Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Shuckins on June 29, 2006, 06:47:49 AM
-
While eating dinner at the local greasy spoon restaurant, I overheard a CNN interview with Michael "Sonny" Trimble, an archaeologist working with the U.S. Justice Department investigation into the mass executions of Iraqis by Saddam Hussein's regime.
He related their findings at one of the mass grave sites that they had excavated.
So far, 123 bodies had been recovered from that site. Many with hands tied behind their backs had been shot in the head. Then the bodies had been bulldozed into a trench. The victims are believed to be Shi-ites.
Average age of the victims...eleven.
The Iraqi ministry investigating these graves to gather evidence to be used in Saddam's trial have identified at least 40 such sites so far. Total number of the dead, according to various international agencies cataloging the evidence, is in excess of 300,000.
These innocent dead make a most compelling argument in support of the invasion that toppled Hussein's murderous regime. They make an eloquent rebuttal to those who maintain that the invasion was justified, and that the cowardly Iraqis got the government that they deserved.
It's a bit difficult to be courageous against a regime that murder's a revolutionary's wife and children, don't you think?
Meanwhile, arrogant and unrepentant as ever, Saddam continues to believe that he can bargain his way out of the death penalty.
Poor, deluded fool.
-
missed that report. thanks for posting that. do you think that the death penalty should be applied in this case? it seems merciful to me. I think perhaps a nice outdoor cage in hot, humid Guantanamo until he keels over from natural causes would be far better.
-
Kill him and then Good Riddance.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
These innocent dead make a most compelling argument in support of the invasion that toppled Hussein's murderous regime. They make an eloquent rebuttal to those who maintain that the invasion was justified, and that the cowardly Iraqis got the government that they deserved.
.
But...but..no WMD were found! Boosh lied! That was the only reason for war! (sarcasm)
-
i was told we went to war to steal all the iraq oil.
-
yep... I sure wish some of that stolen oil would find it's way to the pumps as cheap gas.
lazs
-
Remember Rwanda?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/evil/
-
while rwanda was indeed a tragedy I don't fault president clinton for being reticent to send to troops to yet another african country that is imploding. here's a bit of news for you and others. that was a civil war, those tend to be the most vicious of all wars. it was a good call not getting involved. if you want to find fault find it with the african and moslem run UN.
-
we're either the worlds policemen, or we're a buncha freakin looters using excuses that are convienient to the cause.
Yah, saddam was/is worth going after.
But if yer gonna use his body count as an excuse, there's no excuse for not agressively dealing with all the other two-bit watermelon dictators with blood on their hands.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
we're either the worlds policemen, or we're a buncha freakin looters using excuses that are convienient to the cause.
Yah, saddam was/is worth going after.
But if yer gonna use his body count as an excuse, there's no excuse for not agressively dealing with all the other two-bit watermelon dictators with blood on their hands.
That reminds me of a story. This guy was speeding down the highway along with several other cars when he was pulled over for speeding by the county sheriff. After receiving a ticket he asked the sheriff why only he was pulled over while there were several others also speeding. The sheriff asked him if he'd ever gone fishing. "Sure", he replied. The sheriff then asked, "ever catch all the fish?"
-
See Rule #4, #5
-
See Rule #5
-
See Rule #5
-
Originally posted by Momus--
See Rule #4, #5
Dictator - An absolute ruler. A tyrant; a despot.
Now, the fishing analogy was a good one, but you took it......literally.
The following is what Lukster was NOT commentating on: The benevolent dictator is a more modern version of the classical "enlightened despot," being an absolute ruler who exercises his or her political power for the benefit of the people rather than exclusively for his or her own benefit.
-
See Rule #2
-
See Rule #2, #5
-
Not a bad analogy.
For fishing and speeders.
Got one for why we've failed utterly to even put the next 2 bit murdering dictator on notice?
Look.. we keep trying to 'excuse' the war in Iraq.. that's not abnormal. We'd all like to think our national policy is based on nobel goals. But, honestly; is that why our government got jiggy with Saddam?
What's needed if we use the body count as the reason is more dictators on the hit parade. We need to publish a list, and start working down it. Somebody needs to know he's next.
We haven't done that. Meanwhile, murdering dictators keep building up body counts.
So, recognizing the truth.. our governemnt is the puppet of corporate intersts.. ask yourselves again WHY we went to Iraq.
Quit trying to whitewash the truth.
Do we deserve an honest government if we excuse dishonest behavior by that governemnt?
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
we're either the worlds policemen, or we're a buncha freakin looters using excuses that are convienient to the cause.
Yah, saddam was/is worth going after.
But if yer gonna use his body count as an excuse, there's no excuse for not agressively dealing with all the other two-bit watermelon dictators with blood on their hands.
That is spot-on HT!:aok
-
If we are the world's policemen then the analogy fits. We don't have the resources to stop everyone from committing crime. Stopping some serves two purposes. One, it's get's some of the bad guys off the "street". Two, it puts the rest on notice.
Going after the worst isn't always the wisest choice. We learned that in Somalia.
-
Originally posted by lukster
If we are the world's policemen then the analogy fits.
I think it is exceedingly obvious that we are not.
And, it's exceedingly obvious that we, as citizens wish that to be the truth.. but if we wish in one hand and crap in the other... Which one fills up first?
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Do we deserve an honest government if we excuse dishonest behavior by that governemnt?
The idea that someday DC will be filled with Abraham Lincolns and Mr Smith Goes to Washington is a joke. This is how politics is, and how it's always been.
But when Democracy is subverted, when votes in districts stop counting due to Diebold machines - then you better be concerned. And you better get out there and stump for a candidate that represents your financial interests. Unless you sit on several corporate boards, are liquid wealthy (personal worth over $10M of which you can get access to half that at any time) or work in defense or aerospace industry - I don't see how the last few years have been a good deal.
If you lost somebody in Iraq or know somebody who has - it's perfectly acceptable to ask why we went in there if it's clear that the WMD thing was a sham. Especially since the Taliban don't exactly seem quelled in Afghanistan and al-queda is still staging attacks in places like Spain, and we're arresting the guys in Canada and Florida. Cause Iraq is damn expensive. It's not helping the debt situation any. And I'm kinda unsure what the blood of US servicemen is getting us. It doesn't seem to be cheap oil.
Paul Wolfowiz came up with the crazy reverse domino theory of establishing a democracy in the middle east. This is his plan, and it was Rummy who browbeat Tommy Franks into using way fewer troops than what was needed. So, is anyone accountable? Because the only people who really have benefited in this sideshow is Halliburton and the subsidiaries like KBR who are making a fortune setting up tent cities and flying in supplies. And the oil companies who are making record profits. Seems like the American people on the whole are getting the shaft.
-
please, please, just calm down, Dos Equis, Hangtime and all you other warmongers, how many wars do you want to fight at one time? You people cry and cry about Iraq but them you want to attack every other despot in the whole world.
it seems that you don't want to fight one war but you will fight a dozen wars at the same time.
if you hate boosh and the "neo-cons" just say so, don't make the stupid argument that going into Iraq was wrong but fighting 12 countries at once is right.
-
Originally posted by john9001
please, please, just calm down, Dos Equis, Hangtime and all you other warmongers, how many wars do you want to fight at one time? You people cry and cry about Iraq but them you want to attack every other despot in the whole world.
it seems that you don't want to fight one war but you will fight a dozen wars at the same time.
if you hate boosh and the "neo-cons" just say so, don't make the stupid argument that going into Iraq was wrong but fighting 12 countries at once is right.
Strange you just single out Hangtime and me as warmongers. That's irony, and just how upside down it is around here.
I'm sorry if these questions upset you. I just want people to ask themselves if the situation as it stands is what they thought they voted for. It's not about if we like Bush, it's about if you still do.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
I think it is exceedingly obvious that we are not.
Gawd I hope we're not. I can think of better uses for my tax dollars.
-
Why is it that we seem to be hearing about 100+ ****tes being found in a mass grave. Is the same ****tes, are they different sites? From what I have read SH executed about 3,000 of them. They have been investigating the mass graves for years now, yet I have to see any information that supports the claim that SH had 300,000 people executed and stuck in mass graves, and it's tough to find new info post 2004. Anyone else have better luck?
-
Originally posted by john9001
please, please, just calm down, Dos Equis, Hangtime and all you other warmongers, how many wars do you want to fight at one time? You people cry and cry about Iraq but them you want to attack every other despot in the whole world.
it seems that you don't want to fight one war but you will fight a dozen wars at the same time.
if you hate boosh and the "neo-cons" just say so, don't make the stupid argument that going into Iraq was wrong but fighting 12 countries at once is right.
John, I've said it before.. I'll say it again:
Well, soon as industry gets it's prices capped, the forigen intrests and ownership of our transportation, defense and port industries are re-nationalized, the draft re-established, the borders closed and guarded and the moth ball air and sea fleets are mobilized, the standing army boosted to 2 million and the shipyards and armories get thier full swing marching orders..
THEN YOU CAN TELL ME WE ARE AT WAR.
We are NOT 'At War', we are pissing up the proverbial rope. And, we're squandering our wealth, our credibility and the lives of our young men and women to further corporate interests... and not world peace and security for all people, regardless of race, religion or wealth.
Thats TRUTH.
The resta the 'world police' BS up thread is whitewash. The 'world police' fuction is supposed to be the UN's function. not ours.
BUT if we're gonna police the world.. then that's war and my quote above is the proof we ARE at war. Without a national commitment and corporate profits not capped, we're just giving nodding approval to corporate looting at a level soccer moms can live with.
-
Originally posted by storch
while rwanda was indeed a tragedy I don't fault president clinton for being reticent to send to troops to yet another african country that is imploding. here's a bit of news for you and others. that was a civil war, those tend to be the most vicious of all wars. it was a good call not getting involved. if you want to find fault find it with the african and moslem run UN.
Clinton sending troops = Black hawk down.
He'd a hamstrung the military so bad would a been useless anyway.
Bronk
-
john9001
warmongers
Doublespeak???............................
DoctorYo
PS: "And whats the best defense?"
-
Originally posted by storch
this is hilarious coming from a person who lives on a minuscule island who's empire was so expansive at one time that the sun never set upon it. preach it elsewhere pal.
The glaringly obvious point you're missing is that I'm totally accepting of my nation's history and will happily discuss the ins and out of our imperialism with anyone. The British were masters of dressing venal self-interest in the langauge of moral imperatives; that's why it's so easy to spot when others like yourselves engage in it. :)
That said, is the sum total of your argument that since the British did it in the past, it's ok for you now, since that's what it looks like. Makes a change from outright denial for once though...is that progress?
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Dictator - An absolute ruler. A tyrant; a despot.
Now, the fishing analogy was a good one, but you took it......literally.
On the contrary, I understood the attempt at analogy only too well especially within it's context as addressed to hangtime. Maybe you should read it again?
The following is what Lukster was NOT commentating on: The benevolent dictator is a more modern version of the classical "enlightened despot," being an absolute ruler who exercises his or her political power for the benefit of the people rather than exclusively for his or her own benefit.
Sorry, no idea what point your trying to make here; come again?
-
Originally posted by Momus--
The glaringly obvious point you're missing is that I'm totally accepting of my nation's history and will happily discuss the ins and out of our imperialism with anyone. The British were masters of dressing venal self-interest in the langauge of moral imperatives; that's why it's so easy to spot when others like yourselves engage in it. :)
That said, is the sum total of your argument that since the British did it in the past, it's ok for you now, since that's what it looks like. Makes a change from outright denial for once though...is that progress?
no actually. there is no american empire per se. while I do believe that if there were the world would be a far better place. the rest of you folks just don't see the light. while the superiority of the american way has made it the clear world leader and our popular culture has made astounding inroads everywhere, smothering just about everyone else's one can hardly compare what you seem to be calling american hegemony to the outright conquest and subjugation of approximately 50% of the world's population which is what britian effectively did at the height of it's power.
-
Originally posted by Dos Equis
The idea that someday DC will be filled with Abraham Lincolns and Mr Smith Goes to Washington is a joke. This is how politics is, and how it's always .
And this is one reason why nothing will change. The behavior of politicians is acceptable. And once you accept this premise, nothing can change.
Between those who accept the status quo, and the apathetic, we have no prayer of changing things for the better. No chance of an honest person winning an election. Sheesh, we are just screwed.
-
See Rule #4
-
Well, policemen get involved in conflicts where there is no direct or immediate threat to themselves to maintain order and protect those that can't protect themselves.
Tell me again why we became involved in WWI, WWII, Vietnam, and many others?
-
Momus, I suggest you try to find a way to separate the people of a country from its government. They are different entities.
-
Originally posted by Momus--
See Rule #4
momus, I missd your post because I had to step out onto the shop floor and see to a complicated gate structure consequently missing your post. please rephrase your statement in a manner acceptable to the staff and in keeping with the fora rules. thanks.
-
Hangtime,
Your conception as to what constitutes a war is rather specious at best. I don’t recall any definition in any of the references I read while in the service regarding declarations of war requiring a full mobilization. This includes Command and General Staff College. Perhaps you have some reference in mind?
Second question and this is a repeat of one I have asked and never received an answer to .
Exactly what do you consider to be a proper response to a low intensity conflict? How do you envision a viable persecution of the conflict we are currently engaged in?
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Clinton sending troops = Black hawk down.
He'd a hamstrung the military so bad would a been useless anyway.
Bronk
precisely my point, not that our troops couldn't do the job but that the resolve of that administration was woefully lacking. had it not been it would still be a bad idea to get involved in internal african strife.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Hangtime,
Exactly what do you consider to be a proper response to a low intensity conflict? How do you envision a viable persecution of the conflict we are currently engaged in?
Massive, overwhelming force. If the troops are mobilized, the nation mobilizes with them. Top to bottom. No more pissing up ropes. I'm tired of seeing our troops under supported, under equipped, units undermanned, folks back home under involved. The moment Syria and Iran started supporting and supplying the insurgents should have been the moment we started bombing Damascus and Tehran.
If the cause is just, the nation as a whole should be involved in delivering the blow.
we've been sold a pig in a poke. this 'global war on terror' is a pissing contest. not a war.
-
Using the phrase "Massive, overwhelming force" is not a response to the question. Exactly how are you going to use this force? What are your targets? To what degree of destruction are you going to go to? How do you differentiate non combatants from the enemy? C'mon Hangtime tell me how you would fight the war?
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Using the phrase "Massive, overwhelming force" is not a response to the question. Exactly how are you going to use this force? What are your targets? To what degree of destruction are you going to go to? How do you differentiate non combatants from the enemy? C'mon Hangtime tell me how you would fight the war?
I would send in skuzzy and the mod squad they'll shape those terrorists up in a new york minute. those guys will get rule #4'd so much their grandkids will be born polite.
-
we need to ration butter like in WW2, that'll show them we mean business
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Using the phrase "Massive, overwhelming force" is not a response to the question. Exactly how are you going to use this force? What are your targets? To what degree of destruction are you going to go to? How do you differentiate non combatants from the enemy? C'mon Hangtime tell me how you would fight the war?
What are yah lookin for Mav? A warplan? TO&E?, Unit numbers? A ****ing map?
Or are you just looking to belittle somebody who thinks our government is screwing us and the kids they send to fight the corporate forever war while they rake in billions in profits?
You know what 'war' is, every man here as seen the discovery channel. The one I fought in was no more a 'war' than this one.. what they did to us on the home front and in the field was wrong then, and what they're doing is wrong now.
My dad fought in a 'war'.. and he spent less time in the field under fire than I did.. but while he was out fighting for his country and freedom for the world, his nation had it's shoulder to the yoke at home. Corporate profits were capped, taxes were levied, bonds were floated. Folks sacraficed at home while their boys fought in the pacific and in europe.
This is no war.
It's a ****ing snow job, and yer part of the snowstorm.
-
Nope Hang, I disagree with you. I don't believe I'm part of the snow storm and I certainly am not trying to "snow" anyone.
You used the terms about the conflict. I just wanted to see if you really thought it out rather than just spouting off nice sounding words. You want to "ramp up" the situation and "get serious" with "overwhelming force". The simple fact of the matter is that while those things "sound" nice they are empty and meaningless in the face of a low intensity conflict. It's very much like the idea of bombing the VC into the stone age. It doesn't work if you do not have specific viable targets. It's kind of hard to bomb the middle east into the stone age or middle ages as they aren't very far removed from it in many cases. Simply razing a community to the ground won't get it done either and would make us no better than those who think blowing up hospitals and schools are viable targets.
If you don't like the war, say so. At least be as honest about it as nash is. Please don't try to throw out a meaningless phrase as a solution to the conflict as it is simply nonsense and you used to be better than that.
-
What don't you get Mav?
The moment Syria and Iran started supporting and supplying the insurgents should have been the moment we started bombing Damascus and Tehran.
How many times have i said that sending the troops out as targets in an occupation doesn't accomplish a damn thing except get our kids killed?
hunh?
i've been barking the same tree since this thing turned from an invasion and victory into an occupation and disaster.. the moves made by syria and iran require direct response since they are actions by the governments of those nations. supplying and succoring terroists is an act of WAR.
The 'ungoverned portions' of pakistan should be bombing ranges. any nation that harbors and succors a terrorist organization should be getting thier assets seized, their ports closed and their governement buildings flattened. FOR STARTERS.
RIGHT NOW.
WTF is wrong with you? how many others out there just don't get it? WAR means you destroy that nations trade, it's assets and it's ability to continue to support, supply or succor the people that are trying to kill our troops or threaten our Nation.
Or, we get the hell outta there, because anything less is just providing handy targets of opportunity to an enemy that we haven't got the will or ability to wipe off the planet.
CHOOSE.
"WAR, THE WHOLE DAMN BANANA, OR BRING 'EM HOME."
Get it?
-
Hang,
This country as a whole , a WHOLE mind you doesn't have the will nor the guts to win anything.
PART of this country does.
Your idea , lofty as it is , would never pass the muster.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Kill him and then Good Riddance.
..Good riddance to Bush
-
and what the governement is doing with our troops does not pass muster either.
Bring 'em home.
No one more kids life for corporate profit.
I wanna see terrorisim stamped out. sending out squads of marines to pay 'duck and cover' for terrorist trainees is not ever going to end terrorism.
we're feeding the terrorist states the lives of our kids, and buying their oil.
just about the dumbest forigen policy.. or the smartest corporate business plan... i've ever seen.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
But...but..no WMD were found! Boosh lied! That was the only reason for war! (sarcasm)
Sadly I'm seeing reports about many Gulf War Vets that suggest that Saddam did have bio weapons and did use them on our troops.
-
What bothers me about the Iraq debates is how the perceived justification keeps changing. Either its Saddam was a dictator/despot, or its WMD, or its the fact he killed 300,000 of his own people or its the A-Q connection, or democracy to the Mid East, or its something else, depending on the day of the week, and the mood?
If you ask 100 people "why invade Iraq?" you get 100 different answers.
Seems there is no clear cut reason that stands out.
And for the record, I supported the invasion, my reason was that the 1991 Gulf War was not really settled, and either you had to A: Make Peace with Saddam at some point, or B: Invade and topple him. Having an undeclared war go on for 10+ years with no fly zones and UN sanctions was a waste of time and energy for all those involved. Deal with it one way or another and move on.
I also find it interesting that all the nay sayers in 1991 that said they should not have gone to Baghdad were around 10 years later to say why they should. It was a mistake to have the cease fire in 1991 before business was concluded, seems to me.
"But, but, the arabs would have left the Coalition".
File that under who gives a s**t. ?
-
Originally posted by lukster
That reminds me of a story. This guy was speeding down the highway along with several other cars when he was pulled over for speeding by the county sheriff. After receiving a ticket he asked the sheriff why only he was pulled over while there were several others also speeding. The sheriff asked him if he'd ever gone fishing. "Sure", he replied. The sheriff then asked, "ever catch all the fish?"
(http://www.comedy-zone.net/images/people/comedians/nielsen-leslie.jpg)
Lt. Frank Drebin: [to applause] Thank you. But, in all honesty, the last three I backed over with my car. Luckily, they turned out to be drug-dealers.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
and what the governement is doing with our troops does not pass muster either.
Bring 'em home.
No one more kids life for corporate profit.
I wanna see terrorisim stamped out. sending out squads of marines to pay 'duck and cover' for terrorist trainees is not ever going to end terrorism.
we're feeding the terrorist states the lives of our kids, and buying their oil.
just about the dumbest forigen policy.. or the smartest corporate business plan... i've ever seen.
The point I see Hang trying to make is IMHO very very VALID.
Right now the countries right next to Iraq are very much like N.V. and Iraq is very much like S.V. and the bad guys can come in to Iraq and can run back to where they came from.
The reports seem to say the Governments of those countries want very much, perhaps to maintain their power, for the new Iraq Government to FAIL.
Try playing someone a game of chess using the following rules..........
your pieces must always remain on your side of the board............
your opponents pieces may move where ever thay can on the entire board....
who do you think will win such a game?
-
"and what the governement is doing to our troops does not past muster either."
The government isn't killing the troops Hang. The insurgents are. It's not Senator so-in-so's order to send Sgt. Hulka out on patrol with his squad. Its their job. It's what they get paid to do. It's what they train for. Did the Joe Marine sign up thinking he would be dodging bullets from Muhammad-*******-Muslim-Moron? No I doubt it very much. He signed up , or I would say alot did , thinking the would get some money for education , 3 squares a day and a job cause they couldn't get one at home for whatever reason.
We were ALL told by the POTUS the reasons for going to war. Some and possibly even MOST agreed with them. Dems and Repubs alone were all preaching the same montra at the time of how evil Hussein was. They were all saying how he had this and that. We were all spoon fed info they wanted us to hear to sell us a bit of goods. They have found WMD. The ones they were looking for?? No , I don't think so. Is there a secondary mission there? Yes , and the troops are doing a DAMN FINE JOB. We've lost few troops compared to past history. FEW. 1 is to many I would agree. But in the grand scheme of things we have lost very few.
Bring 'em home.
I agree. Come Home when ordered to. When they feel they have completed the mission. But not 1 day before that. Don't leave a halfass job done for political pundits and pressure and leave the blood and lives of those lost and wounded on the field for no more than a bunch of sissyass politicans who succumb to pressure so they can stay in office.
No one more kids life for corporate profit.
I wanna see terrorisim stamped out. sending out squads of marines to pay 'duck and cover' for terrorist trainees is not ever going to end terrorism.
Hang...Bud...Terrorism will be here long after we are gone. I don't think we can ever win the "War" on terror. But I don't think sitting back and doing nothing is the answer either.
we're feeding the terrorist states the lives of our kids, and buying their oil.
We were buying it long before this war ever started. We will be buying it long after we leave Iraq
just about the dumbest forigen policy.. or the smartest corporate business plan... i've ever seen.
Last thing I'll say. I'm not looking to argue at all. I hear that all the time. Lots of arguing but not real common sense down to earth talking about how to fix things. Only political cra* and partisan politics. To ME and IMHO that is more a cause of the results of where we are now than just about anything.
I think the Terrorist in the world , and Al Queda especially , have won 2 major victories in the war. They hit us on our own soil and exposed our weakness in our own backyard as far as security goes. They have also turned this nation on itself. It's not the same place I grew up in as a kid. It's not the same place I served in the U.S. Navy to protect. Its changed. And it isn't for the better.
-
Anything but a hard-nosed, unrelenting approach to dealing with Arab nations, indeed, with Arab people, will end in disaster for all. Nothing short of establishing a colony on another planet and leaving them to their dis-organized, unproductive, childishly-overzealous devices here on Earth will ensure our long term survival as a species. God knows the only way they'll ever reach space is when somebody with their finger on the button comes to their senses and blows them into it.
Please, turn on the laugh track, but when they pump dry the only source of income their societies have managed to exploit, they will turn to consuming those societies that have managed to rise from the dark ages. A clash of fragile civilization and what can only be described as crude, backward uncivilization, will, inevitably, lead to the downfall of all organized society. They'll thrive in the ensuing madness, because it's the substrate on which they exist. Nobody else will.
They do not want to share the world with Western civilization, and only do so because we sustain their economies with our hunger for oil. Once that leverage is gone, be very, very afraid. Only the blind can't see that they're not buying what we're selling, our ideology, way of live, whatever you want to call it. For some reason, we continue to operate under the illusion that we can force them into it. We can't.
-
Yup.
:aok
-
Originally posted by Neubob
Anything but a hard-nosed, unrelenting approach to dealing with Arab nations, indeed, with Arab people, will end in disaster for all. Nothing short of establishing a colony on another planet and leaving them to their dis-organized, unproductive, childishly-overzealous devices here on Earth will ensure our long term survival as a species. God knows the only way they'll ever reach space is when somebody with their finger on the button comes to their senses and blows them into it.
Please, turn on the laugh track, but when they pump dry the only source of income their societies have managed to exploit, they will turn to consuming those societies that have managed to rise from the dark ages. A clash of fragile civilization and what can only be described as crude, backward uncivilization, will, inevitably, lead to the downfall of all organized society. They'll thrive in the ensuing madness, because it's the substrate on which they exist. Nobody else will.
They do not want to share the world with Western civilization. Plain and simple. For some reason, we continue to operate under the illusion that we can force them into it.
they understand force. both on a personal and collective level, just like anyone else. the problem is that we have become weak.
-
Originally posted by Neubob
Anything but a hard-nosed, unrelenting approach to dealing with Arab nations, indeed, with Arab people, will end in disaster for all. Nothing short of establishing a colony on another planet and leaving them to their dis-organized, unproductive, childishly-overzealous devices here on Earth will ensure our long term survival as a species. God knows the only way they'll ever reach space is when somebody with their finger on the button comes to their senses and blows them into it.
Please, turn on the laugh track, but when they pump dry the only source of income their societies have managed to exploit, they will turn to consuming those societies that have managed to rise from the dark ages. A clash of fragile civilization and what can only be described as crude, backward uncivilization, will, inevitably, lead to the downfall of all organized society. They'll thrive in the ensuing madness, because it's the substrate on which they exist. Nobody else will.
They do not want to share the world with Western civilization, and only do so because we sustain their economies with our hunger for oil. Once that leverage is gone, be very, very afraid. Only the blind can't see that they're not buying what they're selling, our ideology, way of live, whatever you want to call it. For some reason, we continue to operate under the illusion that we can force them into it. We can't.
Interesting outlook.
Maybe this nation should become more and more isolasionist ?
-
Originally posted by storch
they understand force. both on a personal and collective level, just like anyone else. the problem is that we have become weak.
Yup...and will NEVER become strong again. Ever!
-
Originally posted by storch
they understand force. both on a personal and collective level, just like anyone else. the problem is that we have become weak.
Hence 'hard nosed and unrelenting'.
The Israelis know this only too well. Unfortunately, as Europe cries murder at every act of military aggression the Israelis carry out, while simultaneously standing by silently as the 'poor and desperate' Palestinians resort to 'the only' option they have, the rest of the Arab world is starting to understand that the West is simply not ready or not able to deal with them on their own level.
Modern day barbarians, nothing more, nothing less. Only difference is that today they drive fine German cars, wear fine Italian clothing and coat their scalps with fine hair-care products. Unless something changes, and soon(everything from immigration laws to military policy), they'll make a Rome of us yet.
-
Originally posted by RedTop
Interesting outlook.
Maybe this nation should become more and more isolasionist ?
I don't know Redtop... We can try, but they'll overrun Europe soon enough, and then what?
-
I could give a rats bellybutton if the arab world hates us and fears us.
the problem is, they don't respect us. Like the Russians.. FORCE they respect. The means to project FORCE is what they are attempting to build.
we can change that.
and we'd better get it done damn quick.
-
Originally posted by Neubob
the rest of the Arab world is starting to understand that the West is simply not ready or not able to deal with them on their own level.
I personally wouldn't underestimate the Euros.
I think the idea that they would roll over for Islamic terror or overt jihad overlooks the history of Europe.
When push comes to shove, these are the folks that fought two extremely bloody world wars tooth and nail. I think, if necessary, they are quite capable of dealing with anyone "on their own level".
-
Well Bob....
To borrow a line from a movie...paraphrasing
We will die out there unless we heal in here. This country is in big trouble. And unless there is some serious healing......well....who knows
-
Originally posted by Toad
I personally wouldn't underestimate the Euros.
I think the idea that they would roll over for Islamic terror or overt jihad overlooks the history of Europe.
When push comes to shove, these are the folks that fought two extremely bloody world wars tooth and nail. I think, if necessary, they are quite capable of dealing with anyone "on their own level".
If I am understanding you by the phrase of "dealing with them on there own level" to mean that we get in the mud and fight there fight , then we won't ever win. We can't. That would mean taking the war to a level that the american people are not prepared as a whole to do.
On a personal note , I have no problem dealing with terrorists on thier level. None. Unfortunatley it will be called murder.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I personally wouldn't underestimate the Euros.
I think the idea that they would roll over for Islamic terror or overt jihad overlooks the history of Europe.
When push comes to shove, these are the folks that fought two extremely bloody world wars tooth and nail. I think, if necessary, they are quite capable of dealing with anyone "on their own level".
Well, yes, the Euros have fought tooth and nail in the past. They've done so against a very visible, very organized enemy. An enemy, however evil, that was easy to understand in how he operates because, for the most part, he was one of them. Hitler made a big deal out of creating a proud, powerful army, out of making famous a symbol, reproducing it, and doing everything he could to spread it to every corner of his domain. He was a European conquoror in the basic sense of the term. Practically speaking, he wasn't too far removed from Napoleon.
The current situation is different, I believe. It is, for the most part, an invasion of ideology and values. You don't see it coming like you do a Panzer division, and it certainly waves no flags in your face. It just shows up one day, and it's there, spreading like a virus. The Euros can't see the forest from the trees, and although they are quite capable of fighting like-minded foes, they seem to be deaf dumb and blind when it comes to this situation. Just reread some of the posts made here, and you'll see what I mean. They're still trying to apply their sense of right and wrong, humanity and inhumanity, to the Arab world. Playing by rules that don't exist.
Just ask our Israeli friend Caligula what it takes to make an arab listen. It takes a whack to the head, nothing more, nothing less. You do not ask or even demand respect, you impose it, and you do it over and over again, as many times as it takes.
Ironically, the Russians may yet turn out to be our best ally in this, because, unlike Western Europe they care little for PR, and are culturally and historically very at peace with brutality. No trials for any of the terrorists that took the Moscow theater a few years back... Summary executions before the terrorists even awoke, followed by buriels in pig-skin, just to spit in the face of their faith. The lives of their own citizens took a back seat to cold, harsh revenge. Now, as much as this may offend you, and me, you can bet that if push does come to shove, they will press the button, and ask questions later.
Of course, there will always be the predominant approach to this, and that will be to talk it out. Talking it out, in this case, is the same as trying to reason with a pissed-off Pit Bull. You don't reason, you beat him into submission, and then, only then, if he's not dead, you offer him a treat so he stops fearing you.
I think the major failing is that the Arabs know that we won't break our own rules and resort to their style of combat. And if one of us does, most likely the US and/or Israel, they know full well that the rest of the Western world will condemn the action. From the government, to the private citizen eating dinner at home, any Western power that takes initiates aggressive action will be seen as an oppressor. We have no cultural solidarity. They do, simply by virtue of the fact that any action against a Western power, 9/11 included, even if it is publically condemned by their government officials, is still regarded as righteous behind closed doors with total or near total universality.
-
good points Bob.
Still though , my belief is fight the fight you have to , to win. But thats just me.
U.S. is fractured possibly beyond repair. It's sad when people will sell themselves and thier values out to jump on a bandwagon of popularity.
Common sense and truth have taken a back seat to Koolaid and bald face lies.
Live and let live is now my will over yours.
Even with all the problems this is the best place to live.
-
Once upon a time in History there was an English seaman that accomplished by direct action and utter lack of tact the goal of England.. unquestioned dominance of the Seas. His officers once queried him on possible scenarios when they found the enemy fleet. "If they are anchored?"
"attack".
"if it is dark?"
'attack".
"and if they have the advantage of numbers and the weather guage?
'attack'.
He was hated, feared and greatly respected by his adversaries.
The last here is not meant as disrespect to the French. It's just a slice of history, from a time when France was a hated enemy of the English:
"There is no way of dealing with the Frenchman but to knock him down - to be civil to them is to be laughed at. Why? They are enemies!"
Nelson -- 11 Jan 1798 after surrender of Capua.
The guy had the whole 'war' thing down. We can certainly not tread far wrong in following his example.
;)
-
But Hang,
The Public would have that guy thrown UNDER the prison now.
I see nothing from the Right wing , Left wing , Liberal , neo-con , Republican or Democrat that tells me that we are truley truely in this fight to win. WIN. Not settle. WIN.
Do you?
-
Couldn't agree more, Hangtime.
And no, Redtop, I don't think anybody is in it to win anymore. Nobody on this side, anyway. It's all half measures and a whole lot of tongue-wagging.
-
If somebody wins fair and square by using the ballot box, what do you call that? THERE is the "Muslim threat".
They won't win by sword; if you think so, you underestimate the Euros and the American citizen. Not saying there wouldn't be losses but I have no doubt as to the outcome wrt overt action.
-
yup. touchy feely 'proper' war. where the other side gets a fress pass, we gotta play 'nice'. a world of 'low order conflicts' where it's ok to sacrafice our young men and women for petro credits.
we, once upon a time, knew how to play this game. We had halseys and pattons.. "the only good jap is a gawdamned dead jap", and 'the point is to make the other dumb son-of-a-***** die for HIS country".
Now we got Kerry and Bush.
The diffrence between **** and shinola has been obfuscated.
-
The middle east is no different than the Main Arena. There 3 major groupings, sub groups (squads) beneath that, and diverse people with different priorities. No chess piece ever works together with uniform ideas of what to do next.
The result is people all looking out for themselves, trying their best to get kills for themselves, trying their best to not get killed, complaining when others don't play by their rules or etiquette, insulting each other and baiting each other with words, big-talking bullies within the safety and strength of a horde attacking the weakest of the three...
Somebody wins, but it starts all over again soon.
And so it is in the middle east.
Good luck with changing that. ;)
-
Originally posted by Toad
If somebody wins fair and square by using the ballot box, what do you call that? THERE is the "Muslim threat".
They won't win by sword; if you think so, you underestimate the Euros and the American citizen. Not saying there wouldn't be losses but I have no doubt as to the outcome wrt overt action.
Actually, they won't 'win' with a ballot box unless the folks that wrote the software program want 'em to 'win'.
Oh, wait.. isn't argentina supplying our voting machines and software?
-
Ok Hang,
For the sake of argument we decide to take out syria and iran. Exactly what do you expect the rest of the world to do? I am assuming you plan to do this as a totally unilateral operation without any other countries assisting as I certainly don't see anyone in europe or even Great Britain helping out.
The idea of an isolationist nation in an industrialized time is fantasy. It isn't and cannot happen due to scarcety of resources. It happens we simply cannot maintain the economy at the current level if we close all our ports, international airports and rail lines. Our economy is tied for better or worse to much of the industrialized world. What are you going to do if the nations of europe decide to cut trade and monetary functions as we grandly sack those 2 countries?
I use the term sack for a very specific reason. There is no reason to destroy their complete infrastructure unless we were going to take over their assets. Once we have done the deed and destroyed their ability to fend for themselves and eliminated their nation, then what?
Secondly what are you going to do with the populations of those nations once you have destroyed the infrastructure? Who will police it, feed it and keep it in line?
Who do you think will continue to trade with this nation? What about the debts we owe other nations. Are you planning to tell them to forgive our debts as we forgave allied nations debts after WW2? Why should they?
Looking at the other option you raised. Simply pull back and leave them alone. What are you going to do to keep all those who were fighting us over there from now being free to plan how they are going to fight us over here? What is going to stop them from just loading up tons of explosives in shipping containers and sending them to multiple ports for a simultaneous attack in several cities?
Is it not clear that you simply can't operate in the world as if it were a vacuum?
-
Originally posted by Rolex
The middle east is no different than the Main Arena. There 3 major groupings, sub groups (squads) beneath that, and diverse people with different priorities. No chess piece ever works together with uniform ideas of what to do next.
The result is people all looking out for themselves, trying their best to get kills for themselves, trying their best to not get killed, complaining when others don't play by their rules or etiquette, insulting each other and baiting each other with words, big-talking bullies within the safety and strength of a horde attacking the weakest of the three...
Somebody wins, but it starts all over again soon.
And so it is in the middle east.
Good luck with changing that. ;)
No sweat for you Rolex... the Arabs will need Subaru's too.
-
They may very well win with the ballot box, both in Europe and later in America.
I'm not talking short term, I'm talking long term. They outproduce any other ethnic group in Europe now, IIRC. Birthin' little voters at a prodigious rate. If they "win" that way, not much you can say about it.
As far as "rigged" elections, I just don't buy it. Maybe if the Dems and Repubs were secretly in cahoots sharing power but not with one party clearly hating the other and jumping on any chance to cry "foul". Right now, I can't see it.
-
Hi Mav,
I guess what I mean by Isolastionist is this.....
I totally understand that in todays world you cant become completely that way. We are way to dependant on others for things. What I mean is this....
Unless we are goiing to as Hang would say go in full bore , no holes barred beat down of a nother country , then simply don't even say a thing to them other than thanks for the oil. Thanks for the good. Period. If a country has a dictator , and he is making thier life misery , then that's there problem.
Basically just let the rest of the world do there thing whiole we keep quiet and trade as we have and deal with that and that only. NK gets a nuke? Hopefully we shoot it down. that type of thing. If 10,000 NK's die from Kim Jong is Ill then so be it. Not our problem.
I know it wont work , as we are in a new world.
But that was basically what I was saying.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
I use the term sack for a very specific reason. There is no reason to destroy their complete infrastructure unless we were going to take over their assets. Once we have done the deed and destroyed their ability to fend for themselves and eliminated their nation, then what?
Secondly what are you going to do with the populations of those nations once you have destroyed the infrastructure? Who will police it, feed it and keep it in line?
Sadly Maverick, I think that our own actions need to be dictated by the lowest common denominator--one that was set by them, not us. You ask what would we do once the infrastructures are illiminated, who will feed and police them? My question to you is, what do you think they'll do if the day comes when they're able to illiminate our infrasctructure? Do you think they're worried about who will feed and keep our disorganized masses in line? No, they're not. They don't care. All that matters for them is destroying the enemy. They will use any means at their disposal.
We should act no differently. Will must be met with will.
No restructuring, no Westernization, no aid after the fact. **** them just like they want to **** us, period. They were desperate on 9/11, where is our desperation? We've never resorted to it because the cost is too high, but what happens when it's truly a case of use or them? **** them like they want to **** us, and let them rot. Let the maggots redistribute what remains. Call this by its true name. Not operation Iraqi anything. It's war, one group verses another.
It will never happen, because, as you said, we can never isolate to the point of self-sufficiency, and PR will always matter, but the only way to beat them is to do to them what they want to do to us, only quicker. Carthiniginian peace, it was called a long time ago. Leave no two bricks stacked together. They fear god... Good. They may become a very passive bunch indeed when they witness, first hand, what it means to have Allah's finger descend upon your capital city in the form of a 2 megaton MIRV.
-
Originally posted by Neubob
Sadly Maverick, I think that our own actions need to be dictated by the lowest common denominator--one that was set by them, not us. You ask what would we do once the infrastructures are illiminated, who will feed and police them? My question to you is, what do you think they'll do if the day comes when they're able to illiminate our infrasctructure? Do you think they're worried about who will feed and keep our disorganized masses in line? No, they're not. They don't care. All that matters for them is destroying the enemy. They will use any means at their disposal.
We should act no differently. Will must be met with will.
No restructuring, no Westernization. Just plain destruction. Let the maggots redistribute what remains. Call this by its true name. Not operation Iraqi anything. It's war, one group verses another.
It will never happen, because, as you said, we can never isolate to the point of self-sufficiency, and PR will always matter, but the only way to beat them is to do to them what they want to do to us, only quicker. Carthiniginian peace, it was called a long time ago. Leave no two bricks stacked together. They fear god... Good. They may become a very passive bunch indeed when they witness, first hand, what it means to have Allah's finger descend upon your capital city in the form of a 2 megaton MIRV.
:aok
-
Would we then become a very passive bunch if a few nuclear weapons are smuggled into our ports and detonated?
I don't think so.
Yet you seem to think something like that would pacify them.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Ok Hang,
For the sake of argument we decide to take out syria and iran. Exactly what do you expect the rest of the world to do? I am assuming you plan to do this as a totally unilateral operation without any other countries assisting as I certainly don't see anyone in europe or even Great Britain helping out.
The idea of an isolationist nation in an industrialized time is fantasy. It isn't and cannot happen due to scarcety of resources. It happens we simply cannot maintain the economy at the current level if we close all our ports, international airports and rail lines. Our economy is tied for better or worse to much of the industrialized world. What are you going to do if the nations of europe decide to cut trade and monetary functions as we grandly sack those 2 countries?
I use the term sack for a very specific reason. There is no reason to destroy their complete infrastructure unless we were going to take over their assets. Once we have done the deed and destroyed their ability to fend for themselves and eliminated their nation, then what?
Secondly what are you going to do with the populations of those nations once you have destroyed the infrastructure? Who will police it, feed it and keep it in line?
Who do you think will continue to trade with this nation? What about the debts we owe other nations. Are you planning to tell them to forgive our debts as we forgave allied nations debts after WW2? Why should they?
Looking at the other option you raised. Simply pull back and leave them alone. What are you going to do to keep all those who were fighting us over there from now being free to plan how they are going to fight us over here? What is going to stop them from just loading up tons of explosives in shipping containers and sending them to multiple ports for a simultaneous attack in several cities?
Is it not clear that you simply can't operate in the world as if it were a vacuum?
Oh, yeah.. since we've already sold out to foriegn and corporate intrests we MUST resolve to a 'forever' string of low order conflicts and hope they negotiate for our wealth and women before they finally do nuke us. . Since they have the means here NOW, we must just accept the status quo and just follow the Corporate Masters of Our Destinies on down the garden path to UN rule and The New World Order. They will save us.. because we can't possibly save ourselves.
Yah, go ahead, Mav; roll over. Submit to the continuing long decline. Just keep sending other peoples kids off to be terrorist training targets so you don't have to worry about dealing with 'em personally down at the post office in your retirement.
Please tell your wife to stay in the house. Meanwhile, I'm betting on the bear in any one-on-one that may develop between you two. I suspect the bear has better motivation, but will be dissapointed by the taste.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Would we then become a very passive bunch if a few nuclear weapons are smuggled into our ports and detonated?
I don't think so.
Yet you seem to think something like that would pacify them.
Well, Toad, you can bet on one thing. The instant they're able to smuggle those weapons in, they will. No questions asked, no saber rattling. They'll just do it and the first we'll know about it is when the bomb goes off.
To pacify them would be nice. But until they see that we're willing to accept victory by any means available, including full-scale escalation, with full-implementation of everything we've got, they will continue on the present course of action. They have the will, but not the means. We have the means, but not the will. They're working on getting the means.
Who's going to be the first to have both? Them or us?
-
Originally posted by Neubob
They have the will, not the means. We have the means, not the will.
You're willing to accept that they will maintain their will and attain the means.
Yet you don't seem to be able to credit the other side of the scale, that we will be able to maintain our means and attain the will.
You didn't answer the question: Do you think a few nukes going off in the US with concurrent claims of responsiblity by A-Q or somesuch will pacify us?
Or do you think it might help us attain the will? And why do you think it would be any different with them on the receiveing end?
-
Redtop,
I understand what you are saying but the same questions still remain. What will you do with the population of the country you have just overcome?
Lets use an example. We decide to eliminate syria. We attack and destroy their military and eliminate tyhe entire upper level of government including their royalty. The military collapses after a mere few weeks of intense air operations and a fast strike with ground forces into the capital. You've won the conflict.
Now what are you going to do? Are you just going to pack up and say "thanks for the target practice, we'll be seeing ya"? Are you going to keep troops on the ground to watch over the oil fields? Who will keep the entire population from becoming a guerilla force over night? What is the next step? If you leave, do you think thewy will trade with us, take money for oil or do you thknj they will do everything they can to keep us from getting the oil? Will the entire population of the country be considered an enemy combatant?
Neubob,
You mention the nuclear alternative. Obviously the entire population is considered a viable target. How will you get the oil out if you turn the country into a glass crater?
What do you expect the other nuclear nations to do when you push the button? What makes you think they would not simply figure we cannot be trusted at all and must be eliminated with extreme prejudice? How will your scenario end except with the elimination of humankind and an uplifting of the cockroaches as the highest form of life on the planet? More to the point, where the hell do you think you'll be living if this happens?
-
Originally posted by storch
they understand force. both on a personal and collective level, just like anyone else. the problem is that we have become weak.
Storch is this like when I killed you in MA and you complained that you had a dead stick? Then you went off claiming that's the only way I get kills... then you talked watermelon about the MAWs?
LMAO I had to squelch you... what a hissy fit you were havin!!!
Storch you Sir are a true Budweiser Man of Genius...
*Budweiser Song Playin, with over announcement Man*
Man: Yes you virtual flying pilot...Flyin High..A True Man of Genius.
Song: Virtual flyin maaaaan....
Man: Killin alot, but when it comes to landing...
Song: I'm a Dead Stick Flyin Maaaaaaan....
Man: It's not always that way.. 'cept for some of them all...
Song: Shot down by a MAWWWWWW....
Man: So you Virtual Deadstick Pilot Man you jump on 200 with yer lip!!!!
Song: Gotta give Mac alotta chit... I was Deadstickkkkkkk...
Man: So we Salute you Virtual Flying Deadstick Man... a True Man of Genuis...
Song: A Deadstick I swearrrrr!!!
Man: Well then Budweiser is your beer...This Bud is for You!!!
:aok
Mac
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Oh, yeah.. since we've already sold out to foriegn and corporate intrests we MUST resolve to a 'forever' string of low order conflicts and hope they negotiate for our wealth and women before they finally do nuke us. . Since they have the means here NOW, we must just accept the status quo and just follow the Corporate Masters of Our Destinies on down the garden path to UN rule and The New World Order. They will save us.. because we can't possibly save ourselves.
Yah, go ahead, Mav; roll over. Submit to the continuing long decline. Just keep sending other peoples kids off to be terrorist training targets so you don't have to worry about dealing with 'em personally down at the post office in your retirement.
Please tell your wife to stay in the house. Meanwhile, I'm betting on the bear in any one-on-one that may develop between you two. I suspect the bear has better motivation, but will be dissapointed by the taste.
Hang,
If you can't anwer the issues then at least say so. The tired argumentum ad hominum doesn't get it. All I did was to ask you to explain your position in a thoughtful manner. I have neither referred to you disrespectfully nor flamed your posts.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
What do you expect the other nuclear nations to do when you push the button? What makes you think they would not simply figure we cannot be trusted at all and must be eliminated with extreme prejudice? How will your scenario end except with the elimination of humankind and an uplifting of the cockroaches as the highest form of life on the planet? More to the point, where the hell do you think you'll be living if this happens?
At least we won't have to worry or hear anymore about global warming. ;)
-
toad,
Since my little scenario of our delivering a first strike is pretty far into the realm of impossibility, I think that the question is answered. They'll win. They'll eventually get their briefcase bomb, it'll wind up here, and a city will go up in smoke.
Our response will be, however ticked off, still a half-measure, and they'll end up doing it again. Any response on our part will always be tempered by our need to remain on good terms with the civilized world. All the while, the uncivilized world will run rampant, doing what they want. Again, it's will verses no will. Our only advantage, the means, will eventually go away.
Where will I live? Frankly, if they get the means to do what they want before we become as desperate as they are, I don't even care. It won't matter. They'll do to us what they've been chanting for years, and we'll be too busy pandering to stop it.
-
Caught argumentum ad hominum in Asia once...
Worse than Crabs cross bred with Pitt Bulls.... These you didn't scratch.. you threw Frisbees and shot them with a 12 Gauge as they jumped...."PULL...."
Then the shots came... never drank that much Tequila.
Mav
:D
Mac
-
Scary how outlooks from different people can be alike.
-
Originally posted by Toad
You're willing to accept that they will maintain their will and attain the means.
Yet you don't seem to be able to credit the other side of the scale, that we will be able to maintain our means and attain the will.
You didn't answer the question: Do you think a few nukes going off in the US with concurrent claims of responsiblity by A-Q or somesuch will pacify us?
Or do you think it might help us attain the will? And why do you think it would be any different with them on the receiveing end?
Unfortunately, to attain the will, we must accept that doing the unthinkable may become necessary. Let's say, they blow up a major port city. What's a just response? More troops to seek and kill Bin Laden? Unseat a government and install a new one which will begin feeding cash and moral to terrorist cells the moment we start pulling out?
Bin laden and his ilk live off the will and support of the regular, everyday guy that lives with his family, eats dinner, prays five times a day and either covertly or overtly wishes for the demise of Western dominance. Killing Bin laden will, inevitably, only create a vaccuum, which will then create a new one. You must kill the support system of the Bin Ladens of this world. You must create a situation where there is no longer a possibility of a vaccuum.
You can't re-indoctrinate them all. You can only convince them that in a fight, they're not going to win. Thus far, we've convinced them that we're only willing to go so far. How do we prove them wrong?
9/11 should have been answered not with a search for Bin Laden, but with a summary bombing of Riyad, Dubai, or any other symbol of their civilization. Sure, it'll polarize them against us, but they will learn to fear as they've never feared before. If we don't lower ourselves to their playing field, we'll take our self-righteous respect for life to our grave.
You know after 9/11, I recall somebody sayingthat we shouldn't go in full scale, we should go on a limited basis, immediiately, and begin murdering the families, friends, acquaintences, friends of friends, business associates, friends of business associates, pets, houseplants...etc...of everyone connected with the WTC attacks. Murder the young, the innocent, and murder them in the same way they murder us, only quicker and on a wider scale. Make their fear overwhelm their willingness to see us burn. Maybe that's the in between we should be looking for.
-
Originally posted by Neubob
Unfortunately, to attain the will, we must accept that doing the unthinkable may become necessary. Let's say, they blow up a major port city. What's a just response? More troops to seek and kill Bin Laden? Unseat a government and install a new one which will begin feeding cash and moral to terrorist cells the moment we start pulling out?
Bin laden and his ilk live off the will and support of the regular, everyday guy that lives with his family, eats dinner, prays five times a day and either covertly or overtly wishes for the demise of Western dominance. Killing Bin laden will, inevitably, only create a vaccuum, which will then create a new one. You must kill the support system of the Bin Ladens of this world. You must create a situation where there is no longer a possibility of a vaccuum.
You can't re-indoctrinate them all. You can only convince them that in a fight, they're not going to win. Thus far, we've convinced them that we're only willing to go so far. How do we prove them wrong?
9/11 should have been answered not with a search for Bin Laden, but with a summary bombing of Riyad, Dubai, or any other symbol of their civilization. Sure, it'll polarize them against us, but they will learn to fear as they've never feared before. If we don't lower ourselves to their playing field, we'll take our self-righteous respect for life to our grave.
You know after 9/11, I recall somebody sayingthat we shouldn't go in full scale, we should go on a limited basis, immediiately, and begin murdering the families, friends, acquaintences, friends of friends, business associates, friends of business associates, pets, houseplants...etc...of everyone connected with the WTC attacks. Murder the young, the innocent, and murder them in the same way they murder us, only quicker and on a wider scale. Make their fear overwhelm their willingness to see us burn. Maybe that's the in between we should be looking for.
:aok See YA...Getting off work and going home. Early Tee Time in the am as well.
Nice discussion. We may not agree on every aspect , but on alot we do. Enjoyed it.
-
Originally posted by RedTop
:aok See YA...Getting off work and going home. Early Tee Time in the am as well.
Nice discussion. We may not agree on every aspect , but on alot we do. Enjoyed it.
Likewise Redtop.
Drive safe.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Hang,
If you can't anwer the issues then at least say so. The tired argumentum ad hominum doesn't get it. All I did was to ask you to explain your position in a thoughtful manner. I have neither referred to you disrespectfully nor flamed your posts.
Mav, I believe I answered clearly what certainly appeared to me to just another set-up pile of liberal hand-wringing. You knew the answer I had for every point.. yet decided to make an object lesson of me anyway. Now you display 'hurt' because I delivered it with venom and disgust for the pacifist liberal talking points you've got so well rehearsed from all those hours spent sucking up the tripe pumped over your liberal news network.
Yah, I'm a dinosaur. My time is gone. The meek, the placid, the folks like you who are the majority in this nation now are willing to sit back and take the scraps that fall off the table with a scraping bow and are quite happy with the previous errors in government policy and sagely point at them as excuses for sending out the next round of sacraficial lambs for the slaughter.
My apologies for the personal nature of my replies to your lofty bait... I have no excuse. Just reasons. I tire of platitudes and socialist PC bull****. The country has been sold to the highest bidder.. we no longer have a representitve government and our future as a free and independent nation has been squandered for fake 'security'.
And your OK with that. And it makes me angry.
One thing is certain.. you will deserve your fate.
As do I.
-
I find it truly ironic that you list me as a liberal. I'm rather far from that as I figure you would remember from before.
I do happen to be somewhat educated in some of the dynamics of a low intensity conflict vs all out war. I also take a larger view than just the battlefield. Once the battle is over there remains more work to be done.That is pretty much the same as knowing that the battle isn't won just by the guys fighting at the front line but by the folks who move resources to the guy at the front.
There is more to the interaction of nations than mere posturing and conflict. I also see how the economies of the globe interact to influence each other. I'm not saying this is anything extraordinary, it isn't. It just takes more examination than merely throwing out phrases and sound bites. That's the same for a liberal point of view as it is for a conservative one. Nonsense is nonsense no matter whether it comes from some one like kerry and gore or limaugh and goldwater. (Now I'm dating myself there)
All I did was try to get you to examone what you posted and you got upset when you couldn't explain it I guess.
You just can't go kill them all and let God sort them out any more than you can pay them to behave.
-
Originally posted by AWMac
Storch is this like when I killed you in MA and you complained that you had a dead stick? Then you went off claiming that's the only way I get kills... then you talked watermelon about the MAWs?
LMAO I had to squelch you... what a hissy fit you were havin!!!
Storch you Sir are a true Budweiser Man of Genius...
*Budweiser Song Playin, with over announcement Man*
Man: Yes you virtual flying pilot...Flyin High..A True Man of Genius.
Song: Virtual flyin maaaaan....
Man: Killin alot, but when it comes to landing...
Song: I'm a Dead Stick Flyin Maaaaaaan....
Man: It's not always that way.. 'cept for some of them all...
Song: Shot down by a MAWWWWWW....
Man: So you Virtual Deadstick Pilot Man you jump on 200 with yer lip!!!!
Song: Gotta give Mac alotta chit... I was Deadstickkkkkkk...
Man: So we Salute you Virtual Flying Deadstick Man... a True Man of Genuis...
Song: A Deadstick I swearrrrr!!!
Man: Well then Budweiser is your beer...This Bud is for You!!!
:aok
Mac
he drops out of a pixellated sky cautiously looking around to see if the coast is clear. with sweaty palms, pulse racing he carefully times his pounce. with his prey looming ever larger in his cartoon sights. BAM, another easymode kill for the fair maiden of Aces High. his nerves all tense from the exhiliration he seeks relief by playing a richard simmons excercise video and pleasures himself while humming salt and Peppa's what a man, what a man, what a mighty good man. the all powerful master of the lame game play ms. AWquack and good friend of the equally skilled and likeminded AkAk. yes you sure showed me. you go girl. :D
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
we're either the worlds policemen, or we're a buncha freakin looters using excuses that are convienient to the cause.
Yah, saddam was/is worth going after.
But if yer gonna use his body count as an excuse, there's no excuse for not agressively dealing with all the other two-bit watermelon dictators with blood on their hands.
Yea, like the guys in kuwait and yemen and pakistan and china,, oh those are our allies.:(
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
These innocent dead make a most compelling argument in support of the invasion that toppled Hussein's murderous regime. They make an eloquent rebuttal to those who maintain that the invasion was justified, and that the cowardly Iraqis got the government that they deserved.
I
. The arguemnet that saddam was a meanie, therefore the war is justified is a pathetic, losers save-face, roll of the dice. Our US troops are murdering women and children also. Give us 25 years of occupation there and ad up the body count. Saddam is the only man who can rule Iraq the way it needs to be ruled. With and iron hand.
-
Neubob, you're solution is, basically, to become more evil and vile than our enemy on a scale ten orders of magnitude higher.
You would turn the US into a nuclear tyrant; not exactly the legacy I have in mind for this country.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Neubob, you're solution is, basically, to become more evil and vile than our enemy on a scale ten orders of magnitude higher.
You would turn the US into a nuclear tyrant; not exactly the legacy I have in mind for this country.
Well, if you've got a better way to deal with barbarians (and I don't accept re-indoctrinating them as a viable option), then I'm all ears.
To me, the equation is simple, if it's them or us, I'd prefer it to be them. Ten times over, them. Because if they're truly the enemy, and I believe they are, frankly, we shouldn't be concerned what happens to them. They certainly don't care what happens to us, and loving them into civility will not work.
As for legacy. It's pretty much as I said before, if we don't put the olive branch down eventually, and start using the pointy objects in the other talon, we're very likely to take our respect for human life to our collective grave.
How's that for a legacy?
-
Originally posted by Neubob
Well, if you've got a better way to deal with barbarians (and I don't accept re-indoctrinating them as a viable option), then I'm all ears.
How's that for a legacy?
the women of Kuwait voted in a election for the first time in history yesterday.
How's that for a legacy?
-
Originally posted by john9001
the women of Kuwait voted in a election for the first time in history yesterday.
How's that for a legacy?
When they vote to establish an attitude of mutual respect and understanding with the people that brought them this great leap in societal advancement, it'll be a legacy.
-
Originally posted by Neubob
Well, if you've got a better way to deal with barbarians (and I don't accept re-indoctrinating them as a viable option), then I'm all ears.
Here's the problem: to preemptively use nuclear weapons on people we suspect (without incontrovertible proof) of intending to harm us, to preemptively kill millions of innocent people... would make us...wait for it....
Barbarians.
Do you see the circle?
-
See Rule #7
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Look.. we keep trying to 'excuse' the war in Iraq.. that's not abnormal. We'd all like to think our national policy is based on nobel goals. But, honestly; is that why our government got jiggy with Saddam?
Simple answer as to why we were 'jiggy' is IRAN. When Saddam was attacking our enemy, we didn't mind and helped. The enemy of our enemy is our friend. Not always the most enlightened policy, but it works.
Should we not have helped the Russians against Hitler because of Stalin? In 41-45, Stalin was seen as the lesser threat so we helped the Russians, later he became our enemy again as our national policy changed and he was seen as the greater threat. Stalin eventually killed many more people than Hitler killed, so does that somehow make the US government responsible for those deaths? I don't think so.
Given what we know about Castro and Cuba, was JFK wrong to not back the Bay of Pigs invasion? Given the history of North Korea, its' starving people and nuclear threat, was Truman wrong to not let Macarthur bomb the Chinese and perhaps win the Korean war? Our hindsight on these events doesn't mean we are somehow smarter than they were.
Hindsight is always 20-20 - and whining about a policy AFTER action taken doesn't work out as planned doesn't indicate enlighted leadership or greater intelligence. 'No plan survives contact with the enemy' - Senators and Congressmen who stand up in front of the cameras now telling us they were 'deceived' or that they wouldn't have voted for the Iraq war if they knew then what they know now are (IMHO) just pandering idiots.
Leaders are often called on to make decisions based on imperfect data. If you're the POTUS, you are responsible for and your decisions will affect a lot of lives. You look at the threats and make the call. Given 9/11 and the intelligence they had on Iraq, it was hard NOT to go to war, and let us remember the vast majority of politicians from BOTH parties were all in favor at the time.
EagleDNY
$.02
-
Originally posted by storch
he drops out of a pixellated sky cautiously looking around to see if the coast is clear. with sweaty palms, pulse racing he carefully times his pounce. with his prey looming ever larger in his cartoon sights. BAM, another easymode kill for the fair maiden of Aces High. his nerves all tense from the exhiliration he seeks relief by playing a richard simmons excercise video and pleasures himself while humming salt and Peppa's what a man, what a man, what a mighty good man. the all powerful master of the lame game play ms. AWquack and good friend of the equally skilled and likeminded AkAk. yes you sure showed me. you go girl. :D
See Storch...it really rubs yer Camel Toes when you get spanked...Obviously AKAK spanked you too LOL.
Yes you are a Budwieser True Man of Genius...this Bud is for you.
Muhahhahhahaaa...
:rofl
Mac
See ya up, check Six!
:D
-
Whitehawk,
Your argument only makes sense if wmd's were the only reason given for the invasion of Iraq. Saddam's massacre of the Kurds and the Shi-ites was cited from the very beginning as but one of many reasons for taking him down.
A mere handful of American troops have committed atrocities against Iraqi civilians, with a death toll amounting to less than than two score. Compared to Saddam's 300,000 plus victims, the American "atrocities" are hardly worth mentioning. We've never fought a conflict in which some of our troops did not go "over the edge." Find another point to make...this one doesn't hold water.
You're predicting 25 years of occupation? Did I understand that statement correctly? Get a grip. The first troop draw-downs will take place this fall...with more to take place in 2007. The Iraqi military and police agencies are growing apace, and taking an ever more effective role in securing their country against insurgent attacks.
There is already evidence that the resistance is beginning to run out of steam:
1. According to news reports posted within the last month by AP and UPI, the insurgency's money supply is drying up.
2. Zarqawi, the most radical of the insurgent leaders, was apparently betrayed by other insurgents, who had begun to see his indiscriminate killing of the innocent as counter-productive.
3. Eleven insurgent groups operating to the north of Baghdad have apparently taken advantage of the new Iraqi government's offer of amnesty to make a proposal of their own...to cease attacking American and government forces if the U.S. will withdraw it's forces within two years. Such a proposal is problematic, for both sides, but indicates that these groups may finally be coming to the realization that the U.S. is in this struggle for the long-haul, and has every intention of seeing it's plans brought to fruition.
More troops on the ground in Iraq might, in retrospect, have helped get the insurgency under control sooner, but General Frank didn't want them. I strongly suspect President Bush and the Joint Chiefs would have given him more if he had asked for them, Rumsfeld's wishes notwithstanding.
I am firmly committed to the belief that policies of intervention to take take down dictators and protect the lives and welfare of our fellow man are justified.
Where do YOU stand on that issue?
-
Dont kill him, let him go to prision in the US...just think what the prisioners will do to him!!! I can see it now...Saddam got 2 broken bones, a concusion, internal bleeding, and was "tended" to by other prisioners all in the first 30 minutes in prision. LET HIM SUFFER!!
Then if he still lives after 5 years, kill him how he killed his victims.
-
Hi Mav,
Originally posted by Maverick
Redtop,
I understand what you are saying but the same questions still remain. What will you do with the population of the country you have just overcome?
Lets use an example. We decide to eliminate syria. We attack and destroy their military and eliminate tyhe entire upper level of government including their royalty. The military collapses after a mere few weeks of intense air operations and a fast strike with ground forces into the capital. You've won the conflict.
Now what are you going to do? Are you just going to pack up and say "thanks for the target practice, we'll be seeing ya"? Are you going to keep troops on the ground to watch over the oil fields? Who will keep the entire population from becoming a guerilla force over night? What is the next step? If you leave, do you think thewy will trade with us, take money for oil or do you thknj they will do everything they can to keep us from getting the oil? Will the entire population of the country be considered an enemy combatant?
Interesting questions Mav. Well , I guess it would depend on what they were attacked for. If it was a country , like syria , who isn't at all dodging the fact that they don't like us , then the population would become a problem. If they were posturing for War with the US and we basically whipped em , then yes I would leave a force behind. Relocate people from one area and make it a base. Stratigically placed. Put gaurds on the oil and not pay for it as much as take what we needed. Thier economy , which I don't know nor want to look up , would be based on what they could do with what they have left. Talks would be held with what leadership was left and see what kind of an arrangement could be reached for government.
I think there is a difference between concouring and occupying. I know you agree. We are occupying Iraq. We will leave. They will be on thier own. Do I think we should leave a small force behind to be a HELP incase they need help.
I guess I should say a couple of things here. If I have a party side it will be a republican. I right now have little confidence in them right now on several issues. I have ZERO in the other side.
I think when fighting a war , or low intensity conflict , whatever you want to call it , you win it. What is the reason to do anything , in a competetion , which is what this is so to speak , if your not trying to do everything you can to win?
War is a dirty business. Innocent people are killed. Anyone that thinks different is not living in reality. As advanced as our wepons systems are this is not a septic war. We are fighting very bad people. They are fighting for a way of life. Not one even CLOSE to what I think is right , but they are resolved. I don't think that the leadership of this country is committed.
I listened to all the info like the rest of the country did , and heard almost everyone in Congress say the same thing. From Right to Left wings and in the middle , they were all for it. But when things aren't going thier way , they all of the sudden get their words mixed up. WHich means they Lie thier sorry azzes off after they read a poll as to what to say. It's disgusting.
Media is looking for any reason to hang our troops. Are they doing right all the time? No. But if you don't see it , then it never happened.
So with all my lil rant done I'll finish with this.
I have no problem when an enemy is caught , and I mean CAUGHT like with the gun in his hand , then shoot him. I don't care. If they are hiding in Mosques , then bomb it. Quit worrying about that CNN guy sitting thier. DON'T TAKE THE MEDIA WITH YOU EVER.
Just untie the hands of our troops and let them fight the fight and take it to the enemy like the enemy is taking it to them.
The execute 1 then we execute 10. They set an IED , we drop a 500 pounder on thier head. They run a road block , don't just shoot , blow them up.
They behead a civilian , Wrap a terorist body in a pigskin , wrapped by a cloth , with the Koran ripped to shreds and a bottle of Budweiser in there to boot. Write a note on the cloth saying "Compliments of the U.S.A.".
Line up 20 terrorists on thier knees , and pop em. Take pictures and send em to Al Ja Zeera.
What are we gonna tick a Muslim off? Do you know who is a terrorist and who is not? ME either.
This country is split in half and not far IMO from breaking. Quit playing political correctness games and get to the task at hand.
Sorry if this sounds crass...perhaps it is just that a rant. I'm just sick of hearing why things cant be done , and never how they could be done.
-
Redtop,
I have to agree with you on several of your points regarding the congressional "leadership". I suppose it should be more aptly titled as waffleship.
I asked the questions I did for a specific reason. I guess some hadn't connected the dots but what I was asking about is almost the exact situation we have in Iraq right now. The same situation could go on if we invaded iran and syria only we would have to deal with the populations of 4 countries instead of 2 (iraq and afghanistan).
If you take out the leadership in the country you have to supply a replacement or the vacuum will be filled with someone you very likely do NOT want to have to deal with. The folks who lived there have to continue to live, they won't just go away.
Going on with your last post. Can you step back a moment and look at it again? Take a look at what you proposed as to how to handle the situations. Substitute US troops with Germans and the indigenous people with French, Polish or any of the other countries they over ran and left the Gestapo behind to manage. Is that really what you want? It is what you specified as a response to barbarism.
I would have a very hard time dealing with that as a member of this country and the results that type of response would bring. We would be no better than saddumb. Our military is better than that and I believe the average citizen is as well.
IMO that kind of means of operating would be as bad as just packing up and walking away right after the surrender of the iraq forces.
-
Your prolly Right Mav. DO I feel like our troops would be barbarians? I don't think so. Fighting fire with fire with an enemy that dont have the means as was said a few posts ago , would speed the end up I think. I kind of see it Mav as , they really take it to a level. Yet we don't think of that level. The gestapo were doing it first. I wouldn't have had a problem if the ones being terrorized fougt back in the same way or even more harsh. It may sound childish or inhumane. I don't know. But they are fighting with means that go against our morals. Perhaps becoming as ruthless as ther are , if even for a short time , would make them see that we have the means AND the resolve , it would make them think twice before beheading someone else.
I'm prolly wrong , and I have been before , and I have no problem admitting it.
How do we as Americans , in this such a crucial time, get the Waffleship , to do the right thing.
Is it really so complicated? Is common sense really all that hard to have? What are we going to do here? Why is this country so split? Isn't common sense for Repubs. basically the same as it is for a Demo.?
Just an aside , I have been listening to talk radio. I found Air America. Liberal station. So I have given equal time to each station in the last week or so. It is UNREAL. If this is an idication of where most peaple are at on both sides , then I can't see there EVER being common ground.
-
Common sense has little chance of breaking out if people can't find any common ground. Extreme positions such as elevating all westerners, or all arabs, to enemy status can't possibly solve anything.
Mankind hasn't advanced much if the 2,000 year-old words of Julius Caesar still ring true: "All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures."
Escalating the invasion of Iraq to a war against all arabs is certainly a bad precedent no matter how you try to justify it.
The US has been fortunate by the grace of geography to have been insulated from the civilian carnage of post 19th century war. War is not just another "reality show" on TV.
All the chest thumping of the current generation of non-warriors on TV and the internet is just the opposite of the old warriors who saw, smelled, heard and managed to survive a war. I don't know of any WWII, Korean or Vietnam vet who are anything but quiet about it.
People can't possibly think that democracy in Iraq will somehow bring peace. If you added up all the American casualties of WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam and all the minor skirmishes (Iraq) since, they wouldn't equal half of the American casualties during the Civil War. And that should give you pause to consider the human cost of mixing ideological differences with gunpowder, in a democracy.
So, after the arab 'barbarians' are conquered, whose next?
All of this 'love for the Iraqi people' posturing is hollow, especially when compared to the dictators and despots who have murdered without intervention. Pol Pot murdered anywhere 1.2 million to 2 million people. No moral outrage or invasion by western countries to save those people.
The extreme position of advocating more pre-emptive invasions and attacks turns it all into barbarians fighting barbarians.
The only common ground I can come up with is that arab nations, western nations and Israel want to be left alone, without any outside interference.
-
Good post Rolex