democratic Party thinks this ploy will play with the general public.
There are Democrats, like me, who think it will not play, and should not play, and who are waiting in the wings until after the coming electoral debacle in order to try to remake the party into something more resembling America.
But then I watch the steady campaign of the national news media to try to win this for the Democrats, and I wonder. Could this insane, self-destructive, extremist-dominated party actually win the presidency? It might--because the media are trying as hard as they can to pound home the message that the Bush presidency is a failure--even though by every rational measure it is not.
And the most vile part of this campaign against Mr. Bush is that the terrorist war is being used as a tool to try to defeat him--which means that if Mr. Bush does not win, we will certainly lose the war. Indeed, the anti-Bush campaign threatens to undermine our war effort, give encouragement to our enemies, and cost American lives during the long year of campaigning that lies ahead of us.
Osama bin Laden's military strategy is: If you make a war cost enough, Americans will give up and go home. Now, bin Laden isn't actually all that bright; his campaign to make us go home is in fact what brought us into Afghanistan and Iraq. But he's still telling his followers: Keep killing Americans and eventually, antigovernment factions within the United States will choose to give up the struggle.
It's what happened in Somalia, isn't it? And it's what happened in Vietnam, too.
Reuters recently ran a feature that trumpeted the "fact" that U.S. casualties in Iraq have now surpassed U.S. casualties in the first three years of the Vietnam War. Never mind that this is a specious distortion of the facts, which depends on the ignorance of American readers. The fact is that during the first three years of the war in Vietnam, dating from the official "beginning" of the war in 1961, American casualties were low because (a) we had fewer than 20,000 soldiers there, (b) most of them were advisers, deliberately trying to avoid a direct combat role, (c) our few combat troops were special forces, who generally get to pick and choose the time and place of their combat, and (d) because our presence was so much smaller, there were fewer American targets than in Iraq today.
Compare our casualties in Iraq with our casualties in Vietnam when we had a comparable number of troops, and by every rational measure--casualties per thousand troops, casualties per year, or absolute number of casualties--you'll find that the Iraq campaign is far, far less costly than Vietnam. But the media want Americans to think that Iraq is like Vietnam--or rather, that Iraq is like the story that the Left likes to tell about Vietnam.
Vietnam was a quagmire only because we fought it that way. If we had closed North Vietnam's ports and carried the war to the enemy, victory could have been relatively quick. However, the risk of Chinese involvement was too great. Memories of Korea were fresh in everyone's minds, and so Vietnam was fought in such a way as to avoid "another Korea." That's why Vietnam became, well, Vietnam.
But Iraq is not Vietnam. Nor is the Iraq campaign even the whole war. Of course there's still fighting going on. Our war is against terrorist-sponsoring states, and just because we toppled the governments of two of them doesn't mean that the others aren't still sponsoring terrorism. Also, there is a substantial region in Iraq where Saddam's forces are still finding support for a diehard guerrilla campaign.
In other words, the Iraq campaign isn't over--and President Bush has explicitly said so all along. So the continuation of combat and casualties isn't a "failure" or a "quagmire," it's a "war." And during a war, patriotic Americans don't blame the deaths on our government. We blame them on the enemy that persists in trying to kill our soldiers.
Am I saying that critics of the war aren't patriotic?
Not at all--I'm a critic of some aspects of the war. What I'm saying is that those who try to paint the bleakest, most anti-American, and most anti-Bush picture of the war, whose purpose is not criticism but deception in order to gain temporary political advantage, those people are indeed not patriotic. They have placed their own or their party's political gain ahead of the national struggle to destroy the power base of the terrorists who attacked Americans abroad and on American soil.
Patriots place their loyalty to their country in time of war ahead of their personal and party ambitions. And they can wrap themselves in the flag and say they "support our troops" all they like--but it doesn't change the fact that their program is to promote our defeat at the hands of our enemies for their temporary political advantage.
Think what it will mean if we elect a Democratic candidate who has committed himself to an antiwar posture in order to get his party's nomination.
Our enemies will be certain that they are winning the war on the battleground that matters--American public opinion. So they will continue to kill Americans wherever and whenever they can, because it works.
Our soldiers will lose heart, because they will know that their commander in chief is a man who is not committed to winning the war they have risked death in order to fight. When the commander in chief is willing to call victory defeat in order to win an election, his soldiers can only assume that their lives will be thrown away for nothing. That's when an army, filled with despair, becomes beatable even by inferior forces.
-
When did we lose the Vietnam War? Not in 1968, when we held an election that hinged on the war. None of the three candidates (Humphrey, Nixon, Wallace) were committed to unilateral withdrawal. Not during Nixon's "Vietnamization" program, in which more and more of the war effort was turned over to Vietnamese troops. In fact, Vietnamization, by all measures I know about, worked.
We lost the war when the Democrat-controlled Congress specifically banned all military aid to South Vietnam, and a beleaguered Republican president signed it into law. With Russia and China massively supplying North Vietnam, and Saigon forced to buy pathetic quantities of ammunition and spare parts on the open market because America had cut off all aid, the imbalance doomed them, and they knew it.
The South Vietnamese people were subjected to a murderous totalitarian government (and the Hmong people of the Vietnamese mountains were victims of near-genocide) because the U.S. Congress deliberately cut off military aid--even after almost all our soldiers were home and the Vietnamese were doing the fighting themselves.
That wasn't about "peace," that was about political posturing and an indecent lack of honor. Is that where we're headed again?
This time an enemy attacked civilian targets on our soil. The enemy--a conspiracy of terrorists sponsored by a dozen or so nations and unable to function without their aid--was hard to attack directly; so the only feasible strategy was to remove, by force if necessary, the governments that sheltered and sponsored terrorism.
I would not have chosen Afghanistan and Iraq to start with; Syria, Iran, Sudan and Libya were much more culpable and militarily more important to neutralize as sponsors of terror. (They say that Libya and Sudan have changed their tune lately, but I have my doubts.)
But once we chose Afghanistan and Iraq, once we began a serious campaign, we must continue the war until we achieve our objective, which is to remove all the governments that sponsor terror, or convince the remaining sponsors of terror to absolutely, thoroughly, and completely reverse their policy and actively seek out and destroy all terrorists that once had safe harbor within their borders. Anything less, and all our effort--all those American lives--were wasted.
And in the midst of this global struggle, when both parties should have united, disagreeing at times about methods and priorities, but never about the steadfast will of the American people to see the war through to a successful conclusion, we find that the candidates of the party out of power are attacking the president for fighting the war at all, and are calling the war itself a "failure" even though there is no rational measure by which it can be said to have failed--especially since we're still fighting it.
In a war, the enemy probes for weaknesses, and always finds some. When they find a weakness in your positions, they teach you where it is by attacking there; then you learn, and strengthen that point or avoid that mistake. Meanwhile, you constantly probe the enemy for weakness. The result is that even when you are overwhelmingly victorious, the enemy still finds ways to inflict damage along the way.
The goal of our troops in Iraq is not to protect themselves so completely that none of our soldiers die. The goal of our troops is to destroy the enemy, some of whom you do not find except when they emerge to attack our forces and, yes, sometimes inflict casualties.
Our national media are covering this war as if we were "losing the peace"--even though we are not at peace and we are not losing. Why are they doing this? Because they are desperate to spin the world situation in such a way as to bring down President Bush.
It's not just the war, of course. Notice that even though our recent recession began under President Clinton, the media invariably refer to it as if Mr. Bush had caused it; and even though by every measure, the recession is over, they still cover it as if the American economy were in desperate shape.
This is the same trick they played on the first President Bush, for his recession was also over before the election--but the media worked very hard to conceal it from the American public. They did it as they're doing it now, with yes-but coverage: Yes, the economy is growing again, but there aren't any new jobs. Yes, there are new jobs now, but they're not good jobs.
And that's how they're covering the war. Yes, the Taliban were toppled, but there are still guerrillas fighting against us in various regions of Afghanistan. (As if anyone ever expected anything else.) Yes, Saddam was driven out of power incredibly quickly and with scant loss of life on either side, but our forces were not adequately prepared to do all the nonmilitary jobs that devolved on them as an occupying army.
Ultimately, the outcome of this war is going to depend more on the American people than anything that happens on the battlefield. Are we going to be suckered again the way we were in 1992, when we allowed ourselves to be deceived about our own recent history and current events?
We are being lied to and "spun," and not in a trivial way. The kind of dishonest vitriolic hate campaign that in 2000 was conducted only before black audiences is now being played on the national stage; and the national media, instead of holding the liars' and haters' feet to the fire (as they do when the liars and haters are Republicans or conservatives), are cooperating in building up a false image of a failing economy and a lost war, when the truth is more nearly the exact opposite.
And in all the campaign rhetoric, I keep looking, as a Democrat, for a single candidate who is actually offering a significant improvement over the Republican policies that in fact don't work, while supporting or improving upon the American policies that will help make us and our children secure against terrorists.
We have enemies that have earned our hatred, and whom we should fear. They are fanatical terrorists who seek opportunities to kill American civilians here and Israeli civilians in Israel. But right now, our national media and the Democratic Party are trying to get us to believe that the people we should hate and fear are George W. Bush and the Republicans.
I can think of many, many reasons why the Republicans should not control both houses of Congress and the White House. But right now, if the alternative is the Democratic Party as led in Congress and as exemplified by the current candidates for the Democratic nomination, then I can't be the only Democrat who will, with great reluctance, vote not just for George W. Bush, but also for every other candidate of the only party that seems committed to fighting abroad to destroy the enemies that seek to kill us and our friends at home.
And if we elect a government that subverts or weakens or ends our war against terrorism, we can count on this: We will soon face enemies that will make 9/11 look like stubbing our toe, and they will attack us with the confidence and determination that come from knowing that we don't have the will to sustain a war all the way to the end.
-
I like pizza.
-
Good god, my attention span is way to small to read all of that.
-
One of the longest trolls ever.
-
I think Estes pretty much spells out what is wrong with the Democratic Party.
-
Short version for attention span-impared readers:
Terrorist strategy is: If you make a war cost enough, Americans will give up and go home.
It worked in Somalia and Vietnam
Democratic election platform: War is bad and US is losing.
Leads to:
Our enemies will be certain that they are winning the war on the battleground that matters--American public opinion. So they will continue to kill Americans wherever and whenever they can, because it works.
Our soldiers will lose heart, because they will know that their commander in chief is a man who is not committed to winning the war they have risked death in order to fight. When the commander in chief is willing to call victory defeat in order to win an election, his soldiers can only assume that their lives will be thrown away for nothing. That's when an army, filled with despair, becomes beatable even by inferior forces.
-
I like pizza.
I prefer lasagna, but pizza is okay.
-
Democratic election platform: War is bad and US is losing.
But Hortlund, war *is* bad. I admit that it is necessary from time to time, but in reality, war is the most terrible man made tragedy to afflict our planet. Not any war in particular, just war in general.
War is interesting to read about and to have fun recreating on a computer, but I think any veteran of actual combat will tell you that war is the worst kind of waste of mankind imaginable.
"Peace on earth, goodwill toward men" sounds like the oldest cliche' in the book, but it's too bad that we haven't learned how to live by that creed yet.
It's a shame, really. But, it's human nature.
-
Im just assuming this is 'Bush is Hitler' drawn out over a few thousand words.
Since Im not being paid to read it, Ill pass.
PS: Pizza is good!
-
Hortland. Long, but worth the read...for those of us with good attention spans (Conservatives, mostly:p ).
-
No he is supporting the war in Iraq and dissing the Democratic leadership as traitors.
I find it hard to believe that Orson Scott card wrote all that especialy this.
"But once we chose Afghanistan and Iraq, once we began a serious campaign, we must continue the war until we achieve our objective, which is to remove all the governments that sponsor terror, or convince the remaining sponsors of terror to absolutely, thoroughly, and completely reverse their policy and actively seek out and destroy all terrorists that once had safe harbor within their borders. Anything less, and all our effort--all those American lives--were wasted.
"
A person might say that the lives lost in Iraq were wasted in regards to the war on terror. Orson should stick to science fiction. The black hats and the white hats fit better there then they do in the real world.
Enders Game was better.
-
:p politics bore me.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
In fact, Vietnamization, by all measures I know about, worked.
No it didn't- it failed miserably. Frankly, you don't know WTF you're talking about.
-
Air, read this.
In return, I'll read one you suggest.
Then we'll talk. ;)
A Better War: The Unexamined Victories and the Final Tragedy of America's Last Years in Vietnam
by Lewis Sorley
-
Originally posted by Pongo
A person might say that the lives lost in Iraq were wasted in regards to the war on terror.
So under Saddam, there was NO LINK between Iraq and terroristm?
-
the link is here btw
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004435
Those are not my words airhead, talk to the author of the article I quoted.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
So under Saddam, there was NO LINK between Iraq and terroristm?
About the same as between Britain, France, Russia, or America and terrorism. All these countries have supported "thier" insurgents against other countries.
They were definatly supporting the Palistinian uprising but there is no other link shown that would in any way justify an invasion. The palistinians at the time were not 'terrorists' in the US dictionary.
But anyway. Scott feels that every country that can be invaded under the guise of fighting terrorists..should be invaded. That is a very extreme view and I can see why he feels disenfranchised by the current republican leadership candidates.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
About the same as between Britain, France, Russia, or America and terrorism. All these countries have supported "thier" insurgents against other countries.
[/b]
Please list the number and names of terrorist organizations supported by Britain or the US in the 2001-2003 time period.
They were definatly supporting the Palistinian uprising but there is no other link shown that would in any way justify an invasion. The palistinians at the time were not 'terrorists' in the US dictionary.
[/b]
Oh yes they were. Hamas and Hezbollah and Al Aqusa Martyrs Brigades were all listed as terrorist organizations by the US before the invasion of Iraq. And...incidentally, all these three organizations recieved both financial and other support from Iraq.
If we are talking about a war on terror, then how can the lives lost in Iraq be wasted (your words, not mine) when we have removed one of the largest state sponsors of terrorism? One of the key features on the war on terror is to remove the nations that support terrorism...well, with Iraq and Afghanistan finished, its two down, five to go.
-
Steve, I noticed the link is "Opinion." That's OK, I just disagree with that opinion based upon my personal experiences in Viet Nam training ARVNs.
Toad, I'll check it out, thanks for the recomendation.
-
It worked in Somalia, and in Viet Nam.....
Why Oh Why is Lebanon never mentioned in this little list?
-
Originally posted by Pongo
No he is supporting the war in Iraq and dissing the Democratic leadership as traitors.
Ah, ok - must have mixed Hortland up with someone else.
Still too much to read for me - Im convinced I have ADD.
-
Did terrorism begin in 2001? Maybe in sweden.
No the PLO has not been a terrorist orginization in the US lexicon again till quite recently. Period.
Iraq was not one of the biggest or even a big state sponsor of terrorism. So you point is mute. Keep saying it if you like.
-
I guess Card's opinion makes some sense as long as you agree that the invasion of Iraq had something to do with terrorism.
I don't believe that it did.
-
Air,
Here's a publisher's blurb.
Book Description
Neglected by scholars and journalists alike, the years of conflict in Vietnam from 1968 to 1975 offer surprises not only about how the war was fought, but about what was achieved. Drawing on authoritative materials not previously available, including thousands of hours of tape-recorded allied councils of war, award-winning military historian Lewis Sorley has given us what has long been needed-an insightful, factual, and superbly documented history of these important years. Among his findings is that the war was being won on the ground even as it was being lost at the peace table and in the U.S. Congress. The story is a great human drama of purposeful and principled service in the face of an agonizing succession of lost opportunities, told with uncommon understanding and compassion. Sorley documents the dramatic differences in conception, conduct, and-at least for a time-results between the early and the later war. Meticulously researched and movingly told, A Better War is sure to stimulate controversy as it sheds brilliant new light on the war in Vietnam.
You won't agree with everything in the book; I didn't.
However, the book does make one THINK and his documentation is superb. The footnotes alone are very interesting stuff.
It certainly challenges the "pat answer" about VietNam. As I said, it'll make you think.
I enjoyed it.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Did terrorism begin in 2001? Maybe in sweden.
[/b]
Did the world change in 2001? Anyway, I see you neglected to list any terrorist organizations supported by the US or UK since 2001... Does this mean that you admit you cant?
No the PLO has not been a terrorist orginization in the US lexicon again till quite recently. Period.
[/b]
Who said anything about PLO? If you look back at my post you will note that I was talking about Hamas, Hezbollah and Al aqcsa martyrs brigades. For the record I dont think PLO is classed as a terrorist organization now even. Although it should be.
Iraq was not one of the biggest or even a big state sponsor of terrorism. So you point is mute. Keep saying it if you like.
Eh, no, my point is not mute. My point is only mute if you distort the truth or ignore huge chunks of it. To say that Iraq was not a big state sponsor of terrorism is just about as dumb as saying that Syria isnt right now. It only shows that you dont know what you are talking about.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
I guess Card's opinion makes some sense as long as you agree that the invasion of Iraq had something to do with terrorism.
I don't believe that it did.
And you would be wrong too...just like Pongo.
If one of the effects of the invasion of Iraq is that three of the top 10 terrorist organizations in the world lose one of their biggest supporter, backer and funder... Would that fall into the category "this has got nothing to do with terrorism" in your world?
Eh...what? Look at that sentence again...
According to Sandman, removing one of the biggest supporter, backer, funder for AT LEAST three terrorist organizations has got nothing to do with terrorism?
Your Bush hate is consuming you, it has reached the logical center of the brain now. Fight it...there is still good in you, I know it.
-
Spin it all you like hortland. Terrorism against isreal was not terrorism in the US eye till very recently. That is exaclty why Bush didnt make a big deal about the link between Sadam and those orginisations until several months into the invasion.
spin away. have fun.
It speaks to the centeral issue of the war on terror. Our freedom fighters are another countries terrorists. If you cant see that I will just opt out of your little rant..
-
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/031215/usnews/15terror.htm
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Spin it all you like hortland. Terrorism against isreal was not terrorism in the US eye till very recently.
Please define recently.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/031215/usnews/15terror.htm
In your opinion, does that link, in any way, change what I wrote in my post to you?
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Spin it all you like hortland. Terrorism against isreal was not terrorism in the US eye till very recently. That is exaclty why Bush didnt make a big deal about the link between Sadam and those orginisations until several months into the invasion.
spin away. have fun.
It speaks to the centeral issue of the war on terror. Our freedom fighters are another countries terrorists. If you cant see that I will just opt out of your little rant..
Please list whatever terrorist/freedom fighter organizations that the US or UK has supported since 2001 who target civilians in the same manner as Hamas, Al Queida, Hezbollah or Al Aqusa Martyrs Brigades. Please. Im serious. If you cant in 2001, list the ones closest in time. I'm supposing you are aiming at organizations like the Contras or the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan, but those were a) in the 80s, b) during the cold war, and c) they never targeted civilians like the moslem terrorists do.
If I am wrong here, I would be very interested in hearing about it. So please list them, and I am serious.
As for the terrorism in Israel. US policy vs Palestinians has shifted depending on two things palestinian behavior and who sat in the Oval office. The US has always (since Reagan) held the position that the suicide bombers, aircraft hijackers and teh cross border grenade attacks were acts of terrorism.
-
Sure does... there are bigger fish to fry than Iraq. The invasion of Iraq was convenient. A government hostile towards the U.S. after a decade of being under our thumb, plots (apparently unsuccessfully) to gain weapons of mass destruction knowing full well that their weak excuse for a defense force cannot hope to stand toe to toe against the might of our armed forces.
Bush had a hard-on for Hussein even during his campaign. 911 was simply an excuse. No credible links to Al Quaeda. No weapons of mass distruction. Nothing at all to hang our hat on but "ill will".
I want more.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Sure does... there are bigger fish to fry than Iraq.
[/b] And in what way does that change the fact that Iraq was a fish?
The invasion of Iraq was convenient. A government hostile towards the U.S. after a decade of being under our thumb, plots (apparently unsuccessfully) to gain weapons of mass destruction knowing full well that their weak excuse for a defense force cannot hope to stand toe to toe against the might of our armed forces.
Bush had a hard-on for Hussein even during his campaign. 911 was simply an excuse. No credible links to Al Quaeda. No weapons of mass distruction. Nothing at all to hang our hat on but "ill will".
I want more.
With all due respect Sandman, you dont know anything about that. You are in no position to know anything about Iraqi WMD's or ties to Al Queida. It may come as a shock to you, but you dont have the full story. See my sigline.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
And in what way does that change the fact that Iraq was a fish?
Great whites and fish like nemo are equally dangerous I suppose...
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/031215/usnews/15terror.htm
Back in your box with material like that disbeliever!
Saudi Arabia is on our side, so therefore is a bastion of freedom and democracy in the middle east.
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
Great whites and fish like nemo are equally dangerous I suppose...
[/b]
And this is relevant how? Just because one country is a larger threat than another (in your own very personal opinion) why is that even remotely relevant?
Tronski believes that Saudi is a bigger threat than Iraq, that means it was wrong to invade Iraq, even though Iraq was one of the biggest state sponsors of terrorism.
I dont understand the logic behind that
-
Time for you to move over there and enlist Hurlund... your super Jizz powers are best used fighting your "fish" than trying to convince us.
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
Time for you to move over there and enlist Hurlund... your super Jizz powers are best used fighting your "fish" than trying to convince us.
And here I was thinking I was on your "racist jerk" ignore list...
Btw, that was classy Saw, really classy.
Anyway, I cant move over there and enlist since I have done my military service in Sweden, and since I am in fact still active in the Swedish army. And I think I'm too old to enlist anyway, I dont think they accept ppl over 25.
And Im not trying to convince you or any other euro for that matter, since euro opinions are both irrelevant and meaningless when it comes to the 04 presidential election.
-
The US refused to outlaw groups such as the Real IRA until 2001, despite the fact they blew up Omagh only a couple of years before. I call that tacit support.
Are you saying the Mujahadeen did not kill any civilians during the Soviet Afghani occupation? It's funny that, because their whiter than white image must have dulled by the time Bosnia came around. They were shooting British aid workers and dumping their bodies in rivers. Nice guys.
I love the 'it was the cold war' excuse; used to the narrow the argument.
Choose a terrorist organisation:
1) Providing it doesn't in anyway show Hortlund to be wrong.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
The US refused to outlaw groups such as the Real IRA until 2001, despite the fact they blew up Omagh only a couple of years before. I call that tacit support.
[/b]
Well, with that definition..."refuse to outlaw = support" then you would have pretty much all of Europe supporting terrorism all over the world. Are you sure you want to stick by that definition?
Are you saying the Mujahadeen did not kill any civilians during the Soviet Afghani occupation? It's funny that, because their whiter than white image must have dulled by the time Bosnia came around. They were shooting British aid workers and dumping their bodies in rivers. Nice guys.
[/b]
No, Ive never said that.
I congratulate you on your ability to construct a strawman argument though. First you make something up, then attribute it to me, and then attack your made up argument.
What I said was Mujahedeen in Afghanistan, but those were a) in the 80s, b) during the cold war, and c) they never targeted civilians like the moslem terrorists do.
How you spun that one to somehow include moslems in Bosnia in the 90s is beyond me.
I love the 'it was the cold war' excuse; used to the narrow the argument.
Choose a terrorist organisation:
1) Providing it doesn't in anyway show Hortlund to be wrong.
huh?
-
Originally posted by SOB
I like pizza.
Me too!!!:aok
-
Yup, I'll stick by that definition. Feel free to apply it where you like. The US was giving free passage to known Real IRA members up until 2001.
I assumed that you would realise that the Mujahideen is a non-localised term of reference for a supposedly religious body, that those fighting against the Soviets in the 80s would be the same people who went to Bosnia and killed civilians, took part in in-fighting during the NA/Taliban struggle (lots of civilians killed) and are the same guys who are now warlords in Afghanistan.
But I guess they must be reformed characters.
huh?
Your response to the argument 'the US/UK supported insurgents' was 'ignoring anything before 2001, ignoring the entire cold war - they never supported any bad guys'.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Yup, I'll stick by that definition. Feel free to apply it where you like.
[/b]Nah, I'll just ignore it because it is ridiculous. Any definition of "terrorist supporter" that ends up with Norway supporting Al Queida meets that fate.
The US was giving free passage to known Real IRA members up until 2001.
[/b]
So when I was asking for examples of US supporting terrorists after 2001, you replied with an example of what happened before 2001? Figures.
I assumed that you would realise that the Mujahideen is a non-localised term of reference for a supposedly religious body, that those fighting against the Soviets in the 80s would be the same people who went to Bosnia and killed civilians, took part in in-fighting during the NA/Taliban struggle (lots of civilians killed) and are the same guys who are now warlords in Afghanistan.
But I guess they must be reformed characters.
[/b]
I said mujahedeen in Afghanistan because those were the guys the US was supporting during the war in Afghanistan, in the 80s, during the cold war. When that war ended, so did the US support. Whatever those guys did after the US stopped supporting them isnt really relevant now is it? Since whatever they did after that was not something sanctioned or supported by the US I mean.
Your response to the argument 'the US/UK supported insurgents' was 'ignoring anything before 2001, ignoring the entire cold war - they never supported any bad guys'.
Maybe you are of the opinion that nations and governments never change and that they should for all future bear equal blame for actions done last week or actions committed tens or hundreds of years ago. The position is truly absurd, and it suits you.
However, the rest of us tend to believe that nations can change policy, and if they have, then the history is just that...history.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Well, with that definition..."refuse to outlaw = support" then you would have pretty much all of Europe supporting terrorism all over the world. Are you sure you want to stick by that definition?
[/b]
No, Ive never said that.
I congratulate you on your ability to construct a strawman argument though. First you make something up, then attribute it to me, and then attack your made up argument.
What I said was
How you spun that one to somehow include moslems in Bosnia in the 90s is beyond me.
huh? [/B]
hey Troll ... work on your english .. you didn't understand him
-
Any definition of "terrorist supporter" that ends up with Norway supporting Al Queida meets that fate.
Norway gives free passage to known members of Al Queida? Not even your beloved France does that - they arrested loads recently. I think my definition is pretty useful.
So when I was asking for examples of US supporting terrorists after 2001, you replied with an example of what happened before 2001? Figures.
No-one said the US supported terrorists post 2001 - except you as a strawman argument. Figures.
Whatever those guys did after the US stopped supporting them isnt really relevant now is it?
Who do you think was fighting the Taliban and was supported by the US? Jesus, I thought I covered that one. Many of the anti-Soviets became the warlords who fought against and for the Taliban (or both).
Maybe you are of the opinion that nations and governments never change and that they should for all future bear equal blame for actions done last week or actions committed tens or hundreds of years ago. The position is truly absurd, and it suits you.
Thanks for telling me what I think. Your pomposity is amusing. Don't change the subject to one of judgemental hindsight - we are discussing facts. The US/UK supported insurgents who killed civilians just like the generic unwashed moslem terror you often like to troll out. That is a fact.
You can't get away from it with imposed qualifications relating to time-frame or circumstance. Someone said the US/UK had supported terrorists - it was you who took that off at a tangent and demanded examples that fitted your argument.
-
You are on my sh***list indeed, there are some posts that I just can't/won't ignore.
I didn't know Sweden had been anshlussed to the US, I must have missed the news somehow. It was still attached to that Yurop you hate so much last time i looked at a geogaphical map.
Like I said... if you hate it so much, move.
I might not agree with every decisions made by my government, but that does not give me the right to class each and every belgian as 'cowards' or 'm*r*ns'.
-
This part of the discussion started with this quote.
Originally posted by Hortlund
Please list the number and names of terrorist organizations supported by Britain or the US in the 2001-2003 time period.
Clearly Im not making a strawman argument, but rather I am asking a question.
A bit later you jump in with this one:
The US refused to outlaw groups such as the Real IRA until 2001, despite the fact they blew up Omagh only a couple of years before. I call that tacit support.
Are you saying the Mujahadeen did not kill any civilians during the Soviet Afghani occupation? It's funny that, because their whiter than white image must have dulled by the time Bosnia came around. They were shooting British aid workers and dumping their bodies in rivers. Nice guys.
Clearly you missed my 2001-2003 time period question.
But now that that has been settled, do you agree that the US/UK has NOT supported any terrorist organizations during the 2001-2003 time period?
-
Come on Hortlund, now you are just lying in face of the facts. It started with Pongo's answer to your question:
Hortlund: So under Saddam, there was NO LINK between Iraq and terroristm?
Pongo: About the same as between Britain, France, Russia, or America and terrorism. All these countries have supported "thier" insurgents against other countries.
Hortlund: Please list the number and names of terrorist organizations supported by Britain or the US in the 2001-2003 time period.
YOU were the one who brought in the boundaries of a time frame to suit your own argument.
do you agree that the US/UK has NOT supported any terrorist organizations during the 2001-2003 time period?
Not to my knowledge, but we rarely know at the time anyway. Your question is still tangential to Pongo's statement and is an irrelevant ego fluffer.
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
You are on my sh***list indeed, there are some posts that I just can't/won't ignore.
I didn't know Sweden had been anshlussed to the US, I must have missed the news somehow. It was still attached to that Yurop you hate so much last time i looked at a geogaphical map.
Like I said... if you hate it so much, move.
I might not agree with every decisions made by my government, but that does not give me the right to class each and every belgian as 'cowards' or 'm*r*ns'.
Actually I think its kinda cute that you keep a cheeselist... I did stuff like that too, but that was when I was 6-7 yrs old and were mad at some buddies.
Anyway, I dont hate Sweden obviously, if I did I would move.
But your comments about Sweden being anschlussed to the US is just...weird.
Apparently if someone disagrees with the oh-so-popular anti-US mentality that is so abundant in Europe right now, one should move to the US?
Saw...You know what...if you look at what you just wrote and change "Europe" to "US" do you realize that you sound just like Grunherz?
Its sad really. But you ight want to step off that high horse of yours Mr "there are some posts that I just can't/won't ignore".
-
hate is bad...
love is good...
smile, its xmas soon :)
-
Originally posted by Dowding
YOU were the one who brought in the boundaries of a time frame
Yes, because the world changed in 2001, and its kinda silly to bring up old stuff in a discussion about todays topics.
Did you see this one?
"Maybe you are of the opinion that nations and governments never change and that they should for all future bear equal blame for actions done last week or actions committed tens or hundreds of years ago.
However, the rest of us tend to believe that nations can change policy, and if they have, then the history is just that...history."
-
So under Saddam, there was NO LINK between Iraq and terroristm?
'So under Saddam...'
1979 - 2003
That was your question. Pongo was spot on and so you narrowed the timeframe to fit your argument.
Did you see this one?
Answered above. Go read it.
-
Actually I think its kinda cute that you keep a cheeselist... I did stuff like that too, but that was when I was 6-7 yrs old and were mad at some buddies.
I'm on therapy.
Anyway, I dont hate Sweden obviously, if I did I would move.
I was talking about Yurop
But your comments about Sweden being anschlussed to the US is just...weird.
I was just making sure that you'd understand.
Apparently if someone disagrees with the oh-so-popular anti-US mentality that is so abundant in Europe right now, one should move to the US?
You are pi**ing on Yurop in every posts you make. I was merely suggesting you to move to a place you obviously like best.
Saw...You know what...if you look at what you just wrote and change "Europe" to "US" do you realize that you sound just like Grunherz?
?
Its sad really. But you ight want to step off that high horse of yours Mr "there are some posts that I just can't/won't ignore".
When I see a post started by you, I expect something tasteless with tanks running over children. yes, there are indeed some matters one cannot ignore.
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
I was talking about Yurop
[/b]
Yes, but Sweden is a part of Europe (you are spelling it wrong btw).
I was just making sure that you'd understand.
[/b]
It didnt work, it just made me confused.
You are pi**ing on Yurop in every posts you make. I was merely suggesting you to move to a place you obviously like best.
Well, since I like Sweden best, I think Im gonna stay. Im not "p*ssing on Europe" btw, I'm p*ssing on the liberals and the anti-war types. At least that is where I'm aiming.
?
[/b]
You said something along the lines of "since you are complaining so much about Europe, you should move. Grunherz often says stuff like "since you hate the US so much you should move". Its really quite similar I assure you.
When I see a post started by you, I expect something tasteless with tanks running over children. yes, there are indeed some matters one cannot ignore.
What you expect when you see a post by me is probably something you should take up with that therapist instead of with me. Unless you can actually point to a quote of mine where Im rejoicing at kids being run-over by tanks that is.
-
Yes, but Sweden is a part of Europe (you are spelling it wrong btw).
Again, just making sure some of your alter ego (mrblack, Nuke, etc...) understands. I'm a nice guy, and am trying to make sure we're understanding each other.
...
You said something along the lines of "since you are complaining so much about Europe, you should move. Grunherz often says stuff like "since you hate the US so much you should move". Its really quite similar I assure you.
I don't agree often with Grunherz, this would be one of those times I do. Bad for my karma, I know.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When I see a post started by you, I expect something tasteless with tanks running over children. yes, there are indeed some matters one cannot ignore.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What you expect when you see a post by me is probably something you should take up with that therapist instead of with me. Unless you can actually point to a quote of mine where Im rejoicing at kids being run-over by tanks that is.
Did you not post here a while ago a "funny post" with a picture of Palestinian kids being run over by Israeli tanks? That was 'Oh so funny.'
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
Did you not post here a while ago a "funny post" with a picture of Palestinian kids being run over by Israeli tanks? That was 'Oh so funny.'
Nope.
-
You have a selective memory, i don't.
Caption This 2003-04-14
[Skuzzy: Removed,..inappropriate]
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=84625
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
You have a selective memory, i don't.
Caption This 2003-04-14
[Skuzzy: Removed,..inappropriate]
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=84625
Uh, that was a picture of about 500 naked people in a park. I fail to see the connection to tanks running over children.
-
Duh!
ok, that was not the good one... I'll find it.
-
here you are:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=83402
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
here you are:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=83402
That was a picture of an arab kid, maybe 6-7 yrs old throwing a rock at an Israeli tank.
No one was running over anyone, and that kid did survive that encounter unharmed, (as did the tank crew btw).
Where is the post by me where I'm rejoicing at kids being run over by tanks or killed or whatever?
-
The choice of the picture and it's title was enough.
I'm away till tomorrow.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
And this is relevant how? Just because one country is a larger threat than another (in your own very personal opinion) why is that even remotely relevant?
Tronski believes that Saudi is a bigger threat than Iraq, that means it was wrong to invade Iraq, even though Iraq was one of the biggest state sponsors of terrorism.
I dont understand the logic behind that
You must be a mind reader, because I never actually compared Saudi Arabia, and Iraq in a terror ranking, or even remotely linked them in my post...that ability must have come in handy in your judge judy days...
so riddle me this Batman, when did Iraq suddenly become the biggest state sponsor of terrorism, when it's links to AL-Q were tenuous at best, however we're led to believe Saudi Arabia (our good solid ally) seems to pale in comparison with the dark lord of the middle east, and is hardly worthy of a mention.
Next you'll argue there really were Iraqi's hi-jacking airliners on 11/9
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
so riddle me this Batman, when did Iraq suddenly become the biggest state sponsor of terrorism, when it's links to AL-Q were tenuous at best,
There are other terrorist organizations than AL-Q.
There is your answer.
-
my god your from a country so far left of american center comunist russia would actualy seem alot more like home. having been there i imagine you are reguarded as a monster. there even more than here.
boggles the mind how you can even consider telling us your kooky psudointelectual crap livin in a welfare state with a well powdered bellybutton full medical and no chance at all of missing a meal for the rest of your life.
move to angola or southafrica and see how you like your system fool.
-
Kinda grossly over simplifies the Vietnam war a bit. Ignores the fact that the “democracy” we were supporting in South Vietnam was a puppet dictatorship that the South Vietnamese themselves wouldn't bother dying for much of the time. Supposes that had we marched north, the North Vietnamese would have somehow felt liberated and peace would reign free. Not that we would still be occupying firebases to this day fighting the Viet Cong in both the occupied North and the South. Deluded communists or not, at least they had a cause that freely motivated many of them to fight and keep on fighting, and leaders that they would die for like Ho Chi Minh. I mean, it’s not like the North Vietnamese had to force its soldiers to fight (compared to South Vietnam - with exceptions of course), they had a cause they believed in and our taking all their territory would not have changed that.
When did we lose the Vietnam War? Not in 1968, when we held an election that hinged on the war. None of the three candidates (Humphrey, Nixon, Wallace) were committed to unilateral withdrawal. Not during Nixon's "Vietnamization" program, in which more and more of the war effort was turned over to Vietnamese troops. In fact, Vietnamization, by all measures I know about, worked.
We lost the war when the Democrat-controlled Congress specifically banned all military aid to South Vietnam, and a beleaguered Republican president signed it into law. With Russia and China massively supplying North Vietnam, and Saigon forced to buy pathetic quantities of ammunition and spare parts on the open market because America had cut off all aid, the imbalance doomed them, and they knew it.
The South Vietnamese people were subjected to a murderous totalitarian government (and the Hmong people of the Vietnamese mountains were victims of near-genocide) because the U.S. Congress deliberately cut off military aid--even after almost all our soldiers were home and the Vietnamese were doing the fighting themselves.
We lost the war, and made it ultimately unwinnable in anything other than tactical situations, when we supported leaders like Ngo Dinh Diem, Nguyen Khanh (interim), Nguyen Van Thieu, Duong Van Minh (finale/Diem assassination), etc. and didn’t offer the Vietnamese people, either North or South a nationalistic alternative superior to communism. It started in 1945, with 1963 (the Diem assassination) being a watershed moment. Iraq is hardly Vietnam just yet, but how we handle the political aspects of the new Iraqi democracy could certainly change that.
Charon